More "miscellany" (General)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 19, 2021, 11:53 (222 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 (222 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 (221 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 (221 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 (220 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 (220 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 (216 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 (216 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 (215 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 (215 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 (214 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 (214 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 (213 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 (213 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 (212 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 (212 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 (211 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 (211 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 (210 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 (210 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 (209 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 (209 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 (208 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 (208 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 (207 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 (207 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 (206 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 (206 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 (205 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 (205 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 (204 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 (204 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 (203 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 (203 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 (202 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 (202 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 (201 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 (201 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 (200 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 (200 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 (199 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 (199 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 (198 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 (198 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 (197 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 (197 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 (196 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 (196 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 (195 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 (195 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 (194 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 (194 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 (193 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 (193 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 (192 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 (192 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 (191 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 (191 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 (190 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 (189 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 (189 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 (189 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 (188 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 (188 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 (188 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 (188 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 (187 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 (187 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 (186 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 (186 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 (185 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 (185 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.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Sunday, November 28, 2021, 12:35 (182 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: We seem to finally agree on the role of survival.

Thank you.

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.

DAVID: Still on your picket fence.

That is the nature of agnosticism.

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.

DAVID: The information is God's contribution.

So information changes legs into flippers, Ah well, it makes a change from your God performing an operation.

Genome complexity
DAVID: sexual reproduction may bring enhanced evolution potential, but obviously creates problems such as double X's. After seeing this exquisite design, try and tell me a designing mind does not exist.

I would never tell you that. I am agnostic, not an atheist.

Monarchs use toxic milkweed

QUOTE: "'It's remarkable that concurrent evolution occurred at the molecular level in all these animals," said UCR evolutionary biologist and study lead Simon "Niels" Groen. "Plant toxins caused evolutionary changes across at least three levels of the food chain!" (David's bold)

DAVID: how do required mutations happen in concurrent mutations (my bold)? Either the germ cells in each of the various animals 'knew' what to do in three places on the sodium-potassium pump, or the designer helped them.

Why do you and the authors assume that the mutations were concurrent? Every threat to life will either result in death (possibly extinction) or the finding of a remedy! The whole principle is illustrated by the discussion we had on the immune system. The disease or poison will go on killing until the cells come up with a counter to it. Here’s one theory: intelligent cells eventually find the right mutations to counter the toxins (i.e. toxins first, remedy found in response). Here’s another: your God may have given cells the ability to find the right mutations. Now please explain to me why you think your God specially programmed or dabbled the poison and then the mutations when his only purpose was to design humans and their food. Couldn’t he have done this without designing milkweed and the monarch and/or performing the necessary operations on a few mice, birds, wasps and worms?

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

My posts are going to be irregular for the time being, as my son is still in hospital following a second major operation.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 28, 2021, 16:06 (182 days ago) @ dhw

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.

DAVID: The information is God's contribution.

dhw: So information changes legs into flippers, Ah well, it makes a change from your God performing an operation.

All of God's 'operations' are by editing DNA and all of the genome ancillary programs required. Of course He uses the amazing code He created.


Monarchs use toxic milkweed

QUOTE: "'It's remarkable that concurrent evolution occurred at the molecular level in all these animals," said UCR evolutionary biologist and study lead Simon "Niels" Groen. "Plant toxins caused evolutionary changes across at least three levels of the food chain!" (David's bold)

DAVID: how do required mutations happen in concurrent mutations (my bold)? Either the germ cells in each of the various animals 'knew' what to do in three places on the sodium-potassium pump, or the designer helped them.

dhw: Why do you and the authors assume that the mutations were concurrent? Every threat to life will either result in death (possibly extinction) or the finding of a remedy! The whole principle is illustrated by the discussion we had on the immune system. The disease or poison will go on killing until the cells come up with a counter to it. Here’s one theory: intelligent cells eventually find the right mutations to counter the toxins (i.e. toxins first, remedy found in response). Here’s another: your God may have given cells the ability to find the right mutations. Now please explain to me why you think your God specially programmed or dabbled the poison and then the mutations when his only purpose was to design humans and their food. Couldn’t he have done this without designing milkweed and the monarch and/or performing the necessary operations on a few mice, birds, wasps and worms?

My response is illustrated in our discussion of the importance of ecosystems. The Monarchs are part of a required one as the bush of life provides for for all, a not surprisingly necessary requirement. But I forget your critical view of God who should have made humans straight away, food ignored.


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

dhw: My posts are going to be irregular for the time being, as my son is still in hospital following a second major operation.

But successful at present!

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Tuesday, November 30, 2021, 07:09 (180 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: The information is God's contribution.

dhw: So information changes legs into flippers, Ah well, it makes a change from your God performing an operation.

DAVID: All of God's 'operations' are by editing DNA and all of the genome ancillary programs required. Of course He uses the amazing code He created.

So why is it information that “runs the universe”, and not your God using the information he has created?

Monarchs use toxic milkweed
QUOTE: "'It's remarkable that concurrent evolution occurred at the molecular level in all these animals," said UCR evolutionary biologist and study lead Simon "Niels" Groen. "Plant toxins caused evolutionary changes across at least three levels of the food chain!" (David's bold)

DAVID: how do required mutations happen in concurrent mutations (my bold)? Either the germ cells in each of the various animals 'knew' what to do in three places on the sodium-potassium pump, or the designer helped them.

dhw: Why do you and the authors assume that the mutations were concurrent? Every threat to life will either result in death (possibly extinction) or the finding of a remedy! The whole principle is illustrated by the discussion we had on the immune system. The disease or poison will go on killing until the cells come up with a counter to it. Here’s one theory: intelligent cells eventually find the right mutations to counter the toxins (i.e. toxins first, remedy found in response). Here’s another: your God may have given cells the ability to find the right mutations. Now please explain to me why you think your God specially programmed or dabbled the poison and then the mutations when his only purpose was to design humans and their food. Couldn’t he have done this without designing milkweed and the monarch and/or performing the necessary operations on a few mice, birds, wasps and worms?

DAVID: My response is illustrated in our discussion of the importance of ecosystems. The Monarchs are part of a required one as the bush of life provides for for all, a not surprisingly necessary requirement. But I forget your critical view of God who should have made humans straight away, food ignored.

Food not ignored – see the second bold. And why have you have totally ignored my bolded response to your claim and that of the author that toxins and their antidotes must have been concurrent?
There is no point in yet again trying to defend your illogical theory of evolution. All life forms since the start of life have required food. If your God’s only purpose was to design humans AND THEIR FOOD, why did he design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? And do you really believe that without the specially designed milkweed toxin and the specially designed resistance to it, humans could never have existed and could never have had a food supply? Over the last hundred years, vast numbers of your God’s specially designed species have gone extinct (no use reproducing the figures, as they differ wildly), and yet the human population has increased on a massive scale. Clearly even these species were not “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humansand their food, since we have flourished without them.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 30, 2021, 15:11 (180 days ago) @ dhw

Reality: God is a mathematician

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.

DAVID: The information is God's contribution.

dhw: So information changes legs into flippers, Ah well, it makes a change from your God performing an operation.

DAVID: All of God's 'operations' are by editing DNA and all of the genome ancillary programs required. Of course He uses the amazing code He created.

dhw: So why is it information that “runs the universe”, and not your God using the information he has created?

The processes that run the universe automatically use God's information


Monarchs use toxic milkweed
QUOTE: "'It's remarkable that concurrent evolution occurred at the molecular level in all these animals," said UCR evolutionary biologist and study lead Simon "Niels" Groen. "Plant toxins caused evolutionary changes across at least three levels of the food chain!" (David's bold)

DAVID: how do required mutations happen in concurrent mutations (my bold)? Either the germ cells in each of the various animals 'knew' what to do in three places on the sodium-potassium pump, or the designer helped them.

dhw: Why do you and the authors assume that the mutations were concurrent? Every threat to life will either result in death (possibly extinction) or the finding of a remedy! The whole principle is illustrated by the discussion we had on the immune system. The disease or poison will go on killing until the cells come up with a counter to it. Here’s one theory: intelligent cells eventually find the right mutations to counter the toxins (i.e. toxins first, remedy found in response). Here’s another: your God may have given cells the ability to find the right mutations. Now please explain to me why you think your God specially programmed or dabbled the poison and then the mutations when his only purpose was to design humans and their food. Couldn’t he have done this without designing milkweed and the monarch and/or performing the necessary operations on a few mice, birds, wasps and worms?

DAVID: My response is illustrated in our discussion of the importance of ecosystems. The Monarchs are part of a required one as the bush of life provides for for all, a not surprisingly necessary requirement. But I forget your critical view of God who should have made humans straight away, food ignored.

dhw: Food not ignored – see the second bold. And why have you have totally ignored my bolded response to your claim and that of the author that toxins and their antidotes must have been concurrent?

The dhw bold: "The disease or poison will go on killing until the cells come up with a counter to it."

How do 'killed' cells come up with an answer??? The answer is that design produces an antidote set of DNA mutation changes.

dhw: There is no point in yet again trying to defend your illogical theory of evolution. All life forms since the start of life have required food. If your God’s only purpose was to design humans AND THEIR FOOD, why did he design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans?

Same totally illogical complaint from the past. Same answer. God chose to evolve humans from Archaea, as God's history shows.

dhw: And do you really believe that without the specially designed milkweed toxin and the specially designed resistance to it, humans could never have existed and could never have had a food supply? Over the last hundred years, vast numbers of your God’s specially designed species have gone extinct (no use reproducing the figures, as they differ wildly), and yet the human population has increased on a massive scale. Clearly even these species were not “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humansand their food, since we have flourished without them.

You are now caught up in the liberal groupthink worry about species disappearing and identifying 'endangered species', when we know full well 99% of all past specie are extinct. Why must some humans worry about changing the path of extinction history??? Humans are here despite all those terrible extinctions. Do you want dinos back?

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Thursday, December 02, 2021, 07:58 (178 days ago) @ David Turell

Reality: God is a mathematician

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.

DAVID: The information is God's contribution.

dhw: So information changes legs into flippers, Ah well, it makes a change from your God performing an operation.

DAVID: All of God's 'operations' are by editing DNA and all of the genome ancillary programs required. Of course He uses the amazing code He created.

dhw: So why is it information that "runs the universe", and not your God using the information he has created?

DAVID: The processes that run the universe automatically use God's information.

So now it’s processes that run the universe, and not God and not information. Suits me. Theistic theory: Your God created the information that enables the process of evolution to run itself automatically. None of this business of your God individually designing every life form, lifestyle, econiche, natural wonder etc. (though he could always dabble if he wanted to). Thank you.

Monarchs use toxic milkweed
DAVID: how do required mutations happen in concurrent mutations?

dhw: Why do you and the authors assume that the mutations were concurrent? Every threat to life will either result in death (possibly extinction) or the finding of a remedy! The whole principle is illustrated by the discussion we had on the immune system. The disease or poison will go on killing until the cells come up with a counter to it. […] Now please explain to me why you think your God specially programmed or dabbled the poison and then the mutations when his only purpose was to design humans and their food. […]

DAVID: My response is illustrated in our discussion of the importance of ecosystems. The Monarchs are part of a required one as the bush of life provides for for all, a not surprisingly necessary requirement. But I forget your critical view of God who should have made humans straight away, food ignored.

dhw: Food not ignored – see the second bold. And why have you have totally ignored my bolded response to your claim and that of the author that toxins and their antidotes must have been concurrent?

DAVID: The dhw bold: "The disease or poison will go on killing until the cells come up with a counter to it." How do 'killed' cells come up with an answer??? The answer is that design produces an antidote set of DNA mutation changes.

Of course it’s not the killed cells that come up with the answer. Humans invent ways of killing bacteria by the billion but there are always survivors and sooner or later the survivors come up with an answer. Covid has killed millions of us, but millions of us have survived and (we hope) formed antibodies. Yes, I agree that design comes up with an antidote, but I do not agree that the antidote is concurrent with the disease/poison. It comes into being as cells RESPOND to the disease/poison – no matter how the cells acquired their ability to respond.

dhw: There is no point in yet again trying to defend your illogical theory of evolution. All life forms since the start of life have required food. If your God’s only purpose was to design humans AND THEIR FOOD, why did he design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans?

DAVID: Same totally illogical complaint from the past. Same answer. God chose to evolve humans from Archaea, as God's history shows.

Same dodge. We evolutionists believe history shows that ALL life forms and their foods evolved from bacteria, including countless numbers that had no connection with humans.

dhw: And do you really believe that without the specially designed milkweed toxin and the specially designed resistance to it, humans could never have existed and could never have had a food supply? Over the last hundred years, vast numbers of your God’s specially designed species have gone extinct[…] , and yet the human population has increased on a massive scale. Clearly even these species were not “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food, since we have flourished without them.

DAVID: You are now caught up in the liberal group think worry about species disappearing and identifying 'endangered species', when we know full well 99% of all past specie are extinct. Why must some humans worry about changing the path of extinction history??? Humans are here despite all those terrible extinctions. Do you want dinos back?

I have no idea what point you are making. Mine is that humans didn’t need all the life forms and foods of the past that had no connection with them, and even in the present we can survive without large numbers of the species etc. you say your purposeful God designed to be our food. So why did he design them if we don't need them?

Denisovans
QUOTE: "Scientists have unearthed the oldest fossils to date of the mysterious human lineage known as the Denisovans. With these 200,000-year-old bones, researchers have also for the first time discovered stone artifacts linked to these extinct relatives of modern humans.

DAVID: each group of early humans followed the same path of development of lifestyles as God's endpoint of evolution.

So why do you think he designed them, if the only ones he wanted were sapiens?

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 02, 2021, 16:26 (178 days ago) @ dhw

Reality: God is a mathematician

DAVID: The processes that run the universe automatically use God's information.

dhw: So now it’s processes that run the universe, and not God and not information. Suits me. Theistic theory: Your God created the information that enables the process of evolution to run itself automatically. None of this business of your God individually designing every life form, lifestyle, econiche, natural wonder etc. (though he could always dabble if he wanted to). Thank you.

God set automatic processes into motion for the universe, n ot life's evolution.


Monarchs use toxic milkweed

DAVID: The dhw bold: "The disease or poison will go on killing until the cells come up with a counter to it." How do 'killed' cells come up with an answer??? The answer is that design produces an antidote set of DNA mutation changes.

dhw: Of course it’s not the killed cells that come up with the answer. Humans invent ways of killing bacteria by the billion but there are always survivors and sooner or later the survivors come up with an answer. Covid has killed millions of us, but millions of us have survived and (we hope) formed antibodies. Yes, I agree that design comes up with an antidote, but I do not agree that the antidote is concurrent with the disease/poison. It comes into being as cells RESPOND to the disease/poison – no matter how the cells acquired their ability to respond.

All caterpillars eat toxic milkweed!! Somehow a few lucky ones were not killed? You have theorized luck to avoid God's designs.


dhw: And do you really believe that without the specially designed milkweed toxin and the specially designed resistance to it, humans could never have existed and could never have had a food supply? Over the last hundred years, vast numbers of your God’s specially designed species have gone extinct[…] , and yet the human population has increased on a massive scale. Clearly even these species were not “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food, since we have flourished without them.

DAVID: You are now caught up in the liberal group think worry about species disappearing and identifying 'endangered species', when we know full well 99% of all past specie are extinct. Why must some humans worry about changing the path of extinction history??? Humans are here despite all those terrible extinctions. Do you want dinos back?

dhw: I have no idea what point you are making. Mine is that humans didn’t need all the life forms and foods of the past that had no connection with them, and even in the present we can survive without large numbers of the species etc. you say your purposeful God designed to be our food. So why did he design them if we don't need them?

It is your lack of understanding the need for all ecosystems that is showing.


Denisovans
QUOTE: "Scientists have unearthed the oldest fossils to date of the mysterious human lineage known as the Denisovans. With these 200,000-year-old bones, researchers have also for the first time discovered stone artifacts linked to these extinct relatives of modern humans.

DAVID: each group of early humans followed the same path of development of lifestyles as God's endpoint of evolution.

dhw: So why do you think he designed them, if the only ones he wanted were sapiens?

With interbreeding each group provided new good attributes for the eventual final humans, as previously discussed

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Friday, December 03, 2021, 08:38 (177 days ago) @ David Turell

Reality: God is a mathematician
DAVID: The processes that run the universe automatically use God's information.

dhw: So now it’s processes that run the universe, and not God and not information. Suits me. Theistic theory: Your God created the information that enables the process of evolution to run itself automatically. None of this business of your God individually designing every life form, lifestyle, econiche, natural wonder etc. (though he could always dabble if he wanted to). Thank you.

DAVID: God set automatic processes into motion for the universe, not life's evolution.

How do you know?

Monarchs use toxic milkweed
DAVID: The dhw bold: "The disease or poison will go on killing until the cells come up with a counter to it." How do 'killed' cells come up with an answer??? The answer is that design produces an antidote set of DNA mutation changes.

dhw: Of course it’s not the killed cells that come up with the answer. Humans invent ways of killing bacteria by the billion but there are always survivors and sooner or later the survivors come up with an answer. Covid has killed millions of us, but millions of us have survived and (we hope) formed antibodies. Yes, I agree that design comes up with an antidote, but I do not agree that the antidote is concurrent with the disease/poison. It comes into being as cells RESPOND to the disease/poison – no matter how the cells acquired their ability to respond.

DAVID: All caterpillars eat toxic milkweed!! Somehow a few lucky ones were not killed? You have theorized luck to avoid God's designs.

They do NOW! NOW they have the “antibodies”! Why do you ignore the point I have made above about bacteria and Covid? I am not theorizing luck. These are facts that are illustrated over and over again in our present. First comes the “invader”, then comes the response, and there are deaths and there are survivors before the defence is perfected.

dhw: And do you really believe that without the specially designed milkweed toxin and the specially designed resistance to it, humans could never have existed and could never have had a food supply? Over the last hundred years, vast numbers of your God’s specially designed species have gone extinct[…] , and yet the human population has increased on a massive scale. Clearly even these species were not “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food, since we have flourished without them.

DAVID: You are now caught up in the liberal group think worry about species disappearing and identifying 'endangered species', when we know full well 99% of all past specie are extinct. Why must some humans worry about changing the path of extinction history??? Humans are here despite all those terrible extinctions. Do you want dinos back?

dhw: I have no idea what point you are making. Mine is that humans didn’t need all the life forms and foods of the past that had no connection with them, and even in the present we can survive without large numbers of the species etc. you say your purposeful God designed to be our food. So why did he design them if we don't need them?

DAVID: It is your lack of understanding the need for all ecosystems that is showing.

All ecosystems are necessary for the life forms that exist within them. What you do not seem to understand is that there have been different ecosystems and different life forms for 3.X billion years, and the vast majority had no connection with humans and their ecosystems, which makes nonsense of your theory that all life forms and all ecosystems were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. As you yourself have said, these systems were for the past, not the present, and extinct life has no role in current life.

Denisovans
QUOTE: "[…] With these 200,000-year-old bones, researchers have also for the first time discovered stone artifacts linked to these extinct relatives of modern humans.

DAVID: each group of early humans followed the same path of development of lifestyles as God's endpoint of evolution.

dhw: So why do you think he designed them, if the only ones he wanted were sapiens?

DAVID: With interbreeding each group provided new good attributes for the eventual final humans, as previously discussed.

But since according to you your God is perfectly capable of creating the species he wants without predecessors (e.g. during the Cambrian explosion), you are still left with the question why he created sapiens in such a roundabout way if sapiens was the only species he wanted. Possible theistic explanations: 1) sapiens was not the only species he wanted; 2) sapiens was the species he wanted, and he was experimenting in order to “perfect” the design; 3) as he proceeded with different designs, he had more and more new ideas; 4) your God “set automatic processes into motion for the universe”, including that of evolution. In other words, he invented a process that ran itself in a vast free-for-all. Four theistic explanations which, as you have agreed many times, logically fit the facts of history, in stark contrast to your own admission that you have no idea why God would have opted for your own theory, as bolded above.

xxxxx
I shan’t be posting anything tomorrow.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Friday, December 03, 2021, 15:47 (177 days ago) @ dhw

Reality: God is a mathematician

DAVID: God set automatic processes into motion for the universe, not life's evolution.

dhw: How do you know?

I believe in what God does, has done.


Monarchs use toxic milkweed

DAVID: All caterpillars eat toxic milkweed!! Somehow a few lucky ones were not killed? You have theorized luck to avoid God's designs.

dhw: They do NOW! NOW they have the “antibodies”! Why do you ignore the point I have made above about bacteria and Covid? I am not theorizing luck. These are facts that are illustrated over and over again in our present. First comes the “invader”, then comes the response, and there are deaths and there are survivors before the defence is perfected.

Again you are proposing luck. The Monarchs have a complex lifecycle and all young must use milkweed. I still think God designed the lifecycle and used milkweed as a requirement.

dhw: I have no idea what point you are making. Mine is that humans didn’t need all the life forms and foods of the past that had no connection with them, and even in the present we can survive without large numbers of the species etc. you say your purposeful God designed to be our food. So why did he design them if we don't need them?

DAVID: It is your lack of understanding the need for all ecosystems that is showing.

dhw: All ecosystems are necessary for the life forms that exist within them. What you do not seem to understand is that there have been different ecosystems and different life forms for 3.X billion years, and the vast majority had no connection with humans and their ecosystems, which makes nonsense of your theory that all life forms and all ecosystems were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. As you yourself have said, these systems were for the past, not the present, and extinct life has no role in current life.

Why are you in the past, when all I am discussing in present necessary ecosystems.


Denisovans

DAVID: each group of early humans followed the same path of development of lifestyles as God's endpoint of evolution.

dhw: So why do you think he designed them, if the only ones he wanted were sapiens?

DAVID: With interbreeding each group provided new good attributes for the eventual final humans, as previously discussed.

dhw: But since according to you your God is perfectly capable of creating the species he wants without predecessors (e.g. during the Cambrian explosion), you are still left with the question why he created sapiens in such a roundabout way if sapiens was the only species he wanted. Possible theistic explanations: 1) sapiens was not the only species he wanted; 2) sapiens was the species he wanted, and he was experimenting in order to “perfect” the design; 3) as he proceeded with different designs, he had more and more new ideas; 4) your God “set automatic processes into motion for the universe”, including that of evolution. In other words, he invented a process that ran itself in a vast free-for-all. Four theistic explanations which, as you have agreed many times, logically fit the facts of history, in stark contrast to your own admission that you have no idea why God would have opted for your own theory, as bolded above.

I am agreeing that He allowed a bush of hominins, specifically because He also recognized the bacteria and viruses could make mistakes in the wrong places and a group of homo species would add advantageous attributes, as previously noted.


xxxxx
I shan’t be posting anything tomorrow.

Noted. Give Chris our hopes and wishes for more time.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Sunday, December 05, 2021, 08:29 (175 days ago) @ David Turell

Reality: God is a mathematician

DAVID: God set automatic processes into motion for the universe, not life's evolution.

dhw: How do you know?

DAVID: I believe in what God does, has done.

And how do you know that in the context of evolution 1) God’s only aim was sapiens plus food and therefore what he “did” was specially design every life form, food, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. “as part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans” and their food, although the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food? And how do you know that your God 1) has not “done” a free-for-all, or 2) “done” experiments, or 3) “done” creating and destroying as he comes up with more and more new ideas?

DAVID (under "Monarchs and milkweed"): It is your lack of understanding the need for all ecosystems that is showing.

dhw: All ecosystems are necessary for the life forms that exist within them. What you do not seem to understand is that there have been different ecosystems and different life forms for 3.X billion years, and the vast majority had no connection with humans and their ecosystems, which makes nonsense of the above bolded theory.

DAVID: Why are you in the past, when all I am discussing in present necessary ecosystems.

Because you still insist that all past life forms and foods were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” This fixed belief of yours also applies to the present, with thousands of specially designed “necessary” species etc. dying out, but we still survive without them. See also under Denisovans.

Monarchs use toxic milkweed
DAVID: All caterpillars eat toxic milkweed!! Somehow a few lucky ones were not killed? You have theorized luck to avoid God's designs.

dhw: They do NOW! NOW they have the “antibodies”! Why do you ignore the point I have made above about bacteria and Covid? I am not theorizing luck. These are facts that are illustrated over and over again in our present. First comes the “invader”, then comes the response, and there are deaths and there are survivors before the defence is perfected.

DAVID: Again you are proposing luck.

Lucky to survive, OK. Do you deny that millions of bacteria die before the survivors come up with a solution (which is not luck)? That millions of humans have died from Covid-9, but millions have survived? Ditto every other plague in the history of humankind. Do you still refuse to accept, even today, that cells develop new responses (not luck) to new bacteria/viruses/poisons/diseases and are not already equipped with the specific “defence” against the specific invader?

DAVID: The Monarchs have a complex lifecycle and all young must use milkweed. I still think God designed the lifecycle and used milkweed as a requirement.

dhw: I have no idea what point you are making. Mine is that humans didn’t need all the life forms and foods of the past that had no connection with them, and even in the present we can survive without large numbers of the species etc. you say your purposeful God designed to be our food. So why did he design them if we don't need them?

Denisovans
DAVID: each group of early humans followed the same path of development of lifestyles as God's endpoint of evolution.

dhw: Same question: why do you think he designed them, if the only ones he wanted were sapiens?

DAVID: I am agreeing that He allowed a bush of hominins, specifically because He also recognized the bacteria and viruses could make mistakes in the wrong places and a group of homo species would add advantageous attributes, as previously noted.

Since you see him as all-powerful and full of good intentions and always in control, and since you see him as having only wanted to create one species(plus food), I still don’t understand why you think he deliberately created bacteria and viruses that made all these horrific blunders, or why he had to create lots and lots of different homos with different attributes, instead of simply creating the only one he wanted along with all the attributes. Sounds like one great big mess to me, unlike my alternatives listed under “God as a mathematician”, which all fit in perfectly with the history of life.

Human evolution: bushier than ever
Quote: "To me, however, all of human evolution, even well after our own species first emerged, is a mess of branches and dead ends. Our evolutionary history is complicated, and we should embrace that."

Sums it up – a mess of branches and dead ends, but it actually applies to the whole history of evolution. Fits in perfectly with the concept of a free-for-all.

DAVID: Argumentative voices add to our thoughts. I think the dhw theory is right on, but I come with a slightly different twist. God didn't want a free-for-all.

Which of my theories do you agree with, then?

God is too purposeful for that.

All my theories are purposeful, including the free-for-all. You always bang on about purposefulness, but complain if I propose a purpose that goes beyond the creation of H. sapiens plus food.

DAVID: Recognizing mistakes will happen in a free-flowing human living system as it is developed. many humanlike types scattered into many environments will naturally adapt many good attributes which will contribute to the final H. sapiens product.

See above under Denisovans

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 05, 2021, 16:41 (175 days ago) @ dhw

Reality: God is a mathematician

DAVID: God set automatic processes into motion for the universe, not life's evolution.

dhw: How do you know?

DAVID: I believe in what God does, has done.

dhw: And how do you know that in the context of evolution 1) God’s only aim was sapiens plus food and therefore what he “did” was specially design every life form, food, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. “as part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans” and their food, although the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food? And how do you know that your God 1) has not “done” a free-for-all, or 2) “done” experiments, or 3) “done” creating and destroying as he comes up with more and more new ideas?

Your human God has to come up with new ideas. My God has all the purposes known in advance of all actions He performs.


Monarchs use toxic milkweed

DAVID: Again you are proposing luck.

dhw: Lucky to survive, OK. Do you deny that millions of bacteria die before the survivors come up with a solution (which is not luck)? That millions of humans have died from Covid-9, but millions have survived? Ditto every other plague in the history of humankind. Do you still refuse to accept, even today, that cells develop new responses (not luck) to new bacteria/viruses/poisons/diseases and are not already equipped with the specific “defence” against the specific invader?

Immune responses are automatic and designed by God. Ditto Monarchs


Denisovans

DAVID: I am agreeing that He allowed a bush of hominins, specifically because He also recognized the bacteria and viruses could make mistakes in the wrong places and a group of homo species would add advantageous attributes, as previously noted.

dhw: Since you see him as all-powerful and full of good intentions and always in control, and since you see him as having only wanted to create one species(plus food), I still don’t understand why you think he deliberately created bacteria and viruses that made all these horrific blunders, or why he had to create lots and lots of different homos with different attributes, instead of simply creating the only one he wanted along with all the attributes. Sounds like one great big mess to me, unlike my alternatives listed under “God as a mathematician”, which all fit in perfectly with the history of life.

Same point we've covered: God knew mistakes would happen beyond His editing controls so a variety of human forms would develop useful attributes using His designed protective systems.


Human evolution: bushier than ever
Quote: "To me, however, all of human evolution, even well after our own species first emerged, is a mess of branches and dead ends. Our evolutionary history is complicated, and we should embrace that."

dhw: Sums it up – a mess of branches and dead ends, but it actually applies to the whole history of evolution. Fits in perfectly with the concept of a free-for-all.

DAVID: Argumentative voices add to our thoughts. I think the dhw theory is right on, but I come with a slightly different twist. God didn't want a free-for-all.

dhw: Which of my theories do you agree with, then?

Not a free-for-all which is God not in control, but I view it as a purposeful variation as I ha ve proposed.


God is too purposeful for that.

dhw: All my theories are purposeful, including the free-for-all. You always bang on about purposefulness, but complain if I propose a purpose that goes beyond the creation of H. sapiens plus food.

DAVID: Recognizing mistakes will happen in a free-flowing human living system as it is developed. many humanlike types scattered into many environments will naturally adapt many good attributes which will contribute to the final H. sapiens product.

dhw: See above under Denisovans

Same repetition.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Monday, December 06, 2021, 13:55 (174 days ago) @ David Turell

Reality: God is a mathematician

DAVID: God set automatic processes into motion for the universe, not life's evolution.

dhw: How do you know?

DAVID: I believe in what God does, has done.

dhw: And how do you know that in the context of evolution God’s only aim was sapiens plus food and therefore what he “did” was specially design every life form, food, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. “as part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans” and their food, although the vast majority had no connection with humans and their food? And how do you know that your God 1) has not “done” a free-for-all, or 2) “done” experiments, or 3) “done” creating and destroying as he comes up with more and more new ideas?

DAVID: Your human God has to come up with new ideas. My God has all the purposes known in advance of all actions He performs.

Coming up with new ideas is one of three options above, each of which starts out with a known purpose! You seem to think that in the context of your God’s activities, the word “purpose” is synonymous with “designing humans and their food”! Purpose can be that (hence experimenting to achieve it), or it can be to see what will happen if…(the excitement of discovery). And please don’t tell me that I regard a bodiless, eternal, conscious mind capable of creating universes and life as “human”. I simply believe, as you have repeatedly agreed, that if he exists, he probably has some thought patterns like our own, and indeed that we may “mimic” him.

Monarchs use toxic milkweed
DAVID: Again you are proposing luck.

dhw: Lucky to survive, OK. Do you deny that millions of bacteria die before the survivors come up with a solution (which is not luck)? That millions of humans have died from Covid-9, but millions have survived? Ditto every other plague in the history of humankind. Do you still refuse to accept, even today, that cells develop new responses (not luck) to new bacteria/viruses/poisons/diseases and are not already equipped with the specific “defence” against the specific invader?

DAVID: Immune responses are automatic and designed by God. Ditto Monarchs

Even if your fixed belief was true and 3.8 billion years ago your God designed every undabbled antibody/antidote for the rest of life’s history, it wouldn’t change or explain the fact the invader kills some victims but others survive, and that the immune response FOLLOWS the invasion and is not concurrent with it but has to be developed.

Denisovans
dhw: Since you see him as all-powerful and full of good intentions and always in control, and since you see him as having only wanted to create one species(plus food), I still don’t understand why you think he deliberately created bacteria and viruses that made all these horrific blunders, or why he had to create lots and lots of different homos with different attributes, instead of simply creating the only one he wanted along with all the attributes. Sounds like one great big mess to me, unlike my alternatives listed under “God as a mathematician”, which all fit in perfectly with the history of life.

DAVID: Same point we've covered: God knew mistakes would happen beyond His editing controls so a variety of human forms would develop useful attributes using His designed protective systems.

This is not just a question of him knowing the future! According to you, he specifically designed every species of animal and of human. And yet the only species of human he wanted to design was sapiens. And according to you, he was/is perfectly capable of designing species without any predecessors (the Cambrian). So we come to the next quote about human evolution:

Quote: "To me, however, all of human evolution, even well after our own species first emerged, is a mess of branches and dead ends. Our evolutionary history is complicated, and we should embrace that."

dhw: Sums it up – a mess of branches and dead ends, but it actually applies to the whole history of evolution. Fits in perfectly with the concept of a free-for-all.

DAVID: Argumentative voices add to our thoughts. I think the dhw theory is right on, but I come with a slightly different twist. God didn't want a free-for-all.

dhw: Which of my theories do you agree with, then?

DAVID: Not a free-for-all which is God not in control, but I view it as a purposeful variation as I have proposed.

So which of my theories is “right on”? (NB my free-for-all theory is purposeful, as are all my alternative theories.)

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Monday, December 06, 2021, 16:27 (174 days ago) @ dhw

Reality: God is a mathematician

DAVID: Your human God has to come up with new ideas. My God has all the purposes known in advance of all actions He performs.

dhw: Coming up with new ideas is one of three options above, each of which starts out with a known purpose! You seem to think that in the context of your God’s activities, the word “purpose” is synonymous with “designing humans and their food”! Purpose can be that (hence experimenting to achieve it), or it can be to see what will happen if…(the excitement of discovery). And please don’t tell me that I regard a bodiless, eternal, conscious mind capable of creating universes and life as “human”. I simply believe, as you have repeatedly agreed, that if he exists, he probably has some thought patterns like our own, and indeed that we may “mimic” him.

We may mimic Him in limited ways, but you have Him mimicking us!!


Monarchs use toxic milkweed
DAVID: Again you are proposing luck.

dhw: Lucky to survive, OK. Do you deny that millions of bacteria die before the survivors come up with a solution (which is not luck)? That millions of humans have died from Covid-9, but millions have survived? Ditto every other plague in the history of humankind. Do you still refuse to accept, even today, that cells develop new responses (not luck) to new bacteria/viruses/poisons/diseases and are not already equipped with the specific “defence” against the specific invader?

DAVID: Immune responses are automatic and designed by God. Ditto Monarchs

dhw: Even if your fixed belief was true and 3.8 billion years ago your God designed every undabbled antibody/antidote for the rest of life’s history, it wouldn’t change or explain the fact the invader kills some victims but others survive, and that the immune response FOLLOWS the invasion and is not concurrent with it but has to be developed.

Yes, by God's designed mechanism for producing new antibodies.


Denisovans
dhw: Since you see him as all-powerful and full of good intentions and always in control, and since you see him as having only wanted to create one species(plus food), I still don’t understand why you think he deliberately created bacteria and viruses that made all these horrific blunders, or why he had to create lots and lots of different homos with different attributes, instead of simply creating the only one he wanted along with all the attributes. Sounds like one great big mess to me, unlike my alternatives listed under “God as a mathematician”, which all fit in perfectly with the history of life.

DAVID: Same point we've covered: God knew mistakes would happen beyond His editing controls so a variety of human forms would develop useful attributes using His designed protective systems.

dhw: This is not just a question of him knowing the future! According to you, he specifically designed every species of animal and of human. And yet the only species of human he wanted to design was sapiens. And according to you, he was/is perfectly capable of designing species without any predecessors (the Cambrian). So we come to the next quote about human evolution:

Quote: "To me, however, all of human evolution, even well after our own species first emerged, is a mess of branches and dead ends. Our evolutionary history is complicated, and we should embrace that."

dhw: Sums it up – a mess of branches and dead ends, but it actually applies to the whole history of evolution. Fits in perfectly with the concept of a free-for-all.

DAVID: Argumentative voices add to our thoughts. I think the dhw theory is right on, but I come with a slightly different twist. God didn't want a free-for-all.

dhw: Which of my theories do you agree with, then?

DAVID: Not a free-for-all which is God not in control, but I view it as a purposeful variation as I have proposed.

dhw: So which of my theories is “right on”? (NB my free-for-all theory is purposeful, as are all my alternative theories.)

You view a large bush of hominins/homos as God's free-for-all in making H. sapiens. I view it differently, fully under God's control as a means of developing different attributes for the final sapiens to have. The 'right-on' is my re-interpretation of your view of the pre-human bush.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Tuesday, December 07, 2021, 07:23 (173 days ago) @ David Turell

Reality: God is a mathematician
DAVID: Your human God has to come up with new ideas. My God has all the purposes known in advance of all actions He performs.

dhw: Coming up with new ideas is one of three options above, each of which starts out with a known purpose! […] And please don’t tell me that I regard a bodiless, eternal, conscious mind capable of creating universes and life as “human”. I simply believe, as you have repeatedly agreed, that if he exists, he probably has some thought patterns like our own, and indeed that we may “mimic” him.

DAVID: We may mimic Him in limited ways, but you have Him mimicking us!!

If he created us, then his thought patterns came first, and ours must mirror (“mimic”) his, not the other way round! This is just another way of saying that we have thought patterns in common, so it is absurd to admit this and then to complain if a theory shows him to have thought patterns in common with ours.

Monarchs use toxic milkweed
DAVID: Immune responses are automatic and designed by God. Ditto Monarchs

dhw: Even if your fixed belief was true and 3.8 billion years ago your God designed every undabbled antibody/antidote for the rest of life’s history, it wouldn’t change or explain the fact the invader kills some victims but others survive, and that the immune response FOLLOWS the invasion and is not concurrent with it but has to be developed.

DAVID: Yes, by God's designed mechanism for producing new antibodies.

I am quite prepared to accept the possibility that your God designed the mechanism for producing new antibodies! I do not accept that the new antibodies are already there when the invader strikes, and I keep pointing out that NEW antibodies are a RESPONSE to new invaders, which suggests that the mechanism is able to process new information, communicate with other cells, take decisions etc. – all the hallmarks of intelligence. Nor do I accept that new invaders kill every victim without there being any survivors.

Denisovans
DAVID: God knew mistakes would happen beyond His editing controls so a variety of human forms would develop useful attributes using His designed protective systems.

dhw: This is not just a question of him knowing the future! According to you, he specifically designed every species of animal and of human. And yet the only species of human he wanted to design was sapiens. And according to you, he was/is perfectly capable of designing species without any predecessors (the Cambrian). So we come to the next quote about human evolution:

QUOTE: "To me, however, all of human evolution, even well after our own species first emerged, is a mess of branches and dead ends. Our evolutionary history is complicated, and we should embrace that."

dhw: Sums it up – a mess of branches and dead ends, but it actually applies to the whole history of evolution. Fits in perfectly with the concept of a free-for-all.

DAVID: Argumentative voices add to our thoughts. I think the dhw theory is right on, but I come with a slightly different twist. God didn't want a free-for-all.

dhw: Which of my theories do you agree with, then?[…]

DAVID: You view a large bush of hominins/homos as God's free-for-all in making H. sapiens. I view it differently, fully under God's control as a means of developing different attributes for the final sapiens to have. The 'right-on' is my re-interpretation of your view of the pre-human bush.

You have ignored my alternatives (experimentation, or a flow of new ideas). So my theory of a free-for-all is “right on” except that you believe the exact opposite. And you still ignore the incongruity of the theory bolded above.

evolution driven by extinctions
DAVID: Life and inorganic systems are intertwined as this study shows. Changes in the amount of living matter can alter the climate and cause extinctions which change the course of evolution. These systems are in a delicate balance, without which we wouldn't be here. The huge bush of life is simply a part of those required systems, something dhw doesn't understand when he asks why God didn't simply produce humans instead of all that really happened.

I do not question what really happened. I only ask why your all-powerful God would go to all the trouble of deliberately designing all those life forms – the vast majority of which had no connection with humans plus food – and now all these environmental changes and extinctions in order to produce us and our food, although according to you he was perfectly capable of designing new species directly (e.g. the Cambrian). You admit that you have no idea and I should ask God to explain it, and yet you still insist that it’s logical.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 07, 2021, 16:45 (173 days ago) @ dhw

Reality: God is a mathematician

DAVID: We may mimic Him in limited ways, but you have Him mimicking us!!

dhw: If he created us, then his thought patterns came first, and ours must mirror (“mimic”) his, not the other way round! This is just another way of saying that we have thought patterns in common, so it is absurd to admit this and then to complain if a theory shows him to have thought patterns in common with ours.

You forget my note of 'limited ways'. We differ from God in that we cannot attain His depth of knowledge or thought capacity.


Monarchs use toxic milkweed
DAVID: Immune responses are automatic and designed by God. Ditto Monarchs

dhw: Even if your fixed belief was true and 3.8 billion years ago your God designed every undabbled antibody/antidote for the rest of life’s history, it wouldn’t change or explain the fact the invader kills some victims but others survive, and that the immune response FOLLOWS the invasion and is not concurrent with it but has to be developed.

DAVID: Yes, by God's designed mechanism for producing new antibodies.

dhw: I am quite prepared to accept the possibility that your God designed the mechanism for producing new antibodies! I do not accept that the new antibodies are already there when the invader strikes, and I keep pointing out that NEW antibodies are a RESPONSE to new invaders, which suggests that the mechanism is able to process new information, communicate with other cells, take decisions etc. – all the hallmarks of intelligence. Nor do I accept that new invaders kill every victim without there being any survivors.

You are once again forgetting the Monarch's precise lifecycle of required poisonous milkweed munching. Every caterpillar must be protected from the start of the lifecycle which, in my view, appeared all at once by God's design.


Denisovans

dhw: Which of my theories do you agree with, then?[…]

DAVID: You view a large bush of hominins/homos as God's free-for-all in making H. sapiens. I view it differently, fully under God's control as a means of developing different attributes for the final sapiens to have. The 'right-on' is my re-interpretation of your view of the pre-human bush.

dhw: You have ignored my alternatives (experimentation, or a flow of new ideas). So my theory of a free-for-all is “right on” except that you believe the exact opposite. And you still ignore the incongruity of the theory bolded above.

All incongruities are your fallacious invention.


evolution driven by extinctions
DAVID: Life and inorganic systems are intertwined as this study shows. Changes in the amount of living matter can alter the climate and cause extinctions which change the course of evolution. These systems are in a delicate balance, without which we wouldn't be here. The huge bush of life is simply a part of those required systems, something dhw doesn't understand when he asks why God didn't simply produce humans instead of all that really happened.

dhw: I do not question what really happened. I only ask why your all-powerful God would go to all the trouble of deliberately designing all those life forms – the vast majority of which had no connection with humans plus food – and now all these environmental changes and extinctions in order to produce us and our food, although according to you he was perfectly capable of designing new species directly (e.g. the Cambrian). You admit that you have no idea and I should ask God to explain it, and yet you still insist that it’s logical.

Once again you question God's obvious logic while accepting God's history. As for your total misunderstanding of the Cambrian, I've explained it before: necessary biochemical processes were developed pre-Cambrian. Once in place God could design the new forms which are the basis of current animal life. The obvious logic, which you constantly ignore, is God prefers to evolve, not directly create. Since you question God's actions, why not ask you to ask Him?

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Wednesday, December 08, 2021, 09:32 (172 days ago) @ David Turell

Reality: God is a mathematician
DAVID: We differ from God in that we cannot attain His depth of knowledge or thought capacity.

If he exists, of course we can’t. How does that come to mean that although you agree he probably has thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours, and we “mimic him” in certain ways, any theory containing thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours must be wrong?

Monarchs use toxic milkweed
dhw: I am quite prepared to accept the possibility that your God designed the mechanism for producing new antibodies! I do not accept that the new antibodies are already there when the invader strikes, and I keep pointing out that NEW antibodies are a RESPONSE to new invaders, which suggests that the mechanism is able to process new information, communicate with other cells, take decisions etc. – all the hallmarks of intelligence. […]

DAVID: You are once again forgetting the Monarch's precise lifecycle of required poisonous milkweed munching. Every caterpillar must be protected from the start of the lifecycle which, in my view, appeared all at once by God's design.

You are once again forgetting that all precise lifecycles must have originated at some time. […] you agree that the bees’ “algorithm” is the ABILITY to interpret. I suggest that this ABILITY (possibly designed by your God) enabled the monarch to develop its lifestyle, as opposed to your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme or dabble to counter milkweed poison, apparently so necessary for his design of humans plus food.

evolution driven by extinctions
dhw: I only ask why your all-powerful God would go to all the trouble of deliberately designing all those life forms – the vast majority of which had no connection with humans plus food – and now all these environmental changes and extinctions in order to produce us and our food, although according to you he was perfectly capable of designing new species directly (e.g. the Cambrian).

DAVID: Once again you question God's obvious logic while accepting God's history.

No, I question your logic.

DAVID: As for your total misunderstanding of the Cambrian, I've explained it before: necessary biochemical processes were developed pre-Cambrian. Once in place God could design the new forms which are the basis of current animal life.

So why did your God, whose only purpose according to you, was to design humans plus food, specially design all the Cambrian and post-Cambrian life forms (and extinctions) that had no connection with humans, when he had now developed the basics and could design any species he liked?

DAVID: The obvious logic, which you constantly ignore, is God prefers to evolve, not directly create. Since you question God's actions, why not ask you to ask Him?

But he didn’t “evolve” the Cambrians – you believe he created them without predecessors! And even our friend the monarch butterfly didn’t “evolve” its lifestyle: “Every caterpillar must be protected from the start of the lifecycle which, in my view, appeared all at once by God's design.”

Heliosphere protection
DAVID: The universe is a dangerous place for living organisms. dhw wonders why God made the universe this way. Perhaps it has to be and one day we will fully understand.

Indeed I wonder why an all-powerful, all-knowing God, whose only purpose was apparently to create H. sapiens plus food, should have created so many problems for himself before he could even design life. It’s inexplicable, and typifies your whole theory of evolution. You can only hope that one day you will understand it yourself.

Ecosystem importance
DAVID: This is a beautiful example of an important very complex system which is an answer to why dhw thinks God made too many animals on His way to producing humans. All those animals are necessary for the proper balance. Just imagine the chaos if all the lions disappeared, as the absent wolves in Yellowstone.

As usual, you omit the illogical parts of your theory. You try to equate the havoc humans are creating in our current ecosystems with all the ecosystems of the past: what on earth is the “proper balance”? Proper for what? Countless ecosystems and their life forms have disappeared during the last 3.X billion years, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans, and yet still you pretend that somehow they were ALL “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food!

Upright posture
DAVID: upright posture requires pelvic changes and a development of lumbar lordosis, which apes do not have. [...] Did continuous attempts at bipedal locomotion produce the change? Not likely with a dependence upon chance mutations. On the other hand if provided with the proper spinal anatomy upright, posture becomes easy to manage. Design is obvious.

Why have you linked “continuous attempts” to random mutations? Even an individual human in his own lifetime can make minor changes to his/her body by “continuous attempts” – what would be the purpose of training if it were otherwise? Why is it impossible that the cell communities of which all bodies consist might with “continuous attempts” alter their structure from legs to flippers (whales), or from slouching bone structure to upright bone structure?

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 08, 2021, 15:28 (172 days ago) @ dhw

Reality: God is a mathematician
DAVID: We differ from God in that we cannot attain His depth of knowledge or thought capacity.

dhw:n If he exists, of course we can’t. How does that come to mean that although you agree he probably has thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours, and we “mimic him” in certain ways, any theory containing thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours must be wrong?

Your constant humanizing of God never stops.


Monarchs use toxic milkweed

dhw: You are once again forgetting that all precise lifecycles must have originated at some time. […] you agree that the bees’ “algorithm” is the ABILITY to interpret. I suggest that this ABILITY (possibly designed by your God) enabled the monarch to develop its lifestyle, as opposed to your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme or dabble to counter milkweed poison, apparently so necessary for his design of humans plus food.

Same old complaint, answered over and over.


evolution driven by extinctions

DAVID: As for your total misunderstanding of the Cambrian, I've explained it before: necessary biochemical processes were developed pre-Cambrian. Once in place God could design the new forms which are the basis of current animal life.

dhw: So why did your God, whose only purpose according to you, was to design humans plus food, specially design all the Cambrian and post-Cambrian life forms (and extinctions) that had no connection with humans, when he had now developed the basics and could design any species he liked?

Same answer: God prefers to evolve everything: universe, Earth, life:


DAVID: The obvious logic, which you constantly ignore, is God prefers to evolve, not directly create. Since you question God's actions, why not ask you to ask Him?

dhw: But he didn’t “evolve” the Cambrians – you believe he created them without predecessors! And even our friend the monarch butterfly didn’t “evolve” its lifestyle: “Every caterpillar must be protected from the start of the lifecycle which, in my view, appeared all at once by God's design.”

But with the proper biochemistry as stated above. Some of evolution has gaps, remember?


Heliosphere protection
DAVID: The universe is a dangerous place for living organisms. dhw wonders why God made the universe this way. Perhaps it has to be and one day we will fully understand.

dhw: Indeed I wonder why an all-powerful, all-knowing God, whose only purpose was apparently to create H. sapiens plus food, should have created so many problems for himself before he could even design life. It’s inexplicable, and typifies your whole theory of evolution. You can only hope that one day you will understand it yourself.

So you don't understand it either! Wait for our research!


Ecosystem importance
DAVID: This is a beautiful example of an important very complex system which is an answer to why dhw thinks God made too many animals on His way to producing humans. All those animals are necessary for the proper balance. Just imagine the chaos if all the lions disappeared, as the absent wolves in Yellowstone.

dhw: As usual, you omit the illogical parts of your theory. You try to equate the havoc humans are creating in our current ecosystems with all the ecosystems of the past: what on earth is the “proper balance”? Proper for what? Countless ecosystems and their life forms have disappeared during the last 3.X billion years, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans, and yet still you pretend that somehow they were ALL “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food!

Each system was useful in its time.


Upright posture
DAVID: upright posture requires pelvic changes and a development of lumbar lordosis, which apes do not have. [...] Did continuous attempts at bipedal locomotion produce the change? Not likely with a dependence upon chance mutations. On the other hand if provided with the proper spinal anatomy upright, posture becomes easy to manage. Design is obvious.

dhw: Why have you linked “continuous attempts” to random mutations? Even an individual human in his own lifetime can make minor changes to his/her body by “continuous attempts” – what would be the purpose of training if it were otherwise? Why is it impossible that the cell communities of which all bodies consist might with “continuous attempts” alter their structure from legs to flippers (whales), or from slouching bone structure to upright bone structure?

Back to the flimsy idea cell committees can design for future needs. No tiny steps in the fossil record refutes your conjecture.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Thursday, December 09, 2021, 09:01 (171 days ago) @ David Turell

Reality: God is a mathematician
DAVID: We differ from God in that we cannot attain His depth of knowledge or thought capacity.

dhw: If he exists, of course we can’t. How does that come to mean that although you agree he probably has thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours, and we “mimic him” in certain ways, any theory containing thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours must be wrong?

DAVID: Your constant humanizing of God never stops.

If you believe your God probably/possibly has thought patterns etc. similar to ours, why is it wrong to provide a logical explanation of life’s history which includes thought patterns similar to ours? In any case, usual question: why is it less human (your version) to want total control, to have good intentions, to try yet fail to correct errors etc., than (one of my alternatives) to allow freedom, to enjoy creation, to watch one’s creations with interest (the last two of which you have already accepted as possible)?

Monarchs use toxic milkweed
dhw: [...] you agree that the bees’ “algorithm” is the ABILITY to interpret. I suggest that this ABILITY (possibly designed by your God) enabled the monarch to develop its lifestyle, as opposed to your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme or dabble to counter milkweed poison, apparently so necessary for his design of humans plus food.

DAVID: Same old complaint, answered over and over.

Answered over and over either by ignoring the absurdity of the claim that all life forms etc. were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food, although the vast majority had no connection with humans, or by agreeing that you have no idea how to explain your theory, and I should go and ask God. I’ll skip some of the repetitions, and pass to:

Heliosphere protection
DAVID: The universe is a dangerous place for living organisms. dhw wonders why God made the universe this way. Perhaps it has to be and one day we will fully understand.

dhw: [...] It’s inexplicable, and typifies your whole theory of evolution. You can only hope that one day you will understand it yourself.

DAVID: So you don't understand it either! Wait for our research!

No, I don’t understand it, and nor do you. The fact that neither of us understands it should alert you to the possibility that it might be wrong, and that one of the alternatives that you do understand might even be right. If we wait for the research, there is no point in discussing any of the unsolved mysteries of life!:-(

Ecosystem importance
DAVID: This is a beautiful example of an important very complex system which is an answer to why dhw thinks God made too many animals on His way to producing humans. All those animals are necessary for the proper balance. Just imagine the chaos if all the lions disappeared, as the absent wolves in Yellowstone.

dhw: As usual, you omit the illogical parts of your theory. You try to equate the havoc humans are creating in our current ecosystems with all the ecosystems of the past: what on earth is the “proper balance”? Proper for what? Countless ecosystems and their life forms have disappeared during the last 3.X billion years, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans, and yet still you pretend that somehow they were ALL “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food!

DAVID: Each system was useful in its time.

You’ve got it! Each system is useful for its members. And each system changes, which either causes extinction or is caused by extinction. But each system cannot have been “part of the goal” etc. if it had nothing to do with humans or their food. That should end this section of the argument.

Upright posture
DAVID: upright posture requires pelvic changes and a development of lumbar lordosis, which apes do not have. [...] Did continuous attempts at bipedal locomotion produce the change? Not likely with a dependence upon chance mutations. On the other hand if provided with the proper spinal anatomy upright, posture becomes easy to manage. Design is obvious.

dhw: Why have you linked “continuous attempts” to random mutations? Even an individual human in his own lifetime can make minor changes to his/her body by “continuous attempts” – what would be the purpose of training if it were otherwise? Why is it impossible that the cell communities of which all bodies consist might with “continuous attempts” alter their structure from legs to flippers (whales), or from slouching bone structure to upright bone structure?

DAVID: Back to the flimsy idea cell committees can design for future needs. No tiny steps in the fossil record refutes your conjecture.

Once more: no, they do not design for future needs. They design in response to present needs, and by adapting to present needs, they improve their chances of surviving into the future. The fact that we do not have an inch by inch fossil record of every life form that ever lived is hardly surprising given the vast period of time involved. That is why every new fossil find is hailed as a wonderful discovery.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 09, 2021, 20:11 (170 days ago) @ dhw

Reality: God is a mathematician

DAVID: Your constant humanizing of God never stops.

dhw: If you believe your God probably/possibly has thought patterns etc. similar to ours, why is it wrong to provide a logical explanation of life’s history which includes thought patterns similar to ours? In any case, usual question: why is it less human (your version) to want total control, to have good intentions, to try yet fail to correct errors etc., than (one of my alternatives) to allow freedom, to enjoy creation, to watch one’s creations with interest (the last two of which you have already accepted as possible)?

You chose a very humanized God. I don't accept the God of hour imagination.


Monarchs use toxic milkweed

See entry on vampire bees today


Heliosphere protection

DAVID: So you don't understand it either! Wait for our research!

dhw: No, I don’t understand it, and nor do you. The fact that neither of us understands it should alert you to the possibility that it might be wrong, and that one of the alternatives that you do understand might even be right. If we wait for the research, there is no point in discussing any of the unsolved mysteries of life!:-(

But I accept what God did and don't clam it is illogical. I'm willing to wait for research explanations which continue to arrive.


Ecosystem importance

DAVID: Each system was useful in its time.

dhw: You’ve got it! Each system is useful for its members. And each system changes, which either causes extinction or is caused by extinction. But each system cannot have been “part of the goal” etc. if it had nothing to do with humans or their food. That should end this section of the argument.

Evolution, by definition is a continuum of one stage leading to another. You want it chopped uyp into discontinuous parts.


Upright posture
DAVID: upright posture requires pelvic changes and a development of lumbar lordosis, which apes do not have. [...] Did continuous attempts at bipedal locomotion produce the change? Not likely with a dependence upon chance mutations. On the other hand if provided with the proper spinal anatomy upright, posture becomes easy to manage. Design is obvious.

dhw: Why have you linked “continuous attempts” to random mutations? Even an individual human in his own lifetime can make minor changes to his/her body by “continuous attempts” – what would be the purpose of training if it were otherwise? Why is it impossible that the cell communities of which all bodies consist might with “continuous attempts” alter their structure from legs to flippers (whales), or from slouching bone structure to upright bone structure?

DAVID: Back to the flimsy idea cell committees can design for future needs. No tiny steps in the fossil record refutes your conjecture.

dhw: Once more: no, they do not design for future needs. They design in response to present needs, and by adapting to present needs, they improve their chances of surviving into the future. The fact that we do not have an inch by inch fossil record of every life form that ever lived is hardly surprising given the vast period of time involved. That is why every new fossil find is hailed as a wonderful discovery.

So your prayer is for tiny fossil step discoveries. They don't exist, only the huge gaps you love to ignore. Jumping into water requires giant changes shown by the discontinuous whale series, way beyond the cell committees obvious tiny ability.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Friday, December 10, 2021, 11:32 (170 days ago) @ David Turell

Reality: God is a mathematician
dhw: If you believe your God probably/possibly has thought patterns etc. similar to ours, why is it wrong to provide a logical explanation of life’s history which includes thought patterns similar to ours?

DAVID: You chose a very humanized God. I don't accept the God of your imagination.

So your all-powerful, well-intentioned control freak who can’t correct all the errors in the system he designed, enjoys creation and watches his creations with interest, is only human, whereas my laissez-faire God who enjoys creation and watches his creations with interest is very human, and the fact that your explanation of life’s history is incomprehensible to you (I must go and ask God to explain it), while mine makes perfect sense to you, is irrelevant.

Monarchs use toxic milkweed
DAVID: See entry on vampire bees today

QUOTE: In the end, Maccaro says, it’s hard to know which evolved first — the gut bacteria or the bees’ ability to eat meat. But the bees probably first turned to meat because there was so much competition for nectar for food, she suspects."

DAVID: The explanation is easy and dhw will love it.

Yes, I do. Organisms (which are all cell communities) clearly adapt themselves to or exploit changing conditions. If they don’t, they die. Hence the changes that lead to survival, and also to innovation, which in turn leads to speciation.

Spider webs
QUOTE: “The Goulds postulate that spiders have a form of mapping ability that enables them to implement general design principles in a wide variety of circumstances. This is demonstrated, for instance, by spiders successfully making repairs to damaged webs. (DAVID’s bold)

Yet again, we have organisms with an ability. Not a 3.8-billion-year programme or algorithm. But back you go to your “large organisms chauvinism”:

DAVID: these webs are of magical designs, not invented by tiny spider brains appearing through natural evolutionary processes. Only a design algorithm fits.

Size is irrelevant! Tiny computers (artificial intelligence) can contain masses of information. According to you, natural brains (producing natural intelligence) have the ability to interpret a very limited quantity of information, and yet are too tiny to use that information in order to spin a web, build a nest, or find the plants off which they feed. Once more, what is the use of an ability if you are incapable of using it?

Heliosphere protection
DAVID: So you don't understand it either! Wait for our research!

dhw: No, I don’t understand it, and nor do you. The fact that neither of us understands it should alert you to the possibility that it might be wrong, and that one of the alternatives that you do understand might even be right. If we wait for the research, there is no point in discussing any of the unsolved mysteries of life!

DAVID: But I accept what God did and don't clam it is illogical. I'm willing to wait for research explanations which continue to arrive.

You claim that your interpretation of what God did and why he did it is logical, but you can’t explain it!

Ecosystem importance
DAVID: Each system was useful in its time.

But most were irrelevant to current time (i.e. to humans)

DAVID: Evolution, by definition is a continuum of one stage leading to another. You want it chopped up into discontinuous parts.

But it is not a continuum of all stages of all species leading only to humans plus food! See “ant algorithm”.

Upright posture
dhw: Even an individual human in his own lifetime can make minor changes to his/her body by “continuous attempts” – what would be the purpose of training if it were otherwise? Why is it impossible that the cell communities of which all bodies consist might with “continuous attempts” alter their structure from legs to flippers (whales), or from slouching bone structure to upright bone structure?

DAVID: Back to the flimsy idea cell committees can design for future needs. No tiny steps in the fossil record refutes your conjecture.

dhw: Once more: no, they do not design for future needs. They design in response to present needs, and by adapting to present needs, they improve their chances of surviving into the future. The fact that we do not have an inch by inch fossil record of every life form that ever lived is hardly surprising given the vast period of time involved. That is why every new fossil find is hailed as a wonderful discovery.

DAVID: So your prayer is for tiny fossil step discoveries. They don't exist, only the huge gaps you love to ignore. Jumping into water requires giant changes shown by the discontinuous whale series, way beyond the cell committees obvious tiny ability.

I am not praying for anything, although I suspect that is precisely what you are doing when you say you are “waiting for research explanations” of your own inexplicable theory. I don’t ignore the gaps. There are enough whale fossils to show how the species developed, and your “large organisms chauvinism” concerning the ability of cells to change their structure is already exposed by the fact that you agree that they CAN make such changes – only you insist that they can only make small ones.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Friday, December 10, 2021, 19:05 (170 days ago) @ dhw

Reality: God is a mathematician

DAVID: You chose a very humanized God. I don't accept the God of your imagination.

dhw: So your all-powerful, well-intentioned control freak who can’t correct all the errors in the system he designed, enjoys creation and watches his creations with interest, is only human, whereas my laissez-faire God who enjoys creation and watches his creations with interest is very human, and the fact that your explanation of life’s history is incomprehensible to you (I must go and ask God to explain it), while mine makes perfect sense to you, is irrelevant.

No matter how you twist my description of my God, He is not human in any way, is highly purposeful, and His thoughts are much deeper than ours ever are. I am forced to use human descriptive terms as there are none that fit God.


Spider webs
QUOTE: “The Goulds postulate that spiders have a form of mapping ability that enables them to implement general design principles in a wide variety of circumstances. This is demonstrated, for instance, by spiders successfully making repairs to damaged webs. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: these webs are of magical designs, not invented by tiny spider brains appearing through natural evolutionary processes. Only a design algorithm fits.

dhw: Size is irrelevant! Tiny computers (artificial intelligence) can contain masses of information. According to you, natural brains (producing natural intelligence) have the ability to interpret a very limited quantity of information, and yet are too tiny to use that information in order to spin a web, build a nest, or find the plants off which they feed. Once more, what is the use of an ability if you are incapable of using it?

The spiders ARE given an algorithm to use. They are not incapable of using it at will.


Heliosphere protection

DAVID: But I accept what God did and don't claim it is illogical. I'm willing to wait for research explanations which continue to arrive.

dhw: You claim that your interpretation of what God did and why he did it is logical, but you can’t explain it!


'Why can't you wait for research explanations? I do.


Ecosystem importance
DAVID: Each system was useful in its time.

dhw: But most were irrelevant to current time (i.e. to humans)

Of course, as you pursue segmentalism in evolution.


DAVID: Evolution, by definition is a continuum of one stage leading to another. You want it chopped up into discontinuous parts.

dhw: But it is not a continuum of all stages of all species leading only to humans plus food! See “ant algorithm”.

It branches in all directions to supply food energy!!!


Upright posture

DAVID: So your prayer is for tiny fossil step discoveries. They don't exist, only the huge gaps you love to ignore. Jumping into water requires giant changes shown by the discontinuous whale series, way beyond the cell committees obvious tiny ability.

dhw: I am not praying for anything, although I suspect that is precisely what you are doing when you say you are “waiting for research explanations” of your own inexplicable theory. I don’t ignore the gaps. There are enough whale fossils to show how the species developed, and your “large organisms chauvinism” concerning the ability of cells to change their structure is already exposed by the fact that you agree that they CAN make such changes – only you insist that they can only make small ones.

Giant fossil gaps are not explained by brilliant cell committees, a fantasy of your making, based upon observers opinion that cells act with such exact purpose, they must be intelligent, when it is clear to me from biochemical research they act with rigid automaticity and, therefore look intelligent, as all ID folks agree with me. You have your old 'experts', and I have my experts in present time. They are also highly trained Ph.D.'s like your were.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Saturday, December 11, 2021, 13:14 (169 days ago) @ David Turell

Reality: God is a mathematician
DAVID: No matter how you twist my description of my God, He is not human in any way…

How can he be “not human in any way” if we mimic him and he probably/possibly has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours? Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID…is highly purposeful, and His thoughts are much deeper than ours ever are. I am forced to use human descriptive terms as there are none that fit God.

In my alternatives, he is also highly purposeful, and of course the powers of a being who can create universes and life etc. would exceed ours immeasurably. How does that come to mean that he designed every life form, natural wonder etc. for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food?

Spider webs
QUOTE: “The Goulds postulate that spiders have a form of mapping ability that enables them to implement general design principles in a wide variety of circumstances. This is demonstrated, for instance, by spiders successfully making repairs to damaged webs. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: these webs are of magical designs, not invented by tiny spider brains appearing through natural evolutionary processes. Only a design algorithm fits.

dhw: Size is irrelevant! Tiny computers (artificial intelligence) can contain masses of information. According to you, natural brains (producing natural intelligence) have the ability to interpret a very limited quantity of information, and yet are too tiny to use that information in order to spin a web, build a nest, or find the plants off which they feed. Once more, what is the use of an ability if you are incapable of using it?

DAVID: The spiders ARE given an algorithm to use. They are not incapable of using it at will.

Once a survival strategy succeeds, it will be repeated indefinitely until conditions change. Different spiders build different webs “in a wide variety of circumstances”. So now what are you saying? Your God pops in with a different algorithm for every different set of circumstances? Or could it be that spiders have learned to use their innate “ability to interpret” in order to adapt their survival strategies to different conditions?

Heliosphere protection
DAVID: But I accept what God did and don't claim it is illogical. I'm willing to wait for research explanations which continue to arrive.

dhw: You claim that your interpretation of what God did and why he did it is logical, but you can’t explain it!

DAVID: Why can't you wait for research explanations? I do.

I have no alternative to waiting, which is why I sit on the fence. But you have already reached your fixed conclusions, and so you only “wait” in the hope that your theory will be confirmed, and in the meantime you reject any theory different from yours. You just can’t wait, can you?;-)

DAVID (under “gravitational waves”) : So a black hole does not destroy information. That may solve the information paradox related to black holes. dhw should be willing to wait for research results, but unfortunately he isn't and constantly complains about God's deeds before they are understood.

I have no complaint about God’s deeds if he exists, and have no theory about black holes and the information paradox. My complaints are directed solely at your illogical interpretation (a) of what God did, and (b) of why he did it.

Ecosystem importance
DAVID: Each system was useful in its time.

dhw: But most were irrelevant to current time (i.e. to humans)

DAVID: Of course, as you pursue segmentalism in evolution.

Evolution is the history of countless branches of life, most of which had no connection with humans. Thank you for acknowledging their irrelevance to humans, which is the reason why your anthropocentric theory of evolution is incomprehensible even to you.

DAVID: Evolution, by definition is a continuum of one stage leading to another. You want it chopped up into discontinuous parts.

dhw: But it is not a continuum of all stages of all species leading only to humans plus food!

DAVID: It branches in all directions to supply food energy!!!

You’ve got it. Evolution branched out in all directions, and not just in the direction of humans and their food! And all life forms on all branches need “food energy”. In other words, it does not show that every single life form on every single branch was specially designed as part of the “goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. You keep accepting that you have no idea why your God would conform to such a theory, and we have agreed to leave it at that, but still you go on trying to defend it by editing out the illogicalities.

Upright posture
See “Cellular intelligence

Evolution of consciousness.
QUOTE: Of course, how the world is in itself and how it seems to us must be different: All perception has to be mediated through the senses. But to call these representations “hallucinations” invites the misunderstanding that we never have a grip on reality at all.

I think the critic has aptly summed up an argument which gets us nowhere!

DAVID: I'm currently reading Bruce Greyson's book 'After', about NDE's, and will discuss it when I'm finished.

I can only admire you for your tireless research, and will look forward to your findings.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 11, 2021, 16:21 (169 days ago) @ dhw

Reality: God is a mathematician

DAVID… [God] is highly purposeful, and His thoughts are much deeper than ours ever are. I am forced to use human descriptive terms as there are none that fit God.

dhw: In my alternatives, he is also highly purposeful, and of course the powers of a being who can create universes and life etc. would exceed ours immeasurably. How does that come to mean that he designed every life form, natural wonder etc. for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food?

The history He created.


Spider webs

DAVID: The spiders ARE given an algorithm to use. They are not incapable of using it at will.

dhw: Once a survival strategy succeeds, it will be repeated indefinitely until conditions change. Different spiders build different webs “in a wide variety of circumstances”. So now what are you saying? Your God pops in with a different algorithm for every different set of circumstances? Or could it be that spiders have learned to use their innate “ability to interpret” in order to adapt their survival strategies to different conditions?

Spider webs are at the same level of complexity as weaverbird nests and require the same designer help.


Heliosphere protection

DAVID: Why can't you wait for research explanations? I do.

dhw: I have no alternative to waiting, which is why I sit on the fence. But you have already reached your fixed conclusions, and so you only “wait” in the hope that your theory will be confirmed, and in the meantime you reject any theory different from yours. You just can’t wait, can you?;-)

What is wrong with reaching conclusions. like you rigid cell intelligence conclusion?


dhw: I have no complaint about God’s deeds if he exists, and have no theory about black holes and the information paradox. My complaints are directed solely at your illogical interpretation (a) of what God did, and (b) of why he did it.

It is your illogical thought constantly misinterpreting God's actions


Ecosystem importance

dhw: Evolution is the history of countless branches of life, most of which had no connection with humans. Thank you for acknowledging their irrelevance to humans, which is the reason why your anthropocentric theory of evolution is incomprehensible even to you.

My anthropocentric theory is entirely comprehensible to clear thinking.


DAVID: Evolution, by definition is a continuum of one stage leading to another. You want it chopped up into discontinuous parts.

dhw: But it is not a continuum of all stages of all species leading only to humans plus food!

DAVID: It branches in all directions to supply food energy!!!

dhw: You’ve got it. Evolution branched out in all directions, and not just in the direction of humans and their food! And all life forms on all branches need “food energy”. In other words, it does not show that every single life form on every single branch was specially designed as part of the “goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. You keep accepting that you have no idea why your God would conform to such a theory, and we have agreed to leave it at that, but still you go on trying to defend it by editing out the illogicalities.

Stop bringing up your objections to my pure logic.


Evolution of consciousness.
QUOTE: Of course, how the world is in itself and how it seems to us must be different: All perception has to be mediated through the senses. But to call these representations “hallucinations” invites the misunderstanding that we never have a grip on reality at all.

dhw: I think the critic has aptly summed up an argument which gets us nowhere!

DAVID: I'm currently reading Bruce Greyson's book 'After', about NDE's, and will discuss it when I'm finished.

dhw: I can only admire you for your tireless research, and will look forward to your findings.

No surprises so far.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Sunday, December 12, 2021, 10:56 (168 days ago) @ David Turell

Reality: God is a mathematician
DAVID… [God] is highly purposeful, and His thoughts are much deeper than ours ever are. I am forced to use human descriptive terms as there are none that fit God.

dhw: In my alternatives, he is also highly purposeful, and of course the powers of a being who can create universes and life etc. would exceed ours immeasurably. How does that come to mean that he designed every life form, natural wonder etc. for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food?

DAVID: The history He created.

Which is open to different interpretations, some more logical than others!

Spider webs
See “insect migration”.

Heliosphere protection
DAVID: Why can't you wait for research explanations? I do.

dhw: I have no alternative to waiting, which is why I sit on the fence. But you have already reached your fixed conclusions, and so you only “wait” in the hope that your theory will be confirmed, and in the meantime you reject any theory different from yours. You just can’t wait, can you? ;-)

DAVID: What is wrong with reaching conclusions. like you rigid cell intelligence conclusion?

First you say you wait for research explanations, and then you ask what’s wrong with not waiting but forming a rigid conclusion! Mine is not a rigid conclusion. As I keep emphasizing, it’s a theory, though I must confess I find it far more convincing than Darwin’s random mutations, and your rigid conclusion that there has been a divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme or an individual divine dabble for every single life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. However, I agree that there is nothing wrong with reaching conclusions, except when those conclusions are manifestly self-contradictory. For instance, I cannot fault your reasons for believing in a designer, which are admirably logical. But your conclusions concerning his purpose and method are full of holes, as is your rejection of the theory of cellular intelligence (which even you rate at 50/50), and so of course I object. The whole purpose of this forum is to discuss the feasibility of theories concerning all the questions we humans have so far failed to answer!

The rest of your post simply ignores all the arguments against your theories:
DAVID: It is your illogical thought constantly misinterpreting God's actions.
My anthropocentric theory is entirely comprehensible to clear thinking.
Stop bringing up your objections to my pure logic.

Your clear thinking and pure logic have led you to advise me to ask God to explain your theories, because you have no idea why he would have done what you believe he has done.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 12, 2021, 16:00 (168 days ago) @ dhw

Spider webs
See “insect migration”.

Heliosphere protection
DAVID: Why can't you wait for research explanations? I do.

dhw: I have no alternative to waiting, which is why I sit on the fence. But you have already reached your fixed conclusions, and so you only “wait” in the hope that your theory will be confirmed, and in the meantime you reject any theory different from yours. You just can’t wait, can you? ;-)

DAVID: What is wrong with reaching conclusions. like your rigid cell intelligence conclusion?

dhw: First you say you wait for research explanations, and then you ask what’s wrong with not waiting but forming a rigid conclusion! Mine is not a rigid conclusion. As I keep emphasizing, it’s a theory, though I must confess I find it far more convincing than Darwin’s random mutations, and your rigid conclusion that there has been a divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme or an individual divine dabble for every single life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. However, I agree that there is nothing wrong with reaching conclusions, except when those conclusions are manifestly self-contradictory. For instance, I cannot fault your reasons for believing in a designer, which are admirably logical. But your conclusions concerning his purpose and method are full of holes, as is your rejection of the theory of cellular intelligence (which even you rate at 50/50), and so of course I object. The whole purpose of this forum is to discuss the feasibility of theories concerning all the questions we humans have so far failed to answer!

Answered in today's Natures wonders. 50/50 is an appraisal of possibility, nothing more. Pick your side from what you see as proof. You have none, but I show cell automaticity on many days, no thought involved.


dhw: The rest of your post simply ignores all the arguments against your theories:

DAVID: It is your illogical thought constantly misinterpreting God's actions.
My anthropocentric theory is entirely comprehensible to clear thinking.
Stop bringing up your objections to my pure logic.

dhw: Your clear thinking and pure logic have led you to advise me to ask God to explain your theories, because you have no idea why he would have done what you believe he has done.

The same weak distortion of my thoughts. Where I have no concept of God's choices is one single point: I have no idea why He chose to evolve each stage of His creations, but that is what His created history presents. You point to the possibility of a Genesis style God creating. Not current Hebrew scholar thought. God took His own time.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Monday, December 13, 2021, 18:02 (167 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […]I agree that there is nothing wrong with reaching conclusions, except when those conclusions are manifestly self-contradictory. For instance, I cannot fault your reasons for believing in a designer, which are admirably logical. But your conclusions concerning his purpose and method are full of holes, as is your rejection of the theory of cellular intelligence (which even you rate at 50/50), and so of course I object. The whole purpose of this forum is to discuss the feasibility of theories concerning all the questions we humans have so far failed to answer!

DAVID: Answered in today's Natures wonders. 50/50 is an appraisal of possibility, nothing more. Pick your side from what you see as proof. You have none, but I show cell automaticity on many days, no thought involved.

I keep pointing out that most cellular actions ARE automatic, and have to be if a system is to remain the same. It’s only origins and changing conditions that require intelligence (i.e. changes to what existed before). See “cellular intelligence”.

dhw: The rest of your post simply ignores all the arguments against your theories:

DAVID: It is your illogical thought constantly misinterpreting God's actions.
My anthropocentric theory is entirely comprehensible to clear thinking.
Stop bringing up your objections to my pure logic
.

dhw: Your clear thinking and pure logic have led you to advise me to ask God to explain your theories, because you have no idea why he would have done what you believe he has done.

DAVID: The same weak distortion of my thoughts. Where I have no concept of God's choices is one single point: I have no idea why He chose to evolve each stage of His creations, but that is what His created history presents. You point to the possibility of a Genesis style God creating. Not current Hebrew scholar thought. God took His own time.

You have, as usual, completely ignored the issue on which we disagree. We both accept that stage by stage evolution took place! I do not point to the possibility of Creationism! I ask why, if your God was capable of separate creation (which you maintain he was, e.g. during the Cambrian), he did NOT use that power to create the only species (plus food) that he wanted to create, and why he would individually design all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and their foods if his one and only purpose was to design humans (plus food)! That is the problem you either turn a blind eye to, or you tell me that you have no idea and I should ask God to explain it.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Monday, December 13, 2021, 22:31 (166 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Answered in today's Natures wonders. 50/50 is an appraisal of possibility, nothing more. Pick your side from what you see as proof. You have none, but I show cell automaticity on many days, no thought involved.

dhw: I keep pointing out that most cellular actions ARE automatic, and have to be if a system is to remain the same. It’s only origins and changing conditions that require intelligence (i.e. changes to what existed before). See “cellular intelligence”.

Exactly, as new species follow gaps into the future and therefor have to be designed for future requirements


dhw: The rest of your post simply ignores all the arguments against your theories:

DAVID: It is your illogical thought constantly misinterpreting God's actions.
dhw: My anthropocentric theory is entirely comprehensible to clear thinking.
Stop bringing up your objections to my pure logic
.

Logic which fits the personality of a severely humanized God.


dhw: Your clear thinking and pure logic have led you to advise me to ask God to explain your theories, because you have no idea why he would have done what you believe he has done.

DAVID: The same weak distortion of my thoughts. Where I have no concept of God's choices is one single point: I have no idea why He chose to evolve each stage of His creations, but that is what His created history presents. You point to the possibility of a Genesis style God creating. Not current Hebrew scholar thought. God took His own time.

dhw: You have, as usual, completely ignored the issue on which we disagree. We both accept that stage by stage evolution took place! I do not point to the possibility of Creationism! I ask why, if your God was capable of separate creation (which you maintain he was, e.g. during the Cambrian), he did NOT use that power to create the only species (plus food) that he wanted to create, and why he would individually design all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and their foods if his one and only purpose was to design humans (plus food)! That is the problem you either turn a blind eye to, or you tell me that you have no idea and I should ask God to explain it.

I don't dodge you. You don't realize how differently we approach thinking about God. I'll repeat, I fully accept history as telling us what God's choices of creation were. Creating the underlying basic living process came first, then the design of new forms, some as in the Cambrian completely new. Other partial new design as adaptations of old ones. All God's choice at the time. You look for a humanly consistent God which is not logical. God can do what he wants when He wants not following human reason for His reasons only.. Why should He be at all like any human you know?

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Thursday, January 06, 2022, 12:09 (143 days ago) @ dhw

I'm re-opening this thread for the sake of convenience.


MATHS

DAVID: If you were aware of evolution math, as I am, the Darwinist followers have been using this sort of math for seventy years. And we don't know if God can make instant changes. Cambrians appeared over a thirty million year time period. Evolution says God made humans starting 3.8 bya.

dhw: I thought ID-ers had been using maths to show that Darwin’s random mutations theory was impossible:
The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution | The ...
https://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution

QUOTE: “…the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!

dhw: And unless evolution has changed its name to David Turell, it does not say God exists, let alone that he started life with the sole intention of making humans although he also made countless other life forms that had no connection with humans. If he does exist, some folk believe that he is all-powerful, so we can hardly dismiss the idea that an all-powerful being can do whatever he wants, can we? My point remains: how can anyone possibly calculate the time needed for speciation without knowing how speciation takes place?

DAVID: I don't understand how they calculate when mutations happened, but both ID and Darwinists do it in articles published. Somehow they calculate backwards in time.

If they both use maths to support their subjective views, it only goes to show that their maths prove nothing. And how can it, if they don’t know the actual cause of speciation?

Consciousness
QUOTE: "SN: You argue that consciousness is unlikely to be exclusive to humans."
"Damasio: Right. We have different lineages in evolution, but it doesn’t mean that other creatures don’t have the possibility of getting to consciousness. Take, for example, the octopus. They have extremely complex behaviors. I would be flabbergasted if someone said they are not conscious. They have all the hallmarks of creatures that were able to develop a mind and have a sense of who they are and an awareness of how to protect themselves.
"

DAVID: So the octopus can do calculus? Yes animals are aware of bodily functions, but that doesn't mean they have the degree of consciousness we have. Our degree is very special, and Damasio's atheistic guesswork is just that.

He does not say the octopus can do calculus. I doubt if anyone in the world would claim that other creatures have the same DEGREE of consciousness as us! And the belief that other life forms have a degree of consciousness has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism! It is perfectly possible to believe that elephants, octopuses, weaverbirds, ants and bacteria have their own form and degree of consciousness and intelligence, and that this was given to them by your God. As usual, you are demonstrating what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”.

Evolution - Loss of traits
QUOTE: "The researchers showed that in zebra fish, loss-of-function mutations in the leucine transporter cause all fins to be short, while the overexpression mutation of the potassium channels causes all fins to be long. Either of those mutations by itself produces a clumsy fish. But when the two mutations are combined, the resulting zebra fish has long paired pectoral fins and shorter median fins, exactly the form of the flying fish. (David’s bold)

DAVID: more strong support for Behe's approach that evolution devolves to advance.

In this example we have a combination of loss and gain. We have already had this discussion. My proposal: If there is a new structure, or if an existing structure takes on a new function to meet a new requirement or to exploit a new opportunity, then it is inevitable that any structure which becomes unnecessary in the new conditions will lose its importance. The advance is not caused by the loss – the loss is the result of the advance.

Oxidative protection (Neanderthals and us)
QUOTE: "'The risk increases we see are large; several times increased risk of inflammatory bowel disease and vascular disease," says Hugo Zeberg.

DAVID: another finding which supports the theory that God preferred the arrival of modern humans with special attributes. Good we are not Neanderthals.

And a few days ago, you were telling us that your God produced all the different non-sapiens homos so that we would inherit all the good things they passed onto us. And what’s this about him preferring the “arrival”? According to you, modern humans didn’t just arrive. He designed all the good bits and the rotten bits of Neanderthal and the rest of the gang, and then he designed us. And bowel disease and vascular diseases are presumably the result of the “errors” your all-powerful God couldn’t avoid and couldn’t correct when he “had to” design the only system available to him.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 06, 2022, 15:59 (143 days ago) @ dhw

I'm re-opening this thread for the sake of convenience.


MATHS

DAVID: I don't understand how they calculate when mutations happened, but both ID and Darwinists do it in articles published. Somehow they calculate backwards in time.

dhw: If they both use maths to support their subjective views, it only goes to show that their maths prove nothing. And how can it, if they don’t know the actual cause of speciation?

They use DNA mutation clocks, don't ask me how with calculus I don't understand, not knowing how speciation works. New species have new mutations shown by comparisons of DNA decoded.


Consciousness
QUOTE: "SN: You argue that consciousness is unlikely to be exclusive to humans."
"Damasio: Right. We have different lineages in evolution, but it doesn’t mean that other creatures don’t have the possibility of getting to consciousness. Take, for example, the octopus. They have extremely complex behaviors. I would be flabbergasted if someone said they are not conscious. They have all the hallmarks of creatures that were able to develop a mind and have a sense of who they are and an awareness of how to protect themselves.
"

DAVID: So the octopus can do calculus? Yes animals are aware of bodily functions, but that doesn't mean they have the degree of consciousness we have. Our degree is very special, and Damasio's atheistic guesswork is just that.

dhw: He does not say the octopus can do calculus. I doubt if anyone in the world would claim that other creatures have the same DEGREE of consciousness as us! And the belief that other life forms have a degree of consciousness has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism! It is perfectly possible to believe that elephants, octopuses, weaverbirds, ants and bacteria have their own form and degree of consciousness and intelligence, and that this was given to them by your God. As usual, you are demonstrating what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”.

My obvious comparison is real and not chauvinism.


Evolution - Loss of traits
QUOTE: "The researchers showed that in zebra fish, loss-of-function mutations in the leucine transporter cause all fins to be short, while the overexpression mutation of the potassium channels causes all fins to be long. Either of those mutations by itself produces a clumsy fish. But when the two mutations are combined, the resulting zebra fish has long paired pectoral fins and shorter median fins, exactly the form of the flying fish. (David’s bold)

DAVID: more strong support for Behe's approach that evolution devolves to advance.

dhw: In this example we have a combination of loss and gain. We have already had this discussion. My proposal: If there is a new structure, or if an existing structure takes on a new function to meet a new requirement or to exploit a new opportunity, then it is inevitable that any structure which becomes unnecessary in the new conditions will lose its importance. The advance is not caused by the loss – the loss is the result of the advance.

What a convoluted twist! We are discussing genome mutation controls with loss of previously established DNA genes. Genes are removed with a new recombination of existing genes creating the phenotypic change.


Oxidative protection (Neanderthals and us)
QUOTE: "'The risk increases we see are large; several times increased risk of inflammatory bowel disease and vascular disease," says Hugo Zeberg.

DAVID: another finding which supports the theory that God preferred the arrival of modern humans with special attributes. Good we are not Neanderthals.

dhw: And a few days ago, you were telling us that your God produced all the different non-sapiens homos so that we would inherit all the good things they passed onto us. And what’s this about him preferring the “arrival”? According to you, modern humans didn’t just arrive. He designed all the good bits and the rotten bits of Neanderthal and the rest of the gang, and then he designed us. And bowel disease and vascular diseases are presumably the result of the “errors” your all-powerful God couldn’t avoid and couldn’t correct when he “had to” design the only system available to him.

An all knowing God knows what works to produce life nad God produced life from an inorganic universe he also created.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Friday, January 07, 2022, 08:05 (142 days ago) @ David Turell

MATHS

DAVID: They use DNA mutation clocks, don't ask me how with calculus I don't understand, not knowing how speciation works. New species have new mutations shown by comparisons of DNA decoded.

Mathematicians don’t know how speciation works either, and so I presume your comments are your roundabout way of agreeing with me that they won’t be able to prove anything, no matter whether they are ID-ers or neo-Darwinists.

Consciousness
QUOTE: "SN: You argue that consciousness is unlikely to be exclusive to humans."
"Damasio: Right. We have different lineages in evolution, but it doesn’t mean that other creatures don’t have the possibility of getting to consciousness. […]

DAVID: […] Yes animals are aware of bodily functions, but that doesn't mean they have the degree of consciousness we have. Our degree is very special, and Damasio's atheistic guesswork is just that.

dhw:[…]. I doubt if anyone in the world would claim that other creatures have the same DEGREE of consciousness as us! And the belief that other life forms have a degree of consciousness has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism! It is perfectly possible to believe that elephants, octopuses, weaverbirds, ants and bacteria have their own form and degree of consciousness and intelligence, and that this was given to them by your God. As usual, you are demonstrating what Shapiro calls “large organisms chauvinism”.

DAVID: My obvious comparison is real and not chauvinism.

Of course it’s real, if we agree that different organisms have different DEGREES of consciousness. Damasio has not said other organisms have the SAME consciousness as ours! And what’s this nonsense about his octopus example being “atheistic”?

Evolution - Loss of traits
QUOTE: "The researchers showed that in zebra fish, loss-of-function mutations in the leucine transporter cause all fins to be short, while the overexpression mutation of the potassium channels causes all fins to be long. Either of those mutations by itself produces a clumsy fish. But when the two mutations are combined, the resulting zebra fish has long paired pectoral fins and shorter median fins, exactly the form of the flying fish. (David’s bold)

DAVID: more strong support for Behe's approach that evolution devolves to advance.

dhw: In this example we have a combination of loss and gain. We have already had this discussion. My proposal: If there is a new structure, or if an existing structure takes on a new function to meet a new requirement or to exploit a new opportunity, then it is inevitable that any structure which becomes unnecessary in the new conditions will lose its importance. The advance is not caused by the loss – the loss is the result of the advance.

DAVID: What a convoluted twist! We are discussing genome mutation controls with loss of previously established DNA genes. Genes are removed with a new recombination of existing genes creating the phenotypic change.

You have left out innovations, as you did last time. Your comment does not contradict my point: the losses do not CAUSE the adaptations and innovations that lead to evolutionary changes, but result from them because they are no longer needed.

Oxidative protection (Neanderthals and us)
QUOTE: "'The risk increases we see are large; several times increased risk of inflammatory bowel disease and vascular disease," says Hugo Zeberg.

DAVID: another finding which supports the theory that God preferred the arrival of modern humans with special attributes. Good we are not Neanderthals.

dhw: And a few days ago, you were telling us that your God produced all the different non-sapiens homos so that we would inherit all the good things they passed onto us. And […] according to you, modern humans didn’t just arrive. He designed all the good bits and the rotten bits of Neanderthal and the rest of the gang, and then he designed us. And bowel disease and vascular diseases are presumably the result of the “errors” your all-powerful God couldn’t avoid and couldn’t correct when he “had to” design the only system available to him.

DAVID: An all knowing God knows what works to produce life and God produced life from an inorganic universe he also created.

If he exists, then of course this is true. That doesn’t mean he produced all the different homos to pass on the “goodies”, and it doesn’t mean that despite his all-powerfulness, he created a system resulting in bowel disease and vascular diseases and other “errors” he didn’t want and failed to correct.

Obesity
DAVID: Only 15% of dieters maintain weight loss by mental determination. dhw and I are two of those folks. Weight loss requires a determined mental vigilance which is not easy. I know.

Ah, my chocolate and my cake of long ago…

Oxygen
DAVID: If life appeared 3.8 by ago, its chemical processes did not need oxygen. It is obvious more complex life forms were allowed to appear as more oxygen became available. And an obvious drive toward complexity existed, I propose designed by god.

Yes indeed, environmental changes either require or allow changes in life forms. Even if it were true that your God designed them, he would not have done so BEFORE the oxygen was available, but AS it became available. That is how evolution works: in RESPONSE to conditions – not in ANTICIPATION of them.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Friday, January 07, 2022, 16:05 (142 days ago) @ dhw

MATHS

DAVID: They use DNA mutation clocks, don't ask me how with calculus I don't understand, not knowing how speciation works. New species have new mutations shown by comparisons of DNA decoded.

dhw: Mathematicians don’t know how speciation works either, and so I presume your comments are your roundabout way of agreeing with me that they won’t be able to prove anything, no matter whether they are ID-ers or neo-Darwinists.

But the clocks appear as if fact on both sides.


Consciousness

DAVID: My obvious comparison is real and not chauvinism.

dhw: Of course it’s real, if we agree that different organisms have different DEGREES of consciousness. Damasio has not said other organisms have the SAME consciousness as ours! And what’s this nonsense about his octopus example being “atheistic”?

Octopuses are amazingly clever in the tricks they play in labs, but not chauvinistically equal to us.

Evolution - Loss of traits

DAVID: What a convoluted twist! We are discussing genome mutation controls with loss of previously established DNA genes. Genes are removed with a new recombination of existing genes creating the phenotypic change.

dhw: You have left out innovations, as you did last time. Your comment does not contradict my point: the losses do not CAUSE the adaptations and innovations that lead to evolutionary changes, but result from them because they are no longer needed.

Discarding genes create advances, surprisingly. You are off point.


Oxidative protection (Neanderthals and us)

/i]

DAVID: An all knowing God knows what works to produce life and God produced life from an inorganic universe he also created.


dhw: If he exists, then of course this is true. That doesn’t mean he produced all the different homos to pass on the “goodies”, and it doesn’t mean that despite his all-powerfulness, he created a system resulting in bowel disease and vascular diseases and other “errors” he didn’t want and failed to correct.

The only system that works. An all-knowing God knows what is available for use.


Oxygen
DAVID: If life appeared 3.8 by ago, its chemical processes did not need oxygen. It is obvious more complex life forms were allowed to appear as more oxygen became available. And an obvious drive toward complexity existed, I propose designed by god.

dhw: Yes indeed, environmental changes either require or allow changes in life forms. Even if it were true that your God designed them, he would not have done so BEFORE the oxygen was available, but AS it became available. That is how evolution works: in RESPONSE to conditions – not in ANTICIPATION of them.

You cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn't present. Evolution is stages, remember.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Saturday, January 08, 2022, 13:14 (141 days ago) @ David Turell

MATHS

DAVID: They use DNA mutation clocks, don't ask me how with calculus I don't understand, not knowing how speciation works. New species have new mutations shown by comparisons of DNA decoded.

dhw: Mathematicians don’t know how speciation works either, and so I presume your comments are your roundabout way of agreeing with me that they won’t be able to prove anything, no matter whether they are ID-ers or neo-Darwinists.

DAVID: But the clocks appear as if fact on both sides.

That is the nature of dogmatic beliefs, which often masquerade as facts. I presume you are now agreeing with me that even mathematicians cannot possibly know the facts.

Consciousness
DAVID: My obvious comparison is real and not chauvinism.

dhw: Of course it’s real, if we agree that different organisms have different DEGREES of consciousness. Damasio has not said other organisms have the SAME consciousness as ours! And what’s this nonsense about his octopus example being “atheistic”?

DAVID: Octopuses are amazingly clever in the tricks they play in labs, but not chauvinistically equal to us.

I do not know of anyone who believes that octopuses or any other life form are as clever as us. I have no idea why you are trying distort Damasio’s statement by pretending that he does, or why you have dragged atheism into the discussion. The belief that other life forms, from the single cell upwards, have some kind of intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with belief of disbelief in your God, who could have been the designer of that intelligence.

Evolution - Loss of traits
DAVID: What a convoluted twist! We are discussing genome mutation controls with loss of previously established DNA genes. Genes are removed with a new recombination of existing genes creating the phenotypic change.

dhw: You have left out innovations, as you did last time. Your comment does not contradict my point: the losses do not CAUSE the adaptations and innovations that lead to evolutionary changes, but result from them because they are no longer needed.

DAVID: Discarding genes create advances, surprisingly. You are off point.

That is the theory. And it is indeed surprising. And I’m suggesting that discarding genes is the RESULT of advances, whether these take the form of restructuring existing genes or adding new ones, because the restructuring or innovation will render some of the old genes superfluous. They are no longer of any use in the new conditions. We discussed all this three years ago, and subsequently, on the thread “Evolution: a different view with loss of traits: not Behe” (I never understood the “not”) in which you discussed a book and an article by Behe. Initially you claimed that “advances were always due to loss of genes” (later changed to often), you denied that there were new genes (later retracted), and in any case Behe was talking about adaptation, not speciation. Please explain how you can know that the loss of genes causes innovation as opposed to being the result of innovation. However, I can also see that in certain changed conditions, some existing structures might suffice, while others become unnecessary: a sighted organism might lose its sight and improve its hearing if it takes to living underground. Is that the kind of adaptation you’re thinking of? I wouldn’t call that an “advance”, though.

Oxygen
DAVID: If life appeared 3.8 by ago, its chemical processes did not need oxygen. It is obvious more complex life forms were allowed to appear as more oxygen became available. And an obvious drive toward complexity existed, I propose designed by god.

dhw: Yes indeed, environmental changes either require or allow changes in life forms. Even if it were true that your God designed them, he would not have done so BEFORE the oxygen was available, but AS it became available. That is how evolution works: in RESPONSE to conditions – not in ANTICIPATION of them.

DAVID: You cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn't present. Evolution is stages, remember.

You’ve got it at last. New organisms are a RESPONSE to new conditions, and do not arrive in anticipation of new conditions.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 08, 2022, 15:37 (141 days ago) @ dhw

MATHS

DAVID: But the clocks appear as if fact on both sides.

dhw: That is the nature of dogmatic beliefs, which often masquerade as facts. I presume you are now agreeing with me that even mathematicians cannot possibly know the facts.

Both sides use math from the facts they have. It is abductive reasoning.


Evolution - Loss of traits
DAVID: What a convoluted twist! We are discussing genome mutation controls with loss of previously established DNA genes. Genes are removed with a new recombination of existing genes creating the phenotypic change.

dhw: You have left out innovations, as you did last time. Your comment does not contradict my point: the losses do not CAUSE the adaptations and innovations that lead to evolutionary changes, but result from them because they are no longer needed.

DAVID: Discarding genes create advances, surprisingly. You are off point.

dhw: That is the theory. And it is indeed surprising. And I’m suggesting that discarding genes is the RESULT of advances, whether these take the form of restructuring existing genes or adding new ones, because the restructuring or innovation will render some of the old genes superfluous.

It is an observation in both quarters, ID and Darwinist that the loss of genes creates new form. Genes run the show. So which comes first for you, gene change or form change?

dhw: They are no longer of any use in the new conditions.... Please explain how you can know that the loss of genes causes innovation as opposed to being the result of innovation. However, I can also see that in certain changed conditions, some existing structures might suffice, while others become unnecessary: a sighted organism might lose its sight and improve its hearing if it takes to living underground. Is that the kind of adaptation you’re thinking of? I wouldn’t call that an “advance”, though.

I preserved the last observation of yours for completeness as an example of your strange attempt to misinterpret which comes first. Please answer the question above to make your thinking clearer.


Oxygen
DAVID: If life appeared 3.8 by ago, its chemical processes did not need oxygen. It is obvious more complex life forms were allowed to appear as more oxygen became available. And an obvious drive toward complexity existed, I propose designed by god.

dhw: Yes indeed, environmental changes either require or allow changes in life forms. Even if it were true that your God designed them, he would not have done so BEFORE the oxygen was available, but AS it became available. That is how evolution works: in RESPONSE to conditions – not in ANTICIPATION of them.

DAVID: You cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn't present. Evolution is stages, remember.

dhw: You’ve got it at last. New organisms are a RESPONSE to new conditions, and do not arrive in anticipation of new conditions.

No, a nuance of important difference. New conditions allow new designs to be created.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Sunday, January 09, 2022, 14:01 (140 days ago) @ David Turell

MATHS

DAVID: But the clocks appear as if fact on both sides.

dhw: That is the nature of dogmatic beliefs, which often masquerade as facts. I presume you are now agreeing with me that even mathematicians cannot possibly know the facts.

DAVID: Both sides use math from the facts they have. It is abductive reasoning.

I know. Do you or do you not agree with me that mathematicians cannot possibly know the facts?

Evolution - Loss of traits
DAVID: Discarding genes create advances, surprisingly. You are off point.

dhw: That is the theory. And it is indeed surprising. And I’m suggesting that discarding genes is the RESULT of advances, whether these take the form of restructuring existing genes or adding new ones, because the restructuring or innovation will render some of the old genes superfluous.

DAVID: It is an observation in both quarters, ID and Darwinist that the loss of genes creates new form. Genes run the show. So which comes first for you, gene change or form change?

Of course genes run the show and produce the new forms. Now please tell me why you think the new form is CREATED by the loss of genes, as opposed to new genes or restructured genes rendering old genes superfluous.

dhw: However, I can also see that in certain changed conditions, some existing structures might suffice, while others become unnecessary: a sighted organism might lose its sight and improve its hearing if it takes to living underground. Is that the kind of adaptation you’re thinking of? I wouldn’t call that an “advance”, though.

DAVID: I preserved the last observation of yours for completeness as an example of your strange attempt to misinterpret which comes first. Please answer the question above to make your thinking clearer.

I don’t know how I can make it clearer. The last observation is the only example I can think of in which loss of genes will change the nature of the beast, but I would not call that an “advance”. An advance will entail something new: a restructuring of existing genes and/or new genes. I cannot see how the loss of genes would generate something new, but I can see how something new would make old genes redundant. Now please tell me why you find this illogical.

Oxygen

dhw: […] environmental changes either require or allow changes in life forms. Even if it were true that your God designed them, he would not have done so BEFORE the oxygen was available, but AS it became available. That is how evolution works: in RESPONSE to conditions – not in ANTICIPATION of them.

DAVID: You cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn't present. Evolution is stages, remember.

dhw: You’ve got it at last. New organisms are a RESPONSE to new conditions, and do not arrive in anticipation of new conditions.

DAVID: No, a nuance of important difference. New conditions allow new designs to be created.

It would help if you read the comments you reply to. Please note the bold, and please note also that both requiring and allowing still entail the existence of the new conditions BEFORE the new forms come into existence. The new forms are a RESPONSE, and as we at long last agreed (Your theory, PART ONE), if God exists, he designed the MECHANISM that made all such responses possible.

Plant bloom advanced Earth’s evolution
DAVID: lots of lessons here. dhw note how one step leads to another so all results are related, and ecosystems evolve with important consequences.

Of course steps lead to other steps, and of course ecosystems evolve with important consequences, but please don’t try to kid us that “all results are related” to your God’s one and only goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food! THAT is the illogical claim you try so hard to gloss over!

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 09, 2022, 16:15 (140 days ago) @ dhw

MATHS

DAVID: Both sides use math from the facts they have. It is abductive reasoning.

dhw: I know. Do you or do you not agree with me that mathematicians cannot possibly know the facts?

Apparently they can calculate past times of speciation from DNA, but cannot know how speciation works as none of us knows.


Evolution - Loss of traits

DAVID: It is an observation in both quarters, ID and Darwinist that the loss of genes creates new form. Genes run the show. So which comes first for you, gene change or form change?

dhw: Of course genes run the show and produce the new forms. Now please tell me why you think the new form is CREATED by the loss of genes, as opposed to new genes or restructured genes rendering old genes superfluous.

Not answered. Which comes first? New genes are not the point. Change comes simply from loss!!!


dhw: However, I can also see that in certain changed conditions, some existing structures might suffice, while others become unnecessary: a sighted organism might lose its sight and improve its hearing if it takes to living underground. Is that the kind of adaptation you’re thinking of? I wouldn’t call that an “advance”, though.

DAVID: I preserved the last observation of yours for completeness as an example of your strange attempt to misinterpret which comes first. Please answer the question above to make your thinking clearer.

dhw: I don’t know how I can make it clearer. The last observation is the only example I can think of in which loss of genes will change the nature of the beast, but I would not call that an “advance”. An advance will entail something new: a restructuring of existing genes and/or new genes. I cannot see how the loss of genes would generate something new, but I can see how something new would make old genes redundant. Now please tell me why you find this illogical.

Because I am quoting both ID and Darwinists who see it as I have reported. Loss of genes results in advanced changes


Oxygen

dhw: You’ve got it at last. New organisms are a RESPONSE to new conditions, and do not arrive in anticipation of new conditions.

DAVID: No, a nuance of important difference. New conditions allow new designs to be created.

dhw: It would help if you read the comments you reply to. Please note the bold, and please note also that both requiring and allowing still entail the existence of the new conditions BEFORE the new forms come into existence. The new forms are a RESPONSE, and as we at long last agreed (Your theory, PART ONE), if God exists, he designed the MECHANISM that made all such responses possible.

Look at my response in PART ONE. New conditions allow new changes to happen. God dsigns in advance for them.


Plant bloom advanced Earth’s evolution
DAVID: lots of lessons here. dhw note how one step leads to another so all results are related, and ecosystems evolve with important consequences.

dhw: Of course steps lead to other steps, and of course ecosystems evolve with important consequences, but please don’t try to kid us that “all results are related” to your God’s one and only goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food! THAT is the illogical claim you try so hard to gloss over!

No gloss, totally logical, but not acceptable to you, as it means a form of God exists you do not like for some reasons of your own desires. The picture from your childhood of a vengeful God isn't real.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Monday, January 10, 2022, 20:44 (138 days ago) @ David Turell

More apologies, but I had yet more computer problems and lost the connection to the Internet.
I'll reply to David's new posts tomorrow.

MATHS
DAVID: Both sides use math from the facts they have. It is abductive reasoning.

dhw: I know. Do you or do you not agree with me that mathematicians cannot possibly know the facts?

DAVID: Apparently they can calculate past times of speciation from DNA, but cannot know how speciation works as none of us knows.

So they cannot know the facts. “Yes” would have been the short answer.

Evolution - Loss of traits
DAVID: It is an observation in both quarters, ID and Darwinist that the loss of genes creates new form. Genes run the show. So which comes first for you, gene change or form change?

dhw: Of course genes run the show and produce the new forms. Now please tell me why you think the new form is CREATED by the loss of genes, as opposed to new genes or restructured genes rendering old genes superfluous.

DAVID: Not answered. Which comes first?

Genetic change is what creates new forms. As the genes change, the forms change. There is no first or second!

DAVID: New genes are not the point. Change comes simply from loss!!!

Your response is merely to repeat your theory, except that you have altered “advances” to “change”. How can advances possibly come “simply” from loss? Did you not know that advances in evolution can entail genetic restructuring and even the production of new genes? I agreed that loss could result in change – for instance, an animal might live underground, lose its sight and enhance its hearing – but I do not agree that that constitutes an “advance”.

dhw: I cannot see how the loss of genes would generate something new, but I can see how something new would make old genes redundant. Now please tell me why you find this illogical.

DAVID: Because I am quoting both ID and Darwinists who see it as I have reported. Loss of genes results in advanced changes.

If they all believe that, and you believe it too, you should be able to explain why I am wrong. I am very ignorant, so please educate me.

Plant bloom advanced Earth’s evolution
DAVID: lots of lessons here. dhw note how one step leads to another so all results are related, and ecosystems evolve with important consequences.

dhw: Of course steps lead to other steps, and of course ecosystems evolve with important consequences, but please don’t try to kid us that “all results are related” to your God’s one and only goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food! THAT is the illogical claim you try so hard to gloss over!

DAVID: No gloss, totally logical, but not acceptable to you, as it means a form of God exists you do not like for some reasons of your own desires. The picture from your childhood of a vengeful God isn't real.

I have no idea why you think any of my theistic theories entail a vengeful God. Where did you get that from? What I do not like has nothing to do with a particular form of God, but is your theory that has an all-powerful God, whose only goal is to produce humans plus food, busying himself designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food. Please stop dodging.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 11, 2022, 15:10 (138 days ago) @ dhw

MATHS
DAVID: Both sides use math from the facts they have. It is abductive reasoning.

dhw: I know. Do you or do you not agree with me that mathematicians cannot possibly know the facts?

DAVID: Apparently they can calculate past times of speciation from DNA, but cannot know how speciation works as none of us knows.

dhw: So they cannot know the facts. “Yes” would have been the short answer.

They can do it without your desired facts!!!


Evolution - Loss of traits
DAVID: It is an observation in both quarters, ID and Darwinist that the loss of genes creates new form. Genes run the show. So which comes first for you, gene change or form change?

dhw: Of course genes run the show and produce the new forms. Now please tell me why you think the new form is CREATED by the loss of genes, as opposed to new genes or restructured genes rendering old genes superfluous.

DAVID: Not answered. Which comes first?

dhw: Genetic change is what creates new forms. As the genes change, the forms change. There is no first or second!

DAVID: New genes are not the point. Change comes simply from loss!!!

dhw: I agreed that loss could result in change – for instance, an animal might live underground, lose its sight and enhance its hearing – but I do not agree that that constitutes an “advance”.

Wow! Loss of sight is an advance fitting conditions. Loss of genes cause change.


dhw: I cannot see how the loss of genes would generate something new, but I can see how something new would make old genes redundant. Now please tell me why you find this illogical.

DAVID: Because I am quoting both ID and Darwinists who see it as I have reported. Loss of genes results in advanced changes.

dhw: If they all believe that, and you believe it too, you should be able to explain why I am wrong. I am very ignorant, so please educate me.

Yo have been educated, but find the news facts unacceptable to your prejudices.


Plant bloom advanced Earth’s evolution

DAVID: No gloss, totally logical, but not acceptable to you, as it means a form of God exists you do not like for some reasons of your own desires. The picture from your childhood of a vengeful God isn't real.

dhw: I have no idea why you think any of my theistic theories entail a vengeful God. Where did you get that from? What I do not like has nothing to do with a particular form of God, but is your theory that has an all-powerful God, whose only goal is to produce humans plus food, busying himself designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food. Please stop dodging.

I can't fulfill your illogical request, but I admit I made an unclear reference. I think your early religious training revealed a vengeful warlike God, the same one I knew, but with my adult reading, I discovered a different God I accept.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Wednesday, January 12, 2022, 09:04 (137 days ago) @ David Turell

MATHS

DAVID: Both sides use math from the facts they have. It is abductive reasoning.

dhw: I know. Do you or do you not agree with me that mathematicians cannot possibly know the facts?

DAVID: Apparently they can calculate past times of speciation from DNA, but cannot know how speciation works as none of us knows.

dhw: So they cannot know the facts. “Yes” would have been the short answer.

DAVID: They can do it without your desired facts!!!

And ID-ers and neo-Darwinists reach different conclusions because nobody can possibly know the truth, i.e. the facts.

Evolution - Loss of traits

dhw: Genetic change is what creates new forms. As the genes change, the forms change. There is no first or second!

DAVID: New genes are not the point. Change comes simply from loss!!!

dhw: I agreed that loss could result in change – for instance, an animal might live underground, lose its sight and enhance its hearing – but I do not agree that that constitutes an “advance”.

DAVID: Wow! Loss of sight is an advance fitting conditions. Loss of genes cause change.

I would call this adaptation and not innovation. Of course loss of genes causes change, but it does not produce something new, and speciation depends on innovation, i.e. on restructuring existing genes or on the production of new genes to take on new functions. Hence my next comment:

dhw: I cannot see how the loss of genes would generate something new, but I can see how something new would make old genes redundant. Now please tell me why you find this illogical.

DAVID: Because I am quoting both ID and Darwinists who see it as I have reported. Loss of genes results in advanced changes.

dhw: If they all believe that, and you believe it too, you should be able to explain why I am wrong. I am very ignorant, so please educate me.

DAVID: You have been educated, but find the news facts unacceptable to your prejudices.

I am asking you to explain how the loss of genes can generate the innovations that are necessary for speciation, and I am asking you why you think it is illogical to suppose that the restructuring of existing genes and/or the production of new genes would make some of the old genes redundant. I don’t have time to go back over our previous discussion, but I have a vague recollection of you finally agreeing that the “new facts” referred to adaptation and not to speciation. I would regard the example of blindness as adaptation, or variation, but not “advance”. For that, you need innovation, which would result in the loss of some genes, as they would become redundant. Please explain why this is illogical, and please confirm that the theory explicitly attributes innovations (as opposed to adaptations) to the loss of genes.

Plant bloom advanced Earth’s evolution

DAVID: No gloss, totally logical, but not acceptable to you, as it means a form of God exists you do not like for some reasons of your own desires. The picture from your childhood of a vengeful God isn't real.

dhw: I have no idea why you think any of my theistic theories entail a vengeful God. Where did you get that from? What I do not like has nothing to do with a particular form of God, but is your theory that has an all-powerful God, whose only goal is to produce humans plus food, busying himself designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: I can't fulfill your illogical request….

You can’t fulfil my request because it is your bolded theory that is illogical!

DAVID:……but I admit I made an unclear reference. I think your early religious training revealed a vengeful warlike God, the same one I knew, but with my adult reading, I discovered a different God I accept.

Totally irrelevant to the bolded theory which you cannot explain.

First big game hunting
QUOTE: Ancient humans were regularly butchering animals for meat 2 million years ago. This has long been suspected, but the idea has been bolstered by a systematic study of cut marks on animal bones.
The find cements the view that ancient humans had become active hunters by this time, contrasting with earlier hominins that ate mostly plants
.

Clearly they were already using tools. Killing and cutting up animals would have been a huge advance at the time, and would, I suggest, have been one of the causes of brain expansion in our ancestors.

Sex for pleasure
DAVID: It is logical that pleasure is present to encourage sex. Visual pornography arouses only humans which means our consciousness plays a different sex role in us.

I’d be fascinated to know what kind of visual pornography was offered to the dolphins! Did they sit and watch films of their fellow dolphins fornicating? Is there a Dolphinternet down in the depths?

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 12, 2022, 15:19 (137 days ago) @ dhw

MATHS

DAVID: They can do it without your desired facts!!!

And ID-ers and neo-Darwinists reach different conclusions because nobody can possibly know the truth, i.e. the facts.

Don't conflate the differences. Both sides use the same maths to estimate times of DNA changes


Evolution - Loss of traits

dhw: I cannot see how the loss of genes would generate something new, but I can see how something new would make old genes redundant. Now please tell me why you find this illogical.

DAVID: Because I am quoting both ID and Darwinists who see it as I have reported. Loss of genes results in advanced changes.

dhw: If they all believe that, and you believe it too, you should be able to explain why I am wrong. I am very ignorant, so please educate me.

DAVID: You have been educated, but find the news facts unacceptable to your prejudices.

dhw: I am asking you to explain how the loss of genes can generate the innovations that are necessary for speciation, and I am asking you why you think it is illogical to suppose that the restructuring of existing genes and/or the production of new genes would make some of the old genes redundant.

It is not new gens pushing out old. It is disappearance of genes creating new adaptations.

First big game hunting

QUOTE: Ancient humans were regularly butchering animals for meat 2 million years ago. This has long been suspected, but the idea has been bolstered by a systematic study of cut marks on animal bones.
The find cements the view that ancient humans had become active hunters by this time, contrasting with earlier hominins that ate mostly plants
.

dhw: Clearly they were already using tools. Killing and cutting up animals would have been a huge advance at the time, and would, I suggest, have been one of the causes of brain expansion in our ancestors.

And I would explain: more use for existing brain's present capacity which complexified a small region to handle th e new use.


Sex for pleasure
DAVID: It is logical that pleasure is present to encourage sex. Visual pornography arouses only humans which means our consciousness plays a different sex role in us.

dhw: I’d be fascinated to know what kind of visual pornography was offered to the dolphins! Did they sit and watch films of their fellow dolphins fornicating? Is there a Dolphinternet down in the depths?

The discussion of dissection of clitorises' was not delectable.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Thursday, January 13, 2022, 09:21 (136 days ago) @ David Turell

MATHS
dhw: ID-ers and neo-Darwinists reach different conclusions because nobody can possibly know the truth, i.e. the facts.

DAVID: Don't conflate the differences. Both sides use the same maths to estimate times of DNA changes.

Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes here. I used the following reference to make my point:
dhw: I thought ID-ers had been using maths to show that Darwin’s random mutations theory was impossible:
The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution | The ...
https://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution
QUOTE: “…the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!”

My point is that they are equating mutation with randomness, and totally ignoring the possibility that mutations are NOT random but are guided by the intelligence of the cells that make up the organism. Everything depends on the mechanism that produces speciation, and that is unknown. I don’t know what maths are used by Darwinists.

Evolution - Loss of traits
dhw: I am asking you to explain how the loss of genes can generate the innovations that are necessary for speciation, and I am asking you why you think it is illogical to suppose that the restructuring of existing genes and/or the production of new genes would make some of the old genes redundant.

DAVID: It is not new gens pushing out old. It is disappearance of genes creating new adaptations.

With this response, you have totally ignored the reason for this dispute, which is the claim that loss of genes causes the “advances” in evolution. I gave you an example of how loss of genes might be the result of adaptation (an organism going blind because it takes up residence in the dark) and challenged your argument that the advances which result in innovation and speciation were caused by loss of genes. You simply ignored the fact that innovation requires restructuring of existing genes and/or the production of new genes. I have suggested that when these are successful, they make some of the old genes redundant. Are you now saying that innovations and new species do not constitute advances, and that it is NOT logical that some old genes will then become redundant?

Retrotransposons
These produce new combinations of genes.

QUOTES: Furthermore, many of our traditional genes are now understood to descend from the good-old run-of-the-mill retroviral gag, pol, or env genes that were co-opted for a new use.”
“This implies that our brains, and likely our bodies as well, are significantly mosaic in the sense that neighboring cells of much the same putative phenotype can have notably different genome architectures due to opportune transposition events.”

More evidence for you that existing genes take on new functions. So why do you argue that advances are caused “simply” by loss of genes?

First big game hunting
QUOTE: Ancient humans were regularly butchering animals for meat 2 million years ago. This has long been suspected, but the idea has been bolstered by a systematic study of cut marks on animal bones.
The find cements the view that ancient humans had become active hunters by this time, contrasting with earlier hominins that ate mostly plants.

dhw: Clearly they were already using tools. Killing and cutting up animals would have been a huge advance at the time, and would, I suggest, have been one of the causes of brain expansion in our ancestors.

DAVID: And I would explain: more use for existing brain's present capacity which complexified a small region to handle th e new use.

I was not referring to sapiens brains but to those of the earlier homos who invented tools and weapons, my proposal being that such inventions required the expansion of their brains. When we came up with our wonderful new ideas and inventions, the new brain complexified instead of expanding.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 13, 2022, 15:27 (136 days ago) @ dhw

MATHS
dhw: I thought ID-ers had been using maths to show that Darwin’s random mutations theory was impossible:
The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution | The ...
https://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution
QUOTE: “…the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!”

dhw: My point is that they are equating mutation with randomness, and totally ignoring the possibility that mutations are NOT random but are guided by the intelligence of the cells that make up the organism. Everything depends on the mechanism that produces speciation, and that is unknown. I don’t know what maths are used by Darwinists.

Snatching disparate pieces of ID are confusing you. I know the reference which attacks Darwin by using randomness only. Both sides use the same maths is my only point n ow.


Evolution - Loss of traits

DAVID: It is not new gens pushing out old. It is disappearance of genes creating new adaptations.

dhw: With this response, you have totally ignored the reason for this dispute, which is the claim that loss of genes causes the “advances” in evolution. I gave you an example of how loss of genes might be the result of adaptation (an organism going blind because it takes up residence in the dark) and challenged your argument that the advances which result in innovation and speciation were caused by loss of genes. You simply ignored the fact that innovation requires restructuring of existing genes and/or the production of new genes. I have suggested that when these are successful, they make some of the old genes redundant. Are you now saying that innovations and new species do not constitute advances, and that it is NOT logical that some old genes will then become redundant?

Your old innate Darwinism dies hard. In the examples currently given. genes simply disappear, and new adaptations appear. Your form of change also happens.


Retrotransposons
These produce new combinations of genes.

QUOTES: Furthermore, many of our traditional genes are now understood to descend from the good-old run-of-the-mill retroviral gag, pol, or env genes that were co-opted for a new use.”
“This implies that our brains, and likely our bodies as well, are significantly mosaic in the sense that neighboring cells of much the same putative phenotype can have notably different genome architectures due to opportune transposition events.”

dhw: More evidence for you that existing genes take on new functions. So why do you argue that advances are caused “simply” by loss of genes?

Read answer above


First big game hunting
QUOTE: Ancient humans were regularly butchering animals for meat 2 million years ago. This has long been suspected, but the idea has been bolstered by a systematic study of cut marks on animal bones.
The find cements the view that ancient humans had become active hunters by this time, contrasting with earlier hominins that ate mostly plants.

dhw: Clearly they were already using tools. Killing and cutting up animals would have been a huge advance at the time, and would, I suggest, have been one of the causes of brain expansion in our ancestors.

DAVID: And I would explain: more use for existing brain's present capacity which complexified a small region to handle the new use.

dhw: I was not referring to sapiens brains but to those of the earlier homos who invented tools and weapons, my proposal being that such inventions required the expansion of their brains. When we came up with our wonderful new ideas and inventions, the new brain complexified instead of expanding.

How do you know all prior earlier brains couldn't simply complexify. I'll bet they did based on how evolution works, latter functions based on older ones.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Friday, January 14, 2022, 09:09 (135 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution - Loss of traits
DAVID: It is not new gens pushing out old. It is disappearance of genes creating new adaptations.

dhw: With this response, you have totally ignored the reason for this dispute, which is the claim that loss of genes causes the “advances” in evolution. I gave you an example of how loss of genes might be the result of adaptation (an organism going blind because it takes up residence in the dark) and challenged your argument that the advances which result in innovation and speciation were caused by loss of genes. You simply ignored the fact that innovation requires restructuring of existing genes and/or the production of new genes. I have suggested that when these are successful, they make some of the old genes redundant. Are you now saying that innovations and new species do not constitute advances, and that it is NOT logical that some old genes will then become redundant?

DAVID: Your old innate Darwinism dies hard. In the examples currently given. genes simply disappear, and new adaptations appear. Your form of change also happens.

Aw, come on! This has nothing to do with Darwinism! You claimed that evolutionary advances were brought about by loss of genes. It turns out that these “advances” do not even include new species but only refer to adaptations. You totally ignored the fact that the innovations that produce new species (which I suggest are a greater advance than adaptations) entail the restructuring of existing genes and/or the production of new genes, and you refuse to comment on the obvious fact that if new structures work, it is perfectly logical for some of the old genes to become redundant – in which case loss of genes has NOT caused the advances at all, but is the result of the advances.

Retrotransposons
dhw: These produce new combinations of genes. [...] More evidence for you that existing genes take on new functions. So why do you argue that advances are caused “simply” by loss of genes?

DAVID: Read answer above.

A complete cop-out. :-(

First big game hunting
QUOTE: Ancient humans were regularly butchering animals for meat 2 million years ago. This has long been suspected, but the idea has been bolstered by a systematic study of cut marks on animal bones.
The find cements the view that ancient humans had become active hunters by this time, contrasting with earlier hominins that ate mostly plants.

dhw: Clearly they were already using tools. Killing and cutting up animals would have been a huge advance at the time, and would, I suggest, have been one of the causes of brain expansion in our ancestors.

DAVID: And I would explain: more use for existing brain's present capacity which complexified a small region to handle the new use.

dhw: I was not referring to sapiens brains but to those of the earlier homos who invented tools and weapons, my proposal being that such inventions required the expansion of their brains. When we came up with our wonderful new ideas and inventions, the new brain complexified instead of expanding.

DAVID: How do you know all prior earlier brains couldn't simply complexify. I'll bet they did based on how evolution works, latter functions based on older ones.

I have no doubt that they did complexify, but at some stage they expanded! I suggest that they did so when new requirements exceeded their capacity for complexification. Please explain why you consider this explanation to be illogical, bearing in mind the fact that we KNOW brains change in response to new requirements.

Clustered icefish nests
QUOTES: "The icefish probably have a substantial and previously unknown influence on Antarctic food webs, researchers report January 13 in Current Biology. (DAVID's bold)

Icefish, of the family Channichthyidae, are only found in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic waters and have strange adaptations to the extreme cold such as clear blood full of antifreeze compounds. (DAVID's bold)
'I would say [the massive colony] is almost a new seafloor ecosystem type,” Purser says. “It’s really surprising that it has never been seen before.'”

DAVID: not surprising. Life can live anywhere and set up ecosystems for food supply.

The fact that life can live anywhere and set up ecosystems for food supply, and has done so for billions of years, with countless life forms and ecosystems appearing and disappearing, does not suggest to me that if God exists, his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food. In fact it suggests to me one almighty free-for-all, as life forms and ecosystems come and go in their endless quest for survival.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Friday, January 14, 2022, 14:33 (135 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution - Loss of traits

DAVID: Your old innate Darwinism dies hard. In the examples currently given. genes simply disappear, and new adaptations appear. Your form of change also happens.

dhw: Aw, come on! This has nothing to do with Darwinism! You claimed that evolutionary advances were brought about by loss of genes. It turns out that these “advances” do not even include new species but only refer to adaptations. You totally ignored the fact that the innovations that produce new species (which I suggest are a greater advance than adaptations) entail the restructuring of existing genes and/or the production of new genes, and you refuse to comment on the obvious fact that if new structures work, it is perfectly logical for some of the old genes to become redundant – in which case loss of genes has NOT caused the advances at all, but is the result of the advances.

You are continuing to worry about full speciation being more than loss of genes. I've bolded my agreement above.


Retrotransposons
dhw: These produce new combinations of genes. [...] More evidence for you that existing genes take on new functions. So why do you argue that advances are caused “simply” by loss of genes?

DAVID: Read answer above.

dhw: A complete cop-out. :-(

The bolded sentence above agrees!!!;-)

First big game hunting

dhw: I was not referring to sapiens brains but to those of the earlier homos who invented tools and weapons, my proposal being that such inventions required the expansion of their brains. When we came up with our wonderful new ideas and inventions, the new brain complexified instead of expanding.

DAVID: How do you know all prior earlier brains couldn't simply complexify. I'll bet they did based on how evolution works, latter functions based on older ones.

I have no doubt that they did complexify, but at some stage they expanded! I suggest that they did so when new requirements exceeded their capacity for complexification. Please explain why you consider this explanation to be illogical, bearing in mind the fact that we KNOW brains change in response to new requirements.

God expanded the brains


Clustered icefish nests
QUOTES: "The icefish probably have a substantial and previously unknown influence on Antarctic food webs, researchers report January 13 in Current Biology. (DAVID's bold)

Icefish, of the family Channichthyidae, are only found in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic waters and have strange adaptations to the extreme cold such as clear blood full of antifreeze compounds. (DAVID's bold)
'I would say [the massive colony] is almost a new seafloor ecosystem type,” Purser says. “It’s really surprising that it has never been seen before.'”

DAVID: not surprising. Life can live anywhere and set up ecosystems for food supply.

dhw: The fact that life can live anywhere and set up ecosystems for food supply, and has done so for billions of years, with countless life forms and ecosystems appearing and disappearing, does not suggest to me that if God exists, his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food. In fact it suggests to me one almighty free-for-all, as life forms and ecosystems come and go in their endless quest for survival.

I might add mindless quest for survival, the tools for which are supplied by God, when He speciates. The fact that your free-for-all, as a purposeless process, produced humans with amazing brains and full consciousness should signify something. Adler made it proof of God.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Saturday, January 15, 2022, 07:24 (134 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution - Loss of traits
DAVID: Your old innate Darwinism dies hard. In the examples currently given. genes simply disappear, and new adaptations appear.Your form of change also happens.

dhw: Aw, come on! This has nothing to do with Darwinism! You claimed that evolutionary advances were brought about by loss of genes. It turns out that these “advances” do not even include new species but only refer to adaptations. You totally ignored the fact that the innovations that produce new species (which I suggest are a greater advance than adaptations) entail the restructuring of existing genes and/or the production of new genes, and you refuse to comment on the obvious fact that if new structures work, it is perfectly logical for some of the old genes to become redundant – in which case loss of genes has NOT caused the advances at all, but is the result of the advances.

DAVID: You are continuing to worry about full speciation being more than loss of genes. I've bolded my agreement above.

I’m not “worried”. You pooh-poohed the argument that loss of genes could be explained by the fact that they became redundant when existing genes were restructured or new genes took over, and it turned out that your “advances” had nothing to do with speciation and were confined to adaptation. However, I’m glad you now agree, and we shall presumably be spared a third discussion on the subject.

First big game hunting
dhw: I was not referring to sapiens brains but to those of the earlier homos who invented tools and weapons, my proposal being that such inventions required the expansion of their brains. When we came up with our wonderful new ideas and inventions, the new brain complexified instead of expanding.

DAVID: How do you know all prior earlier brains couldn't simply complexify. I'll bet they did based on how evolution works, latter functions based on older ones.

dhw: I have no doubt that they did complexify, but at some stage they expanded! I suggest that they did so when new requirements exceeded their capacity for complexification. Please explain why you consider this explanation to be illogical, bearing in mind the fact that we KNOW brains change in response to new requirements.

DAVID: God expanded the brains.

You have agreed that in sapiens “the complexification mechanism supplied in advance accommodates all the new uses”. (God is not required to pop in and engineer every individual complexification.) I suggest that the expansion mechanism is the same one – in the form of flexible cells responding to new requirements – supplied in advance. (No divine popping in required.) Your God may have been the inventor of this system. Now please explain why you find this illogical, bearing in mind that we KNOW brains change in response to new requirements.

Clustered icefish nests
QUOTES: "The icefish probably have a substantial and previously unknown influence on Antarctic food webs, researchers report January 13 in Current Biology. (DAVID's bold)

Icefish, of the family Channichthyidae, are only found in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic waters and have strange adaptations to the extreme cold such as clear blood full of antifreeze compounds. (DAVID's bold)
“'I would say [the massive colony] is almost a new seafloor ecosystem type,” Purser says. “It’s really surprising that it has never been seen before.'”

DAVID: not surprising. Life can live anywhere and set up ecosystems for food supply.

dhw: The fact that life can live anywhere and set up ecosystems for food supply, and has done so for billions of years, with countless life forms and ecosystems appearing and disappearing, does not suggest to me that if God exists, his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food. In fact it suggests to me one almighty free-for-all, as life forms and ecosystems come and go in their endless quest for survival.

DAVID: I might add mindless quest for survival, the tools for which are supplied by God, when He speciates. The fact that your free-for-all, as a purposeless process, produced humans with amazing brains and full consciousness should signify something. Adler made it proof of God.

Why do you consider the quest for survival to be mindless? Do you honestly believe that other life forms are not aware that they are hungry, or are in danger? I have no problem with the logic of Adler’s argument, but just like you, I would say the same argument applies to all forms of life: they are all sufficiently complex to support the case for design and hence a designer. My various theistic theories include God supplying the tools (cellular intelligence and flexibility), and experimenting to find the right formula for a being as conscious as himself. Even the free-for-all still allows for your God to dabble if it gives him new ideas. And all my alternative theories offer a logical theistic explanation for the vast variety of life, which directly contradicts your theory that humans plus food were your God's one and only purpose.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 15, 2022, 14:48 (134 days ago) @ dhw

First big game hunting
dhw: I was not referring to sapiens brains but to those of the earlier homos who invented tools and weapons, my proposal being that such inventions required the expansion of their brains. When we came up with our wonderful new ideas and inventions, the new brain complexified instead of expanding.

DAVID: How do you know all prior earlier brains couldn't simply complexify. I'll bet they did based on how evolution works, latter functions based on older ones.

dhw: I have no doubt that they did complexify, but at some stage they expanded! I suggest that they did so when new requirements exceeded their capacity for complexification. Please explain why you consider this explanation to be illogical, bearing in mind the fact that we KNOW brains change in response to new requirements.

DAVID: God expanded the brains.

dhw: You have agreed that in sapiens “the complexification mechanism supplied in advance accommodates all the new uses”. (God is not required to pop in and engineer every individual complexification.) I suggest that the expansion mechanism is the same one – in the form of flexible cells responding to new requirements – supplied in advance. (No divine popping in required.) Your God may have been the inventor of this system. Now please explain why you find this illogical, bearing in mind that we KNOW brains change in response to new requirements.

We have to back to the problem of human birth and the tight birth canal. To enlarge a new-sized brain, the DNA of the Mother and Father unite to decide the size of the new baby brain. Your intelligent neurons, bone cells, and all other cells involved in the new phenotypic changes must design and enact all the coordinated changes required. Really! God designs.


Clustered icefish nests
QUOTES: "The icefish probably have a substantial and previously unknown influence on Antarctic food webs, researchers report January 13 in Current Biology. (DAVID's bold)

Icefish, of the family Channichthyidae, are only found in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic waters and have strange adaptations to the extreme cold such as clear blood full of antifreeze compounds. (DAVID's bold)
“'I would say [the massive colony] is almost a new seafloor ecosystem type,” Purser says. “It’s really surprising that it has never been seen before.'”

DAVID: not surprising. Life can live anywhere and set up ecosystems for food supply.

dhw: The fact that life can live anywhere and set up ecosystems for food supply, and has done so for billions of years, with countless life forms and ecosystems appearing and disappearing, does not suggest to me that if God exists, his one and only purpose was to design humans and their food. In fact it suggests to me one almighty free-for-all, as life forms and ecosystems come and go in their endless quest for survival.

DAVID: I might add mindless quest for survival, the tools for which are supplied by God, when He speciates. The fact that your free-for-all, as a purposeless process, produced humans with amazing brains and full consciousness should signify something. Adler made it proof of God.

dhw: Why do you consider the quest for survival to be mindless? Do you honestly believe that other life forms are not aware that they are hungry, or are in danger? I have no problem with the logic of Adler’s argument, but just like you, I would say the same argument applies to all forms of life: they are all sufficiently complex to support the case for design and hence a designer. My various theistic theories include God supplying the tools (cellular intelligence and flexibility), and experimenting to find the right formula for a being as conscious as himself. Even the free-for-all still allows for your God to dabble if it gives him new ideas. And all my alternative theories offer a logical theistic explanation for the vast variety of life, which directly contradicts your theory that humans plus food were your God's one and only purpose.

I know all your soft deity proposals. The vast variety of life is food for all. You agree and then ignore as you know it negates your illogical objection. Humans are in the endpoint branch of development.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Sunday, January 16, 2022, 13:07 (133 days ago) @ David Turell

Following David’s reintroduction of the thread on God’s possible purpose and nature, I’m shifting a number of posts to different threads to avoid some of the repetition.

Mechanisms
dhw: You have agreed that in sapiens “the complexification mechanism supplied in advance accommodates all the new uses”. (God is not required to pop in and engineer every individual complexification.) I suggest that the expansion mechanism is the same one – in the form of flexible cells responding to new requirements – supplied in advance. (No divine popping in required.) Your God may have been the inventor of this system. Now please explain why you find this illogical, bearing in mind that we KNOW brains change in response to new requirements.

DAVID: We have to back to the problem of human birth and the tight birth canal.

No we don’t. I have answered all your queries concerning the brain, and asked why you reject my logic. Now you want to switch the discussion to a different example!

DAVID: To enlarge a new-sized brain, the DNA of the Mother and Father unite to decide the size of the new baby brain. Your intelligent neurons, bone cells, and all other cells involved in the new phenotypic changes must design and enact all the coordinated changes required. Really! God designs.

Every change requires the cooperation of the rest of the body. But you refuse to contemplate the possibility that your God may have designed the MECHANISM which enables cell communities to cooperate. Instead, he draws up a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every change in life’s history (including brain and birth canal expansion), or he operates on the brains and birth canals of a whole bunch of individuals. (I hope he gives them an anaesthetic first). And yet you also believe he created a mechanism for brain complexification that would function without his intervention. If he can do it for that, why not for expansion of brain and of birth canal?

Biofilms (Cellular intelligence)
DAVID: Appearing intelligent doesn't mean it is not all automatic functions, remember?

And it doesn’t mean they are NOT intelligent. Even you gave odds of 50/50. Remember? Now please tell us what attributes in addition to my own list you would consider necessary before you would agree that a life form is autonomously intelligent.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 16, 2022, 16:01 (133 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We have to back to the problem of human birth and the tight birth canal.

dhw: No we don’t. I have answered all your queries concerning the brain, and asked why you reject my logic. Now you want to switch the discussion to a different example!

When you jump back to intelligent cells making large design advances involving a brain encased in bone you invite my old challenge to your narrow views of the biology of major changes.


DAVID: To enlarge a new-sized brain, the DNA of the Mother and Father unite to decide the size of the new baby brain. Your intelligent neurons, bone cells, and all other cells involved in the new phenotypic changes must design and enact all the coordinated changes required. Really! God designs.

dhw: Every change requires the cooperation of the rest of the body. But you refuse to contemplate the possibility that your God may have designed the MECHANISM which enables cell communities to cooperate. Instead, he draws up a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every change in life’s history (including brain and birth canal expansion), or he operates on the brains and birth canals of a whole bunch of individuals. (I hope he gives them an anaesthetic first). And yet you also believe he created a mechanism for brain complexification that would function without his intervention. If he can do it for that, why not for expansion of brain and of birth canal?

Complexification is a process performed by well-organized-in-advance designed neurons, and is of no comparison to the modification of many body parts by different cells requiring an overall design. Back we go to a God of your imagination who allows second hand design by cells He would have to give precise instructions.


Biofilms (Cellular intelligence)
DAVID: Appearing intelligent doesn't mean it is not all automatic functions, remember?

dhw: And it doesn’t mean they are NOT intelligent. Even you gave odds of 50/50. Remember? Now please tell us what attributes in addition to my own list you would consider necessary before you would agree that a life form is autonomously intelligent.

All automaticity looks intelligent. Your attributes are description of intelligence. nothing more. You can't tell what is really in a book by its cover blurbs.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Monday, January 17, 2022, 13:00 (132 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We have to back to the problem of human birth and the tight birth canal.

dhw: No we don’t. I have answered all your queries concerning the brain, and asked why you reject my logic. Now you want to switch the discussion to a different example!

DAVID: When you jump back to intelligent cells making large design advances involving a brain encased in bone you invite my old challenge to your narrow views of the biology of major changes.

You have agreed that if your God exists, he must have designed a mechanism which enables the brain to complexify without his intervention. Otherwise, he would be there supervising and manipulating every individual brain from the first hominin onwards. I propose that the same mechanism (intelligent, flexible cells) would also be responsible for expansion. Why is that beyond your all-powerful God’s powers?

DAVID: Complexification is a process performed by well-organized-in-advance designed neurons, and is of no comparison to the modification of many body parts by different cells requiring an overall design. Back we go to a God of your imagination who allows second hand design by cells He would have to give precise instructions.

Of course they can be compared. Every modification, whether in the brain or in the body, requires the cooperation and coordination of cell communities. True or false? If your God designs a mechanism for autonomous complexification of the brain to meet new requirements, why can’t he do the same for autonomous expansion of the brain and for autonomous expansion of the birth canal? They are all composed of cells, and they all change to meet new requirements!

DAVID: Appearing intelligent doesn't mean it is not all automatic functions, remember?

dhw: And it doesn’t mean they are NOT intelligent. Even you gave odds of 50/50. Remember? Now please tell us what attributes in addition to my own list you would consider necessary before you would agree that a life form is autonomously intelligent.

DAVID: All automaticity looks intelligent. Your attributes are description of intelligence. nothing more. You can't tell what is really in a book by its cover blurbs.

All intelligence looks intelligent. That is no reason why anyone should assume that behaviour which looks intelligent is NOT intelligent. Since you yourself give odds of 50/50, the theory cannot be dismissed just because it would undermine your fixed belief that your God provided the first cells with “instructions” to be passed down through billions of years for every single life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder, or alternatively kept popping in to perform operations on or give courses to all creatures great and small.:-(

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Monday, January 17, 2022, 16:00 (132 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You have agreed that if your God exists, he must have designed a mechanism which enables the brain to complexify without his intervention. Otherwise, he would be there supervising and manipulating every individual brain from the first hominin onwards. I propose that the same mechanism (intelligent, flexible cells) would also be responsible for expansion. Why is that beyond your all-powerful God’s powers?

It isn't beyond God's powers, but back I go to who is God and what is His personality and His purposes? My God follows strong purposeful intents. Your proposed God gives up direct control over evolution, And So I reject your version of God.


DAVID: Complexification is a process performed by well-organized-in-advance designed neurons, and is of no comparison to the modification of many body parts by different cells requiring an overall design. Back we go to a God of your imagination who allows second hand design by cells He would have to give precise instructions.

dhw: Of course they can be compared. Every modification, whether in the brain or in the body, requires the cooperation and coordination of cell communities. True or false? If your God designs a mechanism for autonomous complexification of the brain to meet new requirements, why can’t he do the same for autonomous expansion of the brain and for autonomous expansion of the birth canal? They are all composed of cells, and they all change to meet new requirements!

Wildly wrong comparison. Complexification involved specially designed cells to do one job with a new brain use. Many different body parts are involved in you proposals, fully described by me in the recent past, soft tissues and bony ones.


DAVID: All automaticity looks intelligent. Your attributes are description of intelligence. nothing more. You can't tell what is really in a book by its cover blurbs.

dhw: All intelligence looks intelligent. That is no reason why anyone should assume that behaviour which looks intelligent is NOT intelligent. Since you yourself give odds of 50/50, the theory cannot be dismissed just because it would undermine your fixed belief that your God provided the first cells with “instructions” to be passed down through billions of years for every single life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder, or alternatively kept popping in to perform operations on or give courses to all creatures great and small.:-(

I don't base my theories on outside appearance. I study actual cellular molecular reactions and conclude based on many factors they must be designed to be automatic. I have al ID agreeing with me. My odds simply state there are on two possibilities and my studies force me to choose one. What forces you? ;-)

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Tuesday, January 18, 2022, 08:34 (131 days ago) @ David Turell

Mechanisms

dhw: You have agreed that if your God exists, he must have designed a mechanism which enables the brain to complexify without his intervention. Otherwise, he would be there supervising and manipulating every individual brain from the first hominin onwards. I propose that the same mechanism (intelligent, flexible cells) would also be responsible for expansion. Why is that beyond your all-powerful God’s powers?

DAVID: It isn't beyond God's powers, but back I go to who is God and what is His personality and His purposes? My God follows strong purposeful intents. Your proposed God gives up direct control over evolution, And so I reject your version of God.

You have not answered my point, repeated below. Since your God enjoys creation and is interested in watching his creations, why is it not a “strong purposeful intent” for him to create something that he will find interesting to watch?

dhw: Every modification, whether in the brain or in the body, requires the cooperation and coordination of cell communities. True or false?

Please answer.

dhw: If your God designs a mechanism for autonomous complexification of the brain to meet new requirements, why can’t he do the same for autonomous expansion of the brain and for autonomous expansion of the birth canal? […]

DAVID: Wildly wrong comparison. Complexification involved specially designed cells to do one job with a new brain use. Many different body parts are involved in you proposals, fully described by me in the recent past, soft tissues and bony ones.

ALL parts of the body involve specially designed cells to do one job, and in order to meet new requirements, these cells cooperate with other cells to coordinate changes in the brain or in other parts of the body.


Cellular intelligence

DAVID: All automaticity looks intelligent. […]

dhw: All intelligence looks intelligent. That is no reason why anyone should assume that behaviour which looks intelligent is NOT intelligent.

DAVID: I don't base my theories on outside appearance. I study actual cellular molecular reactions and conclude based on many factors they must be designed to be automatic. I have al ID agreeing with me. My odds simply state there are on two possibilities and my studies force me to choose one. What forces you?

Scientists who believe in cellular intelligence have studied actual cellular molecular reactions and conclude based on many factors they must be autonomous. Those factors include “the possession of sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities” (Shapiro). Their studies “force them to choose one”. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but didn't you say that ID-ers love Shapiro, even though he doesn’t love them? However, I keep repeating that many actions do have to be automatic for species to remain stable, and I accept that the theory is unproven. But I find it more plausible than random mutations, a 3.8 billion-year-old programme for every life form etc., and the countless individual operations and lessons that would constitute divine dabbling.

Plant blooms pushed further back

QUOTES: Scientists in China say they have found the oldest flower bud in the fossil record, finally aligning the fossil evidence with the genetic data suggesting flowering plants, or angiosperms, evolved tens of millions of years earlier than we initially thought. (DAVID’S bold)

Because flowers are such delicate structures, they are notoriously difficult to find in fossils preceding the Cretaceous. Previous attempts to uncover the origin of flowering plants have been described as an "unbroken record of failure". (DAVID’S bold)

DAVID: Darwin's mystery is not solved as this is a still a sudden sudden appearance but the article makes two important statements I've bolded. The first shows the maths predicting genetic age work. The second speaks to dhw's constant complaint that gaps are missing fossils. […] We still have fact there are huge gaps in evolution supporting the need to recognize a designer at work.

You still expect a day-by-day fossil record of every species for 3,000,000,000+ years! Each find like this is a sensation, and find after find tells us that plants, animals and even hominins go back further than was once thought. I will make a bold statement. It's not the flower that makes a sudden appearance but the fossil. And I’ll bet every fossilized plant and animal that was ever found came from an earlier plant or animal. This fossil simply tells us flowers are older than was once thought. I can’t see how it supports the theory that there is a God who suddenly designed it “de novo”, and this particular flower was “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food.

Theoretical origin of life

QUOTE:"Evolution of protein structures entails understanding how new folds arose from previously existing ones."

DAVID: The bold about one step leading to another is what dhw's complaints always seem to skip or minimize. This is a standard article without mentioning God. For me it shows God's planning at the beginning of life.

Of course one step leads to another – that is the nature of evolution. I complain about your theory that EVERY step leads to humans and their food. Please stop making up complaints for me and leaving out the theory that I do complain about.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 18, 2022, 16:03 (131 days ago) @ dhw

Mechanisms

DAVID: It isn't beyond God's powers, but back I go to who is God and what is His personality and His purposes? My God follows strong purposeful intents. Your proposed God gives up direct control over evolution, And so I reject your version of God.

dhw: You have not answered my point, repeated below. Since your God enjoys creation and is interested in watching his creations, why is it not a “strong purposeful intent” for him to create something that he will find interesting to watch?

You are touting side effects of creation. His main purpose is to create. How He might enjoy is not a reason for creation. Humanizing again.


dhw: Every modification, whether in the brain or in the body, requires the cooperation and coordination of cell communities. True or false?

Please answer.

Cells are designed to cooperate or life doesn't/can't exist.


dhw: If your God designs a mechanism for autonomous complexification of the brain to meet new requirements, why can’t he do the same for autonomous expansion of the brain and for autonomous expansion of the birth canal? […]

DAVID: Wildly wrong comparison. Complexification involved specially designed cells to do one job with a new brain use. Many different body parts are involved in your proposals, fully described by me in the recent past, soft tissues and bony ones.

ALL parts of the body involve specially designed cells to do one job, and in order to meet new requirements, these cells cooperate with other cells to coordinate changes in the brain or in other parts of the body.

Not an answer. How they get designed is the point.>


Plant blooms pushed further back

QUOTES: Scientists in China say they have found the oldest flower bud in the fossil record, finally aligning the fossil evidence with the genetic data suggesting flowering plants, or angiosperms, evolved tens of millions of years earlier than we initially thought. (DAVID’S bold)

Because flowers are such delicate structures, they are notoriously difficult to find in fossils preceding the Cretaceous. Previous attempts to uncover the origin of flowering plants have been described as an "unbroken record of failure". (DAVID’S bold)

DAVID: Darwin's mystery is not solved as this is a still a sudden sudden appearance but the article makes two important statements I've bolded. The first shows the maths predicting genetic age work. The second speaks to dhw's constant complaint that gaps are missing fossils. […] We still have fact there are huge gaps in evolution supporting the need to recognize a designer at work.

dhw: You still expect a day-by-day fossil record of every species for 3,000,000,000+ years! Each find like this is a sensation, and find after find tells us that plants, animals and even hominins go back further than was once thought. I will make a bold statement. It's not the flower that makes a sudden appearance but the fossil. And I’ll bet every fossilized plant and animal that was ever found came from an earlier plant or animal. This fossil simply tells us flowers are older than was once thought. I can’t see how it supports the theory that there is a God who suddenly designed it “de novo”, and this particular flower was “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food.

The obvious gap for flowering plants is still there 160+ years after Darwin noted it. It carries the same import as the Cambrian gap.


Theoretical origin of life

QUOTE:"Evolution of protein structures entails understanding how new folds arose from previously existing ones."

DAVID: The bold about one step leading to another is what dhw's complaints always seem to skip or minimize. This is a standard article without mentioning God. For me it shows God's planning at the beginning of life.

dhw: Of course one step leads to another – that is the nature of evolution. I complain about your theory that EVERY step leads to humans and their food. Please stop making up complaints for me and leaving out the theory that I do complain about.

Adler and I still will complain. Why can't you view God as desiring humans as a primary goal of God's designed evolutionary process?

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 11:02 (130 days ago) @ David Turell

Mechanisms
dhw: Since your God enjoys creation and is interested in watching his creations, why is it not a “strong purposeful intent” for him to create something that he will find interesting to watch?

DAVID: You are touting side effects of creation. His main purpose is to create. How He might enjoy is not a reason for creation. Humanizing again.

Of course enjoyment is a purpose! And you agree that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

dhw: Every modification, whether in the brain or in the body, requires the cooperation and coordination of cell communities. True or false?

DAVID: Cells are designed to cooperate or life doesn't/can't exist.

Thank you. Your answer, then, is "true".

dhw: If your God designs a mechanism for autonomous complexification of the brain to meet new requirements, why can’t he do the same for autonomous expansion of the brain and for autonomous expansion of the birth canal? […]

DAVID: Wildly wrong comparison. Complexification involved specially designed cells to do one job with a new brain use. Many different body parts are involved in your proposals, fully described by me in the recent past, soft tissues and bony ones.

dhw: ALL parts of the body involve specially designed cells to do one job, and in order to meet new requirements, these cells cooperate with other cells to coordinate changes in the brain or in other parts of the body.

DAVID: Not an answer. How they get designed is the point.

So the comparison is not “wildly wrong” – all parts of the body do one job and cooperate with other cells. Staying with your God’s role, you agree that he must have designed a mechanism for autonomous complexification of the brain cells (he doesn’t supervise every complexification as it responds to every new requirement), and so why should the same mechanism not be used for expansion of the brain and of the birth canal as the cells respond to new requirements? That is the question which you have not answered.

Plant blooms pushed further back
dhw: You still expect a day-by-day fossil record of every species for 3,000,000,000+ years! Each find like this is a sensation, and find after find tells us that plants, animals and even hominins go back further than was once thought. I will make a bold statement. It's not the flower that makes a sudden appearance but the fossil. And I’ll bet every fossilized plant and animal that was ever found came from an earlier plant or animal. This fossil simply tells us flowers are older than was once thought. I can’t see how it supports the theory that there is a God who suddenly designed it “de novo”, and this particular flower was “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food.

DAVID: The obvious gap for flowering plants is still there 160+ years after Darwin noted it. It carries the same import as the Cambrian gap.

And I have offered you two possible theories (inevitable absence of fossils, cellular intelligence) to explain the gaps, while you have offered one (your God designed new species that had no predecessors – and, by the way, every single one was part of his goal to design humans plus food).

Theoretical origin of life
DAVID: The bold about one step leading to another is what dhw's complaints always seem to skip or minimize. This is a standard article without mentioning God. For me it shows God's planning at the beginning of life.

dhw: Of course one step leads to another – that is the nature of evolution. I complain about your theory that EVERY step leads to humans and their food. Please stop making up complaints for me and leaving out the theory that I do complain about.

DAVID: Adler and I still will complain. Why can't you view God as desiring humans as a primary goal of God's designed evolutionary process?

Not “a primary goal”, according to you, because you believe he only had the one goal, and when will you (leave Adler out, since you say he doesn’t deal with your theory) finally explain to us why a God whose one and only goal was to design humans plus food took all the trouble to design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? (I continue to bold this, because you continue to leave it out in all your responses, except when you admit you have no idea.)

Biochemistry
An oddball molecule demonstrate how organic molecules can change shape:
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-shape-shifter-molecule.html
QUOTES: What is a nightmare for some chemists, others see as an opportunity because bond fluctuation also means that the molecule can react very quickly to external stimuli.

(This one comes right at the end of the article:) They [the authors] anticipate that their bullvalene taming could help in the development of molecular systems where fast adaptation to external stimuli is required.

These two quotes illustrate the basic principle behind the “cellular intelligence” theory (which allows for God as the designer of the mechanism), and the speed may explain the gaps. However, it requires more than “adaptation”, which is why I add “exploitation” in my theory, since it is exploitation of new stimuli that leads to innovation, whereas adaptation generally means the species stays the same.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 15:21 (130 days ago) @ dhw

Mechanisms

dhw: If your God designs a mechanism for autonomous complexification of the brain to meet new requirements, why can’t he do the same for autonomous expansion of the brain and for autonomous expansion of the birth canal? […]

DAVID: Wildly wrong comparison. Complexification involved specially designed cells to do one job with a new brain use. Many different body parts are involved in your proposals, fully described by me in the recent past, soft tissues and bony ones.

dhw: ALL parts of the body involve specially designed cells to do one job, and in order to meet new requirements, these cells cooperate with other cells to coordinate changes in the brain or in other parts of the body.

DAVID: Not an answer. How they get designed is the point.

dhw: Staying with your God’s role, you agree that he must have designed a mechanism for autonomous complexification of the brain cells (he doesn’t supervise every complexification as it responds to every new requirement), and so why should the same mechanism not be used for expansion of the brain and of the birth canal as the cells respond to new requirements? That is the question which you have not answered.

One set of cooperating neurons is not the same as skull bone cells anticipating the size needs of a suddenly grown brain. No comparison!


Plant blooms pushed further back

DAVID: The obvious gap for flowering plants is still there 160+ years after Darwin noted it. It carries the same import as the Cambrian gap.

dhw: And I have offered you two possible theories (inevitable absence of fossils, cellular intelligence) to explain the gaps, while you have offered one (your God designed new species that had no predecessors – and, by the way, every single one was part of his goal to design humans plus food).

Same positions.


Theoretical origin of life
DAVID: The bold about one step leading to another is what dhw's complaints always seem to skip or minimize. This is a standard article without mentioning God. For me it shows God's planning at the beginning of life.

dhw: Of course one step leads to another – that is the nature of evolution. I complain about your theory that EVERY step leads to humans and their food. Please stop making up complaints for me and leaving out the theory that I do complain about.

DAVID: Adler and I still will complain. Why can't you view God as desiring humans as a primary goal of God's designed evolutionary process?

Not “a primary goal”, according to you, because you believe he only had the one goal, and when will you (leave Adler out, since you say he doesn’t deal with your theory) finally explain to us why a God whose one and only goal was to design humans plus food took all the trouble to design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? (I continue to bold this, because you continue to leave it out in all your responses, except when you admit you have no idea.)

Simple answer you refuse to accept: God chose to evolve us from bacteria. And all life needs food which the vast variety of life provides. A full answer to your empty illogical complaint.


Biochemistry
An oddball molecule demonstrate how organic molecules can change shape:
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-shape-shifter-molecule.html
QUOTES: What is a nightmare for some chemists, others see as an opportunity because bond fluctuation also means that the molecule can react very quickly to external stimuli.

dhw: (This one comes right at the end of the article:) They [the authors] anticipate that their bullvalene taming could help in the development of molecular systems where fast adaptation to external stimuli is required.

These two quotes illustrate the basic principle behind the “cellular intelligence” theory (which allows for God as the designer of the mechanism), and the speed may explain the gaps. However, it requires more than “adaptation”, which is why I add “exploitation” in my theory, since it is exploitation of new stimuli that leads to innovation, whereas adaptation generally means the species stays the same.

Hilarious thought; this is a manmade molecule they are taming, not anything in nature. And all new conditions allow exploitation as more oxygen allowing more organismal complexity. You've not added anything new.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Thursday, January 20, 2022, 11:27 (129 days ago) @ David Turell

Mechanisms
dhw: Staying with your God’s role, you agree that he must have designed a mechanism for autonomous complexification of the brain cells (he doesn’t supervise every complexification as it responds to every new requirement), and so why should the same mechanism not be used for expansion of the brain and of the birth canal as the cells respond to new requirements? That is the question which you have not answered.

DAVID: One set of cooperating neurons is not the same as skull bone cells anticipating the size needs of a suddenly grown brain. No comparison!

Just as the cooperating cells for complexification RESPOND autonomously to new requirements (e.g. learning new skills), the cooperating cells of the skull would also RESPOND autonomously to new requirements (e.g. to accommodate the additional cells needed to learn new skills). That is the whole point of cellular flexibility – to respond to new requirements. The same applies to the cells of the birth canal, and to all the cell communities with which it is connected. But you have your God designing a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for a group of brains/birth canals to expand at a given moment 3+ billion years later, before the expansion is even needed. Or alternatively popping in to perform operations on each of those brains/birth canals, to prepare them in advance of conditions/requirements that don’t yet exist. Please add on every other evolutionary development, lifestyle, natural wonder, econiche etc, and perhaps you will understand why these two concepts strain my credulity.

Biochemistry
QUOTE: They [the authors] anticipate that their bullvalene taming could help in the development of molecular systems where fast adaptation to external stimuli is required.

dhw: [This quote illustrates] the basic principle behind the “cellular intelligence” theory (which allows for God as the designer of the mechanism), and the speed may explain the gaps. However, it requires more than “adaptation”, which is why I add “exploitation” in my theory, since it is exploitation of new stimuli that leads to innovation, whereas adaptation generally means the species stays the same.

DAVID: Hilarious thought; this is a manmade molecule they are taming, not anything in nature.

You have missed the point, which is that these people are proving that molecules can be capable of fast adaptation to external stimuli. This would help to explain the “gaps”.

DAVID: And all new conditions allow exploitation as more oxygen allowing more organismal complexity. You've not added anything new.

I am not pretending to have come up with anything new! Thank you for confirming an obvious but integral part of my theory, in stark contrast to your own topsy-turvy one: conditions change BEFORE organisms change. Organisms do not change IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 20, 2022, 16:02 (129 days ago) @ dhw

Mechanisms
dhw: Staying with your God’s role, you agree that he must have designed a mechanism for autonomous complexification of the brain cells (he doesn’t supervise every complexification as it responds to every new requirement), and so why should the same mechanism not be used for expansion of the brain and of the birth canal as the cells respond to new requirements? That is the question which you have not answered.

DAVID: One set of cooperating neurons is not the same as skull bone cells anticipating the size needs of a suddenly grown brain. No comparison!

dhw: Just as the cooperating cells for complexification RESPOND autonomously to new requirements (e.g. learning new skills), the cooperating cells of the skull would also RESPOND autonomously to new requirements (e.g. to accommodate the additional cells needed to learn new skills). That is the whole point of cellular flexibility – to respond to new requirements. The same applies to the cells of the birth canal, and to all the cell communities with which it is connected.

You haven't answered the problem posed! The bone cells must know what the brain size has enlarged into. How does your imagined cooperation work? Please tell me a coherent theory, not platitudes.

dhw: But you have your God designing a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for a group of brains/birth canals to expand at a given moment 3+ billion years later, before the expansion is even needed. Or alternatively popping in to perform operations on each of those brains/birth canals, to prepare them in advance of conditions/requirements that don’t yet exist. Please add on every other evolutionary development, lifestyle, natural wonder, econiche etc, and perhaps you will understand why these two concepts strain my credulity.

Not the point of the current discussion, but if God is the designer, He does it in His own way. I've made my guesses and I've read your humanized theory of God. we differ.


Biochemistry
QUOTE: They [the authors] anticipate that their bullvalene taming could help in

DAVID: And all new conditions allow exploitation as more oxygen allowing more organismal complexity. You've not added anything new.

dhw: I am not pretending to have come up with anything new! Thank you for confirming an obvious but integral part of my theory, in stark contrast to your own topsy-turvy one: conditions change BEFORE organisms change. Organisms do not change IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements.

God made sure by designing photosynthesis there would be enough oxygen for complex animals. Conditions changed to allow Cambrian forms. We agree, but I've presented plenty of evidence of the opposite, as the simplest example of preparation for future use, our brain.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Monday, January 24, 2022, 12:57 (125 days ago) @ dhw

A possible God's possible purpose and nature

dhw: If he is all-powerful, he didn’t “have to do” anything. He did what he wanted! So he must have wanted the general freedom, which includes what you call the "mistakes" which, despite his all-powerfulness, he was powerless to correct.

DAVID: Again blinkered view. Considering the trillions of required reactions per nanosecond all correct or corrected by God's editing programs, it works extremely well. Obviously errors are additive and terrible for some, but a tiny result of the whole working process of life.

dhw: Yes, the system works extremely well except when it doesn’t work extremely well, and this still doesn’t explain why an all-powerful God was forced against his will to devise a system that contained errors which he was powerless to correct. Why is it “blinkered” to argue that an all-powerful God is more likely to have designed the system he wanted to design?

DAVID: I think exactly that. God designed the system He wanted as the only one that would work.

Oh dear, you’ve again forgotten what you call the “errors” he didn’t want and tried – but often failed – to correct. And it’s a weird form of omnipotence and omniscience that results in unwanted restrictions that cannot be avoided.


Pseudogenes

DAVID: this is a review from non-ID source material. Who named pseudogenes? Darwinists!! Who named junk DNA? Darwinists!! Note current research, not done by IDers, is demolishing false conclusions by Darwin defenders. Almost all DNA is shown to function. Nothing seems accidental from chance mutations. With no evidence of chance, design emerges as required.

I don’t know how often you want me to repeat that this has nothing to do with Darwin, who would have had no idea about the importance of DNA, and more importantly, that the case against junk-DNA can in fact be used in support of Darwinism, which tells us that generally things only survive if they are useful.

Early quark-gluon plasma

DAVID: That quark-gluon plasma made up all of the matter of the eventual universe and contained enormous heat. From nothing? Not likely. The physicists act as if they really believe the hot Big Bang is real if they run experiments mimicking it. Guth et. al. proved to all at Hawkins' 60th birthday party celebration the BB had no past, so it had a mysterious start. God or ?.

Please don’t try to revive this nonsense about Guth “proving” that the BB had no past. He didn’t. Nobody can know what preceded the BB, if it happened. You and I have agreed that “before” may have been a sourceless supermind called God, who might have created earlier universes too during his eternal existence, or an eternal mish-mush of mindless materials and energy forming endless combinations. You dismiss the latter possibility.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Monday, January 24, 2022, 16:04 (125 days ago) @ dhw

Pseudogenes

DAVID: this is a review from non-ID source material. Who named pseudogenes? Darwinists!! Who named junk DNA? Darwinists!! Note current research, not done by IDers, is demolishing false conclusions by Darwin defenders. Almost all DNA is shown to function. Nothing seems accidental from chance mutations. With no evidence of chance, design emerges as required.

dhw: I don’t know how often you want me to repeat that this has nothing to do with Darwin, who would have had no idea about the importance of DNA, and more importantly, that the case against junk-DNA can in fact be used in support of Darwinism, which tells us that generally things only survive if they are useful.

You really don't understand the import of junk DNA, which was invented by Darwinists to show that chance would produce junk in DNA. The howls from Moran and Graur over ENCODE prove the point. Graur went so far as to say if junk disappears so does Darwin's theory. No, Darwin didn't invent junk, Darwinists did!


Early quark-gluon plasma

DAVID: That quark-gluon plasma made up all of the matter of the eventual universe and contained enormous heat. From nothing? Not likely. The physicists act as if they really believe the hot Big Bang is real if they run experiments mimicking it. Guth et. al. proved to all at Hawkins' 60th birthday party celebration the BB had no past, so it had a mysterious start. God or ?.

dhw: Please don’t try to revive this nonsense about Guth “proving” that the BB had no past. He didn’t. Nobody can know what preceded the BB, if it happened. You and I have agreed that “before” may have been a sourceless supermind called God, who might have created earlier universes too during his eternal existence, or an eternal mish-mush of mindless materials and energy forming endless combinations. You dismiss the latter possibility.

I sure do dismiss the latter bolded point of yours. So do all the theorists who look for a bouncing universe or other similar eternal theory. And I just read an article the other day by a physicist who stated Guth was fully accepted by his scientific community. I should have produced it here but didn't. Guth simply implies a spontaneous appearance with no past history.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 08:38 (124 days ago) @ David Turell

Pseudogenes

DAVID: this is a review from non-ID source material. Who named pseudogenes? Darwinists!! Who named junk DNA? Darwinists!! Note current research, not done by IDers, is demolishing false conclusions by Darwin defenders. Almost all DNA is shown to function. Nothing seems accidental from chance mutations. With no evidence of chance, design emerges as required.

dhw: I don’t know how often you want me to repeat that this has nothing to do with Darwin, who would have had no idea about the importance of DNA, and more importantly, that the case against junk-DNA can in fact be used in support of Darwinism, which tells us that generally things only survive if they are useful.

DAVID: You really don't understand the import of junk DNA, which was invented by Darwinists to show that chance would produce junk in DNA. The howls from Moran and Graur over ENCODE prove the point. Graur went so far as to say if junk disappears so does Darwin's theory.

Then more fool Moran and Graur. Would you please explain why you disagree with my point that natural selection preserves what is useful (Darwin's theory), and that explains the survival of genes which some people thought were junk.

DAVID: No, Darwin didn't invent junk, Darwinists did!

I wouldn't call them Darwinists if they propose a theory that Darwin would never have thought of, and then fail to use Darwin's theory to explain the new findings.

Early quark-gluon plasma

DAVID: That quark-gluon plasma made up all of the matter of the eventual universe and contained enormous heat. From nothing? Not likely. The physicists act as if they really believe the hot Big Bang is real if they run experiments mimicking it. Guth et. al. proved to all at Hawkins' 60th birthday party celebration the BB had no past, so it had a mysterious start. God or ?.

dhw: Please don’t try to revive this nonsense about Guth “proving” that the BB had no past. He didn’t. Nobody can know what preceded the BB, if it happened. You and I have agreed that “before” may have been a sourceless supermind called God, who might have created earlier universes too during his eternal existence, or an eternal mish-mush of mindless materials and energy forming endless combinations. You dismiss the latter possibility.

DAVID: I sure do dismiss the latter bolded point of yours. So do all the theorists who look for a bouncing universe or other similar eternal theory. And I just read an article the other day by a physicist who stated Guth was fully accepted by his scientific community. I should have produced it here but didn't. Guth simply implies a spontaneous appearance with no past history.

Previously you told us that Guth had proved there was no “before” the BB. After much to-ing and fro-ing, you realized that you did not accept that, since you are convinced that your God existed before the BB (and might even have created earlier universes). Maybe it would help us if you found the exact wording of what Guth said he had “proved”.

The requirements of design

I was not going to comment on this until I read David’s final sentence:

DAVID: All design is for future use.

I agree, but this needs to be explained. Since we are talking about evolution, it is perfectly obvious that whatever is designed will continue to be used in the future so long as it remains useful. However, this should not be confused with the argument that adaptations and innovations are designed before they are REQUIRED! The inventor of the spear would have felt the need to find a means of killing without having to get dangerously close to his prey. But of course his design would be for future as well as present use. And to forestall David’s pet example, pre-sapiens brain expansions would have been a RESPONSE to requirements, and the new size would then have sufficed for the future until a new requirement needed additional capacity. In the sapiens brain, complexification has taken over from expansion.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 19:24 (124 days ago) @ dhw

Pseudogenes

DAVID: You really don't understand the import of junk DNA, which was invented by Darwinists to show that chance would produce junk in DNA. The howls from Moran and Graur over ENCODE prove the point. Graur went so far as to say if junk disappears so does Darwin's theory.

dhw: Then more fool Moran and Graur. Would you please explain why you disagree with my point that natural selection preserves what is useful (Darwin's theory), and that explains the survival of genes which some people thought were junk.

So you understand the point how foolish committed Darwinists are/were.


Early quark-gluon plasma

DAVID: That quark-gluon plasma made up all of the matter of the eventual universe and contained enormous heat. From nothing? Not likely. The physicists act as if they really believe the hot Big Bang is real if they run experiments mimicking it. Guth et. al. proved to all at Hawkins' 60th birthday party celebration the BB had no past, so it had a mysterious start. God or ?.

dhw: Please don’t try to revive this nonsense about Guth “proving” that the BB had no past. He didn’t. Nobody can know what preceded the BB, if it happened. You and I have agreed that “before” may have been a sourceless supermind called God, who might have created earlier universes too during his eternal existence, or an eternal mish-mush of mindless materials and energy forming endless combinations. You dismiss the latter possibility.

DAVID: I sure do dismiss the latter bolded point of yours. So do all the theorists who look for a bouncing universe or other similar eternal theory. And I just read an article the other day by a physicist who stated Guth was fully accepted by his scientific community. I should have produced it here but didn't. Guth simply implies a spontaneous appearance with no past history.

dhw: Previously you told us that Guth had proved there was no “before” the BB. After much to-ing and fro-ing, you realized that you did not accept that, since you are convinced that your God existed before the BB (and might even have created earlier universes). Maybe it would help us if you found the exact wording of what Guth said he had “proved”.

https://creationwiki.org/Borde-Guth-Vilenkin_singularity_theorem

"The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem (or BGV theorem) was developed in 2003 by three leading cosmologists; Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin. Subsequently in recent years since, the BGV theorem has become widely respected and accepted within the physics community.

"The primary assumption made by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin however is that the cosmic expansion rate will never get to a nonzero value. There can not be past-eternal inflation, there must be a beginning or singularity."

Clear to me, a beginning. By God.


The requirements of design

I was not going to comment on this until I read David’s final sentence:

DAVID: All design is for future use.

dhw: I agree, but this needs to be explained. Since we are talking about evolution, it is perfectly obvious that whatever is designed will continue to be used in the future so long as it remains useful. However, this should not be confused with the argument that adaptations and innovations are designed before they are REQUIRED! The inventor of the spear would have felt the need to find a means of killing without having to get dangerously close to his prey. But of course his design would be for future as well as present use. And to forestall David’s pet example, pre-sapiens brain expansions would have been a RESPONSE to requirements, and the new size would then have sufficed for the future until a new requirement needed additional capacity. In the sapiens brain, complexification has taken over from expansion.

Complexification existed prior to sapiens brains as you have agreed. You simply ignore the point our brain was oversized for its use when it arrived. It's full use began when we invented language/speech 50-70,000 years ago, long after its appearance 315,000 years ago.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Wednesday, January 26, 2022, 12:32 (123 days ago) @ David Turell

Pseudogenes

DAVID: You really don't understand the import of junk DNA, which was invented by Darwinists to show that chance would produce junk in DNA. The howls from Moran and Graur over ENCODE prove the point. Graur went so far as to say if junk disappears so does Darwin's theory.

dhw: Then more fool Moran and Graur. Would you please explain why you disagree with my point that natural selection preserves what is useful (Darwin's theory), and that explains the survival of genes which some people thought were junk.

DAVID: So you understand the point how foolish committed Darwinists are/were.

You’ve named two people who apparently didn’t realize that the disappearance of so-called “junk” supported Darwinism, and if this is so, I agree that they were/are foolish not to have realized it. I said so: “More fool Moran and Graur”. I trust you now agree with me that the disappearance of “junk” supports Darwinism.

Early quark-gluon plasma
DAVID […] I just read an article the other day by a physicist who stated Guth was fully accepted by his scientific community. I should have produced it here but didn't. Guth simply implies a spontaneous appearance with no past history.

dhw: Previously you told us that Guth had proved there was no “before” the BB. After much to-ing and fro-ing, you realized that you did not accept that, since you are convinced that your God existed before the BB (and might even have created earlier universes). Maybe it would help us if you found the exact wording of what Guth said he had “proved”.

DAVID:
https://creationwiki.org/Borde-Guth-Vilenkin_singularity_theorem

QUOTES: "The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem (or BGV theorem) was developed in 2003 by three leading cosmologists; Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin. Subsequently in recent years since, the BGV theorem has become widely respected and accepted within the physics community.
"The primary assumption made by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin however is that the cosmic expansion rate will never get to a nonzero value. There can not be past-eternal inflation, there must be a beginning or singularity
."

DAVID: Clear to me, a beginning. By God.

If the BB took place, I have no problem with it being called a “beginning”. “Singularity” has lots of different implications. If I start to write a book, it is a beginning, and assuming nobody has ever written my book before, it is a singularity. This is a far cry from claiming that nothing preceded my book or the BB, and your original statement was that Guth had proved there was no “before” the BB. Even now you clearly disagree with that theory – and if that really is what Guth & Co were proposing, you agree that they cannot possibly prove it.

The requirements of design

dhw: I was not going to comment on this until I read David’s final sentence:

DAVID: All design is for future use.

dhw: I agree, but this needs to be explained. Since we are talking about evolution, it is perfectly obvious that whatever is designed will continue to be used in the future so long as it remains useful. However, this should not be confused with the argument that adaptations and innovations are designed before they are REQUIRED!

I’ll end it there because - my fault – the discussion returns to our disagreement over the human brain, which is dealt with elsewhere

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 26, 2022, 16:22 (123 days ago) @ dhw

Pseudogenes

DAVID: So you understand the point how foolish committed Darwinists are/were.

dhw: You’ve named two people who apparently didn’t realize that the disappearance of so-called “junk” supported Darwinism, and if this is so, I agree that they were/are foolish not to have realized it. I said so: “More fool Moran and Graur”. I trust you now agree with me that the disappearance of “junk” supports Darwinism.

Without junk chance mutation disappears. Moran and Graur were only two of a mass of followers.


Early quark-gluon plasma
DAVID […] I just read an article the other day by a physicist who stated Guth was fully accepted by his scientific community. I should have produced it here but didn't. Guth simply implies a spontaneous appearance with no past history.

dhw: Previously you told us that Guth had proved there was no “before” the BB. After much to-ing and fro-ing, you realized that you did not accept that, since you are convinced that your God existed before the BB (and might even have created earlier universes). Maybe it would help us if you found the exact wording of what Guth said he had “proved”.

DAVID:
https://creationwiki.org/Borde-Guth-Vilenkin_singularity_theorem

QUOTES: "The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem (or BGV theorem) was developed in 2003 by three leading cosmologists; Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin. Subsequently in recent years since, the BGV theorem has become widely respected and accepted within the physics community.
"The primary assumption made by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin however is that the cosmic expansion rate will never get to a nonzero value. There can not be past-eternal inflation, there must be a beginning or singularity
."

DAVID: Clear to me, a beginning. By God.

dhw: If the BB took place, I have no problem with it being called a “beginning”. “Singularity” has lots of different implications. If I start to write a book, it is a beginning, and assuming nobody has ever written my book before, it is a singularity. This is a far cry from claiming that nothing preceded my book or the BB, and your original statement was that Guth had proved there was no “before” the BB. Even now you clearly disagree with that theory – and if that really is what Guth & Co were proposing, you agree that they cannot possibly prove it.

It is accepted a current proof. A 'beginning' without a past implies something from nothing.


The requirements of design

dhw: I was not going to comment on this until I read David’s final sentence:

DAVID: All design is for future use.

dhw: I agree, but this needs to be explained. Since we are talking about evolution, it is perfectly obvious that whatever is designed will continue to be used in the future so long as it remains useful. However, this should not be confused with the argument that adaptations and innovations are designed before they are REQUIRED!

That is exactly what God did. Our brain example proves it.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Thursday, January 27, 2022, 07:42 (122 days ago) @ David Turell

Pseudogenes
DAVID: So you understand the point how foolish committed Darwinists are/were.

dhw: You’ve named two people who apparently didn’t realize that the disappearance of so-called “junk” supported Darwinism, and if this is so, I agree that they were/are foolish not to have realized it. I said so: “More fool Moran and Graur”. I trust you now agree with me that the disappearance of “junk” supports Darwinism.

DAVID: Without junk chance mutation disappears. Moran and Graur were only two of a mass of followers.

I don’t believe in chance mutation, but the absence of junk does not in any way negate it, because natural selection will ensure that any chance mutation which is of no use will disappear! Please explain why you disagree.

Early quark-gluon plasma
QUOTE: "The primary assumption made by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin however is that the cosmic expansion rate will never get to a nonzero value. There can not be past-eternal inflation, there must be a beginning or singularity."

DAVID: Clear to me, a beginning. By God.

dhw: If the BB took place, I have no problem with it being called a “beginning”. “Singularity” has lots of different implications. If I start to write a book, it is a beginning, and assuming nobody has ever written my book before, it is a singularity. This is a far cry from claiming that nothing preceded my book or the BB, and your original statement was that Guth had proved there was no “before” the BB. Even now you clearly disagree with that theory – and if that really is what Guth & Co were proposing, you agree that they cannot possibly prove it.

DAVID: It is accepted a current proof. A 'beginning' without a past implies something from nothing.

WHAT is accepted as a proof of what? Of course a beginning without a past means something from nothing, but how is it possible to PROVE that there was nothing before the BB? You reject the idea yourself, because you think your God existed before the BB, made it happen, and might also have created earlier universes. So why are you defending what you believe to have been Guth’s argument?

The requirements of design
dhw: I was not going to comment on this until I read David’s final sentence:
DAVID: All design is for future use.

dhw: I agree, but this needs to be explained. Since we are talking about evolution, it is perfectly obvious that whatever is designed will continue to be used in the future so long as it remains useful. However, this should not be confused with the argument that adaptations and innovations are designed before they are REQUIRED!

DAVID: That is exactly what God did. Our brain example proves it.

The brain example seems to be the only one you can think of, and you still haven’t offered a single reason for rejecting my proposal discussed under “cellular intelligence”, drawing on the known fact that the brain RESPONDS to new requirements and does not anticipate them. Under “survival”, you have already conceded that changed conditions must PRECEDE the birth of any new species. An animal that depends on extra oxygen for its survival is hardly likely to appear before the extra oxygen is there!

Light sensing proteins
DAVID: the molecule is designed to know when to be open and when to be shut based on the amount of light it senses.. Not intelligence but automaticity from a brilliant designer.

See “Cellular intelligence”: once a system is established, molecules have to act automatically or the system will break down. The question here is how the system was established in the first place. Shapiro: “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.” You reject this theory and prefer to imagine your God preprogramming every stage of eye development 3.8 billion years ago, or conducting countless individual operations which, presumably one by one over millions of years, improved light sensitivity to the full vision we enjoy now.

Life’s required metals
DAVID: Note: llamas and its relatives in the Andes munching on plants in volcanic soils utilize two to eight milligrams a day of selenium. Selenium is extremely poisonous to us, so we can safely ingest one-two micrograms a day. I suspect when these camelids finally migrated to the Andes from Asia they adapted epigenetically.

Yes, it’s wonderful how cells manage to adapt themselves without your God’s intervention. This one is, of course, a very minor example compared to the camel’s amazing nose, but there must be millions more. However, you are always right when you say we don’t know the degree to which cells are able to restructure themselves. See Shapiro above for one theory. I needn’t repeat your own!

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 27, 2022, 17:17 (122 days ago) @ dhw

Pseudogenes

dhw: I don’t believe in chance mutation, but the absence of junk does not in any way negate it, because natural selection will ensure that any chance mutation which is of no use will disappear! Please explain why you disagree.

I don't disagree with you. Imagined 'junk' is simply an example of how twisted committed Darwinists will go to defend the theory.


Early quark-gluon plasma
QUOTE: "The primary assumption made by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin however is that the cosmic expansion rate will never get to a nonzero value. There can not be past-eternal inflation, there must be a beginning or singularity."

DAVID: It is accepted a current proof. A 'beginning' without a past implies something from nothing.

dhw: WHAT is accepted as a proof of what? Of course a beginning without a past means something from nothing, but how is it possible to PROVE that there was nothing before the BB? You reject the idea yourself, because you think your God existed before the BB, made it happen, and might also have created earlier universes. So why are you defending what you believe to have been Guth’s argument?

Guth's theorem indicates something from nothing physical, therefore God did it. Obvious


The requirements of design
dhw: I was not going to comment on this until I read David’s final sentence:
DAVID: All design is for future use.

dhw: I agree, but this needs to be explained. Since we are talking about evolution, it is perfectly obvious that whatever is designed will continue to be used in the future so long as it remains useful. However, this should not be confused with the argument that adaptations and innovations are designed before they are REQUIRED!

DAVID: That is exactly what God did. Our brain example proves it.

dhw: The brain example seems to be the only one you can think of, and you still haven’t offered a single reason for rejecting my proposal discussed under “cellular intelligence”, drawing on the known fact that the brain RESPONDS to new requirements and does not anticipate them.

Each past brain form had the necessary size/complexity present to then respond to new requirements. That brains can respond in no way shows how they enlarged.


Light sensing proteins
DAVID: the molecule is designed to know when to be open and when to be shut based on the amount of light it senses.. Not intelligence but automaticity from a brilliant designer.

dhw: See “Cellular intelligence”: once a system is established, molecules have to act automatically or the system will break down. The question here is how the system was established in the first place. Shapiro: “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.” You reject this theory and prefer to imagine your God preprogramming every stage of eye development 3.8 billion years ago, or conducting countless individual operations which, presumably one by one over millions of years, improved light sensitivity to the full vision we enjoy now.

Shapiro developed his theory from bacteria editing DNA, with no subsequent followers doing more work to support him. Why?


Life’s required metals
DAVID: Note: llamas and its relatives in the Andes munching on plants in volcanic soils utilize two to eight milligrams a day of selenium. Selenium is extremely poisonous to us, so we can safely ingest one-two micrograms a day. I suspect when these camelids finally migrated to the Andes from Asia they adapted epigenetically.

dhw: Yes, it’s wonderful how cells manage to adapt themselves without your God’s intervention. This one is, of course, a very minor example compared to the camel’s amazing nose, but there must be millions more. However, you are always right when you say we don’t know the degree to which cells are able to restructure themselves. See Shapiro above for one theory. I needn’t repeat your own!

God goes as far as He has to in designing.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Friday, January 28, 2022, 13:40 (121 days ago) @ David Turell

Pseudogenes

dhw: I don’t believe in chance mutation, but the absence of junk does not in any way negate it, because natural selection will ensure that any chance mutation which is of no use will disappear! Please explain why you disagree.

DAVID: I don't disagree with you. Imagined 'junk' is simply an example of how twisted committed Darwinists will go to defend the theory.

Since you agree that the absence of junk confirms Darwin’s theory, I think we can close this discussion.

Early quark-gluon plasma

dhw: [...] why are you defending what you believe to have been Guth’s argument?

DAVID: Guth's theorem indicates something from nothing physical, therefore God did it. Obvious.

I didn’t realize that all those scientists had “accepted” that Guth had proved the existence of God! That really is a big step. Of course a beginning without a past implies something from nothing, but please tell me how Guth could prove that the BB was NOT caused by something physical. How can anyone “prove” what was or wasn’t there before our beginning? And especially I ask you how you can accept “proof” that your God hasn’t created countless physical universes during his eternal existence, and that he didn’t use materials he had created to set off each beginning, including ours?

Light sensing proteins

DAVID: the molecule is designed to know when to be open and when to be shut based on the amount of light it senses.. Not intelligence but automaticity from a brilliant designer.

dhw: See “Cellular intelligence”: once a system is established, molecules have to act automatically or the system will break down. The question here is how the system was established in the first place. Shapiro: “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.” You reject this theory and prefer to imagine your God preprogramming every stage of eye development 3.8 billion years ago, or conducting countless individual operations which, presumably one by one over millions of years, improved light sensitivity to the full vision we enjoy now.

DAVID: Shapiro developed his theory from bacteria editing DNA, with no subsequent followers doing more work to support him. Why?

The concept of cellular intelligence has plenty of followers, and I wish you would stick to the argument instead of trying to belittle Shapiro. I have pointed out that molecules have to act automatically to preserve any system, and the question is how the system originates. That is where autonomous intelligence would come into play, as opposed to your divine programming and dabbling.

Life’s required metals

DAVID: Note: llamas and its relatives in the Andes munching on plants in volcanic soils utilize two to eight milligrams a day of selenium. Selenium is extremely poisonous to us, so we can safely ingest one-two micrograms a day. I suspect when these camelids finally migrated to the Andes from Asia they adapted epigenetically.

dhw: Yes, it’s wonderful how cells manage to adapt themselves without your God’s intervention. This one is, of course, a very minor example compared to the camel’s amazing nose, but there must be millions more. However, you are always right when you say we don’t know the degree to which cells are able to restructure themselves. See Shapiro above for one theory. I needn’t repeat your own!

DAVID: God goes as far as He has to in designing.

I like it. According to you, he has to design everything. I propose that he only has to design the mechanism that enables cell communities to do their own designing. Same God, but at least my proposal explains the higgledy-piggledy bush!

Regions protected from mutations

QUOTE: Specifically, genes playing a crucial role in survival and reproduction mutate far less often than those that are less important. ( David’s bold)

DAVID: The article contains many guesses as to why these protections exist, with no clear answer. I have one. These protections stabilize the existence of species, and do not allow speciation, which would then require a very special set of events as if a designer stepped in.

This ties in neatly with my point that cells must act automatically to preserve a system, but evolution also requires the freedom for cells to vary their structure. Wonderful to hear that scientists are beginning to find out which cells do what.

Cambrian explosion: still finding nervous systems

quote: "Two tiny fossils, each smaller than an aspirin pill, contain fossilized nerve tissue from 508 million years ago. The bug-like Cambrian creatures could help scientists piece together the evolutionary history of modern-day spiders and scorpions.""

DAVID: Another example of the complexity of Cambrian organisms with no precursors and the gap from the Edicaran layers is only 410,000 years, a blink of the eye in evolutionary terms.

Another example of new fossils being found even today (or ten years ago). If only all organisms had managed to leave fossils of themselves for every year since 3.8 billion years ago, we would have the complete picture. Some folk would say 410,000 years would yield enough generations of intelligent cell communities to produce and develop any new set of organs.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Friday, January 28, 2022, 21:50 (120 days ago) @ dhw

Early quark-gluon plasma

dhw: [...] why are you defending what you believe to have been Guth’s argument?

DAVID: Guth's theorem indicates something from nothing physical, therefore God did it. Obvious.

dhw:... please tell me how Guth could prove that the BB was NOT caused by something physical. How can anyone “prove” what was or wasn’t there before our beginning? And especially I ask you how you can accept “proof” that your God hasn’t created countless physical universes during his eternal existence, and that he didn’t use materials he had created to set off each beginning, including ours?

The paper which I've read has too many advanced math equations for me to understand his widely accepted proof. I've agreed God may have done this is His timeless past. If God is timeless and spacetime exists only after He makes it, what materials can exist from the past which exists only in each new universe?


Light sensing proteins

DAVID: Shapiro developed his theory from bacteria editing DNA, with no subsequent followers doing more work to support him. Why?

dhw: The concept of cellular intelligence has plenty of followers, and I wish you would stick to the argument instead of trying to belittle Shapiro. I have pointed out that molecules have to act automatically to preserve any system, and the question is how the system originates. That is where autonomous intelligence would come into play, as opposed to your divine programming and dabbling.

Simply, God is the active designing intelligence.


Life’s required metals

DAVID: God goes as far as He has to in designing.

dhw: I like it. According to you, he has to design everything. I propose that he only has to design the mechanism that enables cell communities to do their own designing. Same God, but at least my proposal explains the higgledy-piggledy bush!

Without the bush, not enough food for all. My God knows what He is required to create.


Regions protected from mutations

QUOTE: Specifically, genes playing a crucial role in survival and reproduction mutate far less often than those that are less important. ( David’s bold)

DAVID: The article contains many guesses as to why these protections exist, with no clear answer. I have one. These protections stabilize the existence of species, and do not allow speciation, which would then require a very special set of events as if a designer stepped in.

dhw: This ties in neatly with my point that cells must act automatically to preserve a system, but evolution also requires the freedom for cells to vary their structure. Wonderful to hear that scientists are beginning to find out which cells do what.

Not my interpretation as above.


Cambrian explosion: still finding nervous systems

quote: "Two tiny fossils, each smaller than an aspirin pill, contain fossilized nerve tissue from 508 million years ago. The bug-like Cambrian creatures could help scientists piece together the evolutionary history of modern-day spiders and scorpions.""

DAVID: Another example of the complexity of Cambrian organisms with no precursors and the gap from the Edicaran layers is only 410,000 years, a blink of the eye in evolutionary terms.

dhw: Another example of new fossils being found even today (or ten years ago). If only all organisms had managed to leave fossils of themselves for every year since 3.8 billion years ago, we would have the complete picture. Some folk would say 410,000 years would yield enough generations of intelligent cell communities to produce and develop any new set of organs.

You just dove in off the deep end. These new findings are from 100 year old fossils in the Harvard storage bins from the Burgess shale. Reexamined with new techniques. You and one author are satisfied 410,00 years are enough to create appendage and whole new organ systems, with eyes for hunting!!! The first real predators ever! At known mutation rates, impossible except by God designing.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Saturday, January 29, 2022, 08:26 (120 days ago) @ David Turell

Early quark-gluon plasma

dhw: [...] why are you defending what you believe to have been Guth’s argument?

DAVID: Guth's theorem indicates something from nothing physical, therefore God did it. Obvious.

dhw:... please tell me how Guth could prove that the BB was NOT caused by something physical. How can anyone “prove” what was or wasn’t there before our beginning? And especially I ask you how you can accept “proof” that your God hasn’t created countless physical universes during his eternal existence, and that he didn’t use materials he had created to set off each beginning, including ours?

DAVID: The paper which I've read has too many advanced math equations for me to understand his widely accepted proof. I've agreed God may have done this is His timeless past. If God is timeless and spacetime exists only after He makes it, what materials can exist from the past which exists only in each new universe?

I really don’t know why you continue to defend an argument you don’t understand, but thank you for your integrity. I don’t understand your last question. If certain materials only exist in a new universe, then obviously he can’t have used them earlier. But how in heaven’s name do you know that your hypothetical past universes weren’t made of the same materials as this one? You have accepted the fact that nobody can possibly prove that there was no “before”. If that wasn’t Guth’s theory, then I suggest we drop the subject until you understand what he might have “proved”, because I can only respond to your arguments – I don’t know his.

Regions protected from mutations

QUOTE: Specifically, genes playing a crucial role in survival and reproduction mutate far less often than those that are less important. ( David’s bold)

DAVID: The article contains many guesses as to why these protections exist, with no clear answer. I have one. These protections stabilize the existence of species, and do not allow speciation, which would then require a very special set of events as if a designer stepped in.

dhw: This ties in neatly with my point that cells must act automatically to preserve a system, but evolution also requires the freedom for cells to vary their structure. Wonderful to hear that scientists are beginning to find out which cells do what.

DAVID: Not my interpretation as above.

Why not? You agree that some cells remain stable to preserve the species, but some must be variable if there are to be new species. The “special set of events” would be new conditions. And yes, it is indeed as if a designer stepped in. You say it was God stepping in directly, and I say it may have been intelligent cells which your God may have invented.

Cambrian explosion: still finding nervous systems

QUOTE: "Two tiny fossils, each smaller than an aspirin pill, contain fossilized nerve tissue from 508 million years ago. The bug-like Cambrian creatures could help scientists piece together the evolutionary history of modern-day spiders and scorpions.""

DAVID: Another example of the complexity of Cambrian organisms with no precursors and the gap from the Edicaran layers is only 410,000 years, a blink of the eye in evolutionary terms.

dhw: Another example of new fossils being found even today (or ten years ago). If only all organisms had managed to leave fossils of themselves for every year since 3.8 billion years ago, we would have the complete picture. Some folk would say 410,000 years would yield enough generations of intelligent cell communities to produce and develop any new set of organs.

DAVID: You just dove in off the deep end. These new findings are from 100 year old fossils in the Harvard storage bins from the Burgess shale. Reexamined with new techniques.

Thank you. I misread the article which said that the first evidence of a fossilized arthropod brain was discovered ten years ago. On the other hand, you used the word "still" in the heading.

DAVID: You and one author are satisfied 410,00 years are enough to create appendage and whole new organ systems, with eyes for hunting!!! The first real predators ever! At known mutation rates, impossible except by God designing.

Known mutation rates do not take into account possible intelligence. If your God can do it, he can also invent a mechanism that can do it. Look at the amazing inventions we humans have come up with in just a hundred years. No, I’m not saying cells are as intelligent as we are. I’m just reminding you of what your God is capable of designing – or have you decided that he didn’t design our intelligence?

Faint sun paradox

QUOTE: "In December 2020, Tyrrell calculated that Earth’s continuing habitability is mostly due to chance...“Earth’s success was not an inevitable outcome but rather was contingent,” he wrote. “It could have gone either way.”

DAVID: So many factors, so much chance. But perhaps we are here under God's guidance. Be sure to see the explanatory illustration.

Your comment is unusual for you. I thought you thought your God had planned everything to perfection, and your “perhaps” has surprised me too. Could there be a glimmer of hope here that you might just perhaps, maybe, possibly be on the verge of understanding the agnostic’s position? :-)

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 29, 2022, 16:06 (120 days ago) @ dhw

Early quark-gluon plasma

DAVID: The paper which I've read has too many advanced math equations for me to understand his widely accepted proof. I've agreed God may have done this is His timeless past. If God is timeless and spacetime exists only after He makes it, what materials can exist from the past which exists only in each new universe?

dhw: I really don’t know why you continue to defend an argument you don’t understand, but thank you for your integrity.

You follow experts blindly re intelligent cells. I'm doing the same in cosmology.

dhw: I don’t understand your last question. If certain materials only exist in a new universe, then obviously he can’t have used them earlier. But how in heaven’s name do you know that your hypothetical past universes weren’t made of the same materials as this one?

If God makes new universes, based on the BB, energy/matter must be made anew each time.


Regions protected from mutations

dhw: This ties in neatly with my point that cells must act automatically to preserve a system, but evolution also requires the freedom for cells to vary their structure. Wonderful to hear that scientists are beginning to find out which cells do what.

DAVID: Not my interpretation as above.

dhw: Why not? You agree that some cells remain stable to preserve the species, but some must be variable if there are to be new species. The “special set of events” would be new conditions. And yes, it is indeed as if a designer stepped in. You say it was God stepping in directly, and I say it may have been intelligent cells which your God may have invented.

Same disagreement.


Cambrian explosion: still finding nervous systems

dhw: Another example of new fossils being found even today (or ten years ago). If only all organisms had managed to leave fossils of themselves for every year since 3.8 billion years ago, we would have the complete picture. Some folk would say 410,000 years would yield enough generations of intelligent cell communities to produce and develop any new set of organs.

DAVID: You just dove in off the deep end. These new findings are from 100 year old fossils in the Harvard storage bins from the Burgess shale. Reexamined with new techniques.

dhw: Thank you. I misread the article which said that the first evidence of a fossilized arthropod brain was discovered ten years ago. On the other hand, you used the word "still" in the heading.

'Still' referred to nerve finding has been continuous for many recent years.


DAVID: You and one author are satisfied 410,00 years are enough to create appendage and whole new organ systems, with eyes for hunting!!! The first real predators ever! At known mutation rates, impossible except by God designing.

dhw: Known mutation rates do not take into account possible intelligence. If your God can do it, he can also invent a mechanism that can do it. Look at the amazing inventions we humans have come up with in just a hundred years. No, I’m not saying cells are as intelligent as we are. I’m just reminding you of what your God is capable of designing – or have you decided that he didn’t design our intelligence?

God's mutation rates can be calculated whether attributed to Him or nature.


Faint sun paradox

QUOTE: "In December 2020, Tyrrell calculated that Earth’s continuing habitability is mostly due to chance...“Earth’s success was not an inevitable outcome but rather was contingent,” he wrote. “It could have gone either way.”

DAVID: So many factors, so much chance. But perhaps we are here under God's guidance. Be sure to see the explanatory illustration.

dhw: Your comment is unusual for you. I thought you thought your God had planned everything to perfection, and your “perhaps” has surprised me too. Could there be a glimmer of hope here that you might just perhaps, maybe, possibly be on the verge of understanding the agnostic’s position? :-)

Oh, I fully understand your position. 'Perhaps' use might soften your rigidity against a solution to the cause of our existence. ;-)

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Sunday, January 30, 2022, 11:47 (119 days ago) @ David Turell

Early quark-gluon plasma

dhw: I really don’t know why you continue to defend an argument you don’t understand….

DAVID: You follow experts blindly re intelligent cells. I'm doing the same in cosmology.

But you don’t even know what they were trying to prove! Initially it was that there was no “before” the BB, and you agreed with me that this could not possibly be proved, and in any case you believe your God existed before the BB and may even have created other universes. You say physicists have accepted Guth’s theory. Does this mean they all believe in God? Or they all believe something came from nothing?

dhw: […] how in heaven’s name do you know that your hypothetical past universes weren’t made of the same materials as this one?

DAVID: If God makes new universes, based on the BB, energy/matter must be made anew each time.

Silly word play. If you make something anew, it simply means you start again, and you can do that with existing materials. It doesn’t mean you have to invent new materials. We should end this discussion, because neither of us knows what Guth was trying to “prove”.

Regions protected from mutations

dhw: This ties in neatly with my point that cells must act automatically to preserve a system, but evolution also requires the freedom for cells to vary their structure. Wonderful to hear that scientists are beginning to find out which cells do what.

DAVID: Not my interpretation as above. [..]

The discussion moved onto direct design by God v design by intelligent cells, but you have not said why you disagree with the above.

Cambrian explosion: still finding nervous systems

DAVID: These new findings are from 100 year old fossils in the Harvard storage bins from the Burgess shale. Reexamined with new techniques.

dhw: Thank you. I misread the article which said that the first evidence of a fossilized arthropod brain was discovered ten years ago. On the other hand, you used the word "still" in the heading.

DAVID: 'Still' referred to nerve finding has been continuous for many recent years.

I reckon that bearing in mind the extreme rarity of such fossils, the discovery just ten years ago of a fossilized arthropod brain suggests that there may yet be a few more pieces of the jigsaw puzzle waiting to be discovered.

DAVID: You and one author are satisfied 410,00 years are enough to create appendage and whole new organ systems, with eyes for hunting!!! The first real predators ever! At known mutation rates, impossible except by God designing.

dhw: Known mutation rates do not take into account possible intelligence. If your God can do it, he can also invent a mechanism that can do it. Look at the amazing inventions we humans have come up with in just a hundred years. No, I’m not saying cells are as intelligent as we are. I’m just reminding you of what your God is capable of designing – or have you decided that he didn’t design our intelligence?

You have not responded to any of this.

DAVID: God's mutation rates can be calculated whether attributed to Him or nature.

Yes of course. If everyone agrees that certain mutations took place within 410,000 years, it could mean that your God took 410,000 years to dabble, but it could also mean that intelligent cells took 410,000 years to design the same mutations.

Faint sun paradox

QUOTE: "In December 2020, Tyrrell calculated that Earth’s continuing habitability is mostly due to chance...“Earth’s success was not an inevitable outcome but rather was contingent,” he wrote. “It could have gone either way.”

DAVID: So many factors, so much chance. But perhaps we are here under God's guidance.

dhw: Your comment is unusual for you. I thought you thought your God had planned everything to perfection, and your “perhaps” has surprised me too. Could there be a glimmer of hope here that you might just perhaps, maybe, possibly be on the verge of understanding the agnostic’s position?

DAVID: Oh, I fully understand your position. 'Perhaps' use might soften your rigidity against a solution to the cause of our existence.

The theist says: “I believe God did it”; the atheist says: “I believe chance did it.” The agnostic says: “I don’t know which “solution” to believe.” The latter automatically entails “perhaps” for both solutions. The two fixed beliefs automatically mean there can be no “perhaps”. So which of us three do you reckon is most rigid?

Study of the abdomen

DAVID: An unguided evolutionary process is not likely to develop such a simple design of a complex structure.

I agree. This community of cells reminds me of my beloved ants, whose combined intelligences also produce simple designs of complex structures.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 30, 2022, 16:31 (119 days ago) @ dhw

Early quark-gluon plasma

DAVID: If God makes new universes, based on the BB, energy/matter must be made anew each time.

Silly word play. If you make something anew, it simply means you start again, and you can do that with existing materials. It doesn’t mean you have to invent new materials. We should end this discussion, because neither of us knows what Guth was trying to “prove”.

What materials exist if a universe has vanished? Guth proved a universe stated with no 'before'. Accept it, even if you don't like it.


Regions protected from mutations

dhw: This ties in neatly with my point that cells must act automatically to preserve a system, but evolution also requires the freedom for cells to vary their structure. Wonderful to hear that scientists are beginning to find out which cells do what.

DAVID: Not my interpretation as above. [..]

dhw: The discussion moved onto direct design by God v design by intelligent cells, but you have not said why you disagree with the above.

I disagree that God gave up design controls to cells. No secondhand design!!!


Cambrian explosion: still finding nervous systems

DAVID: You and one author are satisfied 410,00 years are enough to create appendage and whole new organ systems, with eyes for hunting!!! The first real predators ever! At known mutation rates, impossible except by God designing.

dhw: Known mutation rates do not take into account possible intelligence. If your God can do it, he can also invent a mechanism that can do it. Look at the amazing inventions we humans have come up with in just a hundred years. No, I’m not saying cells are as intelligent as we are. I’m just reminding you of what your God is capable of designing – or have you decided that he didn’t design our intelligence?

You have not responded to any of this.

Cells are not intelligent. They are designed intelligently so they appear intelligent.


DAVID: God's mutation rates can be calculated whether attributed to Him or nature.

dhw: Yes of course. If everyone agrees that certain mutations took place within 410,000 years, it could mean that your God took 410,000 years to dabble, but it could also mean that intelligent cells took 410,000 years to design the same mutations.

The mutations required for any early Cambrian has been calculated by ID into the millions of years. Using the same math Darwinists do. The phenotypic gap survives.


Faint sun paradox

DAVID: Oh, I fully understand your position. 'Perhaps' use might soften your rigidity against a solution to the cause of our existence.

dhw: The theist says: “I believe God did it”; the atheist says: “I believe chance did it.” The agnostic says: “I don’t know which “solution” to believe.” The latter automatically entails “perhaps” for both solutions. The two fixed beliefs automatically mean there can be no “perhaps”. So which of us three do you reckon is most rigid?

Yours. Atheist and theists have solutions


Study of the abdomen

DAVID: An unguided evolutionary process is not likely to develop such a simple design of a complex structure.

dhw: I agree. This community of cells reminds me of my beloved ants, whose combined intelligences also produce simple designs of complex structures.

E. O. Wilson has died recently. He is your champion.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Monday, January 31, 2022, 13:43 (118 days ago) @ David Turell

Early quark-gluon plasma

DAVID: If God makes new universes, based on the BB, energy/matter must be made anew each time.

dhw: Silly word play. If you make something anew, it simply means you start again, and you can do that with existing materials. It doesn’t mean you have to invent new materials. We should end this discussion, because neither of us knows what Guth was trying to “prove”.

DAVID: What materials exist if a universe has vanished? Guth proved a universe stated with no 'before'. Accept it, even if you don't like it.

Vast sections of the universe we know come and go. Same materials. Our universe could be one of many that still exist (multiverse theory). This sort of speculation is pointless. Your reversion to your original interpretation of Guth’s theory leaves you contradicting yourself to the point of absurdity, since you actually believe that your God existed before our universe and could have made other equally physical universes before ours. Nobody can possibly know what preceded our universe, and you yourself repeatedly reject the very idea that something can come from nothing. “Accept it, even if you don’t like it.”

(We can drop the next two items from last time, since you simply repeat your fixed belief that cells are not intelligent.)

DAVID: God's mutation rates can be calculated whether attributed to Him or nature.

dhw: Yes of course. If everyone agrees that certain mutations took place within 410,000 years, it could mean that your God took 410,000 years to dabble, but it could also mean that intelligent cells took 410,000 years to design the same mutations.

DAVID: The mutations required for any early Cambrian has been calculated by ID into the millions of years. Using the same math Darwinists do. The phenotypic gap survives.

By “mutations” I can only assume you and they mean random mutations. But mutations are not by definition random! If you believe in common descent, then as above even your God has to engineer mutations, and so these wonderful calculations do not take into account the possibility of intelligent design. But oops, they do, because ID-ers like yourself would claim that the brief period (= sudden appearance of new species)can only be explained by an intelligent designer. And that could be your God, or it could be intelligent cells (perhaps originally designed by your God). The next entry might help us:

How proteins find the right DNA spot

QUOTE: The protein production is regulated by DNA-binding proteins that have evolved the ability to turn different genes on or off. Because the environment can change quickly, rapid adaptation is key. The DNA-binding proteins must find the correct DNA code among millions of base pairs, and do so fast.

DAVID: I always point out all reactions occur at high speed. How the molecule knows its target is still not known. But it has to work this way.

Rapid adaptation is key”. Of course speciation is more than adaptation, but if the mechanism exists for rapid adaptation, it may be possible that the same mechanism could lead to rapid innovation. You are so right: “how the molecule knows its target is still not known.” So perhaps at the very least we should reserve judgement on the possibility that it is capable of autonomously and rapidly processing information and taking decisions. As you once wrote: “Those molecules literally act as if they have minds of their own.”]

Faint sun paradox

DAVID: Oh, I fully understand your position. 'Perhaps' use might soften your rigidity against a solution to the cause of our existence.

dhw: The theist says: “I believe God did it”; the atheist says: “I believe chance did it.” The agnostic says: “I don’t know which “solution” to believe.” The latter automatically entails “perhaps” for both solutions. The two fixed beliefs automatically mean there can be no “perhaps”. So which of us three do you reckon is most rigid?

DAVID: Yours. Atheist and theists have solutions.

So "I don’t know, but perhaps…" is more rigid than “I know”? :-D or possibly:-(

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Monday, January 31, 2022, 19:11 (118 days ago) @ dhw

Early quark-gluon plasma

DAVID: What materials exist if a universe has vanished? Guth proved a universe stated with no 'before'. Accept it, even if you don't like it.

dhw: Vast sections of the universe we know come and go. Same materials. Our universe could be one of many that still exist (multiverse theory). This sort of speculation is pointless. Your reversion to your original interpretation of Guth’s theory leaves you contradicting yourself to the point of absurdity, since you actually believe that your God existed before our universe and could have made other equally physical universes before ours. Nobody can possibly know what preceded our universe, and you yourself repeatedly reject the very idea that something can come from nothing. “Accept it, even if you don’t like it.”

Guth simply says no material before exists before our material universe appeared. God is immaterial so your example of God doesn't apply. “Accept it, even if you don’t like it” can not refer to God in a material sense.


DAVID: The mutations required for any early Cambrian has been calculated by ID into the millions of years. Using the same math Darwinists do. The phenotypic gap survives.

dhw: By “mutations” I can only assume you and they mean random mutations. But mutations are not by definition random! If you believe in common descent, then as above even your God has to engineer mutations, and so these wonderful calculations do not take into account the possibility of intelligent design. But oops, they do, because ID-ers like yourself would claim that the brief period (= sudden appearance of new species)can only be explained by an intelligent designer. And that could be your God, or it could be intelligent cells (perhaps originally designed by your God).

They all use calculated rates based on evolutionary history so random or not the math applies. What happened so quickly cannot be natural

dhw: The next entry might help us:

How proteins find the right DNA spot

QUOTE: The protein production is regulated by DNA-binding proteins that have evolved the ability to turn different genes on or off. Because the environment can change quickly, rapid adaptation is key. The DNA-binding proteins must find the correct DNA code among millions of base pairs, and do so fast.

DAVID: I always point out all reactions occur at high speed. How the molecule knows its target is still not known. But it has to work this way.

Rapid adaptation is key”. Of course speciation is more than adaptation, but if the mechanism exists for rapid adaptation, it may be possible that the same mechanism could lead to rapid innovation. You are so right: “how the molecule knows its target is still not known.” So perhaps at the very least we should reserve judgement on the possibility that it is capable of autonomously and rapidly processing information and taking decisions. As you once wrote: “Those molecules literally act as if they have minds of their own.”]

"Those molecules literally act as if they have minds of their own.”] simply refers to the brilliance of their design.


Faint sun paradox

DAVID: Oh, I fully understand your position. 'Perhaps' use might soften your rigidity against a solution to the cause of our existence.

dhw: The theist says: “I believe God did it”; the atheist says: “I believe chance did it.” The agnostic says: “I don’t know which “solution” to believe.” The latter automatically entails “perhaps” for both solutions. The two fixed beliefs automatically mean there can be no “perhaps”. So which of us three do you reckon is most rigid?

DAVID: Yours. Atheist and theists have solutions.

dhw: So "I don’t know, but perhaps…" is more rigid than “I know”? :-D or possibly:-(

You rigidly have no solutions. :-) ;-)

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Tuesday, February 01, 2022, 12:14 (117 days ago) @ David Turell

Early quark-gluon plasma

DAVID: Guth proved a universe stated with no 'before'. Accept it, even if you don't like it.

dhw: Your reversion to your original interpretation of Guth’s theory leaves you contradicting yourself to the point of absurdity, since you actually believe that your God existed before our universe and could have made other equally physical universes before ours. Nobody can possibly know what preceded our universe, and you yourself repeatedly reject the very idea that something can come from nothing. “Accept it, even if you don’t like it.

DAVID: Guth simply says no material before exists before our material universe appeared. God is immaterial so your example of God doesn't apply. “Accept it, even if you don’t like it” can not refer to God in a material sense.

QUOTE: “"The primary assumption made by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin however is that the cosmic expansion rate will never get to a nonzero value. There can not be past-eternal inflation, there must be a beginning or singularity."

I don’t have a problem with the concept of our universe having a beginning. I’ve looked up the specialized meaning of singularity: “a hypothetical point in space-time at which matter is infinitely compressed to infinitesimal volume”. But the idea that there was no “before” our beginning depends on this hypothesis being true of our universe. There is a language problem here. We need a word that will expand its meaning beyond that of “universe”. So for argument’s sake, let’s use “cosmos”. It’s obvious that our universe could not have been inflating indefinitely from past eternity, but please explain how anyone can possibly know that our expanding universe was not caused by an isolated event occurring within an infinite and eternal cosmos of ever changing energy and matter and possibly other universes, possibly all created by the conscious immaterial energy you call God, or possibly the result of an endless but mindless process which just like your God has been going on forever? You yourself cannot accept the idea that something can come from nothing, in which case, how can you believe anyone can “prove” that there was no before (material or otherwise) our beginning? In brief, if I’ve interpreted the above quote correctly, Guth’s theory tells us only that our universe must have had a beginning, which of course we can all accept, but it cannot tell us what CAUSED the beginning, i.e. what came before the beginning, and it most certainly cannot “prove” that there was no cause and no “before” other than a hypothetical “singularity” which consisted of all matter being compressed into nothing, i.e. something came from nothing.


Faint sun paradox
DAVID: Oh, I fully understand your position. 'Perhaps' use might soften your rigidity against a solution to the cause of our existence.

dhw: The theist says: “I believe God did it”; the atheist says: “I believe chance did it.” The agnostic says: “I don’t know which “solution” to believe.” The latter automatically entails “perhaps” for both solutions. The two fixed beliefs automatically mean there can be no “perhaps”. So which of us three do you reckon is most rigid?

DAVID: Yours. Atheist and theists have solutions.

dhw: So "I don’t know, but perhaps…" is more rigid than “I know”? :-D or possibly :-(

DAVID: You rigidly have no solutions. :-) ;-)

So I’m rigidily non-rigid. Good ‘un! ;-) :-)

How certain elements surface

DAVID: it seems everything on Earth was designed just right for us to use.

Thank you, God, for designing all the metals just for us and all the lovely flowers and foods and scenery and sights and sounds.:-)
Pity about the floods and famines and disasters and diseases and vicious viruses and bad bacteria…:-(

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 01, 2022, 16:31 (117 days ago) @ dhw

Early quark-gluon plasma

DAVID: Guth proved a universe stated with no 'before'. Accept it, even if you don't like it.

dhw: Your reversion to your original interpretation of Guth’s theory leaves you contradicting yourself to the point of absurdity, since you actually believe that your God existed before our universe and could have made other equally physical universes before ours. Nobody can possibly know what preceded our universe, and you yourself repeatedly reject the very idea that something can come from nothing. “Accept it, even if you don’t like it.

DAVID: Guth simply says no material before exists before our material universe appeared. God is immaterial so your example of God doesn't apply. “Accept it, even if you don’t like it” can not refer to God in a material sense.

QUOTE: “"The primary assumption made by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin however is that the cosmic expansion rate will never get to a nonzero value. There can not be past-eternal inflation, there must be a beginning or singularity."

dhw: I don’t have a problem with the concept of our universe having a beginning. I’ve looked up the specialized meaning of singularity: “a hypothetical point in space-time at which matter is infinitely compressed to infinitesimal volume”. But the idea that there was no “before” our beginning depends on this hypothesis being true of our universe. There is a language problem here. We need a word that will expand its meaning beyond that of “universe”. So for argument’s sake, let’s use “cosmos”. It’s obvious that our universe could not have been inflating indefinitely from past eternity, but please explain how anyone can possibly know that our expanding universe was not caused by an isolated event occurring within an infinite and eternal cosmos of ever changing energy and matter and possibly other universes, possibly all created by the conscious immaterial energy you call God, or possibly the result of an endless but mindless process which just like your God has been going on forever? You yourself cannot accept the idea that something can come from nothing, in which case, how can you believe anyone can “prove” that there was no before (material or otherwise) our beginning? In brief, if I’ve interpreted the above quote correctly, Guth’s theory tells us only that our universe must have had a beginning, which of course we can all accept, but it cannot tell us what CAUSED the beginning, i.e. what came before the beginning, and it most certainly cannot “prove” that there was no cause and no “before” other than a hypothetical “singularity” which consisted of all matter being compressed into nothing, i.e. something came from nothing.

A great review of the problem, with a great leap of conjecture in the red portion. A spacetime universe is energy/ material, so it is something. Guth's accepted theorem says it had a start, which means the material/energy did not exist until it appeared. For me your conclusion leads to an operating immaterial mind as the only way something so complex as a universe leading to thinking life can happen. Mind is immaterial, can design, and always existed.>


Faint sun paradox
DAVID: Oh, I fully understand your position. 'Perhaps' use might soften your rigidity against a solution to the cause of our existence.

dhw: The theist says: “I believe God did it”; the atheist says: “I believe chance did it.” The agnostic says: “I don’t know which “solution” to believe.” The latter automatically entails “perhaps” for both solutions. The two fixed beliefs automatically mean there can be no “perhaps”. So which of us three do you reckon is most rigid?

DAVID: Yours. Atheist and theists have solutions.

dhw: So "I don’t know, but perhaps…" is more rigid than “I know”? :-D or possibly :-(

DAVID: You rigidly have no solutions. :-) ;-)

dhw: So I’m rigidly non-rigid. Good ‘un! ;-) :-)

I want a solution and feel better having one.


How certain elements surface

DAVID: it seems everything on Earth was designed just right for us to use.

dhw: Thank you, God, for designing all the metals just for us and all the lovely flowers and foods and scenery and sights and sounds.:-)
Pity about the floods and famines and disasters and diseases and vicious viruses and bad bacteria…:-(

A glass is half-full or half-empty. Pity! A Garden of Eden is boring. Our minds are here to help.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Wednesday, February 02, 2022, 08:50 (116 days ago) @ David Turell

Guth’s theory

QUOTE: “"The primary assumption made by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin however is that the cosmic expansion rate will never get to a nonzero value. There can not be past-eternal inflation, there must be a beginning or singularity."

dhw: I don’t have a problem with the concept of our universe having a beginning. I’ve looked up the specialized meaning of singularity: “a hypothetical point in space-time at which matter is infinitely compressed to infinitesimal volume”. But the idea that there was no “before” our beginning depends on this hypothesis being true of our universe. There is a language problem here. We need a word that will expand its meaning beyond that of “universe”. So for argument’s sake, let’s use “cosmos”. It’s obvious that our universe could not have been inflating indefinitely from past eternity, but please explain how anyone can possibly know that our expanding universe was not caused by an isolated event occurring within an infinite and eternal cosmos of ever changing energy and matter and possibly other universes, possibly all created by the conscious immaterial energy you call God, or possibly the result of an endless but mindless process which just like your God has been going on forever? You yourself cannot accept the idea that something can come from nothing, in which case, how can you believe anyone can “prove” that there was no before (material or otherwise) our beginning? In brief, if I’ve interpreted the above quote correctly, Guth’s theory tells us only that our universe must have had a beginning, which of course we can all accept, but it cannot tell us what CAUSED the beginning, i.e. what came before the beginning, and it most certainly cannot “prove” that there was no cause and no “before” other than a hypothetical “singularity” which consisted of all matter being compressed into nothing, i.e. something came from nothing.

DAVID: A great review of the problem, with a great leap of conjecture in the red portion. A spacetime universe is energy/ material, so it is something.

Of course. Have I said it isn’t?

DAVID: Guth's accepted theorem says it had a start, which means the material/energy did not exist until it appeared.

Yes it has a start, but no, existing material/energy can take on an infinite number of forms, given infinity and eternity. One universe will be one form it takes.

DAVID: For me your conclusion leads to an operating immaterial mind as the only way something so complex as a universe leading to thinking life can happen. Mind is immaterial, can design, and always existed.

That is a totally different subject. You say that I must accept that Guth has proved there is no “before” our universe. I maintain that this cannot be proved, and I really don’t understand why you continue to support a theory which you manifestly don’t agree with.

Faint sun paradox

DAVID: Oh, I fully understand your position. 'Perhaps' use might soften your rigidity against a solution to the cause of our existence.

dhw: The theist says: “I believe God did it”; the atheist says: “I believe chance did it.” The agnostic says: “I don’t know which “solution” to believe.” The latter automatically entails “perhaps” for both solutions. The two fixed beliefs automatically mean there can be no “perhaps”. So which of us three do you reckon is most rigid?

DAVID: Yours. Atheist and theists have solutions.

dhw: So "I don’t know, but perhaps…" is more rigid than “I know”? :-D or possibly :-(

DAVID: You rigidly have no solutions. :-) ;-)

dhw: So I’m rigidly non-rigid. Good ‘un! ;-) :-)

DAVID: I want a solution and feel better having one.

Well, I’m sure that will go down well in scientific circles.

How certain elements surface

DAVID: it seems everything on Earth was designed just right for us to use.

dhw: Thank you, God, for designing all the metals just for us and all the lovely flowers and foods and scenery and sights and sounds.
Pity about the floods and famines and disasters and diseases and vicious viruses and bad bacteria…

DAVID: A glass is half-full or half-empty. Pity! A Garden of Eden is boring. Our minds are here to help.

I love it. Your non-humanized God designed all the goodies and the baddies to avoid being bored, did he? And yet you refuse to accept the possibility that he may have designed life because he wanted to design something that would give him enjoyment and provide him with interesting things to watch. And for good measure our minds are here to help him not to be bored. A red-letter day in the history of AgnosticWeb!

Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

DAVID: From an ID standpoint, God took advantage of the climate changes to advance evolution.

Thank you for once more agreeing that even your God makes these “advances” in response to changing conditions and not in anticipation of them.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 02, 2022, 18:35 (116 days ago) @ dhw

Guth’s theory

QUOTE: “"The primary assumption made by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin however is that the cosmic expansion rate will never get to a nonzero value. There can not be past-eternal inflation, there must be a beginning or singularity."

DAVID: Guth's accepted theorem says it had a start, which means the material/energy did not exist until it appeared.

dhw: Yes it has a start, but no, existing material/energy can take on an infinite number of forms, given infinity and eternity. One universe will be one form it takes.

What existing material/energy before the BB? I propose only an immaterial God existed.


DAVID: For me your conclusion leads to an operating immaterial mind as the only way something so complex as a universe leading to thinking life can happen. Mind is immaterial, can design, and always existed.

dhw: That is a totally different subject. You say that I must accept that Guth has proved there is no “before” our universe. I maintain that this cannot be proved, and I really don’t understand why you continue to support a theory which you manifestly don’t agree with.

My disagreement with Guth involves God, nothing more.


How certain elements surface

DAVID: it seems everything on Earth was designed just right for us to use.

dhw: Thank you, God, for designing all the metals just for us and all the lovely flowers and foods and scenery and sights and sounds.
Pity about the floods and famines and disasters and diseases and vicious viruses and bad bacteria…

DAVID: A glass is half-full or half-empty. Pity! A Garden of Eden is boring. Our minds are here to help.

dhw: I love it. Your non-humanized God designed all the goodies and the baddies to avoid being bored, did he? And yet you refuse to accept the possibility that he may have designed life because he wanted to design something that would give him enjoyment and provide him with interesting things to watch. And for good measure our minds are here to help him not to be bored. A red-letter day in the history of AgnosticWeb!

Misinterpreted as usual. The point is made in my first book. A non-challenged world is boring for humans, God not involved except to give us stimulating problems to work on


Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

DAVID: From an ID standpoint, God took advantage of the climate changes to advance evolution.

dhw: Thank you for once more agreeing that even your God makes these “advances” in response to changing conditions and not in anticipation of them.

These changes are not anticipatory evolutionary changes you rail about. The climate systems on Earth helped evolve Earth for our use, and God takes advantage of the openings. Why not?

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Thursday, February 03, 2022, 12:34 (115 days ago) @ David Turell

Guth’s theory

QUOTE: “"The primary assumption made by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin however is that the cosmic expansion rate will never get to a nonzero value. There can not be past-eternal inflation, there must be a beginning or singularity."

DAVID: Guth's accepted theorem says it had a start, which means the material/energy did not exist until it appeared.

dhw: Yes it has a start, but no, existing material/energy can take on an infinite number of forms, given infinity and eternity. One universe will be one form it takes.

DAVID: What existing material/energy before the BB? I propose only an immaterial God existed.
And
DAVID: My disagreement with Guth involves God, nothing more.

I might just as well ask: what God? How do you know that there were no materials before the BB? (NB I'm not arguing against Guth but against you. I only know what you tell me about his theory.) All he’s saying is that inflation can’t have been “past-eternal”, and so there must have been a beginning. Perfectly logical. And there could have been countless beginnings before ours. First cause: either your eternal and infinite conscious God, or eternal and infinite unconscious energy and matter, or (apparently) nothing. Has “Guth” proved that the first cause was nothing? If he hasn’t (and he hasn’t) then he has not proved there was no “before”.

How certain elements surface

DAVID: it seems everything on Earth was designed just right for us to use.

dhw: Thank you, God, for designing all the metals just for us and all the lovely flowers and foods and scenery and sights and sounds.
Pity about the floods and famines and disasters and diseases and vicious viruses and bad bacteria…

DAVID: A glass is half-full or half-empty. Pity! A Garden of Eden is boring. Our minds are here to help.

dhw: I love it. Your non-humanized God designed all the goodies and the baddies to avoid being bored, did he? And yet you refuse to accept the possibility that he may have designed life because he wanted to design something that would give him enjoyment and provide him with interesting things to watch. And for good measure our minds are here to help him not to be bored. A red-letter day in the history of AgnosticWeb!

DAVID: Misinterpreted as usual. The point is made in my first book. A non-challenged world is boring for humans, God not involved except to give us stimulating problems to work on.

“A Garden of Eden is boring. Our minds are here to help.” To help what? And how could our minds help for the 3.X billion years that we weren’t even here?

Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

DAVID: From an ID standpoint, God took advantage of the climate changes to advance evolution.

dhw: Thank you for once more agreeing that even your God makes these “advances” in response to changing conditions and not in anticipation of them.

DAVID: These changes are not anticipatory evolutionary changes you rail about. The climate systems on Earth helped evolve Earth for our use, and God takes advantage of the openings. Why not?

If he “took advantage” of them, it sounds as if he didn’t engineer them (loss of control), and even in this field of evolution he was dependent on conditions changing BEFORE he was able to do what apparently he had always planned to do.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 03, 2022, 20:41 (114 days ago) @ dhw

Guth’s theory

DAVID: What existing material/energy before the BB? I propose only an immaterial God existed.
And
DAVID: My disagreement with Guth involves God, nothing more.

dhw: I might just as well ask: what God? How do you know that there were no materials before the BB? (NB I'm not arguing against Guth but against you. I only know what you tell me about his theory.) All he’s saying is that inflation can’t have been “past-eternal”, and so there must have been a beginning. Perfectly logical. And there could have been countless beginnings before ours. First cause: either your eternal and infinite conscious God, or eternal and infinite unconscious energy and matter, or (apparently) nothing. Has “Guth” proved that the first cause was nothing? If he hasn’t (and he hasn’t) then he has not proved there was no “before”.

No 'before' means no material/energy existed before a beginning by a singularity or a BB or both. Guth is dumb/mute on cause in any form.


How certain elements surface

DAVID: A glass is half-full or half-empty. Pity! A Garden of Eden is boring. Our minds are here to help.

dhw: I love it. Your non-humanized God designed all the goodies and the baddies to avoid being bored, did he? And yet you refuse to accept the possibility that he may have designed life because he wanted to design something that would give him enjoyment and provide him with interesting things to watch. And for good measure our minds are here to help him not to be bored. A red-letter day in the history of AgnosticWeb!

DAVID: Misinterpreted as usual. The point is made in my first book. A non-challenged world is boring for humans, God not involved except to give us stimulating problems to work on.

dhw: “A Garden of Eden is boring. Our minds are here to help.” To help what? And how could our minds help for the 3.X billion years that we weren’t even here?

How would they then? Facetious remark I must assume.


Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

DAVID: From an ID standpoint, God took advantage of the climate changes to advance evolution.

dhw: Thank you for once more agreeing that even your God makes these “advances” in response to changing conditions and not in anticipation of them.

DAVID: These changes are not anticipatory evolutionary changes you rail about. The climate systems on Earth helped evolve Earth for our use, and God takes advantage of the openings. Why not?

dhw: If he “took advantage” of them, it sounds as if he didn’t engineer them (loss of control), and even in this field of evolution he was dependent on conditions changing BEFORE he was able to do what apparently he had always planned to do.

A really hilarious view: God does not engineer day-by-day weather. He engineered some major climate changes by having atmospheric oxygen developed, as an example. The climate control freaks constantly confuse weather and climate. Earth's climate was carefully evolved in preparation for us, the Earth now extremely inhabitable. With this setup, humans appeared as savannahs arrived. Simply God working with what He created as it changed, and then designing new species to fit. You don't realize God knows exactly what he is doing always, all aspects beautifully dovetailed together.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Friday, February 04, 2022, 08:06 (114 days ago) @ David Turell

Guth’s theory

DAVID: What existing material/energy before the BB? I propose only an immaterial God existed.
And
DAVID: My disagreement with Guth involves God, nothing more.

dhw: […] All he’s saying is that inflation can’t have been “past-eternal”, and so there must have been a beginning. Perfectly logical. And there could have been countless beginnings before ours. First cause: either your eternal and infinite conscious God, or eternal and infinite unconscious energy and matter, or (apparently) nothing. Has “Guth” proved that the first cause was nothing? If he hasn’t (and he hasn’t) then he has not proved there was no “before”.

DAVID: No 'before' means no material/energy existed before a beginning by a singularity or a BB or both. Guth is dumb/mute on cause in any form.

What do you mean? According to your interpretation of Guth, he has “proved” that the BB was THE beginning – a singularity which sprang from nothing, i.e. there was no “before”. I say this can’t be “proved”. You agree with me, because you think your first-cause God is eternal, and might even have created material universes before ours. If Guth is mute on the subject of cause, then either you have misinterpreted his theory, or his theory is woefully incomplete. I strongly suspect the former, but in either case, you disagree with him, so why do you continue to defend a theory you disagree with?

How certain elements surface

DAVID: A glass is half-full or half-empty. Pity! A Garden of Eden is boring. Our minds are here to help.

dhw: I love it. Your non-humanized God designed all the goodies and the baddies to avoid being bored, did he? And yet you refuse to accept the possibility that he may have designed life because he wanted to design something that would give him enjoyment and provide him with interesting things to watch. And for good measure our minds are here to help him not to be bored.[…]

DAVID: Misinterpreted as usual. The point is made in my first book. A non-challenged world is boring for humans, God not involved except to give us stimulating problems to work on.

dhw: “A Garden of Eden is boring. Our minds are here to help.” To help what? And how could our minds help for the 3.X billion years that we weren’t even here?

DAVID: How would they then? Facetious remark I must assume.

If your God deliberately refrained from designing a Garden of Eden because it would be boring only for us, what was the point of all the nasty bits he designed during the 3.X billion years BEFORE us? To clarify: I’m suggesting that a Garden of Eden would have been boring for him, and I don’t understand what you mean by “our minds are here to help”. To help to do what, if not to create a spectacle that is not as boring for your God as a Garden of Eden? (You seem to have forgotten that you are sure he watches his creations with interest.)

Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

DAVID: From an ID standpoint, God took advantage of the climate changes to advance evolution.[…]

dhw: If he “took advantage” of them, it sounds as if he didn’t engineer them (loss of control), and even in this field of evolution he was dependent on conditions changing BEFORE he was able to do what apparently he had always planned to do.

DAVID: A really hilarious view: God does not engineer day-by-day weather.

Who said he did?

DAVID: He engineered some major climate changes….

That’s not what you said. Taking advantage of something does not suggest deliberate engineering.

DAVID: … by having atmospheric oxygen developed, as an example. […] Simply God working with what He created as it changed, and then designing new species to fit.

Thank you. I’ve cut the rest of this entry because I could hardly have put the sequence more clearly myself. Conditions changed, and then came the new species “to fit”. So you now agree that new species were not created in advance/anticipation of new conditions, they came as a response to new conditions.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Friday, February 04, 2022, 16:29 (114 days ago) @ dhw

Guth’s theory

DAVID: No 'before' means no material/energy existed before a beginning by a singularity or a BB or both. Guth is dumb/mute on cause in any form.

dhw: What do you mean? According to your interpretation of Guth, he has “proved” that the BB was THE beginning – a singularity which sprang from nothing, i.e. there was no “before”. I say this can’t be “proved”. You agree with me, because you think your first-cause God is eternal, and might even have created material universes before ours. If Guth is mute on the subject of cause, then either you have misinterpreted his theory, or his theory is woefully incomplete. I strongly suspect the former, but in either case, you disagree with him, so why do you continue to defend a theory you disagree with?

You are so confused. The entire cosmology physicists group accepts Guth's theorem. It really poses a something from nothing beginning to this universe. So that brings immaterial God into the picture, and you cringe. My disagreement with Guth is Guth doesn't decide on any cause after proving his theorem and I accept God did it.


How certain elements surface

DAVID: Misinterpreted as usual. The point is made in my first book. A non-challenged world is boring for humans, God not involved except to give us stimulating problems to work on.

dhw: “A Garden of Eden is boring. Our minds are here to help.” To help what? And how could our minds help for the 3.X billion years that we weren’t even here?

DAVID: How would they then? Facetious remark I must assume.

dhw: If your God deliberately refrained from designing a Garden of Eden because it would be boring only for us, what was the point of all the nasty bits he designed during the 3.X billion years BEFORE us? To clarify: I’m suggesting that a Garden of Eden would have been boring for him, and I don’t understand what you mean by “our minds are here to help”. To help to do what, if not to create a spectacle that is not as boring for your God as a Garden of Eden? (You seem to have forgotten that you are sure he watches his creations with interest.)

I'm sure He watches us out of interest in what He created, but He did not create us to entertain Him. God does not require entertainment, but your human God does.


Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

DAVID: From an ID standpoint, God took advantage of the climate changes to advance evolution.[…]

dhw: If he “took advantage” of them, it sounds as if he didn’t engineer them (loss of control), and even in this field of evolution he was dependent on conditions changing BEFORE he was able to do what apparently he had always planned to do.

DAVID: A really hilarious view: God does not engineer day-by-day weather.

dhw: Who said he did?

DAVID: He engineered some major climate changes….

dhw: That’s not what you said. Taking advantage of something does not suggest deliberate engineering.

DAVID: … by having atmospheric oxygen developed, as an example. […] Simply God working with what He created as it changed, and then designing new species to fit.

dhw: Thank you. I’ve cut the rest of this entry because I could hardly have put the sequence more clearly myself. Conditions changed, and then came the new species “to fit”. So you now agree that new species were not created in advance/anticipation of new conditions, they came as a response to new conditions.

God does not create following your imagination of a human God. New species were added logically when oxygen levels allowed. Note the oxygen appeared because God created photosynthesis. Each step in logical order. High oxygen must exist for complex organisms to be designed.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Saturday, February 05, 2022, 08:49 (113 days ago) @ David Turell

Guth’s theory

DAVID: No 'before' means no material/energy existed before a beginning by a singularity or a BB or both. Guth is dumb/mute on cause in any form.

dhw: What do you mean? According to your interpretation of Guth, he has “proved” that the BB was THE beginning – a singularity which sprang from nothing, i.e. there was no “before”. I say this can’t be “proved”. You agree with me, because you think your first-cause God is eternal, and might even have created material universes before ours. If Guth is mute on the subject of cause, then either you have misinterpreted his theory, or his theory is woefully incomplete. I strongly suspect the former, but in either case, you disagree with him, so why do you continue to defend a theory you disagree with?

DAVID: You are so confused. The entire cosmology physicists group accepts Guth's theorem. It really poses a something from nothing beginning to this universe. So that brings immaterial God into the picture, and you cringe. My disagreement with Guth is Guth doesn't decide on any cause after proving his theorem and I accept God did it.

Yes, your account of this theory has made me very confused. But I am not cringing; I am pointing out that your first-cause God is not nothing, and a first cause cosmos of ever changing energy and materials is not nothing. If Guth doesn’t consider causes, then he is dismissing both of these first-cause theories and is indeed claiming that there was nothing before the BB. I’m sorry, but I simply don’t believe that “the entire cosmology physicists group” accept that Guth has “proved” that something can come from nothing, i.e. there is no God, and there is no possibility of materials and energy pre-existing and causing the BB. But I can understand perfectly well the logic of the statement that there could not have been eternal past inflation, and so our inflating universe must have had a finite beginning. (Please remember the possibility that there may have been universes prior to ours, or ours may be part of what I called a "cosmos" - which might contain multiverses.)

How certain elements surface

DAVID: Misinterpreted as usual. The point is made in my first book. A non-challenged world is boring for humans, God not involved except to give us stimulating problems to work on.

dhw: “A Garden of Eden is boring. Our minds are here to help.” To help what? And how could our minds help for the 3.X billion years that we weren’t even here?

DAVID: How would they then? Facetious remark I must assume.

dhw: If your God deliberately refrained from designing a Garden of Eden because it would be boring only for us, what was the point of all the nasty bits he designed during the 3.X billion years BEFORE us? To clarify: I’m suggesting that a Garden of Eden would have been boring for him, and I don’t understand what you mean by “our minds are here to help”. To help to do what, if not to create a spectacle that is not as boring for your God as a Garden of Eden? (You seem to have forgotten that you are sure he watches his creations with interest.)

DAVID: I'm sure He watches us out of interest in what He created, but He did not create us to entertain Him. God does not require entertainment, but your human God does.

You don’t need to use the superficial word “entertainment”. If he watches us with interest, is it not logical to propose that he might have created life because he wanted something interesting to watch?

Mass extinctions relate to volcanos
DAVID: From an ID standpoint, God took advantage of the climate changes to advance evolution.[…]

dhw: If he “took advantage” of them, it sounds as if he didn’t engineer them (loss of control), and even in this field of evolution he was dependent on conditions changing BEFORE he was able to do what apparently he had always planned to do.

DAVID: A really hilarious view: God does not engineer day-by-day weather.

dhw: Who said he did?

DAVID: He engineered some major climate changes….

dhw: That’s not what you said. Taking advantage of something does not suggest deliberate engineering.

DAVID: … by having atmospheric oxygen developed, as an example. […] Simply God working with what He created as it changed, and then designing new species to fit.

dhw: Thank you. I’ve cut the rest of this entry because I could hardly have put the sequence more clearly myself. Conditions changed, and then came the new species “to fit”. So you now agree that new species were not created in advance/anticipation of new conditions, they came as a response to new conditions.

DAVID: God does not create following your imagination of a human God. New species were added logically when oxygen levels allowed. Each step in logical order. High oxygen must exist for complex organisms to be designed.

I don’t know why you have dragged your silly “humanizing” into this. The whole point here is that at long last you are agreeing that even in your own theory, new species could not exist until oxygen levels “allowed” their existence. Therefore species are not created in anticipation of changing conditions, but in response to them.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 05, 2022, 16:19 (113 days ago) @ dhw

Guth’s theory

DAVID: You are so confused. The entire cosmology physicists group accepts Guth's theorem. It really poses a something from nothing beginning to this universe. So that brings immaterial God into the picture, and you cringe. My disagreement with Guth is Guth doesn't decide on any cause after proving his theorem and I accept God did it.

dhw: Yes, your account of this theory has made me very confused. But I am not cringing; I am pointing out that your first-cause God is not nothing, and a first cause cosmos of ever changing energy and materials is not nothing. If Guth doesn’t consider causes, then he is dismissing both of these first-cause theories and is indeed claiming that there was nothing before the BB. I’m sorry, but I simply don’t believe that “the entire cosmology physicists group” accept that Guth has “proved” that something can come from nothing, i.e. there is no God, and there is no possibility of materials and energy pre-existing and causing the BB. But I can understand perfectly well the logic of the statement that there could not have been eternal past inflation, and so our inflating universe must have had a finite beginning. (Please remember the possibility that there may have been universes prior to ours, or ours may be part of what I called a "cosmos" - which might contain multiverses.)

Guth presents something from nothing with no cause given. That is the whole point. The end.


How certain elements surface

DAVID: I'm sure He watches us out of interest in what He created, but He did not create us to entertain Him. God does not require entertainment, but your human God does.

dhw: You don’t need to use the superficial word “entertainment”. If he watches us with interest, is it not logical to propose that he might have created life because he wanted something interesting to watch?

God does not need something interesting to watch. You just humanized Him again.


Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

dhw: Thank you. I’ve cut the rest of this entry because I could hardly have put the sequence more clearly myself. Conditions changed, and then came the new species “to fit”. So you now agree that new species were not created in advance/anticipation of new conditions, they came as a response to new conditions.

DAVID: God does not create following your imagination of a human God. New species were added logically when oxygen levels allowed. Each step in logical order. High oxygen must exist for complex organisms to be designed.

dhw: I don’t know why you have dragged your silly “humanizing” into this. The whole point here is that at long last you are agreeing that even in your own theory, new species could not exist until oxygen levels “allowed” their existence. Therefore species are not created in anticipation of changing conditions, but in response to them.

It works as you describe for a major explosion as the Cambrian. Those complex animals could not exist without lots of oxygen prepared first. And semi-aquatic mammals must develop flippers at some point to reach full aquatic lifestyle. We disagree on the cause of the changes.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Tuesday, February 08, 2022, 07:15 (110 days ago) @ David Turell

Guth’s theory

DAVID: You are so confused. The entire cosmology physicists group accepts Guth's theorem. It really poses a something from nothing beginning to this universe. So that brings immaterial God into the picture, and you cringe. My disagreement with Guth is Guth doesn't decide on any cause after proving his theorem and I accept God did it.

dhw: Yes, your account of this theory has made me very confused. But I am not cringing; I am pointing out that your first-cause God is not nothing, and a first cause cosmos of ever changing energy and materials is not nothing. If Guth doesn’t consider causes, then he is dismissing both of these first-cause theories and is indeed claiming that there was nothing before the BB. I’m sorry, but I simply don’t believe that “the entire cosmology physicists group” accept that Guth has “proved” that something can come from nothing, i.e. there is no God, and there is no possibility of materials and energy pre-existing and causing the BB. But I can understand perfectly well the logic of the statement that there could not have been eternal past inflation, and so our inflating universe must have had a finite beginning. (Please remember the possibility that there may have been universes prior to ours, or ours may be part of what I called a "cosmos" - which might contain multiverses.)

DAVID: Guth presents something from nothing with no cause given. That is the whole point. The end.

The whole point is that we both disagree that something can come from nothing, and so we both agree that Guth’s theory, as you have presented it, fails to “prove” that there was no before the BB. The end, I hope.

How certain elements surface

DAVID: I'm sure He watches us out of interest in what He created, but He did not create us to entertain Him. God does not require entertainment, but your human God does.

dhw: You don’t need to use the superficial word “entertainment”. If he watches us with interest, is it not logical to propose that he might have created life because he wanted something interesting to watch?

DAVID: God does not need something interesting to watch. You just humanized Him again.

I used the word “want”, not “need”, and watching with interest is also human, and there is nothing wrong with your own proposal that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions and logic like ours, and we may mimic him in many ways.

Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

DAVID: He engineered some major climate changes by having atmospheric oxygen developed, as an example. […] Simply God working with what He created as it changed, and then designing new species to fit.[…]

dhw: Thank you. I’ve cut the rest of this entry because I could hardly have put the sequence more clearly myself. Conditions changed, and then came the new species “to fit”. So you now agree that new species were not created in advance/anticipation of new conditions, they came as a response to new conditions.

DAVID: God does not create following your imagination of a human God. New species were added logically when oxygen levels allowed. Each step in logical order. High oxygen must exist for complex organisms to be designed.

dhw: I don’t know why you have dragged your silly “humanizing” into this. The whole point here is that at long last you are agreeing that even in your own theory, new species could not exist until oxygen levels “allowed” their existence. Therefore species are not created in anticipation of changing conditions, but in response to them.

DAVID: It works as you describe for a major explosion as the Cambrian. Those complex animals could not exist without lots of oxygen prepared first. And semi-aquatic mammals must develop flippers at some point to reach full aquatic lifestyle. We disagree on the cause of the changes.

For I don’t know how long, you have been touting the theory that your God designs species in advance of changing conditions. It would be gracious if you would now agree that speciation takes place IN RESPONSE to new conditions, and not in ANTICIPATION of them. I’m not sure what you’re referring to with the “cause”. You have agreed that the purpose of the changes which result in new species is to improve their chances of survival. But perhaps you simply mean the process by which the changes take place: Darwinists say random mutations, Shapiro says intelligent cells, and you say direct design by your God. Of the three, I favour Shapiro’s theory, bearing in mind that it allows for a possible God as the designer.

Late addition:

Teaching a goldfish to drive
QUOTE: "Animal brains are flexible enough to adapt to new situations, a fundamental characteristic of all brains, neuroscientists say.

Thank you for yet another example of the autonomous intelligence of our fellow creatures.

DAVID: this shows that current brains of all animals can learn new physical tricks.

And it shows us that they are “flexible enough to adapt to new situations”, just like ours!

DAVID: But this not the prefrontal cortex of new sapiens brains 315,000 years ago.

Who said it was? You now proceed to repeat all the subjects already discussed ad nauseam on the “cellular intelligence" thread. There is no point in repeating my replies.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 08, 2022, 14:58 (110 days ago) @ dhw

Guth’s theory

DAVID: Guth presents something from nothing with no cause given. That is the whole point. The end.

dhw: The whole point is that we both disagree that something can come from nothing, and so we both agree that Guth’s theory, as you have presented it, fails to “prove” that there was no before the BB. The end, I hope.

We theists applaud Guth. His theorem strongly suggests God.


How certain elements surface

DAVID: I'm sure He watches us out of interest in what He created, but He did not create us to entertain Him. God does not require entertainment, but your human God does.

dhw: You don’t need to use the superficial word “entertainment”. If he watches us with interest, is it not logical to propose that he might have created life because he wanted something interesting to watch?

DAVID: God does not need something interesting to watch. You just humanized Him again.

dhw: I used the word “want”, not “need”, and watching with interest is also human, and there is nothing wrong with your own proposal that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions and logic like ours, and we may mimic him in many ways.

Wants implies needs.


Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

DAVID: God does not create following your imagination of a human God. New species were added logically when oxygen levels allowed. Each step in logical order. High oxygen must exist for complex organisms to be designed.

dhw: I don’t know why you have dragged your silly “humanizing” into this. The whole point here is that at long last you are agreeing that even in your own theory, new species could not exist until oxygen levels “allowed” their existence. Therefore species are not created in anticipation of changing conditions, but in response to them.

DAVID: It works as you describe for a major explosion as the Cambrian. Those complex animals could not exist without lots of oxygen prepared first. And semi-aquatic mammals must develop flippers at some point to reach full aquatic lifestyle. We disagree on the cause of the changes.

dhw: For I don’t know how long, you have been touting the theory that your God designs species in advance of changing conditions. It would be gracious if you would now agree that speciation takes place IN RESPONSE to new conditions, and not in ANTICIPATION of them. I’m not sure what you’re referring to with the “cause”. You have agreed that the purpose of the changes which result in new species is to improve their chances of survival. But perhaps you simply mean the process by which the changes take place: Darwinists say random mutations, Shapiro says intelligent cells, and you say direct design by your God. Of the three, I favour Shapiro’s theory, bearing in mind that it allows for a possible God as the designer.

Good summary


Late addition:

Teaching a goldfish to drive
QUOTE: "Animal brains are flexible enough to adapt to new situations, a fundamental characteristic of all brains, neuroscientists say.

dhw: Thank you for yet another example of the autonomous intelligence of our fellow creatures.

DAVID: this shows that current brains of all animals can learn new physical tricks.

dhw: And it shows us that they are “flexible enough to adapt to new situations”, just like ours!

DAVID: But this not the prefrontal cortex of new sapiens brains 315,000 years ago.

dhw: Who said it was? You now proceed to repeat all the subjects already discussed ad nauseam on the “cellular intelligence" thread. There is no point in repeating my replies.

Fine. Our sapiens brain prepared for our current use, didn't it?

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Wednesday, February 09, 2022, 09:05 (109 days ago) @ David Turell

Guth’s theory

DAVID: Guth presents something from nothing with no cause given. That is the whole point. The end.

dhw: The whole point is that we both disagree that something can come from nothing, and so we both agree that Guth’s theory, as you have presented it, fails to “prove” that there was no before the BB. The end, I hope.

DAVID: We theists applaud Guth. His theorem strongly suggests God.

So according to you theists, Guth proved that there was nothing before the Big Bang, but that suggests that God existed before the Big Bang, and so God is nothing. And you even believe that nothing might have created universes before ours – a possibility which would also apparently prove that there was nothing before the Big Bang.

NB I am not attacking Guth, because I only know what you have told me about his theory. You said yourself that you didn’t understand it. All I understand is the point that past inflation could not have been eternal, and therefore our inflating universe must have had a beginning. That makes sense to me. I wish you would leave it at that.

How certain elements surface

DAVID: I'm sure He watches us out of interest in what He created, but He did not create us to entertain Him. God does not require entertainment, but your human God does.

dhw: You don’t need to use the superficial word “entertainment”. If he watches us with interest, is it not logical to propose that he might have created life because he wanted something interesting to watch?

DAVID: God does not need something interesting to watch. You just humanized Him again.

dhw: I used the word “want”, not “need”, and watching with interest is also human, and there is nothing wrong with your own proposal that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions and logic like ours, and we may mimic him in many ways.

DAVID: Wants implies needs.

I want (not need) to live to be a hundred and be happy. I need food and drink to survive. Meanwhile, why is “watching with interest” not humanizing, and why don’t you answer the bolded question, and why do you keep ignoring your belief that your God probably “has thought patterns” etc.

Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

DAVID: It works as you describe for a major explosion as the Cambrian. Those complex animals could not exist without lots of oxygen prepared first. And semi-aquatic mammals must develop flippers at some point to reach full aquatic lifestyle. We disagree on the cause of the changes.

dhw: For I don’t know how long, you have been touting the theory that your God designs species in advance of changing conditions. It would be gracious if you would now agree that speciation takes place IN RESPONSE to new conditions, and not in ANTICIPATION of them. I’m not sure what you’re referring to with the “cause”. You have agreed that the purpose of the changes which result in new species is to improve their chances of survival. But perhaps you simply mean the process by which the changes take place: Darwinists say random mutations, Shapiro says intelligent cells, and you say direct design by your God. Of the three, I favour Shapiro’s theory, bearing in mind that it allows for a possible God as the designer.

DAVID: Good summary.

So let’s hear no more of this theory of yours that speciation anticipates changing conditions, as opposed to responding to them.

Late addition:
Teaching a goldfish to drive

QUOTE: "Animal brains are flexible enough to adapt to new situations, a fundamental characteristic of all brains, neuroscientists say.

dhw: Thank you for yet another example of the autonomous intelligence of our fellow creatures.

DAVID: this shows that current brains of all animals can learn new physical tricks.

dhw: And it shows us that they are “flexible enough to adapt to new situations”, just like ours!

DAVID: But this not the prefrontal cortex of new sapiens brains 315,000 years ago.

dhw: Who said it was? You now proceed to repeat all the subjects already discussed ad nauseam on the “cellular intelligence" thread. There is no point in repeating my replies.

DAVID: Fine. Our sapiens brain prepared for our current use, didn't it?

I don’t know what you mean by “prepared”. All brains have evolved to be used “currently”!

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 09, 2022, 15:32 (109 days ago) @ dhw

Guth’s theory

dhw: NB I am not attacking Guth, because I only know what you have told me about his theory. You said yourself that you didn’t understand it. All I understand is the point that past inflation could not have been eternal, and therefore our inflating universe must have had a beginning. That makes sense to me. I wish you would leave it at that.

Makes sense to me too.


Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

dhw: For I don’t know how long, you have been touting the theory that your God designs species in advance of changing conditions. It would be gracious if you would now agree that speciation takes place IN RESPONSE to new conditions, and not in ANTICIPATION of them. I’m not sure what you’re referring to with the “cause”. You have agreed that the purpose of the changes which result in new species is to improve their chances of survival. But perhaps you simply mean the process by which the changes take place: Darwinists say random mutations, Shapiro says intelligent cells, and you say direct design by your God. Of the three, I favour Shapiro’s theory, bearing in mind that it allows for a possible God as the designer.

DAVID: Good summary.

dhw: So let’s hear no more of this theory of yours that speciation anticipates changing conditions, as opposed to responding to them.

It stays my full theory.


Late addition:
Teaching a goldfish to drive

QUOTE: "Animal brains are flexible enough to adapt to new situations, a fundamental characteristic of all brains, neuroscientists say.

dhw: Thank you for yet another example of the autonomous intelligence of our fellow creatures.

DAVID: this shows that current brains of all animals can learn new physical tricks.

dhw: And it shows us that they are “flexible enough to adapt to new situations”, just like ours!

DAVID: But this not the prefrontal cortex of new sapiens brains 315,000 years ago.

dhw: Who said it was? You now proceed to repeat all the subjects already discussed ad nauseam on the “cellular intelligence" thread. There is no point in repeating my replies.

DAVID: Fine. Our sapiens brain prepared for our current use, didn't it?

dhw: I don’t know what you mean by “prepared”. All brains have evolved to be used “currently”!

And handle all new uses is to be prepared.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Thursday, February 10, 2022, 13:14 (108 days ago) @ David Turell

Guth’s theory

dhw: NB I am not attacking Guth, because I only know what you have told me about his theory. You said yourself that you didn’t understand it. All I understand is the point that past inflation could not have been eternal, and therefore our inflating universe must have had a beginning. That makes sense to me. I wish you would leave it at that.

DAVID: Makes sense to me too.

Pax!:-)

Ecosystem importance: Deep under Arctic ice

QUOTE: "It's a marvelous and peculiar ecosystem, demonstrating yet another way life can carve out a place for itself even in the most difficult places to do so."

Yes indeed. Yet another example of how the quest for survival has led to the enormous diversity of life forms extinct and extant.

DAVID: there are ecosystems everywhere starting at the bottom of life's forms with simple forms like sponges. Theses systems are stacked one upon another and as the complexity of life increases, in the higher stacks organisms like us humans benefit with our food supply. Only God's method of evolution produced this arrangement, food for all. dhw does not understand how important this arrangement must be.

How important for what? All ecosystems are essential for the survival of those organisms which create it and which depend on it! Vast numbers of ecosystems and organisms have disappeared (and there are even organisms and ecosystems that are disappearing now), but they were not all “part of the goal of evolving humans”, because “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”. And “extinct life has no role in current time”. All your own words. So please stop pretending that somehow this vast variety of life and econiches supports your theory that your God’s only purpose was to design humans plus our food!

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 10, 2022, 15:42 (108 days ago) @ dhw

Ecosystem importance: Deep under Arctic ice

QUOTE: "It's a marvelous and peculiar ecosystem, demonstrating yet another way life can carve out a place for itself even in the most difficult places to do so."

Yes indeed. Yet another example of how the quest for survival has led to the enormous diversity of life forms extinct and extant.

DAVID: there are ecosystems everywhere starting at the bottom of life's forms with simple forms like sponges. Theses systems are stacked one upon another and as the complexity of life increases, in the higher stacks organisms like us humans benefit with our food supply. Only God's method of evolution produced this arrangement, food for all. dhw does not understand how important this arrangement must be.

dhw: How important for what? All ecosystems are essential for the survival of those organisms which create it and which depend on it! Vast numbers of ecosystems and organisms have disappeared (and there are even organisms and ecosystems that are disappearing now), but they were not all “part of the goal of evolving humans”, because “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”. And “extinct life has no role in current time”. All your own words. So please stop pretending that somehow this vast variety of life and econiches supports your theory that your God’s only purpose was to design humans plus our food!

Your usual blindness. NOW is simply NOW. That is how evolution works. One 'now' follows another. Currently all ecosystems work together to make food for all. Sliced evolution again into unrelated parts. Makes no sense. 7.5 billion humans must have food, provided by the whole bush of life God provided.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Friday, February 11, 2022, 13:18 (107 days ago) @ David Turell

Ecosystem importance: Deep under Arctic ice

QUOTE: "It's a marvelous and peculiar ecosystem, demonstrating yet another way life can carve out a place for itself even in the most difficult places to do so."

Yes indeed. Yet another example of how the quest for survival has led to the enormous diversity of life forms extinct and extant.

DAVID: there are ecosystems everywhere starting at the bottom of life's forms with simple forms like sponges. Theses systems are stacked one upon another and as the complexity of life increases, in the higher stacks organisms like us humans benefit with our food supply. Only God's method of evolution produced this arrangement, food for all. dhw does not understand how important this arrangement must be.

dhw: How important for what? All ecosystems are essential for the survival of those organisms which create it and which depend on it! Vast numbers of ecosystems and organisms have disappeared (and there are even organisms and ecosystems that are disappearing now), but they were not all “part of the goal of evolving humans”, because “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”. And “extinct life has no role in current time”. All your own words. So please stop pretending that somehow this vast variety of life and econiches supports your theory that your God’s only purpose was to design humans plus our food!

DAVID: Your usual blindness. NOW is simply NOW. That is how evolution works. One 'now' follows another. Currently all ecosystems work together to make food for all. Sliced evolution again into unrelated parts. Makes no sense. 7.5 billion humans must have food, provided by the whole bush of life God provided.

Yes, one “NOW” follows another, and ecosystems come and go. The “whole bush” includes past and present. If extinct life has no role in current time, then how can you possibly say that all extinct ecosystems were specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food? Thousands and thousands of branches past and present were/are not “related” to humans or even to our food. But you are absolutely right to say that 7.5 billion humans must have food. EVERY life form must have food, and that applies to every life form that existed for the millions and millions of years before even the earliest humans arrived on the planet.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Friday, February 11, 2022, 15:30 (107 days ago) @ dhw

Ecosystem importance: Deep under Arctic ice

dhw: How important for what? All ecosystems are essential for the survival of those organisms which create it and which depend on it! Vast numbers of ecosystems and organisms have disappeared (and there are even organisms and ecosystems that are disappearing now), but they were not all “part of the goal of evolving humans”, because “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”. And “extinct life has no role in current time”. All your own words. So please stop pretending that somehow this vast variety of life and econiches supports your theory that your God’s only purpose was to design humans plus our food!

DAVID: Your usual blindness. NOW is simply NOW. That is how evolution works. One 'now' follows another. Currently all ecosystems work together to make food for all. Sliced evolution again into unrelated parts. Makes no sense. 7.5 billion humans must have food, provided by the whole bush of life God provided.

dhw: Yes, one “NOW” follows another, and ecosystems come and go. The “whole bush” includes past and present. If extinct life has no role in current time, then how can you possibly say that all extinct ecosystems were specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food? Thousands and thousands of branches past and present were/are not “related” to humans or even to our food. But you are absolutely right to say that 7.5 billion humans must have food. EVERY life form must have food, and that applies to every life form that existed for the millions and millions of years before even the earliest humans arrived on the planet.

Your distorted view of evolution doesn't answer my point. So I'll ask. Don't you believe evolution is stepwise? Doesn't a new stage appear built on the past? Humans are a result of all those past stages, aren't they? You complain about God using all those stages when all He wanted was some humans walking around the Earth. He wasn't impatient, but your desired human version of Him is!!!

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Saturday, February 12, 2022, 07:52 (106 days ago) @ David Turell

Today’s miscellany simply repeats the arguments on the thread concerning David’s theory of evolution , but it vividly illustrates how this theory permeates so many of his posts. Hence the endless repetition. In brief, the ecosystem deep under Arctic ice does not offer the slightest evidence that David’s God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food, and he achieved his goal by designing countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food.

Ecosystem importance: Deep under Arctic ice

DAVID: ……food forall. Dhw does notunderstand how important this arrangement must be.

dhw: How important for what? All ecosystems are essential for the survival of those organisms which create it and which depend on it! Vast numbers of ecosystems and organisms have disappeared (and there are even organisms and ecosystems that are disappearing now), but they were not all “part of the goal of evolving humans”, because “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”. And “extinct life has no role in current time”. All your own words. So please stop pretending that somehow this vast variety of life and econiches supports your theory that your God’s only purpose was to design humans plus our food! […]

DAVID: Your distorted view of evolution doesn't answer my point. So I'll ask. Don't you believe evolution is stepwise?

Yes.

DAVID: Doesn't a new stage appear built on the past?

Yes.

DAVID: Humans are a result of all those past stages, aren't they?

No. Humans are the result of one line or branch of past stages, not “all”. Thousands of other branches led to thousands of other life forms, most of which never had any connection with humans or with our food. Hence the illogicality of your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was humans and our food and so he designed countless forms that had no connection with humans and our food.

DAVID: You complain about God using all those stages when all He wanted was some humans walking around the Earth. He wasn't impatient, but your desired human version of Him is!!!

I do not complain about him “using” all those stages. I complain about your theory that he designed all those other stages of all those other branches, which had no connection with us or our food, as his “roundabout” way of fulfilling his one and only purpose of designing us and our food. I do not see him as impatient, and I certainly do not see him as less efficient than us humans in setting about achieving his goal(s) whatever they may be, and I do not believe in a theory the basis of which is a conviction that God’s logic has to be totally illogical by our standards.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 12, 2022, 16:37 (106 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your distorted view of evolution doesn't answer my point. So I'll ask. Don't you believe evolution is stepwise?

Yes.

DAVID: Doesn't a new stage appear built on the past?

Yes.

DAVID: Humans are a result of all those past stages, aren't they?

dhw: No. Humans are the result of one line or branch of past stages, not “all”. Thousands of other branches led to thousands of other life forms, most of which never had any connection with humans or with our food. Hence the illogicality of your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was humans and our food and so he designed countless forms that had no connection with humans and our food.

The connection is the huge requirement for a food supply. You admit it must exist and then try to diminish its importance. All the ecosystems layer one upon the next to support the need for consuming energy.

DAVID: You complain about God using all those stages when all He wanted was some humans walking around the Earth. He wasn't impatient, but your desired human version of Him is!!!

dhw: I do not complain about him “using” all those stages. I complain about your theory that he designed all those other stages of all those other branches, which had no connection with us or our food, as his “roundabout” way of fulfilling his one and only purpose of designing us and our food. I do not see him as impatient, and I certainly do not see him as less efficient than us humans in setting about achieving his goal(s) whatever they may be, and I do not believe in a theory the basis of which is a conviction that God’s logic has to be totally illogical by our standards.

Not 'our' standards, but your personal humanizing misinterpretation of how to think about God, as I was taught by Adler.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Monday, February 14, 2022, 09:27 (104 days ago) @ dhw

Clearly answering Darwin

DAVID: You miss Hunter's point, In Darwin-speak improving fitness is required. If natural selection makes for advances in evolution (with fitness) why didn't natural selection remove the webbings?
And elsewhere: “in the human body, so-called vestigial parts, like the appendix, are now shown to have very important roles. The lesson: don't judge God from our current ignorance. Can dhw learn? I would expect so.

Dhw is not judging God! I am discussing people’s theories. Let’s stick to the example (webbed feet) that still appears to be vestigial. Darwin says “heredity”, and I have added my little piece. What’s wrong with my/Darwin’s explanation?

DAVID: So natural selection bows to heredity? In that case now do advances happen?

You have completely missed the point, which means we must now go right off the track. Darwin believed that advances happened because of random mutations, and natural selection decided which of these were beneficial enough to survive. When confronted with the problem of vestigial structures, he suggested that they were inherited. (I added that they would probably have been discarded if they were harmful.) What’s the problem? And how does that theory draw its power from theology?

DAVID: He shows how critics of design blame only God and ignore natural selection (NS) for blame. Both sides make the same argument about the other.

dhw: Fair comment. Thank you. I wish you and he wouldn’t attack Darwin, though, for the bias of those with their own religious or anti-religious agendas. I see nothing wrong with Darwin’s own explanation – especially with my little addition. Do you?

DAVID: Poor Darwin, knowing so little about how life worked, did demonstrate common descent, nothing more.

Snipe as much as you like at Darwin’s achievement in establishing common descent as the now widely accepted view of life’s history. How does your attempt to belittle his achievement prove Hunter’s point that the power of Darwin’s theory is drawn from theology and not from scientific study?

Hunter claims that evolutionists (by implication Darwinists) believe that life arose spontaneously when he ought to know that Darwin himself was an agnostic, his theory of evolution does NOT cover the origin of life, and there are plenty of theists who accept his theory of common descent. Let's move on to natural selection.

dhw The theory of natural selection seems to me to be pure common sense: generally those organs and organisms which survive will do so if they are well equipped to survive in the conditions under which they live. I don’t see how that derives its power from theology. Do you?

DAVID: No, it doesn't. Natural selection is logical until, as most Darwinists do, insist it becomes a designer creating new forms. Only a real designer does that.

Thank you for agreeing with me that Hunter is completely off track when he claims that the commonsense theory of NS derives its power from theology. The fact that some evolutionists (why do you call these people Darwinists?) think NS creates new forms shows that they haven’t understood Darwin, who claimed that it was random mutations that created the new forms, and natural selection which decided which forms would survive. (But I do think the title of his world-shaking book is misleading.)

A new dark matter theory

DAVID: The universe is vast, dangerous to life, yet because of the way it is built, we are here. dhw in the past has questioned why God made it that way. We are trying to find out. I don't know the answer, but currently simply assume that is what God needed to do.

What I question is why, if your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, he designed the vast universe with all its comings and goings, and the vast bush of life with all its comings and goings.

DAVID: God must know what has to be done to achieve His purposes, but He doesn't tell us why, making it a challenge for us to discover, if we can.

You keep changing your terms from singular to plural. What plural purposes? You insist that he only had one: us and our food. And you pooh-pooh any other suggestion.

DAVID: That is the difference between us. I accept God and His works as is/are and dhw tries to analyze everything about God using his (dhw's) human logic.

You do not “accept God and His works as is/are!" You insist on imposing a single purpose underlying those works (humans), and you insist on a single method of achieving that purpose (designing countless life forms etc. that had no connection with his purpose). I don’t try to analyze everything. I analyze your illogical theory using the only logic available to both you and me, and your only defence now is that your God’s logic is not like ours, although elsewhere you have said you are sure he is logical.

DAVID: The problem is God is not human and what He appears to have done may not make sense to us until we find the explanation.

The problem is that we know absolutely nothing about the origin of the universe, of life, and of consciousness, and we don’t even know if your God exists. We can only theorize and then apply our human logic to testing the reasonableness of our theories. It is perfectly possible to find alternative theories that are logical, but it is not possible to prove whether they are right or wrong.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Monday, February 14, 2022, 17:10 (104 days ago) @ dhw

Clearly answering Darwin

DAVID: So natural selection bows to heredity? In that case now do advances happen?

dhw: You have completely missed the point, which means we must now go right off the track. Darwin believed that advances happened because of random mutations, and natural selection decided which of these were beneficial enough to survive. When confronted with the problem of vestigial structures, he suggested that they were inherited. (I added that they would probably have been discarded if they were harmful.) What’s the problem? And how does that theory draw its power from theology?

You missed my point. If Darwin bowed to heredity which caused unnecessary parts to remain, that is the argument for chance mutations to be correct.


DAVID: Poor Darwin, knowing so little about how life worked, did demonstrate common descent, nothing more.

dhw: Snipe as much as you like at Darwin’s achievement in establishing common descent as the now widely accepted view of life’s history. How does your attempt to belittle his achievement prove Hunter’s point that the power of Darwin’s theory is drawn from theology and not from scientific study?

Darwinism is pure faith, isn't it? Lots of Darwin's compatriots accepted common descent, but not Darwin's explanation. His then detractors were more correct than Darwin .


dhw The theory of natural selection seems to me to be pure common sense: generally those organs and organisms which survive will do so if they are well equipped to survive in the conditions under which they live. I don’t see how that derives its power from theology. Do you?

DAVID: No, it doesn't. Natural selection is logical until, as most Darwinists do, insist it becomes a designer creating new forms. Only a real designer does that.

dhw: Thank you for agreeing with me that Hunter is completely off track when he claims that the commonsense theory of NS derives its power from theology. The fact that some evolutionists (why do you call these people Darwinists?) think NS creates new forms shows that they haven’t understood Darwin, who claimed that it was random mutations that created the new forms, and natural selection which decided which forms would survive. (But I do think the title of his world-shaking book is misleading.)

Hunter is trying to compare Darwinist faith with religious faith. I admit he falls short.


A new dark matter theory

DAVID: The universe is vast, dangerous to life, yet because of the way it is built, we are here. dhw in the past has questioned why God made it that way. We are trying to find out. I don't know the answer, but currently simply assume that is what God needed to do.

dhw: What I question is why, if your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, he designed the vast universe with all its comings and goings, and the vast bush of life with all its comings and goings.

Again, a human-logic view of what God feels He must do. I can simply accept it as necessary, and more research will tell us why.


DAVID: God must know what has to be done to achieve His purposes, but He doesn't tell us why, making it a challenge for us to discover, if we can.

dhw: You keep changing your terms from singular to plural. What plural purposes? You insist that he only had one: us and our food. And you pooh-pooh any other suggestion.

Why does single purpose or many matter to you? God sets His purposes as He will. We seek to understand them. You have used the appearance of humans to make God seem tunnel-visioned while Adler and I see humans as proof of God.


DAVID: That is the difference between us. I accept God and His works as is/are and dhw tries to analyze everything about God using his (dhw's) human logic.

dhw: You do not “accept God and His works as is/are!" You insist on imposing a single purpose underlying those works (humans), and you insist on a single method of achieving that purpose (designing countless life forms etc. that had no connection with his purpose). I don’t try to analyze everything. I analyze your illogical theory using the only logic available to both you and me, and your only defence now is that your God’s logic is not like ours, although elsewhere you have said you are sure he is logical.

Your analysis of God using human logic is the problem. Adler and I accept God is a totally different way from your humanizing views. You can't seem to recognize how you humanize God.


DAVID: The problem is God is not human and what He appears to have done may not make sense to us until we find the explanation.

dhw: The problem is that we know absolutely nothing about the origin of the universe, of life, and of consciousness, and we don’t even know if your God exists. We can only theorize and then apply our human logic to testing the reasonableness of our theories. It is perfectly possible to find alternative theories that are logical, but it is not possible to prove whether they are right or wrong.

It is up to each person to establish rational beliefs. I'm very happy with mine.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Tuesday, February 15, 2022, 08:29 (103 days ago) @ David Turell

Clearly answering Darwin

DAVID: So natural selection bows to heredity? In that case now do advances happen?

dhw: You have completely missed the point, which means we must now go right off the track. Darwin believed that advances happened because of random mutations, and natural selection decided which of these were beneficial enough to survive. When confronted with the problem of vestigial structures, he suggested that they were inherited. (I added that they would probably have been discarded if they were harmful.) What’s the problem? And how does that theory draw its power from theology?

DAVID: You missed my point. If Darwin bowed to heredity which caused unnecessary parts to remain, that is the argument for chance mutations to be correct.

Yes of course. He found an explanation that fitted in with his theory. So if we assume that the webbed feet are indeed vestigial structures, what is your explanation?

DAVID: Poor Darwin, knowing so little about how life worked, did demonstrate common descent, nothing more.

dhw: Snipe as much as you like at Darwin’s achievement in establishing common descent as the now widely accepted view of life’s history. How does your attempt to belittle his achievement prove Hunter’s point that the power of Darwin’s theory is drawn from theology and not from scientific study?

DAVID: Darwinism is pure faith, isn't it? Lots of Darwin's compatriots accepted common descent, but not Darwin's explanation. His then detractors were more correct than Darwin.

Darwinism is a collection of theories. I have deliberately laid emphasis on common descent, which even today is widely accepted as being true and is based on scientific study. I cannot see how anyone can argue that its power is drawn from theology. You and I and many others reject the theory that random mutations cause speciation. We reject it because our observations, reason and experience tell us that chance is not capable of such complex inventions. The power of our opposition is not based on theology, though it may well lead us to theological concepts.

DAVID: Hunter is trying to compare Darwinist faith with religious faith. I admit he falls short.

Thank you. I hope it won’t sound presumptuous if I say that the reason he falls short is that like so many others, he wrongly equates Darwinism with atheism. (See below, re you and Dawkins.)

A new dark matter theory

DAVID: The universe is vast, dangerous to life, yet because of the way it is built, we are here. dhw in the past has questioned why God made it that way. We are trying to find out. I don't know the answer, but currently simply assume that is what God needed to do.

dhw: What I question is why, if your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, he designed the vast universe with all its comings and goings, and the vast bush of life with all its comings and goings.

DAVID: Again, a human-logic view of what God feels He must do. I can simply accept it as necessary, and more research will tell us why.

This is where you the theist and Dawkins the atheist (The God Delusion, p.14)become birds of a feather, except for one highly significant word: “If there is something that appears beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” You accept and he hopes.

DAVID: God must know what has to be done to achieve His purposes, but He doesn't tell us why, making it a challenge for us to discover, if we can.

dhw: You keep changing your terms from singular to plural. What plural purposes? You insist that he only had one: us and our food. And you pooh-pooh any other suggestion.

DAVID: Why does single purpose or many matter to you? God sets His purposes as He will. We seek to understand them. You have used the appearance of humans to make God seem tunnel-visioned while Adler and I see humans as proof of God.

It matters to me because you are the one who makes your God tunnel-visioned by insisting that his one and only purpose was to design humans and our food! And that does not fit in with the history of life as you present it, because you have him designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and our food! So you defend your theory by telling us that we mustn’t think humanly logically, although you praise Adler to the skies for his humanly logical deduction from life’s complexities – and especially those of humans – that God must exist.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 15, 2022, 16:20 (103 days ago) @ dhw

Clearly answering Darwin

DAVID: You missed my point. If Darwin bowed to heredity which caused unnecessary parts to remain, that is the argument for chance mutations to be correct.

dhw: Yes of course. He found an explanation that fitted in with his theory. So if we assume that the webbed feet are indeed vestigial structures, what is your explanation?

I assume God didn't see the need for removal as the webs do not impede the geese. Besides domesticated geese are not wild geese who do swim. Not time enough for change.


DAVID: Darwinism is pure faith, isn't it? Lots of Darwin's compatriots accepted common descent, but not Darwin's explanation. His then detractors were more correct than Darwin.

dhw: Darwinism is a collection of theories. I have deliberately laid emphasis on common descent, which even today is widely accepted as being true and is based on scientific study. I cannot see how anyone can argue that its power is drawn from theology. You and I and many others reject the theory that random mutations cause speciation. We reject it because our observations, reason and experience tell us that chance is not capable of such complex inventions. The power of our opposition is not based on theology, though it may well lead us to theological concepts.

A deliberate non-answer. Darwinism is faith or not?


DAVID: Hunter is trying to compare Darwinist faith with religious faith. I admit he falls short.

dhw: Thank you. I hope it won’t sound presumptuous if I say that the reason he falls short is that like so many others, he wrongly equates Darwinism with atheism. (See below, re you and Dawkins.)

A new dark matter theory

DAVID: The universe is vast, dangerous to life, yet because of the way it is built, we are here. dhw in the past has questioned why God made it that way. We are trying to find out. I don't know the answer, but currently simply assume that is what God needed to do.

dhw: What I question is why, if your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans and their food, he designed the vast universe with all its comings and goings, and the vast bush of life with all its comings and goings.

DAVID: Again, a human-logic view of what God feels He must do. I can simply accept it as necessary, and more research will tell us why.

dhw: This is where you the theist and Dawkins the atheist (The God Delusion, p.14)become birds of a feather, except for one highly significant word: “If there is something that appears beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.” You accept and he hopes.

DAVID: God must know what has to be done to achieve His purposes, but He doesn't tell us why, making it a challenge for us to discover, if we can.

dhw: You keep changing your terms from singular to plural. What plural purposes? You insist that he only had one: us and our food. And you pooh-pooh any other suggestion.

DAVID: Why does single purpose or many matter to you? God sets His purposes as He will. We seek to understand them. You have used the appearance of humans to make God seem tunnel-visioned while Adler and I see humans as proof of God.

dhw: It matters to me because you are the one who makes your God tunnel-visioned by insisting that his one and only purpose was to design humans and our food! And that does not fit in with the history of life as you present it, because you have him designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and our food! So you defend your theory by telling us that we mustn’t think humanly logically, although you praise Adler to the skies for his humanly logical deduction from life’s complexities – and especially those of humans – that God must exist.

What is logical, and you blinded from it, God chose to evolve us. Adler and I believe God exists which makes evolution, as a means of creating humans, logical. To us your illogical complaint against God comes from your starting point of reasonable thought is not ours.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Wednesday, February 16, 2022, 11:45 (102 days ago) @ David Turell

Clearly answering Darwin

DAVID: You missed my point. If Darwin bowed to heredity which caused unnecessary parts to remain, that is the argument for chance mutations to be correct.

dhw: Yes of course. He found an explanation that fitted in with his theory. So if we assume that the webbed feet are indeed vestigial structures, what is your explanation?

DAVID: I assume God didn't see the need for removal as the webs do not impede the geese.

Exactly the same explanation that Darwin offered – the webs were inherited – to which I have added: “They would probably have been discarded if they were harmful.”

DAVID: Darwinism is pure faith, isn't it? Lots of Darwin's compatriots accepted common descent, but not Darwin's explanation. His then detractors were more correct than Darwin.

dhw: Darwinism is a collection of theories. I have deliberately laid emphasis on common descent, which even today is widely accepted as being true and is based on scientific study. I cannot see how anyone can argue that its power is drawn from theology. You and I and many others reject the theory that random mutations cause speciation. We reject it because our observations, reason and experience tell us that chance is not capable of such complex inventions. The power of our opposition is not based on theology, though it may well lead us to theological concepts.

DAVID: A deliberate non-answer. Darwinism is faith or not?

Before such a question can be answered, we need to know what is meant by “Darwinism”! I believe the theory of common descent is true. I do not believe in the theory of random mutations as the cause of speciation. And we also need to know what is meant by faith! Does the latter mean we are confident something is true, or we have an irrational belief, or we believe in God? The obvious answer to your question is that no, Darwinism is not a faith, it’s a theory or, to be more precise, a collection of theories.

A new dark matter theory

Ends up by repeating the arguments dealt with on the thread concerning your theory.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 16, 2022, 15:51 (102 days ago) @ dhw

Clearly answering Darwin

DAVID: You missed my point. If Darwin bowed to heredity which caused unnecessary parts to remain, that is the argument for chance mutations to be correct.

dhw: Yes of course. He found an explanation that fitted in with his theory. So if we assume that the webbed feet are indeed vestigial structures, what is your explanation?

DAVID: I assume God didn't see the need for removal as the webs do not impede the geese.

dhw: Exactly the same explanation that Darwin offered – the webs were inherited – to which I have added: “They would probably have been discarded if they were harmful.”

DAVID: Darwinism is pure faith, isn't it? Lots of Darwin's compatriots accepted common descent, but not Darwin's explanation. His then detractors were more correct than Darwin.

dhw: Darwinism is a collection of theories. I have deliberately laid emphasis on common descent, which even today is widely accepted as being true and is based on scientific study. I cannot see how anyone can argue that its power is drawn from theology. You and I and many others reject the theory that random mutations cause speciation. We reject it because our observations, reason and experience tell us that chance is not capable of such complex inventions. The power of our opposition is not based on theology, though it may well lead us to theological concepts.

DAVID: A deliberate non-answer. Darwinism is faith or not?

dhw: Before such a question can be answered, we need to know what is meant by “Darwinism”! I believe the theory of common descent is true. I do not believe in the theory of random mutations as the cause of speciation. And we also need to know what is meant by faith! Does the latter mean we are confident something is true, or we have an irrational belief, or we believe in God? The obvious answer to your question is that no, Darwinism is not a faith, it’s a theory or, to be more precise, a collection of theories.

Faith in Darwinists is the problem, since they create a distortion of pure Darwin, as you point out. They see active natural selection, while we have accepted it only has a passive reaction to new organisms. Darwin, hampered by his time and limited knowledge, has had many of his proposals denied by our new knowledge. The 'junk DNA' fiasco exhibits the faith.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Thursday, February 17, 2022, 12:08 (101 days ago) @ David Turell

Clearly answering Darwin

DAVID: Darwinism is faith or not?

dhw: Before such a question can be answered, we need to know what is meant by “Darwinism”! I believe the theory of common descent is true. I do not believe in the theory of random mutations as the cause of speciation. And we also need to know what is meant by faith! Does the latter mean we are confident something is true, or we have an irrational belief, or we believe in God? The obvious answer to your question is that no, Darwinism is not a faith, it’s a theory or, to be more precise, a collection of theories.

DAVID: Faith in Darwinists is the problem, since they create a distortion of pure Darwin, as you point out.

I don’t know what you mean by “faith in Darwinists”, but thank you for the second comment.

DAVID: They see active natural selection, while we have accepted it only has a passive reaction to new organisms.

Agreed.

DAVID: Darwin, hampered by his time and limited knowledge, has had many of his proposals denied by our new knowledge.

Agreed.

DAVID: The 'junk DNA' fiasco exhibits the faith.

I don’t know why you keep wanting to use the word “faith”, unless you are still trying to justify Hunter’s proposal that the power of Darwin’s theory is drawn from theology. You have accepted Hunter’s example of webbed feet as a vestigial structure, so there is still a problem of “junk”, but you and I and Darwin have agreed on a solution: the junky webbed feet are hereditary, and if they are not harmful, then NS or God will not bother to get rid of them. In such a context, I myself would only use “faith” in relation to someone’s firm belief in something that cannot be proven and is open to different interpretations: e.g. in this case, belief in the theory that an unknown being designed evolution, or belief that the complexities of life could have been created by chance. (Although you and I oppose the theory of random mutations as the cause of speciation, Darwin goes out of his way in "Origin" to emphasize that his theory is NOT atheistic - i.e. that God could have designed the whole system).

How did sex pop up?

DAVID: the ability to fuse cells had to start in Archaea, since they are our ancestors. Doesn't help us understand how sexual activity was created. answer is simple if one accepts that God created evolution by His design. Anticipating necessary new processes is a logical way to design evolution. Another example of anticipating the future.

Why “necessary”. Necessary for what?

The article reminds me of what for me was a huge eye-opener earlier this month. I’ll reproduce it here, as it relates directly to the above.

Horizontal gene transfer Feb 4 at 8.10
QUOTES: "By forming a 'temporary union' with another bacterium in our gut, a microbe can therefore transfer its genes to another – it doesn't even have to be the same species.
"All the microbe has to do is stick out a tube, called a pilus, and attach itself to another cell, shooting off a transferable package of DNA called a mobile genetic element when it's ready."
"The discovery of bacterial sex was made over 70 years ago, when scientists realized this horizontal gene transfer was how microbes were sharing resistance genes for certain antibiotics, thereby spreading antibiotic resistance.”

Wow! This is a real eye-opener for me, though obviously not for people in the field. I’ve always thought that sexual reproduction was an astonishing leap forward in evolution, but the basic principle was already established by bacteria through horizontal gene transfer! For me, this provides a crucial link in the chain of common descent. Many thanks to David for this “revelation”!

Sudden change from a gene loss

QUOTE: "'This finding shows that evolution can occur in a big jump if the right kind of gene is involved," Hodges said. APETALA3-3 tells the developing organ to become a petal. "When it's broken, those instructions aren't there anymore, and that causes it to develop into a completely different organ, a sepal," he explained."

DAVID: This is devolution, not real evolution and demonstrates Darwinist faith bias.

You must be joking. If anything, this supports Darwin’s theory of random mutations leading to speciation! But do you really think the Colorado blue columbine nullifies your whole argument that evolution progresses from the simple to the increasingly complex? I can only repeat the conclusion I drew when we discussed Behe’s theory (which did NOT extend to speciation): speciation takes place through the addition of new genes, and existing genes performing new functions, and this may result in the loss of genes that are no longer required.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 17, 2022, 16:01 (101 days ago) @ dhw

Clearly answering Darwin

DAVID: They see active natural selection, while we have accepted it only has a passive reaction to new organisms.

dhw: Agreed.

DAVID: Darwin, hampered by his time and limited knowledge, has had many of his proposals denied by our new knowledge.

dhw: Agreed.

DAVID: The 'junk DNA' fiasco exhibits the faith.

dhw: I don’t know why you keep wanting to use the word “faith”, unless you are still trying to justify Hunter’s proposal that the power of Darwin’s theory is drawn from theology. You have accepted Hunter’s example of webbed feet as a vestigial structure, so there is still a problem of “junk”, but you and I and Darwin have agreed on a solution: the junky webbed feet are hereditary, and if they are not harmful, then NS or God will not bother to get rid of them. In such a context, I myself would only use “faith” in relation to someone’s firm belief in something that cannot be proven and is open to different interpretations: e.g. in this case, belief in the theory that an unknown being designed evolution, or belief that the complexities of life could have been created by chance. (Although you and I oppose the theory of random mutations as the cause of speciation, Darwin goes out of his way in "Origin" to emphasize that his theory is NOT atheistic - i.e. that God could have designed the whole system).

The atheists use him anyway.


How did sex pop up?

DAVID: the ability to fuse cells had to start in Archaea, since they are our ancestors. Doesn't help us understand how sexual activity was created. answer is simple if one accepts that God created evolution by His design. Anticipating necessary new processes is a logical way to design evolution. Another example of anticipating the future.

dhw: Why “necessary”. Necessary for what?

As I've insisted, design for future use, anticipated and unanticipated.


dhw: The article reminds me of what for me was a huge eye-opener earlier this month. I’ll reproduce it here, as it relates directly to the above.

Horizontal gene transfer Feb 4 at 8.10
QUOTES: "By forming a 'temporary union' with another bacterium in our gut, a microbe can therefore transfer its genes to another – it doesn't even have to be the same species.
"All the microbe has to do is stick out a tube, called a pilus, and attach itself to another cell, shooting off a transferable package of DNA called a mobile genetic element when it's ready."
"The discovery of bacterial sex was made over 70 years ago, when scientists realized this horizontal gene transfer was how microbes were sharing resistance genes for certain antibiotics, thereby spreading antibiotic resistance.”

dhw: Wow! This is a real eye-opener for me, though obviously not for people in the field. I’ve always thought that sexual reproduction was an astonishing leap forward in evolution, but the basic principle was already established by bacteria through horizontal gene transfer! For me, this provides a crucial link in the chain of common descent. Many thanks to David for this “revelation”!

Happy to provide surprises. I hunt daily


Sudden change from a gene loss

QUOTE: "'This finding shows that evolution can occur in a big jump if the right kind of gene is involved," Hodges said. APETALA3-3 tells the developing organ to become a petal. "When it's broken, those instructions aren't there anymore, and that causes it to develop into a completely different organ, a sepal," he explained."

DAVID: This is devolution, not real evolution and demonstrates Darwinist faith bias.

dhw: You must be joking. If anything, this supports Darwin’s theory of random mutations leading to speciation! But do you really think the Colorado blue columbine nullifies your whole argument that evolution progresses from the simple to the increasingly complex? I can only repeat the conclusion I drew when we discussed Behe’s theory (which did NOT extend to speciation): speciation takes place through the addition of new genes, and existing genes performing new functions, and this may result in the loss of genes that are no longer required.

All I showed was obvious devolution. In the progression from Archaea to humans devolution happened!

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Friday, February 18, 2022, 11:58 (100 days ago) @ David Turell

How did sex pop up?

DAVID: the ability to fuse cells had to start in Archaea, since they are our ancestors. Doesn't help us understand how sexual activity was created. answer is simple if one accepts that God created evolution by His design. Anticipating necessary new processes is a logical way to design evolution. Another example of anticipating the future.

dhw: Why “necessary”. Necessary for what?

DAVID: As I've insisted, design for future use, anticipated and unanticipated.

You have not answered my question. Why do you think your God found it “necessary” to design sex?

Sudden change from a gene loss

QUOTE: "'This finding shows that evolution can occur in a big jump if the right kind of gene is involved," Hodges said. APETALA3-3 tells the developing organ to become a petal. "When it's broken, those instructions aren't there anymore, and that causes it to develop into a completely different organ, a sepal," he explained."

DAVID: This is devolution, not real evolution and demonstrates Darwinist faith bias.

dhw: You must be joking. If anything, this supports Darwin’s theory of random mutations leading to speciation! But do you really think the Colorado blue columbine nullifies your whole argument that evolution progresses from the simple to the increasingly complex? I can only repeat the conclusion I drew when we discussed Behe’s theory (which did NOT extend to speciation): speciation takes place through the addition of new genes, and existing genes performing new functions, and this may result in the loss of genes that are no longer required.

DAVID: All I showed was obvious devolution. In the progression from Archaea to humans devolution happened!

Sorry, but I still don’t understand how this “demonstrates Darwinist faith bias”.

Milky Way

DAVID: dhw is going to wonder in his usual way, why did God do so much with this galaxy when all He wanted was humans. The answer is humans need lots of protection from dangerous area in this galaxy as in its center. The Earth is two-thirds of the way out in the second spiral, far from the dangerous activity. God has His reasons, and this one is obvious.

I thought you’d now agreed with me that humans were NOT “all He wanted”. (See the thread on your theory of evolution.) You don’t need to defend that theory now that you’ve disowned it.

Thank you for the other posts. I marvel at your ability to keep up with all these different developments in so many subjects!

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Friday, February 18, 2022, 16:56 (100 days ago) @ dhw

How did sex pop up?

DAVID: the ability to fuse cells had to start in Archaea, since they are our ancestors. Doesn't help us understand how sexual activity was created. answer is simple if one accepts that God created evolution by His design. Anticipating necessary new processes is a logical way to design evolution. Another example of anticipating the future.

dhw: Why “necessary”. Necessary for what?

DAVID: As I've insisted, design for future use, anticipated and unanticipated.

dhw: You have not answered my question. Why do you think your God found it “necessary” to design sex?

Obvious Two inputs allow much more new outputs than simple cell division always producing exactly the same.


Sudden change from a gene loss

QUOTE: "'This finding shows that evolution can occur in a big jump if the right kind of gene is involved," Hodges said. APETALA3-3 tells the developing organ to become a petal. "When it's broken, those instructions aren't there anymore, and that causes it to develop into a completely different organ, a sepal," he explained."

DAVID: This is devolution, not real evolution and demonstrates Darwinist faith bias.

dhw: You must be joking. If anything, this supports Darwin’s theory of random mutations leading to speciation! But do you really think the Colorado blue columbine nullifies your whole argument that evolution progresses from the simple to the increasingly complex? I can only repeat the conclusion I drew when we discussed Behe’s theory (which did NOT extend to speciation): speciation takes place through the addition of new genes, and existing genes performing new functions, and this may result in the loss of genes that are no longer required.

DAVID: All I showed was obvious devolution. In the progression from Archaea to humans devolution happened!

dhw: Sorry, but I still don’t understand how this “demonstrates Darwinist faith bias”.

Some adaptations require a loss of genes. We agree new gene complexes create new species. The authors called the loss of flower parts evolution. No it isn't. Nothing new appeared


Milky Way

DAVID: dhw is going to wonder in his usual way, why did God do so much with this galaxy when all He wanted was humans. The answer is humans need lots of protection from dangerous area in this galaxy as in its center. The Earth is two-thirds of the way out in the second spiral, far from the dangerous activity. God has His reasons, and this one is obvious.

dhw: I thought you’d now agreed with me that humans were NOT “all He wanted”. (See the thread on your theory of evolution.) You don’t need to defend that theory now that you’ve disowned it.

Thank you for the other posts. I marvel at your ability to keep up with all these different developments in so many subjects!

I follow websites that collect them.

More "miscellany": imaginary numbers explain reality

by David Turell @, Friday, February 18, 2022, 17:12 (100 days ago) @ David Turell

They must be used in quantum theory:

https://mindmatters.ai/2022/02/why-would-a-purely-physical-universe-need-imaginary-numb...

"Imaginary numbers are not imaginary at all. The truth is, they have had far more impact on our lives than anything truly imaginary ever could. Without imaginary numbers, and the vital role they played in putting electricity into homes, factories, and internet server-farms, the modern world would not exist.

"Imaginary numbers, are we recall from school, are the square roots of minus numbers. Two plus numbers, multiplied, result in a plus number. But so do two minus numbers. The square roots of minus numbers must exist but they exist in an “imaginary” sense.

***

"While acknowledging that “A full mathematical description of nature” requires imaginary numbers to exist, Brooks considers the term “imaginary” numbers unhelpful because he considers all numbers to be imaginary. Toward the end of his essay, he asserts, “So what we’re discovering here is not some deep mystery about the universe, but a clear and useful set of relationships that are a consequence of defining numbers in various different ways.”

"But what does his claim that the numbers are “not some deep mystery about the universe” leave us? Recent studies have shown that imaginary numbers — which we can’t really represent by objects, the way we can represent natural numbers by objects — are needed to describe reality. Quantum mechanics pioneers did not like them and worked out ways around them:

"In fact, even the founders of quantum mechanics themselves thought that the implications of having complex numbers in their equations was disquieting. In a letter to his friend Hendrik Lorentz, physicist Erwin Schrödinger — the first person to introduce complex numbers into quantum theory, with his quantum wave function (ψ) — wrote, “What is unpleasant here, and indeed directly to be objected to, is the use of complex numbers. Ψ is surely fundamentally a real function.”

"BEN TURNER, “IMAGINARY NUMBERS COULD BE NEEDED TO DESCRIBE REALITY, NEW STUDIES FIND” AT LIVESCIENCE (DECEMBER 10, 2021)

But the studies in science journals Nature and Physical Review Letters have shown, via a simple experiment, that the mathematics of our universe requires imaginary numbers.

"Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder offers a common-sense view:

"If you are willing to alter quantum mechanics, so that it becomes even more non-local than it already is, then you can still create the necessary entanglement with real valued numbers.

"Why is it controversial? Well, if you belong to the shut-up and calculate camp, then this finding is entirely irrelevant. Because there’s nothing wrong with complex numbers in the first place. So that’s why you have half of the people saying “what’s the point” or “why all the fuss about it”. If you, on the other hand, are in the camp of people who think there’s something wrong with quantum mechanics because it uses complex numbers that we can never measure, then you are now caught between a rock and a hard place. Either embrace complex numbers, or accept that nature is even more non-local than quantum mechanics.

"SABINE HOSSENFELDER, “DO COMPLEX NUMBERS EXIST?” AT BACKRE(ACTION) (MARCH 6, 2021)"

Comment: Back to the confusion in quantum theory. A number is conceptual. Any number conveys an image of how many. Quantum mechanics as the basis of reality demands a designer did it.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Saturday, February 19, 2022, 07:41 (99 days ago) @ David Turell

How did sex pop up?

DAVID: the ability to fuse cells had to start in Archaea, since they are our ancestors. Doesn't help us understand how sexual activity was created. answer is simple if one accepts that God created evolution by His design. Anticipating necessary new processes is a logical way to design evolution. Another example of anticipating the future.

dhw: Why “necessary”. Necessary for what?

DAVID: Obvious Two inputs allow much more new outputs than simple cell division always producing exactly the same.

And why do you think your God would have wanted more new outputs? What were they necessary for? (I’m not trying to be awkward, but in any case, you may have guessed why I am asking.)

Sudden change from a gene loss

QUOTE: "'This finding shows that evolution can occur in a big jump if the right kind of gene is involved," Hodges said. APETALA3-3 tells the developing organ to become a petal. "When it's broken, those instructions aren't there anymore, and that causes it to develop into a completely different organ, a sepal," he explained."

DAVID: This is devolution, not real evolution and demonstrates Darwinist faith bias.

dhw: You must be joking. If anything, this supports Darwin’s theory of random mutations leading to speciation! But do you really think the Colorado blue columbine nullifies your whole argument that evolution progresses from the simple to the increasingly complex? I can only repeat the conclusion I drew when we discussed Behe’s theory (which did NOT extend to speciation): speciation takes place through the addition of new genes, and existing genes performing new functions, and this may result in the loss of genes that are no longer required.

DAVID: All I showed was obvious devolution. In the progression from Archaea to humans devolution happened!

dhw: Sorry, but I still don’t understand how this “demonstrates Darwinist faith bias”.

DAVID: Some adaptations require a loss of genes. We agree new gene complexes create new species. The authors called the loss of flower parts evolution. No it isn't. Nothing new appeared.

They say the sepal was completely different from the petal. Do you disagree with them? But I’m lost. What is “Darwin faith bias”, and what is your point?

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 19, 2022, 16:33 (99 days ago) @ dhw

How did sex pop up?

DAVID: the ability to fuse cells had to start in Archaea, since they are our ancestors. Doesn't help us understand how sexual activity was created. answer is simple if one accepts that God created evolution by His design. Anticipating necessary new processes is a logical way to design evolution. Another example of anticipating the future.

dhw: Why “necessary”. Necessary for what?

DAVID: Obvious Two inputs allow much more new outputs than simple cell division always producing exactly the same.

dhw: And why do you think your God would have wanted more new outputs? What were they necessary for? (I’m not trying to be awkward, but in any case, you may have guessed why I am asking.)

My point is that it easier to produce new evolutionary forms using two separate DNA's for input.


Sudden change from a gene loss

QUOTE: "'This finding shows that evolution can occur in a big jump if the right kind of gene is involved," Hodges said. APETALA3-3 tells the developing organ to become a petal. "When it's broken, those instructions aren't there anymore, and that causes it to develop into a completely different organ, a sepal," he explained."

DAVID: This is devolution, not real evolution and demonstrates Darwinist faith bias.

dhw: You must be joking. If anything, this supports Darwin’s theory of random mutations leading to speciation! But do you really think the Colorado blue columbine nullifies your whole argument that evolution progresses from the simple to the increasingly complex? I can only repeat the conclusion I drew when we discussed Behe’s theory (which did NOT extend to speciation): speciation takes place through the addition of new genes, and existing genes performing new functions, and this may result in the loss of genes that are no longer required.

DAVID: All I showed was obvious devolution. In the progression from Archaea to humans devolution happened!

dhw: Sorry, but I still don’t understand how this “demonstrates Darwinist faith bias”.

DAVID: Some adaptations require a loss of genes. We agree new gene complexes create new species. The authors called the loss of flower parts evolution. No it isn't. Nothing new appeared.

dhw: They say the sepal was completely different from the petal. Do you disagree with them? But I’m lost. What is “Darwin faith bias”, and what is your point?

Darwin faith bias is simple to see. In evolution natural selection controls all. Everything occurs naturally. They never consider design.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Sunday, February 20, 2022, 08:22 (98 days ago) @ David Turell

Milky Way

DAVID: dhw is going to wonder in his usual way, why did God do so much with this galaxy when all He wanted was humans. The answer is humans need lots of protection from dangerous area in this galaxy as in its center. The Earth is two-thirds of the way out in the second spiral, far from the dangerous activity. God has His reasons, and this one is obvious.

I answered this on Friday:
I thought you’d now agreed with me that humans were NOT “all He wanted”. (See the thread on your theory of evolution.) You don’t need to defend that theory now that you’ve disowned it.

Evolution: more convergence (Introduction)
Insects that suck liquid food:

QUOTE: A sucking pump has thus evolved independently in different groups of organisms over several 100 million years. In the process, astonishingly similar biomechanical solutions for ingesting liquid food have evolved in widely distant animal groups.

DAVID: this diversity of insects with the same mechanism, called convergent evolution is a strong evidence for design against chance development.

I totally agree. And it is wonderfully logical that in the quest for survival, intelligent organisms of all kinds will sometimes work out the same solutions to the same problems.

How did sex pop up?

DAVID: the ability to fuse cells had to start in Archaea, since they are our ancestors. Doesn't help us understand how sexual activity was created. answer is simple if one accepts that God created evolution by His design. Anticipating necessary new processes is a logical way to design evolution. Another example of anticipating the future.

dhw: Why “necessary”. Necessary for what? […]

DAVID: My point is that it easier to produce new evolutionary forms using two separate DNA's for input.

And why do you think your God found it necessary to produce a greater variety of evolutionary forms? (We are edging closer to what you refer to elsewhere as his “primary” purpose, which I have asked you to name.)

Sudden change from a gene loss

QUOTE: "'This finding shows that evolution can occur in a big jump if the right kind of gene is involved," Hodges said. APETALA3-3 tells the developing organ to become a petal. "When it's broken, those instructions aren't there anymore, and that causes it to develop into a completely different organ, a sepal," he explained."

DAVID: This is devolution, not real evolution and demonstrates Darwinist faith bias.

dhw: You must be joking. If anything, this supports Darwin’s theory of random mutations leading to speciation! […]

DAVID: All I showed was obvious devolution. In the progression from Archaea to humans devolution happened!

dhw: Sorry, but I still don’t understand how this “demonstrates Darwinist faith bias”.

DAVID: Some adaptations require a loss of genes. We agree new gene complexes create new species. The authors called the loss of flower parts evolution. No it isn't. Nothing new appeared.

dhw: They say the sepal was completely different from the petal. Do you disagree with them? But I’m lost. What is “Darwin faith bias”, and what is your point?

DAVID: Darwin faith bias is simple to see. In evolution natural selection controls all. Everything occurs naturally. They never consider design.

Thank you. Now I understand what you mean, but are you saying that 3.8 billion years ago, your God planted instructions for the loss of this particular gene, or alternatively that he did a dabble, so that the old petal of the Colorado blue columbine would turn into a new sepal?

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 20, 2022, 16:19 (98 days ago) @ dhw

Milky Way

DAVID: dhw is going to wonder in his usual way, why did God do so much with this galaxy when all He wanted was humans. The answer is humans need lots of protection from dangerous area in this galaxy as in its center. The Earth is two-thirds of the way out in the second spiral, far from the dangerous activity. God has His reasons, and this one is obvious.

dhw: I answered this on Friday:
I thought you’d now agreed with me that humans were NOT “all He wanted”. (See the thread on your theory of evolution.) You don’t need to defend that theory now that you’ve disowned it.

Preparing for humans has multiple considerations as safety noted above.


Evolution: more convergence (Introduction)
Insects that suck liquid food:

QUOTE: A sucking pump has thus evolved independently in different groups of organisms over several 100 million years. In the process, astonishingly similar biomechanical solutions for ingesting liquid food have evolved in widely distant animal groups.

DAVID: this diversity of insects with the same mechanism, called convergent evolution is a strong evidence for design against chance development.

dhw: I totally agree. And it is wonderfully logical that in the quest for survival, intelligent organisms of all kinds will sometimes work out the same solutions to the same problems.

No you don't. Convergence is strong designer evidence.


How did sex pop up?

DAVID: My point is that it easier to produce new evolutionary forms using two separate DNA's for input.

dhw: And why do you think your God found it necessary to produce a greater variety of evolutionary forms? (We are edging closer to what you refer to elsewhere as his “primary” purpose, which I have asked you to name.)

Back you go. God created humans as a most unusual endpoint to evolution. Live with it.


Sudden change from a gene loss

dhw: Sorry, but I still don’t understand how this “demonstrates Darwinist faith bias”.

DAVID: Some adaptations require a loss of genes. We agree new gene complexes create new species. The authors called the loss of flower parts evolution. No it isn't. Nothing new appeared.

dhw: They say the sepal was completely different from the petal. Do you disagree with them? But I’m lost. What is “Darwin faith bias”, and what is your point?

DAVID: Darwin faith bias is simple to see. In evolution natural selection controls all. Everything occurs naturally. They never consider design.

dhw: Thank you. Now I understand what you mean, but are you saying that 3.8 billion years ago, your God planted instructions for the loss of this particular gene, or alternatively that he did a dabble, so that the old petal of the Colorado blue columbine would turn into a new sepal?

A designer can work only in certain ways with his eye to a future. Pre-plan or step in and change course. Do you know a third approach?

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Monday, February 21, 2022, 11:58 (97 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution: more convergence (Introduction)
Insects that suck liquid food
:

QUOTE: A sucking pump has thus evolved independently in different groups of organisms over several 100 million years. In the process, astonishingly similar biomechanical solutions for ingesting liquid food have evolved in widely distant animal groups.

DAVID: this diversity of insects with the same mechanism, called convergent evolution is a strong evidence for design against chance development.

dhw: I totally agree. And it is wonderfully logical that in the quest for survival, intelligent organisms of all kinds will sometimes work out the same solutions to the same problems.

DAVID: No you don't. Convergence is strong designer evidence.

Convergence can also be seen as strong evidence that intelligent organisms of all kinds will sometimes design the same solutions to the same problems. I can accept the argument that the ability (intelligence) to work out solutions is evidence for your God’s existence, since intelligence and consciousness – like life itself – are mysteries of such complexity that nobody knows how they could have originated.

Milky Way

DAVID: dhw is going to wonder in his usual way, why did God do so much with this galaxy when all He wanted was humans. The answer is humans need lots of protection from dangerous area in this galaxy as in its center. The Earth is two-thirds of the way out in the second spiral, far from the dangerous activity. God has His reasons, and this one is obvious.

dhw: I answered this on Friday:
I thought you’d now agreed with me that humans were NOT “all He wanted”. (See the thread on your theory of evolution.) You don’t need to defend that theory now that you’ve disowned it.

DAVID: Preparing for humans has multiple considerations as safety noted above.

The same applies to all forms of life, and not just humans. The alarm bells are ringing, as below:

How did sex pop up?
DAVID: My point is that it easier to produce new evolutionary forms using two separate DNA's for input.

dhw: And why do you think your God found it necessary to produce a greater variety of evolutionary forms? (We are edging closer to what you refer to elsewhere as his “primary” purpose, which I have asked you to name.)

DAVID: Back you go. God created humans as a most unusual endpoint to evolution. Live with it.

You are starting to backtrack. Your response is horribly reminiscent of your earlier claim that all life forms etc. were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. So let’s sort this out before it escalates: an endpoint is not a single purpose. It simply marks the end of a process, and even that is doubtful: in the next million years, who knows what new conditions may have triggered the arrival of new species? But in any case, our domination now does not explain the vast bush of extinct life forms which preceded us, so I can only repeat the same objection I raised in the bad old days, when you claimed that we were your God’s one and only purpose: why do you think your God found it “necessary” to design all these other forms? May I suggest that perhaps it was not a matter of “necessity”, but – as you have agreed already - just a matter of enjoying creating the vast variety of forms, whether directly or indirectly.

Sudden change from a gene loss
dhw: are you saying that 3.8 billion years ago, your God planted instructions for the loss of this particular gene, or alternatively that he did a dabble, so that the old petal of the Colorado blue columbine would turn into a new sepal?

DAVID: A designer can work only in certain ways with his eye to a future. Pre-plan or step in and change course. Do you know a third approach?

So you ARE saying he preplanned or dabbled this particular innovation. I’m surprised that the Colorado blue columbine was so important to your God. The answer to your question is yes: the authors of this article seem to be implying that a random mutation can create a new form. Another possibility which you appear to have forgotten is that organisms may have the intelligence (perhaps God-given) to work out new designs for themselves.

Ecosystem importance: reintroduce top predators

DAVID: ...makes the same point I've expressed in the past. Ecosystems provide the necessary food for all. They are complex and delicate and easy to damage. It is obvious a vast bush of life is necessary to set up these systems. I view this as one of God's major purposes as He created evolution with preparation for humans.

I am in despair. You really are backtracking. Every extinct ecosystem provided food for the life forms of which it was composed! “Extinct life has no role in current time.” (D. Turell) The vast majority of past ecosystems had no connection whatsoever with humans, and so even if they were designed by your God, they could not have been designed as “preparation for humans”. I don’t know how many “major purposes” you are now contemplating, but once more, please tell us what you think was your God’s major purpose in designing the vast variety of extinct ecosystems containing the vast variety of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Monday, February 21, 2022, 15:16 (97 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution: more convergence (Introduction)

DAVID: Convergence is strong designer evidence.

dhw: Convergence can also be seen as strong evidence that intelligent organisms of all kinds will sometimes design the same solutions to the same problems.

So you believe chance designs can look exactly the same or do all organisms luckily introduce the same new designs?


How did sex pop up?
DAVID: My point is that it easier to produce new evolutionary forms using two separate DNA's for input.

dhw: And why do you think your God found it necessary to produce a greater variety of evolutionary forms? (We are edging closer to what you refer to elsewhere as his “primary” purpose, which I have asked you to name.)

DAVID: Back you go. God created humans as a most unusual endpoint to evolution. Live with it.

dhw: You are starting to backtrack. Your response is horribly reminiscent of your earlier claim that all life forms etc. were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. So let’s sort this out before it escalates: an endpoint is not a single purpose. It simply marks the end of a process, and even that is doubtful: in the next million years, who knows what new conditions may have triggered the arrival of new species?

Again you have raised the possibility of new major evolution. Currently the endpoint is the production of humans. Our improbability raises major theological and philosophical issues.

dhw: But in any case, our domination now does not explain the vast bush of extinct life forms which preceded us, so I can only repeat the same objection I raised in the bad old days, when you claimed that we were your God’s one and only purpose: why do you think your God found it “necessary” to design all these other forms? May I suggest that perhaps it was not a matter of “necessity”, but – as you have agreed already - just a matter of enjoying creating the vast variety of forms, whether directly or indirectly.

Humanizing God again. The huge bush must be necessary as life runs on daily food energy for all.


Sudden change from a gene loss
dhw: are you saying that 3.8 billion years ago, your God planted instructions for the loss of this particular gene, or alternatively that he did a dabble, so that the old petal of the Colorado blue columbine would turn into a new sepal?

DAVID: A designer can work only in certain ways with his eye to a future. Pre-plan or step in and change course. Do you know a third approach?

dhw: So you ARE saying he preplanned or dabbled this particular innovation. I’m surprised that the Colorado blue columbine was so important to your God. The answer to your question is yes: the authors of this article seem to be implying that a random mutation can create a new form. Another possibility which you appear to have forgotten is that organisms may have the intelligence (perhaps God-given) to work out new designs for themselves.

Back to secondhand design, obviously not present in your creations.


Ecosystem importance: reintroduce top predators

DAVID: ...makes the same point I've expressed in the past. Ecosystems provide the necessary food for all. They are complex and delicate and easy to damage. It is obvious a vast bush of life is necessary to set up these systems. I view this as one of God's major purposes as He created evolution with preparation for humans.

dhw: I am in despair. You really are backtracking. Every extinct ecosystem provided food for the life forms of which it was composed! “Extinct life has no role in current time.” (D. Turell) The vast majority of past ecosystems had no connection whatsoever with humans, and so even if they were designed by your God, they could not have been designed as “preparation for humans”. I don’t know how many “major purposes” you are now contemplating, but once more, please tell us what you think was your God’s major purpose in designing the vast variety of extinct ecosystems containing the vast variety of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans.

You have backtracked also. All of evolution is a process from simple to complex, all previous steps leading to the next. It can't be sliced up. Are humans the current endpoint or not?

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Tuesday, February 22, 2022, 09:15 (96 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution: more convergence (Introduction)

DAVID: Convergence is strong designer evidence.

dhw: Convergence can also be seen as strong evidence that intelligent organisms of all kinds will sometimes design the same solutions to the same problems.

DAVID: So you believe chance designs can look exactly the same or do all organisms luckily introduce the same new designs?

How do you extrapolate “chance” designs from my proposal that intelligent minds are quite likely to come up with the same solutions to the same problems?

How did sex pop up?

The rest of your post goes over ground already covered on the thread relating to your theory of evolution – in particular the fact that you appear to have backtracked on your earlier renunciation of your “one and only purpose” theory, as well as repeating your constant backtrack on the subject of your God’s thought patterns, emotions and logic, which you agree may be similar to ours, but which you say are not similar to ours if they go against your personal vision of God. I’ll just answer one of your comments:

DAVID: Again you have raised the possibility of new major evolution. Currently the endpoint is the production of humans. Our improbability raises major theological and philosophical issues.

Thank you for inserting the word “currently”. Yes, we are the last species to have evolved so far. No one can prophesy what species will exist a million years from now. The improbability of life, consciousness, cellular complexity, and every living creature you can think of raises major theological and philosophical issues. However, our uniqueness – which I acknowledge – does not mean that every single life form was individually designed, or that it was designed as part of the goal of producing humans or, as you put it in this post, as “preparation for humans”. See the other thread for a showdown over your backtracking.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 22, 2022, 16:44 (96 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution: more convergence (Introduction)

DAVID: Convergence is strong designer evidence.

dhw: Convergence can also be seen as strong evidence that intelligent organisms of all kinds will sometimes design the same solutions to the same problems.

DAVID: So you believe chance designs can look exactly the same or do all organisms luckily introduce the same new designs?

dhw: How do you extrapolate “chance” designs from my proposal that intelligent minds are quite likely to come up with the same solutions to the same problems?

The organisms are so different in so many different physical and environmental and prey eating ways the same solution is not automatic.


How did sex pop up?

dhw: The rest of your post goes over ground already covered on the thread relating to your theory of evolution – in particular the fact that you appear to have backtracked on your earlier renunciation of your “one and only purpose” theory, as well as repeating your constant backtrack on the subject of your God’s thought patterns, emotions and logic, which you agree may be similar to ours, but which you say are not similar to ours if they go against your personal vision of God. I’ll just answer one of your comments:

DAVID: Again you have raised the possibility of new major evolution. Currently the endpoint is the production of humans. Our improbability raises major theological and philosophical issues.

dhw: Thank you for inserting the word “currently”. Yes, we are the last species to have evolved so far. No one can prophesy what species will exist a million years from now. The improbability of life, consciousness, cellular complexity, and every living creature you can think of raises major theological and philosophical issues. However, our uniqueness – which I acknowledge – does not mean that every single life form was individually designed, or that it was designed as part of the goal of producing humans or, as you put it in this post, as “preparation for humans”. See the other thread for a showdown over your backtracking.

I simply sidestep the verbal quicksand you produce. God chose to evolve us, when simply accepting God is the agent who produced all of our reality. You use humanizing reasoning in questioning God. For years your criticisms suggest you would prefer to accept direct creation which is what Genesis seems to say until the obvious misuse of 'yom' by Bible translators is properly understood. "Yom " is any length of time, a second to eons. Life appeared a bout 3.8 bya. Producing humans took that long. God took that long. Which makes the time necessary.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Wednesday, February 23, 2022, 12:12 (95 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution: more convergence (Introduction)

DAVID: Convergence is strong designer evidence.

dhw: Convergence can also be seen as strong evidence that intelligent organisms of all kinds will sometimes design the same solutions to the same problems.

DAVID: So you believe chance designs can look exactly the same or do all organisms luckily introduce the same new designs?

dhw: How do you extrapolate “chance” designs from my proposal that intelligent minds are quite likely to come up with the same solutions to the same problems?

DAVID: The organisms are so different in so many different physical and environmental and prey eating ways the same solution is not automatic.

Of course not. I’m delighted to hear that at last you are turning your back on your theory that your God has given instructions for every development and it’s all a matter of automatic obedience. Clearly, these solutions require intelligence, and it is no coincidence that when confronted with similar problems, all kinds of intelligent organisms will come up with the same solutions.

How did sex pop up?

dhw: The rest of your post goes over ground already covered on the thread relating to your theory of evolution – in particular the fact that you appear to have backtracked on your earlier renunciation of your “one and only purpose” theory, as well as repeating your constant backtrack on the subject of your God’s thought patterns, emotions and logic, which you agree may be similar to ours, but which you say are not similar to ours if they go against your personal vision of God. I’ll just answer one of your comments:

DAVID: Again you have raised the possibility of new major evolution. Currently the endpoint is the production of humans. Our improbability raises major theological and philosophical issues.

dhw: Thank you for inserting the word “currently”. Yes, we are the last species to have evolved so far. No one can prophesy what species will exist a million years from now. The improbability of life, consciousness, cellular complexity, and every living creature you can think of raises major theological and philosophical issues. However, our uniqueness – which I acknowledge – does not mean that every single life form was individually designed, or that it was designed as part of the goal of producing humans or, as you put it in this post, as “preparation for humans”. See the other thread for a showdown over your backtracking.

DAVID: I simply sidestep the verbal quicksand you produce.

The quicksand is not verbal but logical, and you keep sidestepping direct questions concerning your logic. What follows is typical:

DAVID: God chose to evolve us, when simply accepting God is the agent who produced all of our reality.

This sentence doesn’t make sense, but if God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms and not just us. You cannot tell us why he chose to evolve all those life forms that had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: You use humanizing reasoning in questioning God.

I do not question God. I question your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method. You constantly backtrack on your agreement that we mimic your God and he probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours.

DAVID: For years your criticisms suggest you would prefer to accept direct creation which is what Genesis seems to say […]

It is not a question of preferences but of logic. You claim that God is logical, but you have no idea why a logical God would design countless life forms that have no connection with humans plus food, if his one and only purpose was to design humans plus food. I’ve left out the bit about Genesis and time as it is totally irrelevant. You simply continue to sidestep the quicksand of your own illogicality, and refuse to consider any other possible theistic explanation for the history of life as we know it. (Two of my theories even allow for humans as a special purpose.)

Neurons for music, singing

QUOTE: "The researchers don’t know why we would have such neurons. “It could have been due to some evolutionary role,” says Norman-Haignere. “Many people think that singing has some important role in the evolution of music.” (DAVID'S bold)

I would have thought that was self-evident, as we can be pretty sure that the voice would have been our first musical instrument. (Music in the form of “song” must have originated with birds using their voices to attract mates.)

QUOTE: “'It may also explain why singing a beloved song to a person with dementia may allow responses [even though] the neurodegenerative process has limited the functionality of brain areas,” he says. “This result, along with other neuroimaging-related results of musical memory, may help to explain why songs may help dementia patients.'

This is fascinating. Sadly, the wife of a very dear friend of mine is an extreme case of dementia, but she recognizes and sings songs.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 23, 2022, 16:17 (95 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution: more convergence (Introduction)

DAVID: The organisms are so different in so many different physical and environmental and prey eating ways the same solution is not automatic.

dhw: Of course not. I’m delighted to hear that at last you are turning your back on your theory that your God has given instructions for every development and it’s all a matter of automatic obedience. Clearly, these solutions require intelligence, and it is no coincidence that when confronted with similar problems, all kinds of intelligent organisms will come up with the same solutions.

The designs are so complex a designer is required. Organisms don't design their future by magic.


How did sex pop up?

DAVID: God chose to evolve us, when simply accepting God is the agent who produced all of our reality.

dhw: This sentence doesn’t make sense, but if God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms and not just us. You cannot tell us why he chose to evolve all those life forms that had no connection with us and our food.

Why must I repeat? Evolution is a stepwise process from simple to complex. God chose to evolve humans by that method which explains all of your illogical objections.


DAVID: You use humanizing reasoning in questioning God.

dhw: I do not question God. I question your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method. You constantly backtrack on your agreement that we mimic your God and he probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours.

Of course we are similar to Him in just those ways. But we are a pale comparison, and you reverse the comparison to make Him just like us. That is why your conclusions about God are so humanizing.


DAVID: For years your criticisms suggest you would prefer to accept direct creation which is what Genesis seems to say […]

dhw: It is not a question of preferences but of logic. You claim that God is logical, but you have no idea why a logical God would design countless life forms that have no connection with humans plus food, if his one and only purpose was to design humans plus food. I’ve left out the bit about Genesis and time as it is totally irrelevant. You simply continue to sidestep the quicksand of your own illogicality, and refuse to consider any other possible theistic explanation for the history of life as we know it. (Two of my theories even allow for humans as a special purpose.)

Your 'other theistic explanations' make no logical sense since they are based on humanizing God. As for 'no idea' I have presented many logical ideas/points for my point of view. You imply I can't think and defend my views. All defended by not accepted by you.


Neurons for music, singing

QUOTE: "The researchers don’t know why we would have such neurons. “It could have been due to some evolutionary role,” says Norman-Haignere. “Many people think that singing has some important role in the evolution of music.” (DAVID'S bold)

dhw: I would have thought that was self-evident, as we can be pretty sure that the voice would have been our first musical instrument. (Music in the form of “song” must have originated with birds using their voices to attract mates.)

QUOTE: “'It may also explain why singing a beloved song to a person with dementia may allow responses [even though] the neurodegenerative process has limited the functionality of brain areas,” he says. “This result, along with other neuroimaging-related results of musical memory, may help to explain why songs may help dementia patients.'

dhw: This is fascinating. Sadly, the wife of a very dear friend of mine is an extreme case of dementia, but she recognizes and sings songs.

The specialized music, singing neurons suggest design in anticipation of future uses.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Thursday, February 24, 2022, 12:01 (94 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution: more convergence (Introduction)

DAVID: The organisms are so different in so many different physical and environmental and prey eating ways the same solution is not automatic.

dhw: Of course not. I’m delighted to hear that at last you are turning your back on your theory that your God has given instructions for every development and it’s all a matter of automatic obedience. Clearly, these solutions require intelligence, and it is no coincidence that when confronted with similar problems, all kinds of intelligent organisms will come up with the same solutions.

DAVID: The designs are so complex a designer is required. Organisms don't design their future by magic.

In my view, they do not design their future at all. They respond to current conditions, and in doing so, improve their chances of future survival. Since at last you agree that convergence is not automatic (i.e. the different organisms are not merely obeying your God’s instructions), and we agree that chance is out of the question, we seem to be left with only one option: that intelligent organisms will come up with similar solutions to similar problems.

How did sex pop up?

DAVID: God chose to evolve us, when simply accepting God is the agent who produced all of our reality.

dhw: This sentence doesn’t make sense, but if God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms and not just us. You cannot tell us why he chose to evolve all those life forms that had no connection with us and our food.

For subsequent comments on the above, see the thread on your theory.

dhw: You simply continue to sidestep the quicksand of your own illogicality, and refuse to consider any other possible theistic explanation for the history of life as we know it. (Two of my theories even allow for humans as a special purpose.)

DAVID: Your 'other theistic explanations' make no logical sense since they are based on humanizing God.

So once again I have to point out your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, we mimic him in many ways, he enjoys creating, is interested in what he creates, and you have agreed over and over again that my various explanations ARE logical, but they simply don’t fit in with your preconceived ideas concerning God’s nature.

DAVIS: As for 'no idea' I have presented many logical ideas/points for my point of view. You imply I can't think and defend my views. All defended by not accepted by you.

You have lots of logical ideas, but unfortunately when you combine some of them, they result in a theory which you yourself cannot explain: i.e. why an all-powerful God with a single purpose should have designed countless life forms, natural wonders etc. which had no connection with his one and only purpose. When I ask for an explanation, you either dodge the problem by repeating the logical sections of your theory and editing out the illogical bits, or you admit that you have no idea and I should ask God! However, we must never lose sight of the fact that we are tackling mysteries that nobody has solved. We CAN only theorize, and in terms of fulfilling a purpose, our discussions do precisely what this website was created to do: “The truth is out there somewhere, and by combining our discoveries, we may help one another to gain new insights.” Disagreements are inevitable, and our fundamental positions may not have changed, but I myself have gained countless new insights, and I hope that you too have learned new things from our discussions. Although these often take the form of a divisive battle, I would prefer to think of them in their overall context as a joint quest. :-)

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 24, 2022, 15:50 (94 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution: more convergence (Introduction)

DAVID: The organisms are so different in so many different physical and environmental and prey eating ways the same solution is not automatic.

dhw: Of course not. I’m delighted to hear that at last you are turning your back on your theory that your God has given instructions for every development and it’s all a matter of automatic obedience. Clearly, these solutions require intelligence, and it is no coincidence that when confronted with similar problems, all kinds of intelligent organisms will come up with the same solutions.

DAVID: The designs are so complex a designer is required. Organisms don't design their future by magic.

dhw: In my view, they do not design their future at all. They respond to current conditions, and in doing so, improve their chances of future survival. Since at last you agree that convergence is not automatic (i.e. the different organisms are not merely obeying your God’s instructions), and we agree that chance is out of the question, we seem to be left with only one option: that intelligent organisms will come up with similar solutions to similar problems.

And my view is God uses the same mechanisms when they apply


How did sex pop up?

DAVID: God chose to evolve us, when simply accepting God is the agent who produced all of our reality.

dhw: This sentence doesn’t make sense, but if God exists, he chose to evolve ALL life forms and not just us. You cannot tell us why he chose to evolve all those life forms that had no connection with us and our food.

dhw: You simply continue to sidestep the quicksand of your own illogicality, and refuse to consider any other possible theistic explanation for the history of life as we know it. (Two of my theories even allow for humans as a special purpose.)

DAVID: Your 'other theistic explanations' make no logical sense since they are based on humanizing God.

dhw: So once again I have to point out your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, we mimic him in many ways, he enjoys creating, is interested in what he creates, and you have agreed over and over again that my various explanations ARE logical, but they simply don’t fit in with your preconceived ideas concerning God’s nature.

They ARE logical only if a humanized God is viewed as the creator.


DAVIS: As for 'no idea' I have presented many logical ideas/points for my point of view. You imply I can't think and defend my views. All defended but not accepted by you.

dhw: You have lots of logical ideas, but unfortunately when you combine some of them, they result in a theory which you yourself cannot explain: i.e. why an all-powerful God with a single purpose should have designed countless life forms, natural wonders etc. which had no connection with his one and only purpose. When I ask for an explanation, you either dodge the problem by repeating the logical sections of your theory and editing out the illogical bits,

The simplest theory is use God's created history and accept He chose to evolve us from teh start of life which He first created.

dhw: or you admit that you have no idea and I should ask God!

Another total distortion. I admit I do not know why God chose the method He did. I simply accept how He did it.

dhw: However, we must never lose sight of the fact that we are tackling mysteries that nobody has solved. We CAN only theorize, and in terms of fulfilling a purpose, our discussions do precisely what this website was created to do: “The truth is out there somewhere, and by combining our discoveries, we may help one another to gain new insights.” Disagreements are inevitable, and our fundamental positions may not have changed, but I myself have gained countless new insights, and I hope that you too have learned new things from our discussions. Although these often take the form of a divisive battle, I would prefer to think of them in their overall context as a joint quest. :-)

I've learned much with my continuous study, much reproduced here on your website, in an attempt to dissuade you from agnosticism if I can. I appreciate your pleasure in the learning that has occurred. ;-)

More "miscellany"; biggest bacterium ever discovered

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 24, 2022, 21:45 (93 days ago) @ David Turell

Two centimeters long:

https://www.science.org/content/article/largest-bacterium-ever-discovered-has-unexpecte...

"By definition, microbes are supposed to be so small they can only be seen with a microscope. But a newly described bacterium living in Caribbean mangroves never got that memo (see video, above). Its threadlike single cell is visible to the naked eye, growing up to 2 centimeters—as long as a peanut—and 5000 times bigger than many other microbes. What’s more, this giant has a huge genome that’s not free floating inside the cell as in other bacteria, but is instead encased in a membrane, an innovation characteristic of much more complex cells, like those in the human body.

***

"...the newly discovered microbe blurs the line between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. About 10 years ago, Olivier Gros, a marine biologist at the University of the French Antilles, Pointe-à-Pitre, came across the strange organism growing as thin filaments on the surfaces of decaying mangrove leaves in a local swamp. Not until 5 years later did he and his colleagues realize the organisms were actually bacteria. And they didn’t appreciate how special the microbes were until more recently, when Gros’s graduate student Jean-Marie Volland took up the challenge of trying to characterize them.

***

"...the newly discovered microbe blurs the line between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. About 10 years ago, Olivier Gros, a marine biologist at the University of the French Antilles, Pointe-à-Pitre, came across the strange organism growing as thin filaments on the surfaces of decaying mangrove leaves in a local swamp. Not until 5 years later did he and his colleagues realize the organisms were actually bacteria. And they didn’t appreciate how special the microbes were until more recently, when Gros’s graduate student Jean-Marie Volland took up the challenge of trying to characterize them.

***

"...that cell includes two membrane sacs, one of which contains all the cell’s DNA, Volland and colleagues report in their 18 February preprint on bioRxiv. Volland calls that sac an organelle and that’s “a big new step” that implies the two branches of life are not as different as previously thought, Carvalho says. “Perhaps it’s time to rethink our definition of eukaryote and prokaryote!” agrees Petra Levin, a microbiologist at Washington University in St Louis. “It’s a supercool story.”

"The other, water-filled sac may be the reason the bacterium could grow so big. Microbiologists used to think bacteria had to be small, in part because they eat, breathe, and get rid of toxins by diffusion of molecules through their cell’s interior and there are limits to how great a distance these molecules can travel. Then in 1999, researchers discovered a giant sulfur-eating microbe roughly the size of a poppy seed off Namibia’s coast. It can be big because its cellular contents are squished up against its outer cell wall by a giant water- and nitrate-filled sac. The bacteria’s essential molecules can still diffuse in and out because “only [along the edge] is the cell living,” says Carvalho, who worked on this group of bacteria. Scientists have since found other large sulfur-eating bacteria, but their long filaments consist of multiple cells.

"Like the microbe found in Namibia, the new mangrove bacterium also has a huge sac—presumably of water—that takes up 73% of its total volume. That similarity and a genetic analysis led the research team to place it in the same genus as most of the other microbial giants and propose calling it Thiomargarita magnifica.

***

"The DNA-filled sac, also squished along the inner edge of this bacterium, proved extraordinary as well. When researchers at the Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute sequenced the DNA inside, they found the genome was huge, with 11 million bases harboring some 11,000 clearly distinguishable genes. Typically, bacterial genomes average about 4 million bases and about 3900 genes.

"'By labeling the DNA with fluorescent tags, Volland determined the bacterium’s genome was so big because there are more than 500,000 copies of the same stretches of DNA. Protein production factories called ribosomes were inside the DNA-filled sac as well, likely making the translation of a gene’s code into a protein more efficient. “Separating genetic material from everything else allows more sophisticated control and greater complexity,” says Chris Greening, a microbiologist at Monash University, Clayton."

Comment: evolution branched out in all sorts of directions as it approached multicellularity. Assuming God in charge, He may have trying out different approaches to new designs.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Friday, February 25, 2022, 11:28 (93 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution: more convergence (Introduction)

DAVID: The organisms are so different in so many different physical and environmental and prey eating ways the same solution is not automatic.

dhw: […] Since at last you agree that convergence is not automatic (i.e. the different organisms are not merely obeying your God’s instructions), and we agree that chance is out of the question, we seem to be left with only one option: that intelligent organisms will come up with similar solutions to similar problems.

DAVID: And my view is God uses the same mechanisms when they apply

So he pops in and teaches the same course or performs the same operations on every set of organisms, does he? My question is not “facetious”. How else could he do it if they were not automatically obeying his instructions from 3.8 billion years ago?

Basic role of zooplankton

DAVID: Another amazingly complex ecosystem that is part of a precise feeding setup designed by God to solve the problem that every living one has to eat. dhw demands all sorts of God 'purposes'. well this is an important one He had to see was designed properly to fill the food need. On the way to evolving humans God had to work on all the side issues/ purposes that were required to keep the whole evolutionary process going properly.

You keep using the same silly dodge. According to you, he designed every single life form, and of course every single life form had to eat. But according to you, the only life form he actually wanted to design (his one and only purpose) was humans plus their food. The “whole evolutionary process” was manifestly NOT geared to evolving humans! So back we go: your God only wanted humans and food, he separately designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans, but he had to make sure that all those unconnected life forms had food. Why did he give himself the task of designing them all and feeding them all if his only purpose was to design and feed humans? You don’t know. I should ask God.

dhw (under “How did sex pop up”?): You simply continue to sidestep the quicksand of your own illogicality, and refuse to consider any other possible theistic explanation for the history of life as we know it. (Two of my theories even allow for humans as a special purpose.)

DAVID: Your 'other theistic explanations' make no logical sense since they are based on humanizing God. […]

If God has thought patterns etc. in common with ours, that does not make him a human being. It simply means that as Creator he has endowed us with some of his attributes – but that means we have attributes in common. Perfectly logical.

Biggest bacterium ever discovered

DAVID: evolution branched out in all sorts of directions as it approached multicellularity. Assuming God in charge, He may have trying out different approaches to new designs. (dhw's bold)

This is the biggest breakthrough yet, and will take its rightful place in my book of Turell quotations. One of my theories, you will recall, proposes that your God experiments. That would explain the vast bush of different life forms which you are unable to explain because of your tunnel-vision theory of evolution. If he can experiment with bacteria, he can experiment with anything. Hallelujah!

DAVID: As for 'no idea' I have presented many logical ideas/points for my point of view. You imply I can't think and defend my views. All defended but not accepted by you.

dhw: You have lots of logical ideas, but unfortunately when you combine some of them, they result in a theory which you yourself cannot explain: i.e. why an all-powerful God with a single purpose should have designed countless life forms, natural wonders etc. which had no connection with his one and only purpose.

DAVID: Another total distortion. I admit I do not know why God chose the method He did. I simply accept how He did it.

I point out that you can’t explain it, and I am accused of total distortion although you admit that you can’t explain it. :-(

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Although totally irrelevant to our discussions, I’m sure we’re all appalled by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The dedication of our unique human intelligence to the pursuit of power, wealth and self-gratification at the expense of other humans, not to mention other forms of life as well as the balance of Nature, has made us into the most destructive force on the planet. Robbie Burns would be castigated today for his non–woke use of language, but the self-centredness that leads to “man’s inhumanity to man” may well also lead to us to becoming our own endpoint.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Friday, February 25, 2022, 16:23 (93 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution: more convergence (Introduction)

DAVID: And my view is God uses the same mechanisms when they apply

dhw: So he pops in and teaches the same course or performs the same operations on every set of organisms, does he? My question is not “facetious”. How else could he do it if they were not automatically obeying his instructions from 3.8 billion years ago?

Exactly. Only possibilities are preplanning or dabbling.


Basic role of zooplankton

DAVID: Another amazingly complex ecosystem that is part of a precise feeding setup designed by God to solve the problem that every living one has to eat. dhw demands all sorts of God 'purposes'. well this is an important one He had to see was designed properly to fill the food need. On the way to evolving humans God had to work on all the side issues/ purposes that were required to keep the whole evolutionary process going properly.

dhw: According to you, he designed every single life form, and of course every single life form had to eat. But according to you, the only life form he actually wanted to design (his one and only purpose) was humans plus their food. The “whole evolutionary process” was manifestly NOT geared to evolving humans! So back we go: your God only wanted humans and food, he separately designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans, but he had to make sure that all those unconnected life forms had food. Why did he give himself the task of designing them all and feeding them all if his only purpose was to design and feed humans? You don’t know. I should ask God.

I only know that God chose to evolve us from bacteria for His own private reasons. Your totally distorted views of my positions never change. All you really suggest is a completely strange view of evolution as made up of totally unrelated segments. Adler and I use the same argument for God. I only learned about Adler after my first book appeared. Great minds!


DAVID: Your 'other theistic explanations' make no logical sense since they are based on humanizing God. […]

dhw: If God has thought patterns etc. in common with ours, that does not make him a human being. It simply means that as Creator he has endowed us with some of his attributes – but that means we have attributes in common. Perfectly logical.

Your version of God is totally humanized. That is my point. He experiments, entertains himself, gives up design to the organisms, likes to watch free-for-alls, and so on as previously noted.


Biggest bacterium ever discovered

DAVID: evolution branched out in all sorts of directions as it approached multicellularity. Assuming God in charge, He may have trying out different approaches to new designs. (dhw's bold)

dhw: This is the biggest breakthrough yet, and will take its rightful place in my book of Turell quotations. One of my theories, you will recall, proposes that your God experiments. That would explain the vast bush of different life forms which you are unable to explain because of your tunnel-vision theory of evolution. If he can experiment with bacteria, he can experiment with anything. Hallelujah!

As usual, a side channel of evolution that can reasonably seen as biological tweak tried by God is used by you as a molehill to be blown into a mountain. Your usual unreasonable approach.


DAVID: As for 'no idea' I have presented many logical ideas/points for my point of view. You imply I can't think and defend my views. All defended but not accepted by you.

dhw: You have lots of logical ideas, but unfortunately when you combine some of them, they result in a theory which you yourself cannot explain: i.e. why an all-powerful God with a single purpose should have designed countless life forms, natural wonders etc. which had no connection with his one and only purpose.

DAVID: Another total distortion. I admit I do not know why God chose the method He did. I simply accept how He did it.

dhw: I point out that you can’t explain it, and I am accused of total distortion although you admit that you can’t explain it. :-(

Your error is I make no attempt to explain why God chose to evolve us rather than direct creation. I accept it. Clearly you distort this approach of mine.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

dhw: Although totally irrelevant to our discussions, I’m sure we’re all appalled by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The dedication of our unique human intelligence to the pursuit of power, wealth and self-gratification at the expense of other humans, not to mention other forms of life as well as the balance of Nature, has made us into the most destructive force on the planet. Robbie Burns would be castigated today for his non–woke use of language, but the self-centredness that leads to “man’s inhumanity to man” may well also lead to us to becoming our own endpoint.

Europe now learns doing business with Russia gets them so entangled they have only weak replies. Putin is always NEFARIOUS and dangerous. His recent paper signaled he wanted to retake old parts of the USSR, and undo the previous collapse. His is an old tired failing
country supported totally by its ability to supply energy to the world. For self-preservation get energy elsewhere. Britain can frack for gas, just apparently stopped, as an example of a confused view of real world politics.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Saturday, February 26, 2022, 07:53 (92 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution: more convergence (Introduction)

DAVID: And my view is God uses the same mechanisms when they apply

dhw: So he pops in and teaches the same course or performs the same operations on every set of organisms, does he? My question is not “facetious”. How else could he do it if they were not automatically obeying his instructions from 3.8 billion years ago?

DAVID: Exactly. Only possibilities are preplanning or dabbling.

Back to the theory which a few days ago (applied to whales) you dismissed as “facetious” when I asked if that was what you believed. For some reason, you have overlooked the possibility that intelligent organisms might come up with the same solutions to the same problems.

Basic role of zooplankton

DAVID: Another amazingly complex ecosystem that is part of a precise feeding setup designed by God to solve the problem that every living one has to eat. dhw demands all sorts of God 'purposes'. well this is an important one He had to see was designed properly to fill the food need. On the way to evolving humans God had to work on all the side issues/ purposes that were required to keep the whole evolutionary process going properly. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: […] So back we go: your God only wanted humans and food [though now it’s been modified to “on the way” instead of “in preparation for”], he separately designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans, but he had to make sure that all those unconnected life forms had food. Why did he give himself the task of designing them all and feeding them all if his only purpose was to design and feed humans? You don’t know. I should ask God.

DAVID: I only know that God chose to evolve us from bacteria for His own private reasons.

And you only know that he also chose to evolve (= design) every other life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. for his own private reasons. You can’t understand the logic, but you stick to the theory.

DAVID: Your totally distorted views of my positions never change. All you really suggest is a completely strange view of evolution as made up of totally unrelated segments.

You keep insisting that all “segments” (I call them branches) of evolution were related to and preparation for humans, although most of them had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Your 'other theistic explanations' make no logical sense since they are based on humanizing God. […]He experiments, entertains himself, gives up design to the organisms, likes to watch free-for-alls, and so on as previously noted.

See “biggest bacterium” for experiments, see your own entries for enjoyment and interest (I have not used the word “entertain”), and I’d say that creating a free-for-all is no more “human” than creating a puppet show. Having thought patterns etc. similar to ours does not make him “totally humanized”. It simply means that as Creator he has endowed us with some of his own attributes. You have agreed, but you disagree if these do not include “humanized” single-mindedness (the one and only goal) and a “humanized” desire for total control.

Biggest bacterium ever discovered

DAVID: evolution branched out in all sorts of directions as it approached multicellularity. Assuming God in charge, He may have trying out different approaches to new designs. (dhw's bold)

dhw: This is the biggest breakthrough yet, and will take its rightful place in my book of Turell quotations. One of my theories, you will recall, proposes that your God experiments. That would explain the vast bush of different life forms which you are unable to explain because of your tunnel-vision theory of evolution. If he can experiment with bacteria, he can experiment with anything. Hallelujah!

DAVID: As usual, a side channel of evolution that can reasonably seen as biological tweak tried by God is used by you as a molehill to be blown into a mountain. Your usual unreasonable approach.

Please tell us the difference between trying different approaches and experimenting.

DAVID: As for 'no idea' I have presented many logical ideas/points for my point of view. You imply I can't think and defend my views. All defended but not accepted by you.

dhw: You have lots of logical ideas, but unfortunately when you combine some of them, they result in a theory which you yourself cannot explain: i.e. why an all-powerful God with a single purpose should have designed countless life forms, natural wonders etc. which had no connection with his one and only purpose.

DAVID: Another total distortion. I admit I do not know why God chose the method He did. I simply accept how He did it.

dhw: I point out that you can’t explain it, and I am accused of total distortion although you admit that you can’t explain it. :-(

DAVID: Your error is I make no attempt to explain why God chose to evolve us rather than direct creation. I accept it. Clearly you distort this approach of mine.

You’ve missed out half the theory, as usual. You can’t explain why, if we were his only purpose, he individually designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with us. If you can explain it, please do so, but if you can’t, please don’t tell me I am distorting your approach. On the other hand, if you have now withdrawn that theory (see the appropriate thread), then please say so.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 26, 2022, 16:21 (92 days ago) @ dhw

Basic role of zooplankton

DAVID: I only know that God chose to evolve us from bacteria for His own private reasons.

dhw: And you only know that he also chose to evolve (= design) every other life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. for his own private reasons. You can’t understand the logic, but you stick to the theory.

Why do you constantly refuse to accept my logic. Evolution is a whole process of many parts and requirements, with a major one thatt everyone has to eat. God's delicately balanced designed ecosystems do that.

DAVID: Your 'other theistic explanations' make no logical sense since they are based on humanizing God. […]He experiments, entertains himself, gives up design to the organisms, likes to watch free-for-alls, and so on as previously noted.

dhw: See “biggest bacterium” for experiments, see your own entries for enjoyment and interest (I have not used the word “entertain”), and I’d say that creating a free-for-all is no more “human” than creating a puppet show. Having thought patterns etc. similar to ours does not make him “totally humanized”. It simply means that as Creator he has endowed us with some of his own attributes. You have agreed, but you disagree if these do not include “humanized” single-mindedness (the one and only goal) and a “humanized” desire for total control.

Answered there.


Biggest bacterium ever discovered

DAVID: evolution branched out in all sorts of directions as it approached multicellularity. Assuming God in charge, He may have trying out different approaches to new designs. (dhw's bold)

dhw: This is the biggest breakthrough yet, and will take its rightful place in my book of Turell quotations. One of my theories, you will recall, proposes that your God experiments. That would explain the vast bush of different life forms which you are unable to explain because of your tunnel-vision theory of evolution. If he can experiment with bacteria, he can experiment with anything. Hallelujah!

DAVID: As usual, a side channel of evolution that can reasonably seen as biological tweak tried by God is used by you as a molehill to be blown into a mountain. Your usual unreasonable approach.

dhw: Please tell us the difference between trying different approaches and experimenting.

I entertained the POSSIBILTY God tried a tweak, and you blow it into God positively has to experiment to do anything to advance evolution . .


DAVID: As for 'no idea' I have presented many logical ideas/points for my point of view. You imply I can't think and defend my views. All defended but not accepted by you.

dhw: You have lots of logical ideas, but unfortunately when you combine some of them, they result in a theory which you yourself cannot explain: i.e. why an all-powerful God with a single purpose should have designed countless life forms, natural wonders etc. which had no connection with his one and only purpose.

DAVID: Another total distortion. I admit I do not know why God chose the method He did. I simply accept how He did it.

dhw: I point out that you can’t explain it, and I am accused of total distortion although you admit that you can’t explain it. :-(

Since I accept God's actions, I see no reason to explain His reasons which I cannot know. It is your problem, and your sole need, not mine. That is why I logically told you to ask God.


DAVID: Your error is I make no attempt to explain why God chose to evolve us rather than direct creation. I accept it. Clearly you distort this approach of mine.

dhw: You’ve missed out half the theory, as usual. You can’t explain why, if we were his only purpose, he individually designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with us. If you can explain it, please do so, but if you can’t, please don’t tell me I am distorting your approach. On the other hand, if you have now withdrawn that theory (see the appropriate thread), then please say so.

Explained constantly. Evolution is properly seen as a whole process. The huge bush is the necessary food supply. Yes, we are on one final branch and eat on lots of branches. Stop splitting evolution into slices.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Sunday, February 27, 2022, 08:54 (91 days ago) @ David Turell

Basic role of zooplankton

All dealt with under “Return to David’s theory of evolution

Biggest bacterium ever discovered

DAVID: evolution branched out in all sorts of directions as it approached multicellularity. Assuming God in charge, He may have trying out different approaches to new designs. (dhw's bold)

dhw: This is the biggest breakthrough yet, and will take its rightful place in my book of Turell quotations. One of my theories, you will recall, proposes that your God experiments. That would explain the vast bush of different life forms which you are unable to explain because of your tunnel-vision theory of evolution. If he can experiment with bacteria, he can experiment with anything. Hallelujah!

DAVID: As usual, a side channel of evolution that can reasonably seen as biological tweak tried by God is used by you as a molehill to be blown into a mountain. Your usual unreasonable approach.

dhw: Please tell us the difference between trying different approaches and experimenting.

DAVID: I entertained the POSSIBILTY God tried a tweak, and you blow it into God positively has to experiment to do anything to advance evolution.

I have done no such thing. I have offered you four separate theistic theories to explain the history of evolution as we know it. ONE of them was your God experimenting, and you categorically rejected the idea because you just happen to know that “God does not need experimentation to reach his endpoint purposes” – just as you happen to know all his other non-wants and non-needs. But here you have recognized that your God “might try out different approaches to different designs”. If it is possible that he would do so, then I suggest that it is possible that he would do so.

DAVID: As for 'no idea' I have presented many logical ideas/points for my point of view. You imply I can't think and defend my views. All defended but not accepted by you.

dhw: You have lots of logical ideas, but unfortunately when you combine some of them, they result in a theory which you yourself cannot explain: i.e. why an all-powerful God with a single purpose should have designed countless life forms, natural wonders etc. which had no connection with his one and only purpose.

DAVID: Another total distortion. I admit I do not know why God chose the method He did. I simply accept how He did it.

dhw: I point out that you can’t explain it, and I am accused of total distortion although you admit that you can’t explain it. :-(

DAVID: Since I accept God's actions, I see no reason to explain His reasons which I cannot know. It is your problem, and your sole need, not mine. That is why I logically told you to ask God.

It is not your God’s actions that you accept! You accept your own theory that he individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc., and that he did so as preparation for humans, although the vast majority had no connection with humans. The fact that you can’t explain the logic behind such a combination of theories might perhaps suggest that there is something wrong with it, but you have closed your mind.

The rest of your post is also dealt with on the other thread.

Our mind must come from mind

DAVID: […] its simplest conclusion is if we have working minds they were sourced from a working mind. This is an argument from a philosophic view and not a theological one. For completeness review the entire article.

Thanks, but no thanks. This is a very long-winded way of telling us what ID has been telling us for years, and what you and I have agreed on throughout our 14 years of discussion: the complexities are such that they can only have been designed, and if something is designed, there must be a designer. Then, however, comes the problem of who or what designed the designer, and was the intelligence top down (God the creator), or bottom up (rudimentary forms of panpsychic intelligence gradually evolving into more and more sophisticated forms)? In other words, what was the first cause?

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 27, 2022, 16:14 (91 days ago) @ dhw

Biggest bacterium ever discovered

dhw: Please tell us the difference between trying different approaches and experimenting.

DAVID: I entertained the POSSIBILTY God tried a tweak, and you blow it into God positively has to experiment to do anything to advance evolution.

dhw: I have done no such thing. I have offered you four separate theistic theories to explain the history of evolution as we know it. ONE of them was your God experimenting, and you categorically rejected the idea because you just happen to know that “God does not need experimentation to reach his endpoint purposes” – just as you happen to know all his other non-wants and non-needs. But here you have recognized that your God “might try out different approaches to different designs”. If it is possible that he would do so, then I suggest that it is possible that he would do so.

I'll stick with the above possibility, not that God must experiment as is your approach. You have constantly stuck with God experimenting, and I see God as knowing all His goals in advance and how to achieve them.

dhw: I point out that you can’t explain it, and I am accused of total distortion although you admit that you can’t explain it. :-(

DAVID: Since I accept God's actions, I see no reason to explain His reasons which I cannot know. It is your problem, and your sole need, not mine. That is why I logically told you to ask God.

dhw: It is not your God’s actions that you accept! You accept your own theory that he individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc., and that he did so as preparation for humans, although the vast majority had no connection with humans. The fact that you can’t explain the logic behind such a combination of theories might perhaps suggest that there is something wrong with it, but you have closed your mind.

History is God's doing, so of course I accept all events in past evolution are God's work and we humans are God's endpoint. Pure Adler approach. Your objection is totally illogical.

Our mind must come from mind


DAVID: […] its simplest conclusion is if we have working minds they were sourced from a working mind. This is an argument from a philosophic view and not a theological one. For completeness review the entire article.

dhw: Thanks, but no thanks. This is a very long-winded way of telling us what ID has been telling us for years, and what you and I have agreed on throughout our 14 years of discussion: the complexities are such that they can only have been designed, and if something is designed, there must be a designer. Then, however, comes the problem of who or what designed the designer, and was the intelligence top down (God the creator), or bottom up (rudimentary forms of panpsychic intelligence gradually evolving into more and more sophisticated forms)? In other words, what was the first cause?

And I simply pose an eternal mind. Required no designer. There must be something to begin it all. Top down makes lots more sense than bottom up from an amorphous mind called panpsychism, actually a recognition that a mind at work is necessary!

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Monday, February 28, 2022, 11:24 (90 days ago) @ David Turell

Biggest bacterium ever discovered

dhw: Please tell us the difference between trying different approaches and experimenting.

DAVID: I entertained the POSSIBILTY God tried a tweak, and you blow it into God positively has to experiment to do anything to advance evolution.
And:
DAVID: I'll stick with the above possibility, not that God must experiment as is your approach. You have constantly stuck with God experimenting, and I see God as knowing all His goals in advance and how to achieve them.

I have not said he “must” experiment, and I have not stuck with that one theory. I have offered you four alternative theories, and you rejected this one because you happen to know that “God does not need experimentation to reach his endpoint purposes”. Inadvertently, you have now agreed that your God might “try different approaches”. So experimentation is a possibility. Thank you.

Our mind must come from mind

DAVID: […] its simplest conclusion is if we have working minds they were sourced from a working mind. This is an argument from a philosophic view and not a theological one. For completeness review the entire article.

dhw: Thanks, but no thanks. This is a very long-winded way of telling us what ID has been telling us for years, and what you and I have agreed on throughout our 14 years of discussion: the complexities are such that they can only have been designed, and if something is designed, there must be a designer. Then, however, comes the problem of who or what designed the designer, and was the intelligence top down (God the creator), or bottom up (rudimentary forms of panpsychic intelligence gradually evolving into more and more sophisticated forms)? In other words, what was the first cause?

DAVID: And I simply pose an eternal mind. Required no designer. There must be something to begin it all. Top down makes lots more sense than bottom up from an amorphous mind called panpsychism, actually a recognition that a mind at work is necessary!

I was merely pointing out that this article is a long-winded way of telling us nothing new.
See “magic embryology” on the subject of first causes.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Monday, February 28, 2022, 19:00 (90 days ago) @ dhw

Biggest bacterium ever discovered

dhw: Please tell us the difference between trying different approaches and experimenting.

DAVID: I entertained the POSSIBILTY God tried a tweak, and you blow it into God positively has to experiment to do anything to advance evolution.
And:
DAVID: I'll stick with the above possibility, not that God must experiment as is your approach. You have constantly stuck with God experimenting, and I see God as knowing all His goals in advance and how to achieve them.

dhw: I have not said he “must” experiment, and I have not stuck with that one theory. I have offered you four alternative theories, and you rejected this one because you happen to know that “God does not need experimentation to reach his endpoint purposes”. Inadvertently, you have now agreed that your God might “try different approaches”. So experimentation is a possibility. Thank you.

Minor tweaking, yes.


Our mind must come from mind

DAVID: […] its simplest conclusion is if we have working minds they were sourced from a working mind. This is an argument from a philosophic view and not a theological one. For completeness review the entire article.

dhw: Thanks, but no thanks. This is a very long-winded way of telling us what ID has been telling us for years, and what you and I have agreed on throughout our 14 years of discussion: the complexities are such that they can only have been designed, and if something is designed, there must be a designer. Then, however, comes the problem of who or what designed the designer, and was the intelligence top down (God the creator), or bottom up (rudimentary forms of panpsychic intelligence gradually evolving into more and more sophisticated forms)? In other words, what was the first cause?

DAVID: And I simply pose an eternal mind. Required no designer. There must be something to begin it all. Top down makes lots more sense than bottom up from an amorphous mind called panpsychism, actually a recognition that a mind at work is necessary!

dhw: I was merely pointing out that this article is a long-winded way of telling us nothing new.
See “magic embryology” on the subject of first causes.

I have

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Tuesday, March 01, 2022, 07:22 (89 days ago) @ David Turell

Biggest bacterium ever discovered

dhw: Please tell us the difference between trying different approaches and experimenting.

DAVID: I entertained the POSSIBILTY God tried a tweak, and you blow it into God positively has to experiment to do anything to advance evolution.
And:
DAVID: I'll stick with the above possibility, not that God must experiment as is your approach. You have constantly stuck with God experimenting, and I see God as knowing all His goals in advance and how to achieve them.

dhw: I have not said he “must” experiment, and I have not stuck with that one theory. I have offered you four alternative theories, and you rejected this one because you happen to know that “God does not need experimentation to reach his endpoint purposes”. Inadvertently, you have now agreed that your God might “try different approaches”. So experimentation is a possibility. Thank you.

DAVID: Minor tweaking, yes.

First you reject all experimentation, then inadvertently you allow for experimentation, then you distort my proposal into "must" - ignoring the other theories I offer - then you make out that your agreement only concerned minor tweaks. If it’s possible that he tried "different approaches" early on in his creative earthly career, why do you think he could not possibly have tried "different approaches" later on? These would logically explain the different life forms that turned out to have no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only goal. But no, you even reject a theory which would explain the parts of your own theory that you can't explain, although you have just agreed that its basic premise is possible! :-(

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 01, 2022, 15:25 (89 days ago) @ dhw

Biggest bacterium ever discovered

dhw: Please tell us the difference between trying different approaches and experimenting.

DAVID: I entertained the POSSIBILTY God tried a tweak, and you blow it into God positively has to experiment to do anything to advance evolution.
And:
DAVID: I'll stick with the above possibility, not that God must experiment as is your approach. You have constantly stuck with God experimenting, and I see God as knowing all His goals in advance and how to achieve them.

dhw: I have not said he “must” experiment, and I have not stuck with that one theory. I have offered you four alternative theories, and you rejected this one because you happen to know that “God does not need experimentation to reach his endpoint purposes”. Inadvertently, you have now agreed that your God might “try different approaches”. So experimentation is a possibility. Thank you.

DAVID: Minor tweaking, yes.

dhw: First you reject all experimentation, then inadvertently you allow for experimentation, then you distort my proposal into "must" - ignoring the other theories I offer - then you make out that your agreement only concerned minor tweaks. If it’s possible that he tried "different approaches" early on in his creative earthly career, why do you think he could not possibly have tried "different approaches" later on? These would logically explain the different life forms that turned out to have no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only goal. But no, you even reject a theory which would explain the parts of your own theory that you can't explain, although you have just agreed that its basic premise is possible! :-(

Rethink the bold. Total humanizing as usual. God created the universe, invented life, but struggled in 'His creative early earthly career'! We are arguing over a possible minor dabble ;-)

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Wednesday, March 02, 2022, 11:46 (88 days ago) @ David Turell

Biggest bacterium ever discovered

dhw: If it’s possible that he tried "different approaches" early on in his creative earthly career, why do you think he could not possibly have tried "different approaches" later on? These would logically explain the different life forms that turned out to have no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only goal. But no, you even reject a theory which would explain the parts of your own theory that you can't explain, although you have just agreed that its basic premise is possible! :-(

DAVID: Rethink the bold. Total humanizing as usual. God created the universe, invented life, but struggled in 'His creative early earthly career'! We are arguing over a possible minor dabble

Mostly dealt with on the thread that deals with your theory. We are not arguing over a possible minor dabble, but over a clear statement which could be applied to all phases of evolution: If your God was prepared to try different approaches early on, why could he not have done so later on as well? Why do you use the word “struggle”? You constantly use these negative terms, as if it belittles your God that he should try new things, enjoy the whole process of learning by doing so, taking pleasure in the fascinating results of his work as he advances it from the simple to the complex. And that would explain all the different life forms which make nonsense of your own theory of evolution.

Evolution: land plant evolution from horizontal transfer

QUOTES: "Genes jumping from microbes to green algae hundreds of millions of years ago might have driven the evolution of land plants, researchers report March 1 in the journal Molecular Plant. Their analysis reveals that hundreds of genes from bacteria, fungi, and viruses have been integrated into plants, giving them desirable traits for a terrestrial life.
"Our finding suggests that HGT plays a significant role in land-plant evolution. Compared with mutations from vertical gene transfer, HGT enables plants to gain new traits rapidly, and some of these new traits could help plants adapt to a drastically different environment, like when they moved from water to land," Huang says.

Thank you for this. It’s all fascinating stuff, and may help us to understand how animal life also gained new traits rapidly and adapted to drastically different environments. After all, we have three times as many bacteria in us as we have cells.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 02, 2022, 19:11 (88 days ago) @ dhw

Biggest bacterium ever discovered

dhw: If it’s possible that he tried "different approaches" early on in his creative earthly career, why do you think he could not possibly have tried "different approaches" later on? These would logically explain the different life forms that turned out to have no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only goal. But no, you even reject a theory which would explain the parts of your own theory that you can't explain, although you have just agreed that its basic premise is possible! :-(

DAVID: Rethink the bold. Total humanizing as usual. God created the universe, invented life, but struggled in 'His creative early earthly career'! We are arguing over a possible minor dabble

dhw: Mostly dealt with on the thread that deals with your theory. We are not arguing over a possible minor dabble, but over a clear statement which could be applied to all phases of evolution: If your God was prepared to try different approaches early on, why could he not have done so later on as well? Why do you use the word “struggle”? You constantly use these negative terms, as if it belittles your God that he should try new things, enjoy the whole process of learning by doing so, taking pleasure in the fascinating results of his work as he advances it from the simple to the complex. And that would explain all the different life forms which make nonsense of your own theory of evolution.

God does not need to entertain Himself, as in your humanizing now bolded statement. He knows His goals exactly and creates with complete purpose.


Evolution: land plant evolution from horizontal transfer

QUOTES: "Genes jumping from microbes to green algae hundreds of millions of years ago might have driven the evolution of land plants, researchers report March 1 in the journal Molecular Plant. Their analysis reveals that hundreds of genes from bacteria, fungi, and viruses have been integrated into plants, giving them desirable traits for a terrestrial life.
"Our finding suggests that HGT plays a significant role in land-plant evolution. Compared with mutations from vertical gene transfer, HGT enables plants to gain new traits rapidly, and some of these new traits could help plants adapt to a drastically different environment, like when they moved from water to land," Huang says.

dhw: Thank you for this. It’s all fascinating stuff, and may help us to understand how animal life also gained new traits rapidly and adapted to drastically different environments. After all, we have three times as many bacteria in us as we have cells.

You are welcome. I view it as God using DNA as he needs to.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Tuesday, March 08, 2022, 10:01 (82 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmic philosophy: inflation or not?

QUOTE: “Physicists have proposed many other theories for the early universe, for example cyclic cosmology, and those can also explain observations. And maybe in the end one of those other theories will be the better explanation."

DAVID: so her point is inflation is pure theory, not fact. And for that matter the Big Bang is also pure theory, not fact. But the BB has religious and philosophic implications. See the next entry

Cosmic philosophy: Big Bang or not?

QUOTE: The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem states that any universe that has been expanding, on average, throughout its history must have had an absolute beginning. This constraint applies to inflationary, string landscape, and any other plausible model that could possibly generate our universe.

dhw: We have discussed this in great detail. The first entry casts doubt on inflation and the Big Bang, so clearly neither theory is universally accepted by the scientific world. The BGV theorem would be true if inflation and the BB were facts, but as you finally agreed after much humming and hawing, even that cannot be taken to mean the BB did not have a cause, i.e. something must have existed before it.

DAVID: What is your confused point. If the BB came out of nowhere, an immaterial first cause must exist.

That is the “if”! You might just as well say: “If there was nothing before the BB, then there was nothing before the BB.” Or: "If there was infinite matter and energy before the BB, then there was infinite matter and energy before the BB."

QUOTE: "The cause of the universe must have existed before the beginning of matter, energy, space, and time. Therefore, it must be immaterial, timeless, and immensely powerful."

dhw: A huge leap. If you can believe in an eternal, immaterial mind, why can’t you believe in an eternal cosmos of ever changing energy and matter?

DAVID: But Guth et al. say that did not exist!!!

How the heck do they know? Look at your final response.

DAVID: Note the bold: I'm with Vilenkin. This is pure ID philosophy. Note how so-called scientists fudge equations to get rid of God.

dhw: How can you possibly be with the bolded Vilenkin if you believe in a past-eternal God who could have created countless universes?

DAVID:He may have before this one. Eternity allows for thousands of previous universes.

So how can anyone possibly know that before the BB (if it happened) there was not an infinity and eternity of matter and energy forming countless universes? We have had this discussion before, so I don’t know why you want to repeat it.


Living fossil

QUOTE: Researchers argue this lack of change may represent natural selection on overdrive. “Slow rates of evolution don’t necessarily mean absence of evolution,” Dr. Simões said. Basically, it’s the evolutionary equivalent of the adage: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” (

DAVID: […] Darwinists wonder why no evolution. They expect responses to changing conditions. The tiny changes noted in Tuataras are just minor adaptations, not real advancing evolution. Why should there have to be 'cheat codes'? [etc.]

A wonderful discovery, but I have no idea why you think it provides grounds for attacking Darwin. The quote provides a perfectly adequate explanation: apart from minor adaptations, the tuatara was able to survive without having to change into something else! It didn’t need fixing. Bacteria have done it since the year dot. Darwin tries to explain why organisms turn into different organisms. That doesn’t mean every organism is obliged to turn into something else! The wonder is that it survived for so long. The coelacanth was another sensational discovery of a “living fossil”. Same thing: it didn’t need to change, so it didn’t change.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 08, 2022, 22:32 (81 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmic philosophy: Big Bang or not?

DAVID: What is your confused point. If the BB came out of nowhere, an immaterial first cause must exist.

dhw: That is the “if”! You might just as well say: “If there was nothing before the BB, then there was nothing before the BB.” Or: "If there was infinite matter and energy before the BB, then there was infinite matter and energy before the BB."

Guth et al, in their accepted theorem, specifically say nothing existed before the BB.

dhw:n How the heck do they know? Look at your final response.

DAVID: Note the bold: I'm with Vilenkin. This is pure ID philosophy. Note how so-called scientists fudge equations to get rid of God.

dhw: How can you possibly be with the bolded Vilenkin if you believe in a past-eternal God who could have created countless universes?

DAVID:He may have before this one. Eternity allows for thousands of previous universes.

dhw: So how can anyone possibly know that before the BB (if it happened) there was not an infinity and eternity of matter and energy forming countless universes? We have had this discussion before, so I don’t know why you want to repeat it.

Because I am persistent. You want to deny the opinion of all those accepting cosmologists.

Living fossil

QUOTE: Researchers argue this lack of change may represent natural selection on overdrive. “Slow rates of evolution don’t necessarily mean absence of evolution,” Dr. Simões said. Basically, it’s the evolutionary equivalent of the adage: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” (

DAVID: […] Darwinists wonder why no evolution. They expect responses to changing conditions. The tiny changes noted in Tuataras are just minor adaptations, not real advancing evolution. Why should there have to be 'cheat codes'? [etc.]

dhw: A wonderful discovery, but I have no idea why you think it provides grounds for attacking Darwin. The quote provides a perfectly adequate explanation: apart from minor adaptations, the tuatara was able to survive without having to change into something else! It didn’t need fixing. Bacteria have done it since the year dot. Darwin tries to explain why organisms turn into different organisms. That doesn’t mean every organism is obliged to turn into something else! The wonder is that it survived for so long. The coelacanth was another sensational discovery of a “living fossil”. Same thing: it didn’t need to change, so it didn’t change.

I fully agree. The point is why Darwinists showed they expected advances had to happen?

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Wednesday, March 09, 2022, 10:53 (81 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmic philosophy: Big Bang or not?

DAVID: What is your confused point. If the BB came out of nowhere, an immaterial first cause must exist.

dhw: That is the “if”! You might just as well say: “If there was nothing before the BB, then there was nothing before the BB.” Or: "If there was infinite matter and energy before the BB, then there was infinite matter and energy before the BB."

DAVID: Guth et al, in their accepted theorem, specifically say nothing existed before the BB.

Clearly not accepted by the author of the first article ("Inflation or not?"), and clearly not accepted by you either, unless you want to call your God “Nothing” and to call thousands of possible earlier universes “nothing”.

dhw: How the heck do they know? Look at your final response.

DAVID: Note the bold: I'm with Vilenkin. This is pure ID philosophy. Note how so-called scientists fudge equations to get rid of God.

dhw: How can you possibly be with the bolded Vilenkin if you believe in a past-eternal God who could have created countless universes?

DAVID: He may have before this one. Eternity allows for thousands of previous universes.

dhw: So how can anyone possibly know that before the BB (if it happened) there was not an infinity and eternity of matter and energy forming countless universes? We have had this discussion before, so I don’t know why you want to repeat it.

DAVID: Because I am persistent. You want to deny the opinion of all those accepting cosmologists.

They don't all accept, and you persist in contradicting yourself and ignoring arguments which you agreed with earlier. However, I am not arguing with Guth as I only know what you tell me about his theory. I am arguing with you, as you continue to argue against yourself.

Living fossil

QUOTE: Researchers argue this lack of change may represent natural selection on overdrive. “Slow rates of evolution don’t necessarily mean absence of evolution,” Dr. Simões said. Basically, it’s the evolutionary equivalent of the adage: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” (

DAVID: […] Darwinists wonder why no evolution. They expect responses to changing conditions. The tiny changes noted in Tuataras are just minor adaptations, not real advancing evolution. Why should there have to be 'cheat codes'? [etc.]

dhw: A wonderful discovery, but I have no idea why you think it provides grounds for attacking Darwin. The quote provides a perfectly adequate explanation: apart from minor adaptations, the tuatara was able to survive without having to change into something else! It didn’t need fixing. Bacteria have done it since the year dot. Darwin tries to explain why organisms turn into different organisms. That doesn’t mean every organism is obliged to turn into something else! The wonder is that it survived for so long. The coelacanth was another sensational discovery of a “living fossil”. Same thing: it didn’t need to change, so it didn’t change.

DAVID: I fully agree. The point is why Darwinists showed they expected advances had to happen?

I have no idea. I expect Darwin himself would be as puzzled as I am.

Theoretical origin of life

QUOTE: Through their unique laboratory window into molecular clouds, they hope to witness peptides getting longer and longer, and one day folding, like natural origami, into beautiful proteins that burst with potential." (DAVID's bold)

DAVID: note the bold, lots of grant money based on hope, while ignoring the obvious massive problems pointed out with great reason by James Tour.

They are just like Dawkins and you, both hoping that one day science will confirm your fixed beliefs.

Our special genes

QUOTES: BBBThe team therefore theorized that the microRNA (miRNA) genes found in that region [miR3648 and miR6724] likely evolved in the time since the chimpanzee and human lineages split, sometime in the last seven million years, and are specific to humans. (DAVID’s bold)
The findings point to the intriguing idea that these microRNA genes contributed to the distinct evolution of our species and the uniqueness of humankind.

DAVID : note the bold. These genes are seven million years old, fully illustrating design for the future in anticipation of need is exactly how God manages His control of evolution.

It’s perfectly logical that genes which distinguish us from chimps would have arrived when or after the two lineages split! It’s not in the least logical, however, to assume that the acquisition of new genes (and the split) took place for no reason other than preparation for use in 7 million years’ time. Why not assume that the split took place for a reason, and that the reason resulted in the formation of new genes – as in the process of speciation generally?

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 09, 2022, 17:26 (81 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmic philosophy: Big Bang or not?

dhw: How can you possibly be with the bolded Vilenkin if you believe in a past-eternal God who could have created countless universes?

DAVID: He may have before this one. Eternity allows for thousands of previous universes.

dhw: So how can anyone possibly know that before the BB (if it happened) there was not an infinity and eternity of matter and energy forming countless universes? We have had this discussion before, so I don’t know why you want to repeat it.

DAVID: Because I am persistent. You want to deny the opinion of all those accepting cosmologists.

dhw: They don't all accept, and you persist in contradicting yourself and ignoring arguments which you agreed with earlier. However, I am not arguing with Guth as I only know what you tell me about his theory. I am arguing with you, as you continue to argue against yourself.

One standout exception: Steinhardt.


Our special genes

QUOTES: BBBThe team therefore theorized that the microRNA (miRNA) genes found in that region [miR3648 and miR6724] likely evolved in the time since the chimpanzee and human lineages split, sometime in the last seven million years, and are specific to humans. (DAVID’s bold)
The findings point to the intriguing idea that these microRNA genes contributed to the distinct evolution of our species and the uniqueness of humankind.

DAVID : note the bold. These genes are seven million years old, fully illustrating design for the future in anticipation of need is exactly how God manages His control of evolution.

dhw: It’s perfectly logical that genes which distinguish us from chimps would have arrived when or after the two lineages split! It’s not in the least logical, however, to assume that the acquisition of new genes (and the split) took place for no reason other than preparation for use in 7 million years’ time. Why not assume that the split took place for a reason, and that the reason resulted in the formation of new genes – as in the process of speciation generally?

The reason is God made the split with new genes preparing for the future.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Thursday, March 10, 2022, 13:50 (80 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmic philosophy: Big Bang or not?

dhw: How can you possibly be with the bolded Vilenkin if you believe in a past-eternal God who could have created countless universes?

DAVID: He may have before this one. Eternity allows for thousands of previous universes.

dhw: So how can anyone possibly know that before the BB (if it happened) there was not an infinity and eternity of matter and energy forming countless universes? We have had this discussion before, so I don’t know why you want to repeat it.

DAVID: Because I am persistent. You want to deny the opinion of all those accepting cosmologists.

dhw: They don't all accept, and you persist in contradicting yourself and ignoring arguments which you agreed with earlier. However, I am not arguing with Guth as I only know what you tell me about his theory. I am arguing with you, as you continue to argue against yourself.

DAVID: One standout exception: Steinhardt.

The author of “inflation or not?” was also an “exception”. And you are another, as I keep pointing out and as you keep agreeing and then denying.

Our special genes

QUOTES: BBBThe team therefore theorized that the microRNA (miRNA) genes found in that region [miR3648 and miR6724] likely evolved in the time since the chimpanzee and human lineages split, sometime in the last seven million years, and are specific to humans. (DAVID’s bold)

The findings point to the intriguing idea that these microRNA genes contributed to the distinct evolution of our species and the uniqueness of humankind.

DAVID : note the bold. These genes are seven million years old, fully illustrating design for the future in anticipation of need is exactly how God manages His control of evolution.

dhw: It’s perfectly logical that genes which distinguish us from chimps would have arrived when or after the two lineages split! It’s not in the least logical, however, to assume that the acquisition of new genes (and the split) took place for no reason other than preparation for use in 7 million years’ time. Why not assume that the split took place for a reason, and that the reason resulted in the formation of new genes – as in the process of speciation generally?

DAVID: The reason is God made the split with new genes preparing for the future.

See the “brain” thread for comment.

How whales sleep and How bat echolocation works

DAVID:: Bats present the same problems as whales. The required adaptations are so complex and so intertwined, only design is the answer.

Thank you yet again for these wonderful wonders, which are always fascinating. Each of them goes back more than 50 million years, and I don’t know why you think the whole history of such wonders is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food, but I agree that such adaptations have been designed. And of course, my suggestion is that in both cases, the cell communities were responding to requirements in their quest to improve their chances of survival, as opposed to being your God's "preparations" for his design of humans plus our food 50+ million years later.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 10, 2022, 19:59 (79 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmic philosophy: Big Bang or not?

DAVID: Because I am persistent. You want to deny the opinion of all those accepting cosmologists.

dhw: They don't all accept, and you persist in contradicting yourself and ignoring arguments which you agreed with earlier. However, I am not arguing with Guth as I only know what you tell me about his theory. I am arguing with you, as you continue to argue against yourself.

DAVID: One standout exception: Steinhardt.

dhw: The author of “inflation or not?” was also an “exception”. And you are another, as I keep pointing out and as you keep agreeing and then denying.

The BB is not fact, as we both know. But is the best we've got and Guth et al ran with it.


Our special genes

QUOTES: BBBThe team therefore theorized that the microRNA (miRNA) genes found in that region [miR3648 and miR6724] likely evolved in the time since the chimpanzee and human lineages split, sometime in the last seven million years, and are specific to humans. (DAVID’s bold)

The findings point to the intriguing idea that these microRNA genes contributed to the distinct evolution of our species and the uniqueness of humankind.

DAVID : note the bold. These genes are seven million years old, fully illustrating design for the future in anticipation of need is exactly how God manages His control of evolution.

dhw: It’s perfectly logical that genes which distinguish us from chimps would have arrived when or after the two lineages split! It’s not in the least logical, however, to assume that the acquisition of new genes (and the split) took place for no reason other than preparation for use in 7 million years’ time. Why not assume that the split took place for a reason, and that the reason resulted in the formation of new genes – as in the process of speciation generally?

DAVID: The reason is God made the split with new genes preparing for the future.

dhw: See the “brain” thread for comment.

You want a theoretical unknown reason to somehow make genes appear.


How whales sleep and How bat echolocation works

DAVID:: Bats present the same problems as whales. The required adaptations are so complex and so intertwined, only design is the answer.

dhw: Thank you yet again for these wonderful wonders, which are always fascinating. Each of them goes back more than 50 million years, and I don’t know why you think the whole history of such wonders is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food, but I agree that such adaptations have been designed. And of course, my suggestion is that in both cases, the cell communities were responding to requirements in their quest to improve their chances of survival, as opposed to being your God's "preparations" for his design of humans plus our food 50+ million years later.

As usual, I don't accept your magical designing cells.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Friday, March 11, 2022, 12:10 (79 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmic philosophy: Big Bang or not?

DAVID: You want to deny the opinion of all those accepting cosmologists.

dhw: They don't all accept, and you persist in contradicting yourself and ignoring arguments which you agreed with earlier. However, I am not arguing with Guth as I only know what you tell me about his theory. I am arguing with you, as you continue to argue against yourself.

DAVID: One standout exception: Steinhardt.

dhw: The author of “inflation or not?” was also an “exception”. And you are another, as I keep pointing out and as you keep agreeing and then denying.

DAVID: The BB is not fact, as we both know. But is the best we've got and Guth et al ran with it.

And our universe came from nothing is not fact either, and it is not the “best we’ve got” according to you. Why do you go on defending your interpretation of Guth’s theory when you totally reject it?

Our special genes

QUOTES: The team therefore theorized that the microRNA (miRNA) genes found in that region [miR3648 and miR6724] likely evolved in the time since the chimpanzee and human lineages split, sometime in the last seven million years, and are specific to humans. (DAVID’s bold)
The findings point to the intriguing idea that these microRNA genes contributed to the distinct evolution of our species and the uniqueness of humankind.

DAVID : note the bold. These genes are seven million years old, fully illustrating design for the future in anticipation of need is exactly how God manages His control of evolution.

dhw: It’s perfectly logical that genes which distinguish us from chimps would have arrived when or after the two lineages split! It’s not in the least logical, however, to assume that the acquisition of new genes (and the split) took place for no reason other than preparation for use in 7 million years’ time. Why not assume that the split took place for a reason, and that the reason resulted in the formation of new genes – as in the process of speciation generally?

DAVID: The reason is God made the split with new genes preparing for the future.

dhw: See the “brain” thread for comment.

DAVID: You want a theoretical unknown reason to somehow make genes appear.

The theory that new cells are needed to design and implement new technologies and abilities to help in the “constant war to survive” (e.g. as a result of new conditions, ideas, discoveries) seems to me less fanciful than the theory that an unknown power preprogrammed each new set of genes 3.8 billion years ago, or kept popping in to give a gene transfusion to a group of individual life forms in preparation for an unknown reason at some vague time in the future.

How whales sleep and How bat echolocation works

DAVID:: Bats present the same problems as whales. The required adaptations are so complex and so intertwined, only design is the answer.

dhw: Thank you yet again for these wonderful wonders, which are always fascinating. Each of them goes back more than 50 million years, and I don’t know why you think the whole history of such wonders is/was “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food, but I agree that such adaptations have been designed. And of course, my suggestion is that in both cases, the cell communities were responding to requirements in their quest to improve their chances of survival, as opposed to being your God's "preparations" for his design of humans plus our food 50+ million years later.

DAVID: As usual, I don't accept your magical designing cells.

OK, but you still can’t explain how every single wonder, including all those that disappeared countless millions of years ago, could have been in preparation for and part of the goal of evolving humans and our food.

Bechly on Darwin’s gap problem

"Darwinian evolution predicts a gradually branching tree of living forms. […] Darwinism would lead us to expect such transitional sequences all over the fossil record, and yet evolutionists, searching assiduously for more than 160 years, have yet to construct a single one of these. Bechly debunks the hype around some fossil sequences, such as that said to have been assembled from ape-like to human. He explains the difference between “transitional forms” as paleontologists generally use the term and the meaning of the term for evolutionists attempting to defend modern Darwinism."

I would like to know if you yourself debunk the record of apelike to human. And I’d also like to know Bechly’s own explanation of the gaps, which are universally acknowledged. One possible reason is that we are looking for fossils from millions and millions of years ago, and the survival even of one is treated as a sensation. Dead bodies don’t normally preserve themselves. Another possible reason is that intelligent life forms do not need thousands of generations to perfect their innovations: the process could be completed over just a few – again vastly reducing the chances of fossil survival.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 12, 2022, 02:00 (78 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmic philosophy: Big Bang or not?

DAVID: The BB is not fact, as we both know. But is the best we've got and Guth et al ran with it.

dhw: And our universe came from nothing is not fact either, and it is not the “best we’ve got” according to you. Why do you go on defending your interpretation of Guth’s theory when you totally reject it?

I can't write what I mean? Guth's theorem is accepted! It is the best we've got! Someting had to precede the BB. Not material. Therefore God.


Our special genes

dhw: It’s perfectly logical that genes which distinguish us from chimps would have arrived when or after the two lineages split! It’s not in the least logical, however, to assume that the acquisition of new genes (and the split) took place for no reason other than preparation for use in 7 million years’ time. Why not assume that the split took place for a reason, and that the reason resulted in the formation of new genes – as in the process of speciation generally?

DAVID: The reason is God made the split with new genes preparing for the future.

dhw: See the “brain” thread for comment.

DAVID: You want a theoretical unknown reason to somehow make genes appear.

dhw: The theory that new cells are needed to design and implement new technologies and abilities to help in the “constant war to survive” (e.g. as a result of new conditions, ideas, discoveries) seems to me less fanciful than the theory that an unknown power preprogrammed each new set of genes 3.8 billion years ago, or kept popping in to give a gene transfusion to a group of individual life forms in preparation for an unknown reason at some vague time in the future.

A beautiful non-answer! You did not tell me how the needed new cells appeared! We agee on need, not mechanism.


How whales sleep and How bat echolocation works

DAVID: As usual, I don't accept your magical designing cells.

dhw: OK, but you still can’t explain how every single wonder, including all those that disappeared countless millions of years ago, could have been in preparation for and part of the goal of evolving humans and our food.

Back to necessary ecosystems for our food.


Bechly on Darwin’s gap problem

"Darwinian evolution predicts a gradually branching tree of living forms. […] Darwinism would lead us to expect such transitional sequences all over the fossil record, and yet evolutionists, searching assiduously for more than 160 years, have yet to construct a single one of these. Bechly debunks the hype around some fossil sequences, such as that said to have been assembled from ape-like to human. He explains the difference between “transitional forms” as paleontologists generally use the term and the meaning of the term for evolutionists attempting to defend modern Darwinism."

dhw: I would like to know if you yourself debunk the record of apelike to human. And I’d also like to know Bechly’s own explanation of the gaps, which are universally acknowledged. One possible reason is that we are looking for fossils from millions and millions of years ago, and the survival even of one is treated as a sensation. Dead bodies don’t normally preserve themselves. Another possible reason is that intelligent life forms do not need thousands of generations to perfect their innovations: the process could be completed over just a few – again vastly reducing the chances of fossil survival.

Again pure Darwinism. Charles hoped for fill-in forms. They don't exist! Bechly offers a truism. If we hunt for 160 years and always find the same gaps, there must be gaps. So dhw, keep on dreaming for unfound forms. The Cambrian gap was found in Canada before 1900. Now in China a much bigger fossil field with mu ch better scientific abilities, the gap is just as big of not bigger. Dream on.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Saturday, March 12, 2022, 08:38 (78 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmic philosophy: Big Bang or not?

DAVID: The BB is not fact, as we both know. But is the best we've got and Guth et al ran with it.

dhw: And our universe came from nothing is not fact either, and it is not the “best we’ve got” according to you. Why do you go on defending your interpretation of Guth’s theory when you totally reject it?

DAVID: I can't write what I mean? Guth's theorem is accepted! It is the best we've got! Someting had to precede the BB. Not material. Therefore God.

But you keep telling us that his theory is that the universe came from nothing and there was no “before” the BB. Does he say that something had to precede the BB and it couldn’t have been material and therefore it must have been God? Or is that you disagreeing with him?

Our special genes

dhw: The theory that new cells are needed to design and implement new technologies and abilities to help in the “constant war to survive” (e.g. as a result of new conditions, ideas, discoveries) seems to me less fanciful than the theory that an unknown power preprogrammed each new set of genes 3.8 billion years ago, or kept popping in to give a gene transfusion to a group of individual life forms in preparation for an unknown reason at some vague time in the future.

DAVID: A beautiful non-answer! You did not tell me how the needed new cells appeared! We agee on need, not mechanism.

If I could tell you HOW new cells appear, I would book my flight to Stockholm to collect my Nobel Prize. Somehow, I don’t think your own theory - God preprogrammed them all 3.8 billion years ago, or he did a cell transfusion every time any organism needed one - will qualify you.

How whales sleep and How bat echolocation works

DAVID: As usual, I don't accept your magical designing cells.

dhw: OK, but you still can’t explain how every single wonder, including all those that disappeared countless millions of years ago, could have been in preparation for and part of the goal of evolving humans and our food.

DAVID: Back to necessary ecosystems for our food.

So every single life form and natural wonder in the whole history of life, including bat echolocation, was necessary to provide us with food. What the heck are we going to do if bats become extinct, and what the heck would we have eaten if there hadn’t been brontosauruses 150 million years ago?

Bechly on Darwin’s gap problem

"Darwinian evolution predicts a gradually branching tree of living forms. […] Darwinism would lead us to expect such transitional sequences all over the fossil record, and yet evolutionists, searching assiduously for more than 160 years, have yet to construct a single one of these. Bechly debunks the hype around some fossil sequences, such as that said to have been assembled from ape-like to human. He explains the difference between “transitional forms” as paleontologists generally use the term and the meaning of the term for evolutionists attempting to defend modern Darwinism."

dhw: I would like to know if you yourself debunk the record of apelike to human. And I’d also like to know Bechly’s own explanation of the gaps, which are universally acknowledged. One possible reason is that we are looking for fossils from millions and millions of years ago, and the survival even of one is treated as a sensation. Dead bodies don’t normally preserve themselves. Another possible reason is that intelligent life forms do not need thousands of generations to perfect their innovations: the process could be completed over just a few – again vastly reducing the chances of fossil survival.

DAVID: Again pure Darwinism. Charles hoped for fill-in forms. They don't exist! Bechly offers a truism. If we hunt for 160 years and always find the same gaps, there must be gaps. So dhw, keep on dreaming for unfound forms.

I am not denying that there are gaps! I have offered two possible explanations for the gaps. Meanwhile, I have asked you two questions which you have not answered. I have bolded them for you.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 12, 2022, 18:33 (78 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmic philosophy: Big Bang or not?

DAVID: I can't write what I mean? Guth's theorem is accepted! It is the best we've got! Something had to precede the BB. Not material. Therefore God.

dhw: But you keep telling us that his theory is that the universe came from nothing and there was no “before” the BB. Does he say that something had to precede the BB and it couldn’t have been material and therefore it must have been God? Or is that you disagreeing with him?

Guth as a true scientist dare not mention God. As far as he is concerned we appear from nothing. Stop quibbling.


How whales sleep and How bat echolocation works

DAVID: As usual, I don't accept your magical designing cells.

dhw: OK, but you still can’t explain how every single wonder, including all those that disappeared countless millions of years ago, could have been in preparation for and part of the goal of evolving humans and our food.

DAVID: Back to necessary ecosystems for our food.

dhw: So every single life form and natural wonder in the whole history of life, including bat echolocation, was necessary to provide us with food. What the heck are we going to do if bats become extinct, and what the heck would we have eaten if there hadn’t been brontosauruses 150 million years ago?

Today's ecosystems work just fine to feed us. The past brontosaurus fed just fine in his systems.


Bechly on Darwin’s gap problem

dhw: I would like to know if you yourself debunk the record of apelike to human. And I’d also like to know Bechly’s own explanation of the gaps, which are universally acknowledged.

DAVID: Again pure Darwinism. Charles hoped for fill-in forms. They don't exist! Bechly offers a truism. If we hunt for 160 years and always find the same gaps, there must be gaps. So dhw, keep on dreaming for unfound forms.

dhw: I am not denying that there are gaps! I have offered two possible explanations for the gaps. Meanwhile, I have asked you two questions which you have not answered. I have bolded them for you.

Second first: Bechly simply accepts them as true gaps in God's design. And yes I am sure God designed us from His ape designed forms. Any good designer designs from past preparations or knowledge. My medical office designs came from my previous experiences.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 12, 2022, 18:37 (78 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmic philosophy: Big Bang or not?

DAVID: I can't write what I mean? Guth's theorem is accepted! It is the best we've got! Something had to precede the BB. Not material. Therefore God.

dhw: But you keep telling us that his theory is that the universe came from nothing and there was no “before” the BB. Does he say that something had to precede the BB and it couldn’t have been material and therefore it must have been God? Or is that you disagreeing with him?


Guth as a true scientist dare not mention God. As far as he is concerned we appear from nothing. Stop quibbling.


How whales sleep and How bat echolocation works

DAVID: As usual, I don't accept your magical designing cells.

dhw: OK, but you still can’t explain how every single wonder, including all those that disappeared countless millions of years ago, could have been in preparation for and part of the goal of evolving humans and our food.

DAVID: Back to necessary ecosystems for our food.

dhw: So every single life form and natural wonder in the whole history of life, including bat echolocation, was necessary to provide us with food. What the heck are we going to do if bats become extinct, and what the heck would we have eaten if there hadn’t been brontosauruses 150 million years ago?


Today's ecosystems work just fine to feed us. The past brontosaurus fed just fine in his systems.


Bechly on Darwin’s gap problem


dhw: I would like to know if you yourself debunk the record of apelike to human. And I’d also like to know Bechly’s own explanation of the gaps, which are universally acknowledged.

DAVID: Again pure Darwinism. Charles hoped for fill-in forms. They don't exist! Bechly offers a truism. If we hunt for 160 years and always find the same gaps, there must be gaps. So dhw, keep on dreaming for unfound forms.

dhw: I am not denying that there are gaps! I have offered two possible explanations for the gaps. Meanwhile, I have asked you two questions which you have not answered. I have bolded them for you.


Second first: Bechly simply accepts them as true gaps in God's design. And yes I am sure God designed us from His ape designed forms. Any good designer designs from past preparations or knowledge. My medical office designs came from my previous experiences.

Once again we rush into your naïve idea of design. Your plays are allowed to act in your mind to create themselves. Many playwrights write to make a point and you know that. That is now a real God works assuming there is a real God.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Sunday, March 13, 2022, 11:53 (77 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmic philosophy: Big Bang or not?

DAVID: I can't write what I mean? Guth's theorem is accepted! It is the best we've got! Something had to precede the BB. Not material. Therefore God.

dhw: But you keep telling us that his theory is that the universe came from nothing and there was no “before” the BB. Does he say that something had to precede the BB and it couldn’t have been material and therefore it must have been God? Or is that you disagreeing with him?

DAVID: Guth as a true scientist dare not mention God. As far as he is concerned we appear from nothing. Stop quibbling.

This is not a quibble. I can only discuss the theory you present to me. Did he or did he not say there was no “before” the BB and our universe came from nothing? If that is his theory, do you agree with it? If you do agree, why do you then propose that there was a God before it, and your God could have created countless other universes before ours?

How whales sleep and How bat echolocation works

DAVID: As usual, I don't accept your magical designing cells.

dhw: OK, but you still can’t explain how every single wonder, including all those that disappeared countless millions of years ago, could have been in preparation for and part of the goal of evolving humans and our food.

DAVID: Back to necessary ecosystems for our food.

dhw: So every single life form and natural wonder in the whole history of life, including bat echolocation, was necessary to provide us with food. What the heck are we going to do if bats become extinct, and what the heck would we have eaten if there hadn’t been brontosauruses 150 million years ago?

DAVID: Today's ecosystems work just fine to feed us. The past brontosaurus fed just fine in his systems.

So the brontosaurus and his ecosystems were not designed in preparation for us humans and our ecosystems. Exit the theory that all life forms and ecosystems were designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food. Please stop running around in circles trying to defend a theory which you yourself cannot explain.

Bechly on Darwin’s gap problem

dhw: I would like to know if you yourself debunk the record of apelike to human. And I’d also like to know Bechly’s own explanation of the gaps, which are universally acknowledged.

DAVID: Second first: Bechly simply accepts them as true gaps in God's design.

So does he explicitly say that the gaps are because God designed each species “de novo”, i.e. without any transition from one species to the next?

DAVID: And yes I am sure God designed us from His ape designed forms.

But Bechly “debunks the hype around some fossil sequences, such as that said to have been assembled from ape-like to humans”, so you obviously disagree with him.

DAVID: Once again we rush into your naïve idea of design. Your plays are allowed to act in your mind to create themselves. Many playwrights write to make a point and you know that. That is now a real God works assuming there is a real God.

I have no idea what insights you have into the mind of the one and only God you believe in. I write my books and plays initially because I enjoy creating and am interested in what emerges from the creative process. I’m sure my own outlook on life is reflected in my work, if that’s what you mean by making a point, though I generally detest literature that overtly tries to pump a message into its readers’ minds. You have no evidence whatsoever for assuming that your God does NOT create out of enjoyment and interest, or that the characters will be of greater interest to him if they themselves produce unexpected twists and turns in the story.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 13, 2022, 16:16 (77 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmic philosophy: Big Bang or not?

DAVID: Guth as a true scientist dare not mention God. As far as he is concerned we appear from nothing. Stop quibbling.

dhw: This is not a quibble. I can only discuss the theory you present to me. Did he or did he not say there was no “before” the BB and our universe came from nothing? If that is his theory, do you agree with it? If you do agree, why do you then propose that there was a God before it, and your God could have created countless other universes before ours?

Why not? I accept that there MUST be a first cause.


How whales sleep and How bat echolocation works

DAVID: Today's ecosystems work just fine to feed us. The past brontosaurus fed just fine in his systems.

dhw: So the brontosaurus and his ecosystems were not designed in preparation for us humans and our ecosystems. Exit the theory that all life forms and ecosystems were designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food. Please stop running around in circles trying to defend a theory which you yourself cannot explain.

I've fully explained it as God's choice of evolutionary creationism. It is history and it happened. We arrived on the basis of that mechanism .


Bechly on Darwin’s gap problem

dhw: I would like to know if you yourself debunk the record of apelike to human. And I’d also like to know Bechly’s own explanation of the gaps, which are universally acknowledged.

DAVID: Second first: Bechly simply accepts them as true gaps in God's design.

dhw: So does he explicitly say that the gaps are because God designed each species “de novo”, i.e. without any transition from one species to the next?

Not as a scientist. That thought must be silently in his believing mind.


DAVID: And yes I am sure God designed us from His ape designed forms.

dhw: But Bechly “debunks the hype around some fossil sequences, such as that said to have been assembled from ape-like to humans”, so you obviously disagree with him.

He accepts the fossil gaps in human evolution, but he and I are agreeing on a designer. He is actively in ID.


DAVID: Once again we rush into your naïve idea of design. Your plays are allowed to act in your mind to create themselves. Many playwrights write to make a point and you know that. That is now a real God works assuming there is a real God.

dhw: I have no idea what insights you have into the mind of the one and only God you believe in. I write my books and plays initially because I enjoy creating and am interested in what emerges from the creative process. I’m sure my own outlook on life is reflected in my work, if that’s what you mean by making a point, though I generally detest literature that overtly tries to pump a message into its readers’ minds. You have no evidence whatsoever for assuming that your God does NOT create out of enjoyment and interest, or that the characters will be of greater interest to him if they themselves produce unexpected twists and turns in the story.

All of us who believe in God are allowed to conceive of our own form of God's personage. Your 'detested literature' comment lets us have another insight into your underlying philosophy. Why can't some written material be directive?

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Monday, March 14, 2022, 12:39 (76 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmic philosophy: Big Bang or not?

DAVID: Guth as a true scientist dare not mention God. As far as he is concerned we appear from nothing. Stop quibbling.

dhw: This is not a quibble. I can only discuss the theory you present to me. Did he or did he not say there was no “before” the BB and our universe came from nothing? If that is his theory, do you agree with it? If you do agree, why do you then propose that there was a God before it, and your God could have created countless other universes before ours?

DAVID: Why not? I accept that there MUST be a first cause.

So if Guth says our universe came from nothing, and there was no “before” the BB, you disagree with him. Why are you still defending what you believe to have been his theory?

How whales sleep and How bat echolocation works

DAVID: Today's ecosystems work just fine to feed us. The past brontosaurus fed just fine in his systems.

dhw: So the brontosaurus and his ecosystems were not designed in preparation for us humans and our ecosystems. Exit the theory that all life forms and ecosystems were designed as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food. Please stop running around in circles trying to defend a theory which you yourself cannot explain.

DAVID: I've fully explained it as God's choice of evolutionary creationism. It is history and it happened. We arrived on the basis of that mechanism.

You have not explained why, if your God’s sole purpose was to design humans plus our food, he would have “chosen” to design countless life forms, natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans plus our food. I’m supposed to ask him why, because you don’t know. Stop dodging!

Bechly on Darwin’s gap problem

dhw: I would like to know if you yourself debunk the record of apelike to human. And I’d also like to know Bechly’s own explanation of the gaps, which are universally acknowledged.

DAVID: Second first: Bechly simply accepts them as true gaps in God's design.

dhw: So does he explicitly say that the gaps are because God designed each species “de novo”, i.e. without any transition from one species to the next?

DAVID: Not as a scientist. That thought must be silently in his believing mind.

I’m not too keen on telepathy as a means of exchanging ideas. I would like to think that our own method of discussion is more productive: we identify problems in existing theories, but we also try to find possible solutions which we then offer one another for further discussion.See the post concerning your theory of evolution for further details.

dhw: You have no evidence whatsoever for assuming that your God does NOT create out of enjoyment and interest, or that the characters will be of greater interest to him if they themselves produce unexpected twists and turns in the story.

DAVID: All of us who believe in God are allowed to conceive of our own form of God's personage.

Of course. I just find it odd that having told us you believe God enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, you can’t even begin to accept the possibility that he might create because he enjoys creating and wants to create something he’ll be interested in. Your misguided playwriting analogy really won’t get us anywhere, but I’ll answer your comment on my remark that I detest literature that pumps out messages.

DAVID: Your 'detested literature' comment lets us have another insight into your underlying philosophy. Why can't some written material be directive?

Of course it can. But as a reader or a member of the audience, I don’t like being told what I should think. It’s purely personal. I prefer literature which offers new experiences and perspectives which enrich my life but leave me to draw my own conclusions.

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Monday, March 14, 2022, 15:07 (76 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Why not? I accept that there MUST be a first cause.

dhw: So if Guth says our universe came from nothing, and there was no “before” the BB, you disagree with him. Why are you still defending what you believe to have been his theory?

I work by beginning with accepted science. If our BB had nothing in its past, it was created! What a concept!


How whales sleep and How bat echolocation works

DAVID: I've fully explained it as God's choice of evolutionary creationism. It is history and it happened. We arrived on the basis of that mechanism.


dhw: You have not explained why, if your God’s sole purpose was to design humans plus our food, he would have “chosen” to design countless life forms, natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans plus our food. I’m supposed to ask him why, because you don’t know. Stop dodging!

Stop complaining! God chose to evolve us.


Bechly on Darwin’s gap problem

dhw: You have no evidence whatsoever for assuming that your God does NOT create out of enjoyment and interest, or that the characters will be of greater interest to him if they themselves produce unexpected twists and turns in the story.

DAVID: All of us who believe in God are allowed to conceive of our own form of God's personage.

dhw: Of course. I just find it odd that having told us you believe God enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, you can’t even begin to accept the possibility that he might create because he enjoys creating and wants to create something he’ll be interested in. Your misguided playwriting analogy really won’t get us anywhere, but I’ll answer your comment on my remark that I detest literature that pumps out messages.

You've just shown again your desire for a human God. Our human personality does mirror Him, but that should not be used to imagine He has equivalent thoughts and desires.


DAVID: Your 'detested literature' comment lets us have another insight into your underlying philosophy. Why can't some written material be directive?

dhw: Of course it can. But as a reader or a member of the audience, I don’t like being told what I should think. It’s purely personal. I prefer literature which offers new experiences and perspectives which enrich my life but leave me to draw my own conclusions.

No matter what I read or watch, I am also totally free to accept my own conclusions. It is n nice to agree :-)

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Tuesday, March 15, 2022, 08:06 (75 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I accept that there MUST be a first cause.

dhw: So if Guth says our universe came from nothing, and there was no “before” the BB, you disagree with him. Why are you still defending what you believe to have been his theory?

DAVID: I work by beginning with accepted science. If our BB had nothing in its past, it was created! What a concept!

If our BB happened, then of course it must have had a beginning and did not have a past before it began! But that does not mean there was no past before our BB! You have told us that Guth says our BB came from nothing and there was nothing before it. You disagree, because you say God created it, in which case God must have existed before it. You also say your God could have created lots of universes before ours. Another disagreement with your version of what Guth says. I don’t know why you want this discussion to continue.

How whales sleep and How bat echolocation works

DAVID: I've fully explained it as God's choice of evolutionary creationism. It is history and it happened. We arrived on the basis of that mechanism.

dhw: You have not explained why, if your God’s sole purpose was to design humans plus our food, he would have “chosen” to design countless life forms, natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans plus our food. I’m supposed to ask him why, because you don’t know. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Stop complaining! God chose to evolve us.

If he exists and he chose to evolve us, he also chose to evolve every other life form and food that had no connection with us. Stop pretending that this means every other life form and food must have been a preparation for us.

Bechly on Darwin’s gap problem

DAVID: All of us who believe in God are allowed to conceive of our own form of God's personage.

dhw: Of course. I just find it odd that having told us you believe God enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, you can’t even begin to accept the possibility that he might create because he enjoys creating and wants to create something he’ll be interested in.

DAVID: You've just shown again your desire for a human God. Our human personality does mirror Him, but that should not be used to imagine He has equivalent thoughts and desires.

It’s not my desire for a human God! It’s an attempt to extrapolate his nature, purposes and methods from the history of life as we know it. If our human personality does mirror him, how do you know you are wrong when you “guess” that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and when I “guess” that this might be his purpose for creating life? (See also the post on your theory of evolution.)

More "miscellany"

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 15, 2022, 14:42 (75 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I accept that there MUST be a first cause.

dhw: So if Guth says our universe came from nothing, and there was no “before” the BB, you disagree with him. Why are you still defending what you believe to have been his theory?

DAVID: I work by beginning with accepted science. If our BB had nothing in its past, it was created! What a concept!

dhw: If our BB happened, then of course it must have had a beginning and did not have a past before it began! But that does not mean there was no past before our BB! You have told us that Guth says our BB came from nothing and there was nothing before it. You disagree, because you say God created it, in which case God must have existed before it. You also say your God could have created lots of universes before ours. Another disagreement with your version of what Guth says. I don’t know why you want this discussion to continue.

What Guth gives me is another way to propose God must exist!!! What is your problem? I neither agree or disagree with Guth's personal beliefs.


How whales sleep and How bat echolocation works

DAVID: I've fully explained it as God's choice of evolutionary creationism. It is history and it happened. We arrived on the basis of that mechanism.

dhw: You have not explained why, if your God’s sole purpose was to design humans plus our food, he would have “chosen” to design countless life forms, natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans plus our food. I’m supposed to ask him why, because you don’t know. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Stop complaining! God chose to evolve us.

dhw: If he exists and he chose to evolve us, he also chose to evolve every other life form and food that had no connection with us. Stop pretending that this means every other life form and food must have been a preparation for us.

I don't pretend with my firmly established beliefs. All of evolution, designed by God, prepared for us.


Bechly on Darwin’s gap problem

DAVID: All of us who believe in God are allowed to conceive of our own form of God's personage.

dhw: Of course. I just find it odd that having told us you believe God enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, you can’t even begin to accept the possibility that he might create because he enjoys creating and wants to create something he’ll be interested in.

DAVID: You've just shown again your desire for a human God. Our human personality does mirror Him, but that should not be used to imagine He has equivalent thoughts and desires.

dhw: It’s not my desire for a human God! It’s an attempt to extrapolate his nature, purposes and methods from the history of life as we know it. If our human personality does mirror him, how do you know you are wrong when you “guess” that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and when I “guess” that this might be his purpose for creating life? (See also the post on your theory of evolution.)

I'm not saying I'm wrong about my guesses, but guesses have little weight in being sure about the conclusions guesses bring. That is why I don't accept your guesses about God. I have my purposeful goal-directed God and your guesses produce a humanized God.

More "miscellany"

by dhw, Wednesday, March 16, 2022, 11:53 (74 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I accept that there MUST be a first cause.

dhw: So if Guth says our universe came from nothing, and there was no “before” the BB, you disagree with him. Why are you still defending what you believe to have been his theory?

DAVID: I work by beginning with accepted science. If our BB had nothing in its past, it was created! What a concept!

dhw: If our BB happened, then of course it must have had a beginning and did not have a past before it began! But that does not mean there was no past before our BB! You have told us that Guth says our BB came from nothing and there was nothing before it. You disagree, because you say God created it, in which case God must have existed before it. You also say your God could have created lots of universes before ours. Another disagreement with your version of what Guth says. I don’t know why you want this discussion to continue.

DAVID: What Guth gives me is another way to propose God must exist!!! What is your problem? I neither agree or disagree with Guth's personal beliefs.

We are not talking about personal beliefs! You presented us with your version of Guth’s theory (there was no “before” the BB), told us everyone agreed, then proceeded to disagree (your God and maybe other universes existed “before” the BB). But you keep insisting that you agree with him and everyone else agrees! Many of our discussions go on and on because you refuse to recognize such self-contradictions. But I'd better repeat that I don't know the ins and outs of Guth's theory, and it is your agreement and disagreement with your own version of it that makes this discussion pointless.

How whales sleep and How bat echolocation works

DAVID: Stop complaining! God chose to evolve us.

dhw: If he exists and he chose to evolve us, he also chose to evolve every other life form and food that had no connection with us. Stop pretending that this means every other life form and food must have been a preparation for us.

DAVID: I don't pretend with my firmly established beliefs. All of evolution, designed by God, prepared for us.

Thank you for yet again repeating your rigid belief, which I have also repeated twice recently, only to be accused of distorting it. I am not saying that you pretend to have this illogical theory. You pretend to know that your version of God’s choice wa