Miscellaneous (General)
I’m returning to “Miscellaneous” as each of these subjects can be dealt with fairly briefly, and I don’t want to swamp “latest postings” with so many headings. Fine, though, for you to introduce new subjects as you are doing. Thank you, as always, for your research.
Immunity system complexity
QUOTES: “To thrive in their new hosts, bacteria seek out iron. To protect their iron supplies, which are stored in mitochondria, the worms activate a defense tactic.”
"Dillin and his team showed that C. elegans worms’ sense of smell coordinates a mitochondrial response, particularly in intestinal cells, to resist bacterial infection. The researchers speculate that this process is conserved in mammals for pathogen detection and immune regulation.”
DAVID: this is a clear example of an automatic protein trigger for response to a specific danger. No thought involved.
The fact that scientists have observed the material mechanisms by which organisms defend themselves does not mean that the processes do not require thought of some kind. You have always accepted that this is true of bacteria. So now you have intelligent bacteria and robot worms, the latter having somehow been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to switch on whatever set of instructions your God planted in the cells which evolved into C. elegans and into every other species you can think of. Not too far-fetched for you?
Introducing the brain; its fractal organizstion
DAVID: There is no question an amoeba acts with purpose. The question is how automatic are those actions based upon built-in designed responses. A designing God and chance are the only two possible answers.
dhw: By built-in designed responses I presume you mean detailed instructions on how the amoeba should respond to all situations and conditions for the rest of time, and the appropriate set of instructions will automatically switch itself on when each particular problem arises. You cannot or will not countenance the possibility that your God might have endowed the amoeba or any other brainless organism or indeed most cell communities with the intelligence to work out their own solutions.
DAVID: Your interpretation is correct. I believe it is all automatic.
Same again: your God preprogrammed the first cells with instructions not only for every species, but also for every response by every cell to every new condition/problem that might arise for the rest of time (except when he popped in to do a dabble). And you tell us that your views keep evolving and you explore possibilities. I’ll wait patiently for you to “evolve” this view and explore other possibilities.
A theoretical God
DAVID: Considering what has been created, especially the massive complexity of the biochemistry of life, one must presume a God with endless capacities and knowledge.
I’m not sure about “endless”, but if God exists, then we can certainly assume that he knows (or finds out) how to create what he has created.
DAVID: That is how I start my view of God. Following Adler, the appearance of humans through natural evolution is so unusual a result, we are God's primary purpose in evolving us.
We’ve been through this before, and your first sentence already tells us that the massive complexity of the biochemistry of life is so “unusual” that every single species – including all those that had no connection with humans – must have been part of your God’s purpose. “Primary” is not the same as one and only, and you have never accepted any other purpose. This, as you have agreed right from the start, presents you with an insoluble problem, because if your God’s powers are endless, it makes absolutely no sense that he designed and had to cull 99.9% of species that had no connection with the one and only purpose you impose on him.
DAVID: How we relate to God is an endless discussion here, along with how He relates to us. You have one fixed view of a humanized God while my views keep evolving and many steps I've taken are contradictory to past positions. But at least I am exploring possibilities.
I have never ever offered any fixed view of a God which for all I know does not even exist, and I have never suggested that God is a human being. You have agreed that he may have certain thought patterns and emotions like our own, and I have offered you various alternative theistic explanations of how and why a theoretical God might have used evolution for different purposes and methods from those you have fixed your mind on. Some of these followed on from your own proposals or agreements (enjoyment, interest, escape from boredom, desire for a relationship with us, recognition, worship). Your contradictions persist into the present – you accept that the latter purposes are possible, but you say they are not possible because your God is selfless and is not human in any way. Similarly, your God is 100% benevolent, but there is only a 50/50 chance that he cares about us, and you then exclude any possibility that he might care about us because caring is a human emotion and your God is not human in any way. Thank you for accepting the fact that you are continually contradicting yourself. It would be nice to think that this awareness might help you to explore possibilities to which so far you have closed your mind!
(See the “evolution” thread for further discussion.)
Miscellaneous
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, November 13, 2024, 16:45 (30 days ago) @ dhw
Immunity system complexity
QUOTES: “To thrive in their new hosts, bacteria seek out iron. To protect their iron supplies, which are stored in mitochondria, the worms activate a defense tactic.”
"Dillin and his team showed that C. elegans worms’ sense of smell coordinates a mitochondrial response, particularly in intestinal cells, to resist bacterial infection. The researchers speculate that this process is conserved in mammals for pathogen detection and immune regulation.”
DAVID: this is a clear example of an automatic protein trigger for response to a specific danger. No thought involved.
dhw: The fact that scientists have observed the material mechanisms by which organisms defend themselves does not mean that the processes do not require thought of some kind. You have always accepted that this is true of bacteria. So now you have intelligent bacteria and robot worms, the latter having somehow been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to switch on whatever set of instructions your God planted in the cells which evolved into C. elegans and into every other species you can think of. Not too far-fetched for you?
Your prejudice bites you. This single example is clearly automatic. The C elegans may have simple thoughts in some other way.
Introducing the brain; its fractal organizstionDAVID: There is no question an amoeba acts with purpose. The question is how automatic are those actions based upon built-in designed responses. A designing God and chance are the only two possible answers.
dhw: By built-in designed responses I presume you mean detailed instructions on how the amoeba should respond to all situations and conditions for the rest of time, and the appropriate set of instructions will automatically switch itself on when each particular problem arises. You cannot or will not countenance the possibility that your God might have endowed the amoeba or any other brainless organism or indeed most cell communities with the intelligence to work out their own solutions.
DAVID: Your interpretation is correct. I believe it is all automatic.
dhw: Same again: your God preprogrammed the first cells with instructions not only for every species, but also for every response by every cell to every new condition/problem that might arise for the rest of time (except when he popped in to do a dabble). And you tell us that your views keep evolving and you explore possibilities.
I won't leave the obvious automaticity.
A theoretical GodDAVID: Considering what has been created, especially the massive complexity of the biochemistry of life, one must presume a God with endless capacities and knowledge.
I’m not sure about “endless”, but if God exists, then we can certainly assume that he knows (or finds out) how to create what he has created.
DAVID: That is how I start my view of God. Following Adler, the appearance of humans through natural evolution is so unusual a result, we are God's primary purpose in evolving us.
dhw: We’ve been through this before, and your first sentence already tells us that the massive complexity of the biochemistry of life is so “unusual” that every single species – including all those that had no connection with humans – must have been part of your God’s purpose. “Primary” is not the same as one and only, and you have never accepted any other purpose. This, as you have agreed right from the start, presents you with an insoluble problem, because if your God’s powers are endless, it makes absolutely no sense that he designed and had to cull 99.9% of species that had no connection with the one and only purpose you impose on him.
Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
DAVID: How we relate to God is an endless discussion here, along with how He relates to us. You have one fixed view of a humanized God while my views keep evolving and many steps I've taken are contradictory to past positions. But at least I am exploring possibilities.dhw: I have never ever offered any fixed view of a God which for all I know does not even exist, and I have never suggested that God is a human being. You have agreed that he may have certain thought patterns and emotions like our own, and I have offered you various alternative theistic explanations of how and why a theoretical God might have used evolution for different purposes and methods from those you have fixed your mind on. Some of these followed on from your own proposals or agreements (enjoyment, interest, escape from boredom, desire for a relationship with us, recognition, worship). Your contradictions persist into the present – you accept that the latter purposes are possible, but you say they are not possible because your God is selfless and is not human in any way. Similarly, your God is 100% benevolent, but there is only a 50/50 chance that he cares about us, and you then exclude any possibility that he might care about us because caring is a human emotion and your God is not human in any way. Thank you for accepting the fact that you are continually contradicting yourself. It would be nice to think that this awareness might help you to explore possibilities to which so far you have closed your mind!
At least I keep trying.
Miscellaneous
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
QUOTE: "Dillin and his team showed that C. elegans worms’ sense of smell coordinates a mitochondrial response, particularly in intestinal cells, to resist bacterial infection. The researchers speculate that this process is conserved in mammals for pathogen detection and immune regulation.”
DAVID: this is a clear example of an automatic protein trigger for response to a specific danger. No thought involved.
dhw: The fact that scientists have observed the material mechanisms by which organisms defend themselves does not mean that the processes do not require thought of some kind. You have always accepted that this is true of bacteria. So now you have intelligent bacteria and robot worms, the latter having somehow been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to switch on whatever set of instructions your God planted in the cells which evolved into C. elegans and into every other species you can think of. Not too far-fetched for you?
DAVID: Your prejudice bites you. This single example is clearly automatic. The C elegans may have simple thoughts in some other way.
Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God designed every response to every threat that C elegans would ever face from all invading bacteria for the rest of C elegans’ history? Ditto for all other bacterial threats to all other species. Or is it possible that he designed a mechanism by which C elegans and all other species might try to work out their own means of countering bacterial threats? (I say “try”, because we should not forget the many cases of failure, which of course would highlight the inadequacy of your omniscient God’s instructions.)
A theoretical God
DAVID: Following Adler, the appearance of humans through natural evolution is so unusual a result, we are God's primary purpose in evolving us.
dhw: […] the massive complexity of the biochemistry of life is so “unusual” that every single species – including all those that had no connection with humans – must have been part of your God’s purpose. “Primary” is not the same as one and only, and you have never accepted any other purpose. This, as you have agreed right from the start, presents you with an insoluble problem, because if your God’s powers are endless, it makes absolutely no sense that he designed and had to cull 99.9% of species that had no connection with the one and only purpose you impose on him.
DAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. If God exists, he chose to “evolve” ALL species, and YOU call him imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient for designing and having to cull 99.9% of them.
dhw: Thank you for accepting the fact that you are continually contradicting yourself. It would be nice to think that this awareness might help you to explore possibilities to which so far you have closed your mind! (See the “evolution” thread for further discussion.)
DAVID: At least I keep trying.
You keep trying to defend your fixed beliefs and to dismiss alternatives, although you admit that these provide logical explanations for problems you can’t solve.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
QUOTES: The Rosetta mission and others have shown just how ubiquitous organic molecules are in space, too.
[…] as comets and asteroids reveal, the nonliving world is complex in its own right. Compounds thought to be biosignatures have been found on lifeless rocks...
DAVID: the non-living world is filled with organic molecules. Living matter was destined, but we just don't know how it happened.
I must confess I don’t understand what this “discovery” is meant to prove. If organic molecules are not living organisms, we are still back where we started as regards the origin of life. Or is this an indirect reference to some kind of panpsychism?
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Thursday, November 14, 2024, 22:46 (29 days ago) @ dhw
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
DAVID: this is a clear example of an automatic protein trigger for response to a specific danger. No thought involved.
dhw: The fact that scientists have observed the material mechanisms by which organisms defend themselves does not mean that the processes do not require thought of some kind. You have always accepted that this is true of bacteria. So now you have intelligent bacteria and robot worms, the latter having somehow been preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to switch on whatever set of instructions your God planted in the cells which evolved into C. elegans and into every other species you can think of. Not too far-fetched for you?
DAVID: Your prejudice bites you. This single example is clearly automatic. The C elegans may have simple thoughts in some other way.
hw: Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God designed every response to every threat that C elegans would ever face from all invading bacteria for the rest of C elegans’ history? Ditto for all other bacterial threats to all other species. Or is it possible that he designed a mechanism by which C elegans and all other species might try to work out their own means of countering bacterial threats? (I say “try”, because we should not forget the many cases of failure, which of course would highlight the inadequacy of your omniscient God’s instructions.)
An omniscient God knows all future needs. That is where your God fails.
A theoretical GodDAVID: Following Adler, the appearance of humans through natural evolution is so unusual a result, we are God's primary purpose in evolving us.
dhw: […] the massive complexity of the biochemistry of life is so “unusual” that every single species – including all those that had no connection with humans – must have been part of your God’s purpose. “Primary” is not the same as one and only, and you have never accepted any other purpose. This, as you have agreed right from the start, presents you with an insoluble problem, because if your God’s powers are endless, it makes absolutely no sense that he designed and had to cull 99.9% of species that had no connection with the one and only purpose you impose on him.
DAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. If God exists, he chose to “evolve” ALL species, and YOU call him imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient for designing and having to cull 99.9% of them.
I remind the readers God chose to evolve us for His own unknown reasons and its cumbersomeness makes me critical.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
QUOTES: The Rosetta mission and others have shown just how ubiquitous organic molecules are in space, too.
[…] as comets and asteroids reveal, the nonliving world is complex in its own right. Compounds thought to be biosignatures have been found on lifeless rocks...
DAVID: the non-living world is filled with organic molecules. Living matter was destined, but we just don't know how it happened.
dhw: I must confess I don’t understand what this “discovery” is meant to prove. If organic molecules are not living organisms, we are still back where we started as regards the origin of life. Or is this an indirect reference to some kind of panpsychism?
No, all it means, as stated, is life was predestined.
Miscellaneous
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
dhw: Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God designed every response to every threat that C elegans would ever face from all invading bacteria for the rest of C elegans’ history? Ditto for all other bacterial threats to all other species. Or is it possible that he designed a mechanism by which C elegans and all other species might try to work out their own means of countering bacterial threats? (I say “try”, because we should not forget the many cases of failure, which of course would highlight the inadequacy of your omniscient God’s instructions.)
DAVID: An omniscient God knows all future needs. That is where your God fails.
Firstly, it is only your guess that your God is “omniscient”, and you contradict this yourself when you inform us that he didn’t know how to correct all the errors in his system and relied on us to provide the corrections. Secondly, please answer my bolded questions.
A theoretical God
DAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. If God exists, he chose to “evolve” ALL species, and YOU call him imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient for designing and having to cull 99.9% of them.
DAVID: I remind the readers God chose to evolve us for His own unknown reasons and its cumbersomeness makes me critical.
No need to repeat what I have just said! You have just criticised me for blaming God, which I have not done (I blame you), and now you repeat your criticism (= blame) of your God when you should be criticising the “cumbersomeness” of your theory!
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
QUOTE: The Rosetta mission and others have shown just how ubiquitous organic molecules are in space, too.
dhw: I must confess I don’t understand what this “discovery” is meant to prove. If organic molecules are not living organisms, we are still back where we started as regards the origin of life. Or is this an indirect reference to some kind of panpsychism?
DAVID: No, all it means, as stated, is life was predestined.
I don’t understand that either. If anything, it means that with all the ingredients of life flying around in space, it was inevitable that one fine day they would meet and produce life. One up for atheism. But if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God, why all the rigmarole of billions of bits and pieces floating around for billions of years?
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fields
QUOTES: "These effects, resulting from the electric fields produced by neurons rather than their synaptic firings, may play a leading role in our mind’s workings.”
"This single paper could take the field of ephaptic field science from the fringes of neuroscience to the forefront. Its findings regarding the speed and pervasiveness of ephaptic field effects may presage a fundamentally new understanding of how cognition and consciousness work." (David's bold)
DAVID: the bold just above expresses my feelings. It is an impressive suggestion. I must admit it comfortably fits my underlying dualism, as a field theory not fully tied to serial synaptic connections but fitting into fields.
I don’t understand how a process that depends in the first instance on neurons can fit your dualism. We should also note that these experiments were carried out on mice – and earlier on rabbits and cats. Do you regard this as evidence that mice, rabbits and cats have souls that will live on after they die?
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Friday, November 15, 2024, 23:17 (28 days ago) @ dhw
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
dhw: Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God designed every response to every threat that C elegans would ever face from all invading bacteria for the rest of C elegans’ history? Ditto for all other bacterial threats to all other species. Or is it possible that he designed a mechanism by which C elegans and all other species might try to work out their own means of countering bacterial threats? (I say “try”, because we should not forget the many cases of failure, which of course would highlight the inadequacy of your omniscient God’s instructions.)
DAVID: An omniscient God knows all future needs. That is where your God fails.
dhw: Firstly, it is only your guess that your God is “omniscient”, and you contradict this yourself when you inform us that he didn’t know how to correct all the errors in his system and relied on us to provide the corrections. Secondly, please answer my bolded questions.
Answered over and over. Close to 100% of all reactions automatic.
A theoretical GodDAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. If God exists, he chose to “evolve” ALL species, and YOU call him imperfect, messy, cumbersome and inefficient for designing and having to cull 99.9% of them.
DAVID: I remind the readers God chose to evolve us for His own unknown reasons and its cumbersomeness makes me critical.
dhw: No need to repeat what I have just said! You have just criticised me for blaming God, which I have not done (I blame you), and now you repeat your criticism (= blame) of your God when you should be criticising the “cumbersomeness” of your theory!
Early in these discussion it was you who said God should not have evolved us, but used direct creation.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organicsQUOTE: The Rosetta mission and others have shown just how ubiquitous organic molecules are in space, too.
dhw: I must confess I don’t understand what this “discovery” is meant to prove. If organic molecules are not living organisms, we are still back where we started as regards the origin of life. Or is this an indirect reference to some kind of panpsychism?
DAVID: No, all it means, as stated, is life was predestined.
dhw: I don’t understand that either. If anything, it means that with all the ingredients of life flying around in space, it was inevitable that one fine day they would meet and produce life. One up for atheism. But if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God, why all the rigmarole of billions of bits and pieces floating around for billions of years?
You can't just let proteins fall together and get life! It takes careful design.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fields
QUOTES: "These effects, resulting from the electric fields produced by neurons rather than their synaptic firings, may play a leading role in our mind’s workings.”
"This single paper could take the field of ephaptic field science from the fringes of neuroscience to the forefront. Its findings regarding the speed and pervasiveness of ephaptic field effects may presage a fundamentally new understanding of how cognition and consciousness work." (David's bold)
DAVID: the bold just above expresses my feelings. It is an impressive suggestion. I must admit it comfortably fits my underlying dualism, as a field theory not fully tied to serial synaptic connections but fitting into fields.
dhw: I don’t understand how a process that depends in the first instance on neurons can fit your dualism. We should also note that these experiments were carried out on mice – and earlier on rabbits and cats. Do you regard this as evidence that mice, rabbits and cats have souls that will live on after they die?
The Jewish religion thinks so: Nefesh and Neshama, souls for both.
Miscellaneous
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
dhw: Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God designed every response to every threat that C elegans would ever face from all invading bacteria for the rest of C elegans’ history? Ditto for all other bacterial threats to all other species. Or is it possible that he designed a mechanism by which C elegans and all other species might try to work out their own means of countering bacterial threats? (I say “try”, because we should not forget the many cases of failure, which of course would highlight the inadequacy of your omniscient God’s instructions.)
DAVID: Answered over and over. Close to 100% of all reactions automatic.
That is not what I am asking. There are countless threats. Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with detailed instructions on how organs/organisms should respond to every one, and the right instructions are “automatically” switched on when the relevant threat materializes? If not, please tell us what part your God has played in designing all the responses (some of them unsuccessful) to all the threats.
A theoretical God
DAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. […]
DAVID: Early in these discussion it was you who said God should not have evolved us, but used direct creation.
I have never said any such thing. I have asked you why, if your omnipotent God’s one and only purpose was to design us, he designed and then had to cull all the species that had nothing to do with us,although you believe he can create species directly, without precursors (e.g. during the Cambrian). This is a way of questioning the purpose you impose on him. But since you insist that this is his purpose, it is you who criticise/blame him for using such an “inefficient” method.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
QUOTE: The Rosetta mission and others have shown just how ubiquitous organic molecules are in space, too.
dhw: I must confess I don’t understand what this “discovery” is meant to prove. If organic molecules are not living organisms, we are still back where we started as regards the origin of life. Or is this an indirect reference to some kind of panpsychism?
DAVID: No, all it means, as stated, is life was predestined.
dhw: I don’t understand that either. If anything, it means that with all the ingredients of life flying around in space, it was inevitable that one fine day they would meet and produce life. One up for atheism. But if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God, why all the rigmarole of billions of bits and pieces floating around for billions of years?
DAVID: You can't just let proteins fall together and get life! It takes careful design.
So why did your careful, omnipotent, omniscient designer create billions of organic molecules to float around for billions of years if all he wanted to do was stick some together in order to create us and our food? Back to square one.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fields
QUOTE: "This single paper could take the field of ephaptic field science from the fringes of neuroscience to the forefront. Its findings regarding the speed and pervasiveness of ephaptic field effects may presage a fundamentally new understanding of how cognition and consciousness work." (David's bold)
DAVID: the bold just above expresses my feelings. It is an impressive suggestion. I must admit it comfortably fits my underlying dualism, as a field theory not fully tied to serial synaptic connections but fitting into fields.
dhw: I don’t understand how a process that depends in the first instance on neurons can fit your dualism. We should also note that these experiments were carried out on mice – and earlier on rabbits and cats. Do you regard this as evidence that mice, rabbits and cats have souls that will live on after they die?
DAVID: The Jewish religion thinks so: Nefesh and Neshama, souls for both.
I didn’t ask about the Jewish religion. Do YOU think mice, rabbits and cats have immortal souls?
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Saturday, November 16, 2024, 21:32 (27 days ago) @ dhw
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
DAVID: Answered over and over. Close to 100% of all reactions automatic.
dhw: That is not what I am asking. There are countless threats. Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with detailed instructions on how organs/organisms should respond to every one, and the right instructions are “automatically” switched on when the relevant threat materializes? If not, please tell us what part your God has played in designing all the responses (some of them unsuccessful) to all the threats.
Threat types are quite limited, for examples: starvation, attacks by predators, hot or cold climate changes. Coded responses are not necessarily endless, but limited as threats are.
A theoretical GodDAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. […]
DAVID: Early in these discussion it was you who said God should not have evolved us, but used direct creation.
dhw: I have never said any such thing. I have asked you why, if your omnipotent God’s one and only purpose was to design us, he designed and then had to cull all the species that had nothing to do with us,although you believe he can create species directly, without precursors (e.g. during the Cambrian). This is a way of questioning the purpose you impose on him. But since you insist that this is his purpose, it is you who criticise/blame him for using such an “inefficient” method.
You won't change my memory. I can't go back to many years ago like 2009. But you said if God can directly create as in the Cambrian why did He evolve us?
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organicsQUOTE: The Rosetta mission and others have shown just how ubiquitous organic molecules are in space, too.
dhw: I must confess I don’t understand what this “discovery” is meant to prove. If organic molecules are not living organisms, we are still back where we started as regards the origin of life. Or is this an indirect reference to some kind of panpsychism?
DAVID: No, all it means, as stated, is life was predestined.
dhw: I don’t understand that either. If anything, it means that with all the ingredients of life flying around in space, it was inevitable that one fine day they would meet and produce life. One up for atheism. But if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God, why all the rigmarole of billions of bits and pieces floating around for billions of years?
DAVID: You can't just let proteins fall together and get life! It takes careful design.
dhw: So why did your careful, omnipotent, omniscient designer create billions of organic molecules to float around for billions of years if all he wanted to do was stick some together in order to create us and our food? Back to square one.
How do you know if the molecules did not appear until 4.5 bya when the Earth formed? You infer right from the Big Bang.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fieldsQUOTE: "This single paper could take the field of ephaptic field science from the fringes of neuroscience to the forefront. Its findings regarding the speed and pervasiveness of ephaptic field effects may presage a fundamentally new understanding of how cognition and consciousness work." (David's bold)
DAVID: the bold just above expresses my feelings. It is an impressive suggestion. I must admit it comfortably fits my underlying dualism, as a field theory not fully tied to serial synaptic connections but fitting into fields.
dhw: I don’t understand how a process that depends in the first instance on neurons can fit your dualism. We should also note that these experiments were carried out on mice – and earlier on rabbits and cats. Do you regard this as evidence that mice, rabbits and cats have souls that will live on after they die?
DAVID: The Jewish religion thinks so: Nefesh and Neshama, souls for both.
dhw: I didn’t ask about the Jewish religion. Do YOU think mice, rabbits and cats have immortal souls?
I am not an expert in souls. I'll accept the Jewish view.
Miscellaneous
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
dhw: [...] There are countless threats. Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with detailed instructions on how organs/organisms should respond to every one, and the right instructions are “automatically” switched on when the relevant threat materializes? If not, please tell us what part your God has played in designing all the responses (some of them unsuccessful) to all the threats.
DAVID: Threat types are quite limited, for examples: starvation, attacks by predators, hot or cold climate changes. Coded responses are not necessarily endless, but limited as threats are.
Why can’t you give a straight answer to a straight question? Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with detailed instructions on how organs/organisms should deal with every threat etc., and if not, please tell us what part he played in designing all the responses to the threats.
A theoretical God
DAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. […]
DAVID: You won't change my memory. I can't go back to many years ago like 2009. But you said if God can directly create as in the Cambrian why did He evolve us?
Correct. It’s not a statement blaming God, but was and is a crucial question which you can’t answer. I have suggested that your illogical theory might be wrong. Maybe we weren’t his only purpose, or he couldn’t create directly, or he was experimenting etc. My alternative reasons for your God’s use of evolution all counter YOUR blaming him for being messy and inefficient.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
DAVID: You can't just let proteins fall together and get life! It takes careful design.
dhw: So why did your careful, omnipotent, omniscient designer create billions of organic molecules to float around for billions of years if all he wanted to do was stick some together in order to create us and our food? Back to square one.
DAVID: How do you know if the molecules did not appear until 4.5 bya when the Earth formed? You infer right from the Big Bang.
I have no idea when they first appeared. But if you insist, why did your all-knowing, all-powerful God create billions of organic molecules 4.5 billion years ago to float around for billions of years, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fields
QUOTE: "This single paper could take the field of ephaptic field science from the fringes of neuroscience to the forefront. Its findings regarding the speed and pervasiveness of ephaptic field effects may presage a fundamentally new understanding of how cognition and consciousness work." (David's bold)
DAVID: the bold just above expresses my feelings. It is an impressive suggestion. I must admit it comfortably fits my underlying dualism, as a field theory not fully tied to serial synaptic connections but fitting into fields.
dhw: I don’t understand how a process that depends in the first instance on neurons can fit your dualism. We should also note that these experiments were carried out on mice – and earlier on rabbits and cats. Do you regard this as evidence that mice, rabbits and cats have souls that will live on after they die?
DAVID: The Jewish religion thinks so: Nefesh and Neshama, souls for both.
dhw: I didn’t ask about the Jewish religion. Do YOU think mice, rabbits and cats have immortal souls?
DAVID: I am not an expert in souls. I'll accept the Jewish view.
Thank you for answering my question. Of course, your faith still doesn’t explain how a process that originates in neurons “fits” your dualism.
Our whole body has memory
QUOTES: "The ability to learn from spaced repetition isn't unique to brain cells, but, in fact, might be a fundamental property of all cells,"
“For example, consider what our pancreas remembers about the pattern of our past meals to maintain healthy levels of blood glucose or consider what a cancer cell remembers about the pattern of chemotherapy."
“The cell responses also depended on the time between pulses. These factors varied how strongly the memory-forming molecules were activated, and for how long – exactly what happens with our neurons. (David’s bold)
DAVID: What the non-biochemist must remember is everything happens is at a molecular reaction level. This is the automaticity I tout. Molecules do not think.
But the ability to learn “might be a fundamental property of all cells”. Molecules may provide information and may be activated, but something in the cell also has to process the information, commit it to memory, call upon the memory, and decide how to respond to the new information. This requires thought of some kind (not to be confused with human levels of thinking.) According to you, cells do not think. Many scientists disagree with you.
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Sunday, November 17, 2024, 19:12 (26 days ago) @ dhw
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
dhw: [...] There are countless threats. Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with detailed instructions on how organs/organisms should respond to every one, and the right instructions are “automatically” switched on when the relevant threat materializes? If not, please tell us what part your God has played in designing all the responses (some of them unsuccessful) to all the threats.
Your question is the answer! The first cells came with survival answers. We wouldn't be here if they didn't.
A theoretical GodDAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. […]
DAVID: You won't change my memory. I can't go back to many years ago like 2009. But you said if God can directly create as in the Cambrian why did He evolve us?
dhw: Correct. It’s not a statement blaming God, but was and is a crucial question which you can’t answer. I have suggested that your illogical theory might be wrong. Maybe we weren’t his only purpose, or he couldn’t create directly, or he was experimenting etc. My alternative reasons for your God’s use of evolution all counter YOUR blaming him for being messy and inefficient.
All they do is humanize Him.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organicsDAVID: You can't just let proteins fall together and get life! It takes careful design.
dhw: So why did your careful, omnipotent, omniscient designer create billions of organic molecules to float around for billions of years if all he wanted to do was stick some together in order to create us and our food? Back to square one.
DAVID: How do you know if the molecules did not appear until 4.5 bya when the Earth formed? You infer right from the Big Bang.
dhw: I have no idea when they first appeared. But if you insist, why did your all-knowing, all-powerful God create billions of organic molecules 4.5 billion years ago to float around for billions of years, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
He used them to create us and our food. 4.5 bya is not far from 3.8 bya when first life appeared.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fieldsQUOTE: "This single paper could take the field of ephaptic field science from the fringes of neuroscience to the forefront. Its findings regarding the speed and pervasiveness of ephaptic field effects may presage a fundamentally new understanding of how cognition and consciousness work." (David's bold)
DAVID: the bold just above expresses my feelings. It is an impressive suggestion. I must admit it comfortably fits my underlying dualism, as a field theory not fully tied to serial synaptic connections but fitting into fields.
dhw: I don’t understand how a process that depends in the first instance on neurons can fit your dualism. We should also note that these experiments were carried out on mice – and earlier on rabbits and cats. Do you regard this as evidence that mice, rabbits and cats have souls that will live on after they die?
DAVID: The Jewish religion thinks so: Nefesh and Neshama, souls for both.
dhw: I didn’t ask about the Jewish religion. Do YOU think mice, rabbits and cats have immortal souls?
DAVID: I am not an expert in souls. I'll accept the Jewish view.
dhw: Thank you for answering my question. Of course, your faith still doesn’t explain how a process that originates in neurons “fits” your dualism.
Consciousness as a free floating entity could settle into an ephaptic field.
Our whole body has memoryQUOTES: "The ability to learn from spaced repetition isn't unique to brain cells, but, in fact, might be a fundamental property of all cells,"
“For example, consider what our pancreas remembers about the pattern of our past meals to maintain healthy levels of blood glucose or consider what a cancer cell remembers about the pattern of chemotherapy."
“The cell responses also depended on the time between pulses. These factors varied how strongly the memory-forming molecules were activated, and for how long – exactly what happens with our neurons. (David’s bold)
DAVID: What the non-biochemist must remember is everything happens is at a molecular reaction level. This is the automaticity I tout. Molecules do not think.
dhw: But the ability to learn “might be a fundamental property of all cells”. Molecules may provide information and may be activated, but something in the cell also has to process the information, commit it to memory, call upon the memory, and decide how to respond to the new information. This requires thought of some kind (not to be confused with human levels of thinking.) According to you, cells do not think. Many scientists disagree with you.
New minor adaptations may be fully molecular alterations in reactions.
Miscellaneous
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
dhw: [...] Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with detailed instructions on how organs/organisms should respond to every one, and the right instructions are “automatically” switched on when the relevant threat materializes? If not, please tell us what part your God has played in designing all the responses (some of them unsuccessful) to all the threats.
DAVID: Your question is the answer! The first cells came with survival answers. We wouldn't be here if they didn't.
More obfuscation. Did God provide the first cells with every single answer to every single question, or did he provide cells with the ability to work answers out for themselves?
A theoretical God
DAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. […]
DAVID: You won't change my memory. I can't go back to many years ago like 2009. But you said if God can directly create as in the Cambrian why did He evolve us?
dhw: Correct. It’s not a statement blaming God, but was and is a crucial question which you can’t answer. I have suggested that your illogical theory might be wrong. Maybe we weren’t his only purpose, or he couldn’t create directly, or he was experimenting etc. My alternative reasons for your God’s use of evolution all counter YOUR blaming him for being messy and inefficient.
DAVID: All they do is humanize Him.
Silly “humanization” mantra repeatedly demolished by yourself. See the “evolution” thread.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
DAVID: You can't just let proteins fall together and get life! It takes careful design.
dhw: ...why did your all-knowing, all-powerful God create billions of organic molecules 4.5 billion years ago to float around for billions of years, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: He used them to create us and our food. 4.5 bya is not far from 3.8 bya when first life appeared.
Not just “used” them. According to you he created them. Since you seem to know when, why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fields
DAVID: It is an impressive suggestion. I must admit it comfortably fits my underlying dualism, as a field theory not fully tied to serial synaptic connections but fitting into fields.
dhw: I don’t understand how a process that depends in the first instance on neurons can fit your dualism.
(You have answered my question about animals and their immortal souls, so we needn’t discuss it any further.)
DAVID: Consciousness as a free floating entity could settle into an ephaptic field.
I’ve reread the article because I’ve always been intrigued by the fact that thanks to technology we can witness events that took place millions of years ago. Maybe the brain too can somehow produce “fields” that are preserved independently of their material source. NDEs and stories of ghosts are obvious examples.The article itself, however, only seems to be concerned with the speed of cognitive thought:
QUOTES: traditional synaptic firing speeds could not explain the speed of cognitive functions he had observed over the years in rabbits and cats.
"Instead the recent spate of ephaptic effects findings suggest a solid mechanism to explain these speeds. Our recent theoretical paper, building on these findings, suggested that ephaptic field effects may in fact be the primary mechanism for consciousness and cognition, rather than neural firing.”
Even if it is the mechanism, that doesn’t suggest "free floating" dualistic immortality.
Our whole body has memory
QUOTE: "The ability to learn from spaced repetition isn't unique to brain cells, but, in fact, might be a fundamental property of all cells..."
DAVID: What the non-biochemist must remember is everything happens is at a molecular reaction level. This is the automaticity I tout. Molecules do not think.
dhw: But the ability to learn “might be a fundamental property of all cells”. Molecules may provide information and may be activated, but something in the cell also has to process the information, commit it to memory, call upon the memory, and decide how to respond to the new information. This requires thought of some kind (not to be confused with human levels of thinking.) According to you, cells do not think. Many scientists disagree with you.
DAVID: New minor adaptations may be fully molecular alterations in reactions.
I’m not talking about major v minor adaptations. The question is whether cells do or do not perform all the above actions, which require thought.
ANT FOOD FORAGING
QUOTE: Researchers have discovered that in a foraging ant's search for food, it will leave pheromone trails connecting its colony to multiple food sources when they're available...
There is nothing new in this research! Even I knew about pheromone trails years and years ago.
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Monday, November 18, 2024, 21:23 (25 days ago) @ dhw
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also the brain’s fractal organization)
dhw: [...] Do you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with detailed instructions on how organs/organisms should respond to every one, and the right instructions are “automatically” switched on when the relevant threat materializes? If not, please tell us what part your God has played in designing all the responses (some of them unsuccessful) to all the threats.
DAVID: Your question is the answer! The first cells came with survival answers. We wouldn't be here if they didn't.
dhw: More obfuscation. Did God provide the first cells with every single answer to every single question, or did he provide cells with the ability to work answers out for themselves?
They are automatic in solving issues. Cells make only minor alterations in their output.
A theoretical GodDAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: I am not blaming God for any such thing! I am blaming you for coming up with a theory that you agree makes no sense. […]
DAVID: You won't change my memory. I can't go back to many years ago like 2009. But you said if God can directly create as in the Cambrian why did He evolve us?
dhw: Correct. It’s not a statement blaming God, but was and is a crucial question which you can’t answer. I have suggested that your illogical theory might be wrong. Maybe we weren’t his only purpose, or he couldn’t create directly, or he was experimenting etc. My alternative reasons for your God’s use of evolution all counter YOUR blaming him for being messy and inefficient.
DAVID: All they do is humanize Him.
dhw: Silly “humanization” mantra repeatedly demolished by yourself. See the “evolution” thread.
Only silly because you have no answer,
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organicsDAVID: You can't just let proteins fall together and get life! It takes careful design.
dhw: ...why did your all-knowing, all-powerful God create billions of organic molecules 4.5 billion years ago to float around for billions of years, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: He used them to create us and our food. 4.5 bya is not far from 3.8 bya when first life appeared.
dhw: Not just “used” them. According to you he created them. Since you seem to know when, why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
God does not tell us why.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fieldsDAVID: It is an impressive suggestion. I must admit it comfortably fits my underlying dualism, as a field theory not fully tied to serial synaptic connections but fitting into fields.
dhw: I don’t understand how a process that depends in the first instance on neurons can fit your dualism.
(You have answered my question about animals and their immortal souls, so we needn’t discuss it any further.)DAVID: Consciousness as a free floating entity could settle into an ephaptic field.
dhw: I’ve reread the article because I’ve always been intrigued by the fact that thanks to technology we can witness events that took place millions of years ago. Maybe the brain too can somehow produce “fields” that are preserved independently of their material source. NDEs and stories of ghosts are obvious examples.The article itself, however, only seems to be concerned with the speed of cognitive thought:
QUOTES: traditional synaptic firing speeds could not explain the speed of cognitive functions he had observed over the years in rabbits and cats.
"Instead the recent spate of ephaptic effects findings suggest a solid mechanism to explain these speeds. Our recent theoretical paper, building on these findings, suggested that ephaptic field effects may in fact be the primary mechanism for consciousness and cognition, rather than neural firing.”
dhw: Even if it is the mechanism, that doesn’t suggest "free floating" dualistic immortality.
It only supports the living side of duality
Our whole body has memoryQUOTE: "The ability to learn from spaced repetition isn't unique to brain cells, but, in fact, might be a fundamental property of all cells..."
DAVID: What the non-biochemist must remember is everything happens is at a molecular reaction level. This is the automaticity I tout. Molecules do not think.
dhw: But the ability to learn “might be a fundamental property of all cells”. Molecules may provide information and may be activated, but something in the cell also has to process the information, commit it to memory, call upon the memory, and decide how to respond to the new information. This requires thought of some kind (not to be confused with human levels of thinking.) According to you, cells do not think. Many scientists disagree with you.
DAVID: New minor adaptations may be fully molecular alterations in reactions.
dhw: I’m not talking about major v minor adaptations. The question is whether cells do or do not perform all the above actions, which require thought.
It only looks like they do.
Miscellaneous
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also “our whole body has memory”)
dhw: Did God provide the first cells with every single answer to every single question, or did he provide cells with the ability to work answers out for themselves?
DAVID: They are automatic in solving issues. Cells make only minor alterations in their output.
So did your God provide the first cells with every solution, or did he provide cells with the ability to work out the solutions for themselves?
dhw: (under “our whole body has memory”): something in the cell also has to process the information, commit it to memory, call upon the memory, and decide how to respond to the new information. This requires thought of some kind (not to be confused with human levels of thinking.)
And:
dhw: I’m not talking about major v minor adaptations. The question is whether cells do or do not perform all the above actions, which require thought.
DAVID: It only looks like they do.
If something looks as if it thinks and acts as if it thinks, it is hardly unreasonable to suggest that maybe it thinks.
A theoretical God
DAVID: Stop blaming God for choosing to evolve us.
dhw: […] My alternative reasons for your God’s use of evolution all counter YOUR blaming him for being messy and inefficient.
DAVID: All they do is humanize Him.
dhw: Silly “humanization” mantra repeatedly demolished by yourself. See the “evolution” thread.
DAVID: Only silly because you have no answer.
The answer, repeated over and over again, is that you yourself have proposed a list of “humanizations” to explain why your God might have created life and us, and you agree that they are all possible, just as you agree that your God probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
dhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: God does not tell us why.
And you can’t think of any reason why, but still you insist that you know his purpose was to indulge in his messy, inefficient way of achieving the one and only purpose you allow him to have.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fields
DAVID: It is an impressive suggestion. I must admit it comfortably fits my underlying dualism, as a field theory not fully tied to serial synaptic connections but fitting into fields.
dhw: I don’t understand how a process that depends in the first instance on neurons can fit your dualism.
DAVID: Consciousness as a free floating entity could settle into an ephaptic field.
QUOTES: traditional synaptic firing speeds could not explain the speed of cognitive functions he had observed over the years in rabbits and cats.
"Instead the recent spate of ephaptic effects findings suggest a solid mechanism to explain these speeds. Our recent theoretical paper, building on these findings, suggested that ephaptic field effects may in fact be the primary mechanism for consciousness and cognition, rather than neural firing.”
dhw: Even if it is the mechanism, that doesn’t suggest "free floating" dualistic immortality.
DAVID: It only supports the living side of duality.
Nobody knows the truth. If consciousness arises through the actions of neurons, that fact alone could be taken to support materialism.
The missing fossils argument; new very early Ediacaran
QUOTE: "This discovery reconciles a major gap between predictions based on molecular data and the lack of described ecdysozoans prior to the rich Cambrian fossils record and adds to our understanding of the evolution of animal life,"
DAVID: this is the first animal like Ediacaran fossil I've seen. Non e of the others seemed to be mobile. Also it appears de novo as do the Cambrian animals.
I was going to compliment you on your integrity in presenting us with articles that shed doubt on your pet theories, but your comment takes some of the shine off your halo. Nobody knows the true story of life’s evolution, but we are talking about life 600,000,000 years ago. It’s a miracle that ANY fossils have survived, let along been found, but you expect every single stage of every single species to have been recorded for us on our ever changing planet. Otherwise, you will claim that every new discovery must have been created “de novo”. How many remains of current individual species do you think will still be around 600,000,000 years from now?
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 19, 2024, 16:22 (24 days ago) @ dhw
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also “our whole body has memory”)
DAVID: They are automatic in solving issues. Cells make only minor alterations in their output.
dhw: So did your God provide the first cells with every solution, or did he provide cells with the ability to work out the solutions for themselves?
Yes, every major solution. Cells made minor adaptations as above.
And:
dhw: I’m not talking about major v minor adaptations. The question is whether cells do or do not perform all the above actions, which require thought.DAVID: It only looks like they do.
dhw: If something looks as if it thinks and acts as if it thinks, it is hardly unreasonable to suggest that maybe it thinks.
You forget design can make it look like thought.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organicsdhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: God does not tell us why.
dhw: And you can’t think of any reason why, but still you insist that you know his purpose was to indulge in his messy, inefficient way of achieving the one and only purpose you allow him to have.
I 'allow' nothing. God chose to evolve us for His own reasons. We are the final step in evolution.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fieldsDAVID: Consciousness as a free floating entity could settle into an ephaptic field.
QUOTES: traditional synaptic firing speeds could not explain the speed of cognitive functions he had observed over the years in rabbits and cats.
"Instead the recent spate of ephaptic effects findings suggest a solid mechanism to explain these speeds. Our recent theoretical paper, building on these findings, suggested that ephaptic field effects may in fact be the primary mechanism for consciousness and cognition, rather than neural firing.”
dhw: Even if it is the mechanism, that doesn’t suggest "free floating" dualistic immortality.
DAVID: It only supports the living side of duality.
dhw: Nobody knows the truth. If consciousness arises through the actions of neurons, that fact alone could be taken to support materialism.
Neurons act as receivers of consciousness which can operate without the brain in NDE's.>
The missing fossils argument; new very early EdiacaranQUOTE: "This discovery reconciles a major gap between predictions based on molecular data and the lack of described ecdysozoans prior to the rich Cambrian fossils record and adds to our understanding of the evolution of animal life,"
DAVID: this is the first animal like Ediacaran fossil I've seen. None of the others seemed to be mobile. Also it appears de novo as do the Cambrian animals.
dhw: I was going to compliment you on your integrity in presenting us with articles that shed doubt on your pet theories, but your comment takes some of the shine off your halo. Nobody knows the true story of life’s evolution, but we are talking about life 600,000,000 years ago. It’s a miracle that ANY fossils have survived, let along been found, but you expect every single stage of every single species to have been recorded for us on our ever changing planet. Otherwise, you will claim that every new discovery must have been created “de novo”. How many remains of current individual species do you think will still be around 600,000,000 years from now?
For your edification read Bechly on fossilification:
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/11/fossil-friday-new-research-on-how-delicate-soft-bodie...
"Anoxic conditions in the burial environment would have slowed bacterial decay and minimized disruption by scavengers, while fine sediment encasement shielded delicate structures from mechanical breakdown. This unique combination of rapid burial and anoxia, possibly supplemented by specific chemical interactions in the sediment, allowed the Emu Bay Shale to capture fine anatomical details, adding a vital piece to our understanding of Cambrian ecosystems."
Miscellaneous
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also “our whole body has memory”)
dhw:[…] did your God provide the first cells with every solution, or did he provide cells with the ability to work out the solutions for themselves?
DAVID: Yes, every major solution. Cells made minor adaptations as above.
We were discussing the immune system. When the cells of the immune system respond to invaders, there are no changes to the organism itself. At most, the immune system might be said to produce minor adaptations. Thank you for confirming that cells have the ability to work out solutions for themselves.
dhw: (under "whole body has memory") The question is whether cells do or do not perform all the above actions, which require thought.
DAVID: It only looks like they do.
dhw: If something looks as if it thinks and acts as if it thinks, it is hardly unreasonable to suggest that maybe it thinks.
DAVID: You forget design can make it look like thought.
You forget that something that looks and acts like thought might actually be thought.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
dhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: God does not tell us why.
dhw: And you can’t think of any reason why, but still you insist that you know his purpose was to indulge in his messy, inefficient way of achieving the one and only purpose you allow him to have.
DAVID: I 'allow' nothing. God chose to evolve us for His own reasons. We are the final step in evolution.
We are the latest step in evolution. Who knows what will happen, say, 3000,000,000 years from now? You refuse to accept the possibility that your God might have created life for any purpose other than us plus food. Hence the schizophrenic contradictions dealt with on the “evolution” thread.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fields
QUOTE: "[…] Our recent theoretical paper, building on these findings, suggested that ephaptic field effects may in fact be the primary mechanism for consciousness and cognition, rather than neural firing.”
dhw: Even if it is the mechanism, that doesn’t suggest "free floating" dualistic immortality.
DAVID: It only supports the living side of duality.
dhw: Nobody knows the truth. If consciousness arises through the actions of neurons, that fact alone could be taken to support materialism.
DAVID: Neurons act as receivers of consciousness which can operate without the brain in NDE's.
Neurons act as producers of consciousness in most research projects. I’m not against dualism. NDEs and other psychic experiences do support the theory. But you claimed that the article supported your dualism. It doesn’t.
The missing fossils argument; new very early Ediacaran
DAVID: [...] It appears de novo as do the Cambrian animals.
dhw: [...] Nobody knows the true story of life’s evolution, but we are talking about life 600,000,000 years ago. It’s a miracle that ANY fossils have survived, let along been found, but you expect every single stage of every single species to have been recorded for us on our ever changing planet. Otherwise, you will claim that every new discovery must have been created “de novo”. How many remains of current individual species do you think will still be around 600,000,000 years from now?
DAVID: For your edification read Bechly on fossilification:
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/11/fossil-friday-new-research-on-how-delicate-soft-bodie...
"Anoxic conditions in the burial environment would have slowed bacterial decay and minimized disruption by scavengers, while fine sediment encasement shielded delicate structures from mechanical breakdown. This unique combination of rapid burial and anoxia, possibly supplemented by specific chemical interactions in the sediment, allowed the Emu Bay Shale to capture fine anatomical details, adding a vital piece to our understanding of Cambrian ecosystems." (dhw’s bold)
Yes, it is a “unique combination”. We cannot expect billions of “unique combinations” to preserve every stage in the evolution of every organism that ever lived. Thank you for this support for my comments above.
Nature’s Wonders: clams have symbiotic algae
QUOTES: The heart cockles aren’t alone in channeling sunlight to symbiotic algae. Other marine creatures, such as giant clams, do this too ). […]
“'They’re using minerals in their shells to do this and not biological structures […]”
DAVID: A new approach from nature teaches us as once natural Velcro did.
I like these references to “nature”. The sheer variety of methods organisms use to ensure their survival suggests to me: 1) that life and speciation itself are one huge free-for-all, and 2) that the first cells, which gave rise to all living forms, must have been equipped with the mechanisms necessary for all this “natural” inventiveness. If there is a God who invented the mechanism for inventiveness, I could well imagine him being fascinated by the rich and natural variety of its products, just as we are.
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 20, 2024, 22:02 (23 days ago) @ dhw
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also “our whole body has memory”)
DAVID: Yes, every major solution. Cells made minor adaptations as above.
dhw: We were discussing the immune system. When the cells of the immune system respond to invaders, there are no changes to the organism itself. At most, the immune system might be said to produce minor adaptations. Thank you for confirming that cells have the ability to work out solutions for themselves.
"Minor adaptations" not solutions.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
dhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: God does not tell us why.
dhw: And you can’t think of any reason why, but still you insist that you know his purpose was to indulge in his messy, inefficient way of achieving the one and only purpose you allow him to have.
DAVID: I 'allow' nothing. God chose to evolve us for His own reasons. We are the final step in evolution.
dhw: We are the latest step in evolution. Who knows what will happen, say, 3000,000,000 years from now? You refuse to accept the possibility that your God might have created life for any purpose other than us plus food. Hence the schizophrenic contradictions dealt with on the “evolution” thread.
And you are dead against recognizing evolution is over.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fieldsDAVID: Neurons act as receivers of consciousness which can operate without the brain in NDE's.
dhw: Neurons act as producers of consciousness in most research projects. I’m not against dualism. NDEs and other psychic experiences do support the theory. But you claimed that the article supported your dualism. It doesn’t.
All I said was this h=new field is a place where consciousness might fit in.
The missing fossils argument; new very early EdiacaranDAVID: [...] It appears de novo as do the Cambrian animals.
dhw: [...] Nobody knows the true story of life’s evolution, but we are talking about life 600,000,000 years ago. It’s a miracle that ANY fossils have survived, let along been found, but you expect every single stage of every single species to have been recorded for us on our ever changing planet. Otherwise, you will claim that every new discovery must have been created “de novo”. How many remains of current individual species do you think will still be around 600,000,000 years from now?
DAVID: For your edification read Bechly on fossilification:
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/11/fossil-friday-new-research-on-how-delicate-soft-bodie...
"Anoxic conditions in the burial environment would have slowed bacterial decay and minimized disruption by scavengers, while fine sediment encasement shielded delicate structures from mechanical breakdown. This unique combination of rapid burial and anoxia, possibly supplemented by specific chemical interactions in the sediment, allowed the Emu Bay Shale to capture fine anatomical details, adding a vital piece to our understanding of Cambrian ecosystems." (dhw’s bold)dhw: Yes, it is a “unique combination”. We cannot expect billions of “unique combinations” to preserve every stage in the evolution of every organism that ever lived. Thank you for this support for my comments above.
You are welcome.
Nature’s Wonders: clams have symbiotic algaeQUOTES: The heart cockles aren’t alone in channeling sunlight to symbiotic algae. Other marine creatures, such as giant clams, do this too ). […]
“'They’re using minerals in their shells to do this and not biological structures […]”
DAVID: A new approach from nature teaches us as once natural Velcro did.
dhw: I like these references to “nature”. The sheer variety of methods organisms use to ensure their survival suggests to me: 1) that life and speciation itself are one huge free-for-all, and 2) that the first cells, which gave rise to all living forms, must have been equipped with the mechanisms necessary for all this “natural” inventiveness. If there is a God who invented the mechanism for inventiveness, I could well imagine him being fascinated by the rich and natural variety of its products, just as we are.
I doubt He is fascinated, since He is the author of all designs. You kept presenting Him as human.
Miscellaneous
Immunity system complexity (C elegans, and also “our whole body has memory”)
dhw: Did your God provide the first cells with every solution, or did he provide cells with the ability to work out the solutions for themselves?
DAVID: "Minor adaptations" not solutions.
More word games. If a body is attacked by invaders, they create a problem for the body, and the cells of the immune system have to figure out a solution. Neatly illustrated by your next example:
Immune system complexity: sniffing out invaders
QUOTE: […] the reflected spectrum changed in a different way after introducing the E. coli LPS than after adding their Salmonella counterparts." This suggests that the same receptor is activated by different molecules in different ways and then triggers specific responses depending on the signal." (David’s bold)
DAVID: these reactions are very specific and suggest strongly that they were designed.
They suggest strongly that the cells know exactly what they are doing, as they change their responses according to the nature of the problem. The ability to process information and decide on the best solution to a particular problem is a clear indication of intelligence.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
dhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: God chose to evolve us for His own reasons. We are the final step in evolution.
And:
DAVID: And you are dead against recognizing evolution is over.
Irrelevant to the question at the head of this post, which you are so desperate to avoid.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fields
DAVID: Neurons act as receivers of consciousness which can operate without the brain in NDE's.
dhw: Neurons act as producers of consciousness in most research projects. I’m not against dualism. NDEs and other psychic experiences do support the theory. But you claimed that the article supported your dualism. It doesn’t.
DAVID: All I said was this h=new field is a place where consciousness might fit in.
You said that the article “comfortably fits my underlying dualism”. If neurons are the source of consciousness, I don’t see how this can be said to support dualism.
The missing fossils argument; new very early Ediacaran
DAVID: [...] It appears de novo as do the Cambrian animals.
dhw: [...] Nobody knows the true story of life’s evolution, but we are talking about life 600,000,000 years ago. It’s a miracle that ANY fossils have survived, let along been found, but you expect every single stage of every single species to have been recorded for us on our ever changing planet. Otherwise, you will claim that every new discovery must have been created “de novo”. How many remains of current individual species do you think will still be around 600,000,000 years from now?
You quoted Bechly, who emphasized the uniqueness of a fossil find.
dhw: Yes, it is a “unique combination”. We cannot expect billions of “unique combinations” to preserve every stage in the evolution of every organism that ever lived. Thank you for this support for my comments above.
DAVID: You are welcome.
I trust you will now refrain from such comments as the one at the head of this post.
Nature’s Wonders: clams have symbiotic algae
dhw: The sheer variety of methods organisms use to ensure their survival suggests to me: 1) that life and speciation itself are one huge free-for-all, and 2) that the first cells, which gave rise to all living forms, must have been equipped with the mechanisms necessary for all this “natural” inventiveness. If there is a God who invented the mechanism for inventiveness, I could well imagine him being fascinated by the rich and natural variety of its products, just as we are.
DAVID: I doubt He is fascinated, since He is the author of all designs. You kept presenting Him as human.
You have agreed repeatedly that he is likely to be interested in his creations. Fascination is just a strong form of interest, and for heaven’s sake as well as mine, will you stop pretending that any human-like thought pattern or emotion would turn him into a two-legged mammal.
LUCA latest
https://www.quantamagazine.org/all-life-on-earth-today-descended-from-a-single-cell
DAVID: this is not origin of life research but the implication of such an early start is amazing. This universe was prepared for life to appear quickly. With ecosystems forming early.
The universe is thought to be 13.7 billion years old. The article estimates that life began 4.2 billion years ago. How does that amount to quick preparation for life?
QUOTE: "If that timeline is right, life had only a couple hundred million years to emerge and become fairly complex."
The theory that life began with a single cell (perhaps equipped with “a rudimentary immune system”) and that it complexified relatively quickly ties in with the suggestion that the original cells were already equipped with the mechanisms for evolution. Not much of an advert for Darwin’s random mutations, but a good basis for the Margulis/McLintock/Sheldrake concept of cellular intelligence (perhaps designed by your God).
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Thursday, November 21, 2024, 21:49 (22 days ago) @ dhw
Immune system complexity: sniffing out invaders
QUOTE: […] the reflected spectrum changed in a different way after introducing the E. coli LPS than after adding their Salmonella counterparts." This suggests that the same receptor is activated by different molecules in different ways and then triggers specific responses depending on the signal." (David’s bold)
DAVID: these reactions are very specific and suggest strongly that they were designed.
dhw: They suggest strongly that the cells know exactly what they are doing, as they change their responses according to the nature of the problem. The ability to process information and decide on the best solution to a particular problem is a clear indication of intelligence.
The bold shows it is an at an automatic molecular level.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organicsdhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: God chose to evolve us for His own reasons. We are the final step in evolution.
And:
DAVID: And you are dead against recognizing evolution is over.dhw: Irrelevant to the question at the head of this post, which you are so desperate to avoid.
You inflated the floating time. About 300,000,000 years is theorized. God wasting time is your complaint about God.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fieldsDAVID: All I said was this h=new field is a place where consciousness might fit in.
dhw: You said that the article “comfortably fits my underlying dualism”. If neurons are the source of consciousness, I don’t see how this can be said to support dualism.
The theory is the neurons receive consciousness, not create it.
LUCA latest
https://www.quantamagazine.org/all-life-on-earth-today-descended-from-a-single-cell
DAVID: this is not origin of life research but the implication of such an early start is amazing. This universe was prepared for life to appear quickly. With ecosystems forming early.
dhw: The universe is thought to be 13.7 billion years old. The article estimates that life began 4.2 billion years ago. How does that amount to quick preparation for life?
You forget the issue is the Earth, 4.5 billion year old. That's 300,000,000 years to achieve life.
QUOTE: "If that timeline is right, life had only a couple hundred million years to emerge and become fairly complex."dhw: The theory that life began with a single cell (perhaps equipped with “a rudimentary immune system”) and that it complexified relatively quickly ties in with the suggestion that the original cells were already equipped with the mechanisms for evolution. Not much of an advert for Darwin’s random mutations, but a good basis for the Margulis/McLintock/Sheldrake concept of cellular intelligence (perhaps designed by your God).
Or just God working the designs.
Miscellaneous
Immune system complexity: sniffing out invaders
QUOTE: […] the reflected spectrum changed in a different way after introducing the E. coli LPS than after adding their Salmonella counterparts." This suggests that the same receptor is activated by different molecules in different ways and then triggers specific responses depending on the signal[/b]." (David’s bold)
DAVID: these reactions are very specific and suggest strongly that they were designed.
dhw: They suggest strongly that the cells know exactly what they are doing, as they change their responses according to the nature of the problem. The ability to process information and decide on the best solution to a particular problem is a clear indication of intelligence.
DAVID: The bold shows it is at an automatic molecular level.
The work of the molecules triggers specific responses. Something within the cell has to process the new information and decide on the appropriate responses. We have no idea what that “something” is, but some scientists believe it is a form of intelligence. You tell us that somehow the molecules automatically switch on the right instructions which your God planted inside the first cells 3.8 billion years ago, or he has just popped in to make the decision for them.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
dhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: You inflated the floating time. About 300,000,000 years is theorized. God wasting time is your complaint about God.
Later (under LUCA):
DAVID: You forget the issue is the Earth, 4.5 billion year old. That's 300,000,000 years to achieve life.
I think we’re both confused over the maths. If life began 3.8 billion years ago, and the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, then it took your God 700,000,000 years to achieve life (I think!). But I’m not complaining. I’m asking you a question (see above) which you can’t answer, just as you can’t answer why your God would create billions of galaxies if he only wanted one. These are arguments against the very existence of your God, as follows (under “The Milky Way”):
DAVID: as usual the Milky Way stands out as unusual. From the designer standpoint the Milky Way must protect the Earth and that explains the differences.
From the agnostic and atheist standpoint, why would a designer design billions of galaxies if his one and only reason for designing life was to design humans and our food?
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fields
dhw: You said that the article “comfortably fits my underlying dualism”. If neurons are the source of consciousness, I don’t see how this can be said to support dualism.
DAVID: The theory is the neurons receive consciousness, not create it.
That is the theory of dualism. Materialism is the theory that neurons create it. The article does not claim that neurons receive consciousness.
LUCA latest
https://www.quantamagazine.org/all-life-on-earth-today-descended-from-a-single-cell
dhw: The theory that life began with a single cell (perhaps equipped with “a rudimentary immune system”) and that it complexified relatively quickly ties in with the suggestion that the original cells were already equipped with the mechanisms for evolution. Not much of an advert for Darwin’s random mutations, but a good basis for the Margulis/McLintock/Sheldrake concept of cellular intelligence (perhaps designed by your God).
DAVID: Or just God working the designs.
Ah, you’re referring to the theory that he inefficiently designed every species and then culled 99% of them because they were irrelevant to his one and only purpose.
The universe could vanish at any moment
QUOTES: "Assuming there’s no mistake, the universe is doomed – we just don’t know when the big slurp will happen. Based on the shape of these valleys, it is likely to be in billions of years. But it could be tomorrow.”
"There is, however, an alternative explanation for why the Higgs field hasn’t transitioned. Despite the precise measurements of the top quark and the Higgs boson, we can’t be certain that the Higgs is in a precarious metastable state after all.”
I am applying for a grant to further my research on when and how the universe will disappear. I’m also taking bets on the likelihood of each alternative. All grant money will be gratefully received, and your bet will be lodged with the DHW Betting Company, which will pay you your winnings as soon as the universe disappears.
Different birds build different nests
QUOTE: Researchers analyzed more than 400 structures built by 43 different groups of White-browed Sparrow-Weavers in the Kalahari Desert
DAVID: Not rigid like the weaverbirds, these birds sort of build whatever they wish. It is as if the DNA says build whatever you wish, as long as it is effective.
Yes indeed. One might even believe that different organisms have an inbuilt intelligence which enables them to do their own designing. A very different theory from that of a dear friend of mine, who is convinced that, for instance, the weaverbird could only have built its nest if it followed his God’s instructions.
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Friday, November 22, 2024, 21:33 (21 days ago) @ dhw
Immune system complexity: sniffing out invaders
QUOTE: […] the reflected spectrum changed in a different way after introducing the E. coli LPS than after adding their Salmonella counterparts." This suggests that the same receptor is activated by different molecules in different ways and then triggers specific
DAVID: The bold shows it is at an automatic molecular level.
dhw: The work of the molecules triggers specific responses. Something within the cell has to process the new information and decide on the appropriate responses. We have no idea what that “something” is, but some scientists believe it is a form of intelligence. You tell us that somehow the molecules automatically switch on the right instructions which your God planted inside the first cells 3.8 billion years ago, or he has just popped in to make the decision for them.
You've summarized my position.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organicsdhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: You inflated the floating time. About 300,000,000 years is theorized. God wasting time is your complaint about God.
Later (under LUCA):
DAVID: You forget the issue is the Earth, 4.5 billion year old. That's 300,000,000 years to achieve life.dhw: I think we’re both confused over the maths. If life began 3.8 billion years ago, and the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, then it took your God 700,000,000 years to achieve life (I think!). But I’m not complaining. I’m asking you a question (see above) which you can’t answer, just as you can’t answer why your God would create billions of galaxies if he only wanted one. These are arguments against the very existence of your God, as follows (under “The Milky Way”):
The article mentioned life at 4.2 bya. You human view of billions of galaxies does not know how important all those galaxies are. God knows
DAVID: as usual the Milky Way stands out as unusual. From the designer standpoint the Milky Way must protect the Earth and that explains the differences.dhw: From the agnostic and atheist standpoint, why would a designer design billions of galaxies if his one and only reason for designing life was to design humans and our food?
Again, your tiny mind knows better than God's.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fieldsdhw: You said that the article “comfortably fits my underlying dualism”. If neurons are the source of consciousness, I don’t see how this can be said to support dualism.
DAVID: The theory is the neurons receive consciousness, not create it.
dhw: That is the theory of dualism. Materialism is the theory that neurons create it. The article does not claim that neurons receive consciousness.
All I said was the new field could receive consciousness,
Different birds build different nestsQUOTE: Researchers analyzed more than 400 structures built by 43 different groups of White-browed Sparrow-Weavers in the Kalahari Desert
DAVID: Not rigid like the weaverbirds, these birds sort of build whatever they wish. It is as if the DNA says build whatever you wish, as long as it is effective.
dhw: Yes indeed. One might even believe that different organisms have an inbuilt intelligence which enables them to do their own designing. A very different theory from that of a dear friend of mine, who is convinced that, for instance, the weaverbird could only have built its nest if it followed his God’s instructions.
In that instance the weaverbirds only followed one designated design.
Miscellaneous
Immune system complexity: sniffing out invaders
dhw: The work of the molecules triggers specific responses. Something within the cell has to process the new information and decide on the appropriate responses. We have no idea what that “something” is, but some scientists believe it is a form of intelligence. You tell us that somehow the molecules automatically switch on the right instructions which your God planted inside the first cells 3.8 billion years ago, or he has just popped in to make the decision for them.
DAVID: You've summarized my position.
I doubt if even your ID-ers would support such a theory, but you pride yourself on your independent thinking, although you condemn my mixture of deism and process theology for not being mainstream.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
dhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
This was followed by a dispute over the figures, but the accuracy of these is irrelevant to our main question, which you now answer with a non-answer:
DAVID: Your human view of billions of galaxies does not know how important all those galaxies are. God knows.
This is your defence of all your theories: his creation of billions of galaxies, just like his creation of 99 out of 100 irrelevant species, makes no sense to you, but you cannot conceive of the possibility that your wishful theory that we should be your God’s one and only purpose might be wrong. And indeed the billions of galaxies especially might be taken as support for agnosticism and atheism.
DAVID (under “Milky Way”): Again, your tiny mind knows better than God's.
My tiny mind does not even know if God exists, and it most certainly does not assume – as yours does – that if he exists, it knows God’s purpose and it knows that God is a messy, inefficient designer who designs billions of galaxies and thousands of species which come and go, having no conceivable connection with that purpose.
Introducing the brain: consciousness as ephaptic fields
dhw: You said that the article “comfortably fits my underlying dualism”. If neurons are the source of consciousness, I don’t see how this can be said to support dualism.
DAVID: The theory is the neurons receive consciousness, not create it.
dhw: That is the theory of dualism. Materialism is the theory that neurons create it. The article does not claim that neurons receive consciousness.
DAVID: All I said was the new field could receive consciousness.
And I presume you think the sender is the dualist’s immaterial soul and not the neurons. OK. If you think the article supports your theory, so be it.
Different birds build different nests
QUOTE: Researchers analyzed more than 400 structures built by 43 different groups of White-browed Sparrow-Weavers in the Kalahari Desert
DAVID: Not rigid like the weaverbirds, these birds sort of build whatever they wish. It is as if the DNA says build whatever you wish, as long as it is effective.
dhw: Yes indeed. One might even believe that different organisms have an inbuilt intelligence
which enables them to do their own designing. A very different theory from that of a dear friend of mine, who is convinced that, for instance, the weaverbird could only have built its nest if it followed his God’s instructions.
DAVID: In that instance the weaverbirds only followed one designated design.
Does that mean God designed the weaverbird’s nest but all the other birds were able to design their own?
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Saturday, November 23, 2024, 20:24 (20 days ago) @ dhw
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
dhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
This was followed by a dispute over the figures, but the accuracy of these is irrelevant to our main question, which you now answer with a non-answer:
DAVID: Your human view of billions of galaxies does not know how important all those galaxies are. God knows.
dhw: This is your defence of all your theories: his creation of billions of galaxies, just like his creation of 99 out of 100 irrelevant species, makes no sense to you, but you cannot conceive of the possibility that your wishful theory that we should be your God’s one and only purpose might be wrong. And indeed the billions of galaxies especially might be taken as support for agnosticism and atheism.
We are here, against all odds, and you have no answer for that.
DAVID (under “Milky Way”): Again, your tiny mind knows better than God's.dhw: My tiny mind does not even know if God exists, and it most certainly does not assume – as yours does – that if he exists, it knows God’s purpose and it knows that God is a messy, inefficient designer who designs billions of galaxies and thousands of species which come and go, having no conceivable connection with that purpose.
You cannot conceive of God's reasoning. And you cannot answer the question: why are we here?
Different birds build different nestsQUOTE: Researchers analyzed more than 400 structures built by 43 different groups of White-browed Sparrow-Weavers in the Kalahari Desert
DAVID: Not rigid like the weaverbirds, these birds sort of build whatever they wish. It is as if the DNA says build whatever you wish, as long as it is effective.
dhw: Yes indeed. One might even believe that different organisms have an inbuilt intelligence
which enables them to do their own designing. A very different theory from that of a dear friend of mine, who is convinced that, for instance, the weaverbird could only have built its nest if it followed his God’s instructions.DAVID: In that instance the weaverbirds only followed one designated design.
dhw: Does that mean God designed the weaverbird’s nest but all the other birds were able to design their own?
That is what it appears to be.
Miscellaneous
Immune system complexity: sniffing out invaders
dhw: The work of the molecules triggers specific responses. Something within the cell has to process the new information and decide on the appropriate responses. We have no idea what that “something” is, but some scientists believe it is a form of intelligence. You tell us that somehow the molecules automatically switch on the right instructions which your God planted inside the first cells 3.8 billion years ago, or he has just popped in to make the decision for them.
DAVID: You've summarized my position.
dhw: I doubt if even your ID-ers would support such a theory, but you pride yourself on your independent thinking, although you condemn my mixture of deism and process theology for not being mainstream.
You have dropped this subject, but it is central to our discussion of all theories relating to evolution, including how it works and what role your God might have played in it, as well as the very nature of organic life. I remain mystified by the fact that you agree that cellular behaviour looks intelligent and yet you cannot bear the thought that cells might actually BE intelligent. Perhaps you could explain why you think your God could not possibly have endowed them with such autonomy? The next item expands the same subject:
Different birds build different nests
dhw: […] One might even believe that different organisms have an inbuilt intelligence
which enables them to do their own designing. A very different theory from that of a dear friend of mine, who is convinced that, for instance, the weaverbird could only have built its nest if it followed his God’s instructions.
DAVID: In that instance the weaverbirds only followed one designated design.
dhw: Does that mean God designed the weaverbird’s nest but all the other birds were able to design their own?
DAVID: That is what it appears to be.
Good news! We now have all these varieties of birds with the ability to design their complex nests. Only the poor old weaverbird has to rely on God to teach him. I wonder how far you are willing to stretch this concession of yours, that our fellow organisms have minds of their own, as opposed to being divinely preprogrammed or dabbled with.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
dhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: Your human view of billions of galaxies does not know how important all those galaxies are. God knows.
dhw: This is your defence of all your theories: his creation of billions of galaxies, just like his creation of 99 out of 100 irrelevant species, makes no sense to you, but you cannot conceive of the possibility that your wishful theory that we should be your God’s one and only purpose might be wrong. And indeed the billions of galaxies especially might be taken as support for agnosticism and atheism.
DAVID: We are here, against all odds, and you have no answer for that.
The duckbilled platypus is also here against all odds, and NOBODY has an answer to the question of how life originated. Your theory is that there is an unknown, sourceless being who designed it, and the atheist theory is that the odds are reduced by the enormity of the universe. You simply complicate matters by insisting that your God (if he exists) designed life for the sole purpose of designing us plus food – a theory which dismisses 99.9% of his “designs” as irrelevant, and which therefore shows him to be messy and inefficient.
DAVID: You cannot conceive of God's reasoning. And you cannot answer the question: why are we here?
You have agreed that NOBODY can conceive of God’s reasoning, although you insist that you know precisely what he was thinking when he created the universe. (“All I wanner do is design humans plus food.”) If there is no God, then clearly there is no purpose other than purposes we create for ourselves. If he exists, we can only theorize. Together, you and I have proposed a wide range of possible answers, all listed on the evolution thread. But you like to forget your own list and mine because of your schizophrenic view that although your God probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and every item on the list is possible, he is not human in any way, and therefore the items on the list are not possible.
Spoonworms are weird
DAVID: another part of the seabed ecosystem.
Thank you as always for these fascinating natural wonders. All part of what seems more and more like one gigantic free-for-all!
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Sunday, November 24, 2024, 18:42 (19 days ago) @ dhw
Immune system complexity: sniffing out invaders
dhw: You have dropped this subject, but it is central to our discussion of all theories relating to evolution, including how it works and what role your God might have played in it, as well as the very nature of organic life. I remain mystified by the fact that you agree that cellular behaviour looks intelligent and yet you cannot bear the thought that cells might actually BE intelligent. Perhaps you could explain why you think your God could not possibly have endowed them with such autonomy?
DNA complete instructions will make a cell look intelligent. No need for autonomy.
dhw: The next item expands the same subject:
Different birds build different nests
dhw: […] One might even believe that different organisms have an inbuilt intelligence
which enables them to do their own designing. A very different theory from that of a dear friend of mine, who is convinced that, for instance, the weaverbird could only have built its nest if it followed his God’s instructions.DAVID: In that instance the weaverbirds only followed one designated design.
dhw: Does that mean God designed the weaverbird’s nest but all the other birds were able to design their own?
DAVID: That is what it appears to be.
dhw: Good news! We now have all these varieties of birds with the ability to design their complex nests. Only the poor old weaverbird has to rely on God to teach him. I wonder how far you are willing to stretch this concession of yours, that our fellow organisms have minds of their own, as opposed to being divinely preprogrammed or dabbled with.
Birds instructed in nest design may make individual nests.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organicsdhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: Your human view of billions of galaxies does not know how important all those galaxies are. God knows.
dhw: This is your defence of all your theories: his creation of billions of galaxies, just like his creation of 99 out of 100 irrelevant species, makes no sense to you, but you cannot conceive of the possibility that your wishful theory that we should be your God’s one and only purpose might be wrong. And indeed the billions of galaxies especially might be taken as support for agnosticism and atheism.
DAVID: We are here, against all odds, and you have no answer for that.
dhw: The duckbilled platypus is also here against all odds, and NOBODY has an answer to the question of how life originated. Your theory is that there is an unknown, sourceless being who designed it, and the atheist theory is that the odds are reduced by the enormity of the universe. You simply complicate matters by insisting that your God (if he exists) designed life for the sole purpose of designing us plus food – a theory which dismisses 99.9% of his “designs” as irrelevant, and which therefore shows him to be messy and inefficient.
We still don't know why He chose to evolve us.
DAVID: You cannot conceive of God's reasoning. And you cannot answer the question: why are we here?dhw: You have agreed that NOBODY can conceive of God’s reasoning, although you insist that you know precisely what he was thinking when he created the universe. (“All I wanner do is design humans plus food.”) If there is no God, then clearly there is no purpose other than purposes we create for ourselves. If he exists, we can only theorize. Together, you and I have proposed a wide range of possible answers, all listed on the evolution thread. But you like to forget your own list and mine because of your schizophrenic view that although your God probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and every item on the list is possible, he is not human in any way, and therefore the items on the list are not possible.
If He is not human in any way He still may exhibit human attributes as secondary to His personage.
Miscellaneous
Immune system complexity: sniffing out invaders
dhw: You have dropped this subject, but it is central to our discussion of all theories relating to evolution, including how it works and what role your God might have played in it, as well as the very nature of organic life. I remain mystified by the fact that you agree that cellular behaviour looks intelligent and yet you cannot bear the thought that cells might actually BE intelligent. Perhaps you could explain why you think your God could not possibly have endowed them with such autonomy?
DAVID: DNA complete instructions will make a cell look intelligent. No need for autonomy.
It is not a matter of “need”. Your theory is that your God either dabbled or, 3.8 billion years ago, supplied the first cells with instructions for each and every problem that would arise in the future, to be switched on automatically when each problem arose. The alternative is that he supplied the first cells with the autonomous mechanism that would enable future cells to look for (but sadly not always to find) the solutions. Our example here is the immune system, but the same argument can be applied to speciation. (Hence the mixture of extinction, adaptation and innovation.) Same question again: why do you think your God could not have given cells the intelligence they actually appear to have?
dhw: The next item expands the same subject:
Different birds build different nests
DAVID: […] the weaverbirds only followed one designated design.
dhw: Does that mean God designed the weaverbird’s nest but all the other birds were able to design their own?
DAVID: That is what it appears to be. (dhw’s bold)
dhw: Good news! We now have all these varieties of birds with the ability to design their complex nests. Only the poor old weaverbird has to rely on God to teach him. I wonder how far you are willing to stretch this concession of yours, that our fellow organisms have minds of their own, as opposed to being divinely preprogrammed or dabbled with.
DAVID: Birds instructed in nest design may make individual nests.
Ugh! The other birds appear to be able to design their own nests, but the moment I point out the implications, whoosh! No, no, they have to be instructed, just like the weaverbird. How do you know the birds are not what they appear to be?
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
dhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: We are here, against all odds, and you have no answer for that.[…]
dhw: The duckbilled platypus is also here against all odds, and NOBODY has an answer to the question of how life originated. Your theory is that there is an unknown, sourceless being who designed it, and the atheist theory is that the odds are reduced by the enormity of the universe. You simply complicate matters by insisting that your God (if he exists) designed life for the sole purpose of designing us plus food – a theory which dismisses 99.9% of his “designs” as irrelevant, and which therefore shows him to be messy and inefficient.
DAVID: We still don't know why He chose to evolve us.
If he exists, we don’t know why he chose to evolve the duckbilled platypus, or indeed why he chose to create life at all. How does that justify your ridiculing him as being messy and inefficient?
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Monday, November 25, 2024, 18:26 (18 days ago) @ dhw
Immune system complexity: sniffing out invaders
DAVID: DNA complete instructions will make a cell look intelligent. No need for autonomy.
dhw: It is not a matter of “need”. Your theory is that your God either dabbled or, 3.8 billion years ago, supplied the first cells with instructions for each and every problem that would arise in the future, to be switched on automatically when each problem arose. The alternative is that he supplied the first cells with the autonomous mechanism that would enable future cells to look for (but sadly not always to find) the solutions. Our example here is the immune system, but the same argument can be applied to speciation. (Hence the mixture of extinction, adaptation and innovation.) Same question again: why do you think your God could not have given cells the intelligence they actually appear to have?
No need to. God invented life and had the full capacity to give cells full instructions to handle all issues..
dhw: The next item expands the same subject:Different birds build different nests
DAVID: […] the weaverbirds only followed one designated design.
dhw: Does that mean God designed the weaverbird’s nest but all the other birds were able to design their own?
DAVID: That is what it appears to be. (dhw’s bold)
dhw: Good news! We now have all these varieties of birds with the ability to design their complex nests. Only the poor old weaverbird has to rely on God to teach him. I wonder how far you are willing to stretch this concession of yours, that our fellow organisms have minds of their own, as opposed to being divinely preprogrammed or dabbled with.
DAVID: Birds instructed in nest design may make individual nests.
dhw: Ugh! The other birds appear to be able to design their own nests, but the moment I point out the implications, whoosh! No, no, they have to be instructed, just like the weaverbird. How do you know the birds are not what they appear to be?
If the weaverbirds have instructions why shouldn't these birds?
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organicsdhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: We are here, against all odds, and you have no answer for that.[…]
dhw: The duckbilled platypus is also here against all odds, and NOBODY has an answer to the question of how life originated. Your theory is that there is an unknown, sourceless being who designed it, and the atheist theory is that the odds are reduced by the enormity of the universe. You simply complicate matters by insisting that your God (if he exists) designed life for the sole purpose of designing us plus food – a theory which dismisses 99.9% of his “designs” as irrelevant, and which therefore shows him to be messy and inefficient.
DAVID: We still don't know why He chose to evolve us.
dhw: If he exists, we don’t know why he chose to evolve the duckbilled platypus, or indeed why he chose to create life at all. How does that justify your ridiculing him as being messy and inefficient?
Can you justify evolution as a simple progression to us?
Miscellaneous
Immune system complexity: sniffing out invaders
DAVID: DNA complete instructions will make a cell look intelligent. No need for autonomy.
dhw: It is not a matter of “need”. Your theory is that your God either dabbled or, 3.8 billion years ago, supplied the first cells with instructions for each and every problem that would arise in the future, to be switched on automatically when each problem arose. The alternative is that he supplied the first cells with the autonomous mechanism that would enable future cells to look for (but sadly not always to find) the solutions. Our example here is the immune system, but the same argument can be applied to speciation. (Hence the mixture of extinction, adaptation and innovation.) Same question again: why do you think your God could not have given cells the intelligence they actually appear to have?
DAVID: No need to. God invented life and had the full capacity to give cells full instructions to handle all issues.
They do not have full instructions to handle all issues. See the next entry, issue (3).
Immunity system complexity: Battling pseudomonas
DAVID: Pseudomonas is a tough nasty bug. This exciting research in finding ways to fight it. Of course dhw will point out God allowed this to exist. I don't know why, but here we see humans taking up the battle because we have the God-given mental capacity for it.
This sort of dilemma underlies three major issues that we’ve been discussing. 1) Theodicy: Why would an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God either design or allow this form of evil? 2) Does it not fit in with the concept of evolution as a free-for-all rather than a process carefully directed towards the design of a single species (us) plus its food? 3) Does it not completely shatter your theory that your omnipotent, omniscient God dabbles or has provided “full instructions to handle all issues”? Quite clearly he has failed miserably, according to your theory, and we humans are left to try and relieve the suffering your God has inflicted on us. However, if you embrace the theory that he gave cells the autonomous mechanism to work out their own solutions (i.e. intelligence), we have a full explanation of the medical successes and failures, and also of the process of extinction, adaptation and innovation. The autonomous intelligence is just as varied among micro-organisms as it is among macro-organisms. Some cells can solve the problems, and some can’t.
Different birds build different nests
DAVID: […] the weaverbirds only followed one designated design.
dhw: Does that mean God designed the weaverbird’s nest but all the other birds were able to design their own?
DAVID: That is what it appears to be. (dhw’s bold)
This changed to:
DAVID: Birds instructed in nest design may make individual nests.
dhw: Ugh! The other birds appear to be able to design their own nests, but the moment I point out the implications, whoosh! No, no, they have to be instructed, just like the weaverbird. How do you know the birds are not what they appear to be?
DAVID: If the weaverbirds have instructions why shouldn't these birds?
If these birds appear to be able to design their own nests, how do you know they are not? And how do you know the weaverbird is not?
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
dhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: We are here, against all odds, and you have no answer for that.[…]
dhw: If he exists, we don’t know why he chose to evolve the duckbilled platypus, or indeed why he chose to create life at all. How does that justify your ridiculing him as being messy and inefficient?
DAVID: Can you justify evolution as a simple progression to us?
As usual, you answer a question with a question. I’m not even sure what your question means, but the answer is no, and you can’t either. Evolution is not a simple progression to us, since it produced millions of now extinct species that had no connection with us. That is why it is nonsense to argue that your omnipotent, omniscient God's one and only purpose must have been to design us and our food, and your theory is so illogical that you call your God messy and inefficient. You’d rather ridicule him than admit that your theory might be wrong.
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 26, 2024, 20:54 (17 days ago) @ dhw
Immunity system complexity: Battling pseudomonas
DAVID: Pseudomonas is a tough nasty bug. This exciting research in finding ways to fight it. Of course dhw will point out God allowed this to exist. I don't know why, but here we see humans taking up the battle because we have the God-given mental capacity for it.
dhw: This sort of dilemma underlies three major issues that we’ve been discussing. 1) Theodicy: Why would an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God either design or allow this form of evil? 2) Does it not fit in with the concept of evolution as a free-for-all rather than a process carefully directed towards the design of a single species (us) plus its food?
We are so unusual we must be purposely deigned by God, Adler's proof of God. It is a powerful argument you ignore. A free-for-all, by definition has no direction or purpose. Why should we happen to appear against all odds?
dhw: 3) Does it not completely shatter your theory that your omnipotent, omniscient God dabbles or has provided “full instructions to handle all issues”? Quite clearly he has failed miserably, according to your theory, and we humans are left to try and relieve the suffering your God has inflicted on us. However, if you embrace the theory that he gave cells the autonomous mechanism to work out their own solutions (i.e. intelligence), we have a full explanation of the medical successes and failures, and also of the process of extinction, adaptation and innovation. The autonomous intelligence is just as varied among micro-organisms as it is among macro-organisms. Some cells can solve the problems, and some can’t.
No evidence for the bolded statement. It all can be explained by DNA instructions.
Different birds build different nestsDAVID: […] the weaverbirds only followed one designated design.
dhw: Does that mean God designed the weaverbird’s nest but all the other birds were able to design their own?
DAVID: That is what it appears to be. (dhw’s bold)
This changed to:
DAVID: Birds instructed in nest design may make individual nests.dhw: Ugh! The other birds appear to be able to design their own nests, but the moment I point out the implications, whoosh! No, no, they have to be instructed, just like the weaverbird. How do you know the birds are not what they appear to be?
DAVID: If the weaverbirds have instructions why shouldn't these birds?
dhw: If these birds appear to be able to design their own nests, how do you know they are not? And how do you know the weaverbird is not?
Why can't the birds be different? Weaverbirds have strict instructions while the other birds have a looser set of design instruction?
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organicsdhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: We are here, against all odds, and you have no answer for that.[…]
dhw: If he exists, we don’t know why he chose to evolve the duckbilled platypus, or indeed why he chose to create life at all. How does that justify your ridiculing him as being messy and inefficient?
DAVID: Can you justify evolution as a simple progression to us?
dhw: As usual, you answer a question with a question. I’m not even sure what your question means, but the answer is no, and you can’t either. Evolution is not a simple progression to us, since it produced millions of now extinct species that had no connection with us. That is why it is nonsense to argue that your omnipotent, omniscient God's one and only purpose must have been to design us and our food, and your theory is so illogical that you call your God messy and inefficient. You’d rather ridicule him than admit that your theory might be wrong.
The answer is above: "We are so unusual we must be purposely deigned by God, Adler's proof of God. It is a powerful argument you ignore. A free-for-all, by definition has no direction or purpose. Why should we happen to appear against all odds?
Miscellaneous
Different birds build different nests
DAVID: […] the weaverbirds only followed one designated design.
dhw: Does that mean God designed the weaverbird’s nest but all the other birds were able to design their own?
DAVID: That is what it appears to be. (dhw’s bold)
This changed to:
DAVID: Birds instructed in nest design may make individual nests.
dhw: Ugh! The other birds appear to be able to design their own nests, but the moment I point out the implications, whoosh! No, no, they have to be instructed, just like the weaverbird. How do you know the birds are not what they appear to be?
DAVID: If the weaverbirds have instructions why shouldn't these birds?
dhw: If these birds appear to be able to design their own nests, how do you know they are not? And how do you know the weaverbird is not?
DAVID: Why can't the birds be different? Weaverbirds have strict instructions while the other birds have a looser set of design instruction?
“Looser”? Your comment was: Not rigid like the weaverbirds, these birds sort of build whatever they wish. It is as if the DNA says build whatever you wish, as long as it is effective.
Wouldn’t you say this means they were given the intelligence to do their own designing?
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
dhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: We are here, against all odds, and you have no answer for that.[…]
dhw: If he exists, we don’t know why he chose to evolve the duckbilled platypus, or indeed why he chose to create life at all. How does that justify your ridiculing him as being messy and inefficient?
DAVID: Can you justify evolution as a simple progression to us?
dhw: As usual, you answer a question with a question. I’m not even sure what your question means, but the answer is no, and you can’t either. Evolution is not a simple progression to us, since it produced millions of now extinct species that had no connection with us. That is why it is nonsense to argue that your omnipotent, omniscient God's one and only purpose must have been to design us and our food, and your theory is so illogical that you call your God messy and inefficient. You’d rather ridicule him than admit that your theory might be wrong.
DAVID: The answer is above: "We are so unusual we must be purposely deigned by God, Adler's proof of God. It is a powerful argument you ignore. A free-for-all, by definition has no direction or purpose. Why should we happen to appear against all odds?
These arguments are demolished on the “evolution” thread. You would rather ridicule your omnipotent, omniscient God for his messy inefficiency than admit that an omnipotent, omniscient God is unlikely to be so inefficient, and therefore it is your theory which may be ridiculous.
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
QUOTES: “we propose that maybe if you give nonbrain cells complicated enough tasks, they will also be able to form a memory.”
"Neuroscientist Ashok Hegde calls the study “interesting, because they are applying what’s generally considered a neuroscience principle sort of broadly to understand gene expression in nonneuronal cells.” But it’s unclear how generalizable the findings are to other kinds of cells.[/b]” (David’s bold)
It seems that new discoveries are being made every day! Thank you for the heading. Memory, of course, is an essential feature of intelligence, as is the fact that intelligence shows itself when there are new tasks to perform. You think cell behaviour only looks intelligent. I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required. I think the bold is fair enough, though. At this stage, we are only dealing with theory.
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 27, 2024, 18:12 (16 days ago) @ dhw
Different birds build different nests
DAVID: If the weaverbirds have instructions why shouldn't these birds?
dhw: If these birds appear to be able to design their own nests, how do you know they are not? And how do you know the weaverbird is not?
DAVID: Why can't the birds be different? Weaverbirds have strict instructions while the other birds have a looser set of design instruction?
dhw: “Looser”? Your comment was: Not rigid like the weaverbirds, these birds sort of build whatever they wish. It is as if the DNA says build whatever you wish, as long as it is effective.
Wouldn’t you say this means they were given the intelligence to do their own designing?
I would say they were given design guidelines to follow. Much like an architect goes to school and comes out designing buildings.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organicsdhw: why did he leave them floating around for about 1000,000,000 years, and then use them to create and cull all kinds of life forms, if all he wanted to do was create us and our food?
DAVID: We are here, against all odds, and you have no answer for that.[…]
dhw: If he exists, we don’t know why he chose to evolve the duckbilled platypus, or indeed why he chose to create life at all. How does that justify your ridiculing him as being messy and inefficient?
DAVID: Can you justify evolution as a simple progression to us?
dhw: As usual, you answer a question with a question. I’m not even sure what your question means, but the answer is no, and you can’t either. Evolution is not a simple progression to us, since it produced millions of now extinct species that had no connection with us. That is why it is nonsense to argue that your omnipotent, omniscient God's one and only purpose must have been to design us and our food, and your theory is so illogical that you call your God messy and inefficient. You’d rather ridicule him than admit that your theory might be wrong.
No. I follow Adler's argument that we are a most unusual result of natural evolution, which means we were purposely designed by God. The debate is simply why God chose to evolve us instead of direct creation.
DAVID: The answer is above: "We are so unusual we must be purposely deigned by God, Adler's proof of God. It is a powerful argument you ignore. A free-for-all, by definition has no direction or purpose. Why should we happen to appear against all odds?dhw: These arguments are demolished on the “evolution” thread. You would rather ridicule your omnipotent, omniscient God for his messy inefficiency than admit that an omnipotent, omniscient God is unlikely to be so inefficient, and therefore it is your theory which may be ridiculous.
Same distortion of the argument I've posed. You have distorted the question as to why God evolved us which is an inefficient method. We don't understand why God chose to do it the way He did, but He obviously had His reasons.
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memoryQUOTES: “we propose that maybe if you give nonbrain cells complicated enough tasks, they will also be able to form a memory.”
"Neuroscientist Ashok Hegde calls the study “interesting, because they are applying what’s generally considered a neuroscience principle sort of broadly to understand gene expression in nonneuronal cells.” But it’s unclear how generalizable the findings are to other kinds of cells.[/b]” (David’s bold)
dhw: It seems that new discoveries are being made every day! Thank you for the heading. Memory, of course, is an essential feature of intelligence, as is the fact that intelligence shows itself when there are new tasks to perform. You think cell behaviour only looks intelligent. I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required. I think the bold is fair enough, though. At this stage, we are only dealing with theory.
As I've noted renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circunmstances require to maintain the proper balances.
Miscellaneous
Negative theology
DAVID: I find elements of my thinking in negative theology. I view the natural world as evidence of God's works, but that does not reveal who God is. And that explains my problem as I develop thoughts about God. I continually recognize what we do not know. And I match that to the God-form I prefer, an especially non-human, selfless, intellectually powerful being. dhw's very human God created as much evil as my God does.
We don’t need all this to tell us that even if God exists, we don’t know what he is like! All we can do is theorize, and then test the feasibility of the theories we offer. For example, does it seem feasible that a theoretically all-powerful, all-knowing God would have the sole purpose of designing humans plus food, and therefore deliberately design and then cull 99 out of 100 species because they had no connection with that purpose? Does it seem feasible that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God would deliberately create evil, or would create evil without wishing to do so? Looking at your list, I’d say that we can be certain that IF God exists, he is not a human being. (Negative.) I would say that if his motive for creating us was to be recognized and worshipped, or he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations (positive), that is feasible, but then it is not feasible to say he’s selfless. Yes to an intellectually powerful being (positive), as it would require lots of intellectual power to design life. My alternative versions are no more “human” than yours, and I have never claimed that he’s a human being. And yes, if he exists and created life, of course he created evil: the questions are how and why, and nobody knows the answers. But a theory which “explains” evil by telling us there’s more good than evil explains nothing. It is simply a dodge. Whether theology is negative or positive depends entirely on what theories the individual theologian comes up with!
Different birds build different nests
dhw: […] Your comment was: Not rigid like the weaverbirds, these birds sort of build whatever they wish. It is as if the DNA says build whatever you wish, as long as it is effective.
Wouldn’t you say this means they were given the intelligence to do their own designing?
DAVID: I would say they were given design guidelines to follow. Much like an architect goes to school and comes out designing buildings.
I’d have thought that history, common sense, experience and existing nests would have provided enough schooling. Don’t you think architects have the intelligence to do their own designing?
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organics
All points covered elsewhere.
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
dhw: [..] You think cell behaviour only looks intelligent. I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required.
DAVID: As I've noted renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require to maintain the proper balances.
Thank you for repeating the point I have just made. They have the ability to change when required. That requires intelligence.
The Milky Way is unusual
DAVID: this is another study showing the Milky Way is very unusual. I think it is because we are here protected by God.
You published a similar article a week ago, with the comment:
DAVID: From the designer standpoint the Milky Way must protect the Earth and that explains the differences.
My own comment was: "From the agnostic and atheist standpoint, why would a designer design billions of galaxies if his one and only reason for designing life was to design humans and our food?" The question is unanswerable, of course, but even if God exists, it casts a substantial doubt over your theory about your God’s one and only purpose.
How dinosaurs dominated the Earth
QUOTE: By comparing the fossils with plant data from the period, the researchers found that dinosaurs’ rise was shaped by chance and by adaptations. For example, climate change led to increased humidity, which changed the vegetation available. Dinosaurs were able to better adapt to this shifting climate and change in diet than other land animals.
Support for Raup’s theory that survival is a matter of luck, and for the obvious fact that evolution occurs as the response of organisms (cell communities) to new conditions in a continuous process of extinction, adaptation and innovation. The process is continuous, survivors provide species continuity, and the result is all the different stages that have punctuated the history of life on Earth.
Introducing the brain
DAVID: neurons are unusual in many ways, again suggesting design. And our brain, compared to others, is quite different. Far more than simple natural evolution should have produced.
Much of the research is done on mouse brains because there are so many similarities, as there are between bird brains and human brains. The complexities of all types of cell can be said to suggest design. That is one major reason for belief in your God’s existence. Of course our brains are special, but that does not mean they did not develop from earlier brains.
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Friday, November 29, 2024, 22:57 (14 days ago) @ dhw
Negative theology
DAVID: I find elements of my thinking in negative theology. I view the natural world as evidence of God's works, but that does not reveal who God is. And that explains my problem as I develop thoughts about God. I continually recognize what we do not know. And I match that to the God-form I prefer, an especially non-human, selfless, intellectually powerful being. dhw's very human God created as much evil as my God does.
We don’t need all this to tell us that even if God exists, we don’t know what he is like! All we can do is theorize, and then test the feasibility of the theories we offer. For example, does it seem feasible that a theoretically all-powerful, all-knowing God would have the sole purpose of designing humans plus food, and therefore deliberately design and then cull 99 out of 100 species because they had no connection with that purpose?
Entirely as untrue distortion of God's evolution, Repeated by you as a repetitive mantra does not make it true. All of evolution is a culling process, isn't it?
dhw: Does it seem feasible that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God would deliberately create evil, or would create evil without wishing to do so? Looking at your list, I’d say that we can be certain that IF God exists, he is not a human being. (Negative.) I would say that if his motive for creating us was to be recognized and worshipped, or he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations (positive), that is feasible, but then it is not feasible to say he’s selfless.
God can certainly be selfless if He has no self-gain in His works.
dhw: Yes to an intellectually powerful being (positive), as it would require lots of intellectual power to design life. My alternative versions are no more “human” than yours, and I have never claimed that he’s a human being. And yes, if he exists and created life, of course he created evil: the questions are how and why, and nobody knows the answers. But a theory which “explains” evil by telling us there’s more good than evil explains nothing. It is simply a dodge. Whether theology is negative or positive depends entirely on what theories the individual theologian comes up with!
Your versions are entirely human as they show us a God with human desires.
Different birds build different nestsdhw: […] Your comment was: Not rigid like the weaverbirds, these birds sort of build whatever they wish. It is as if the DNA says build whatever you wish, as long as it is effective.
Wouldn’t you say this means they were given the intelligence to do their own designing?
DAVID: I would say they were given design guidelines to follow. Much like an architect goes to school and comes out designing buildings.
dhw: I’d have thought that history, common sense, experience and existing nests would have provided enough schooling. Don’t you think architects have the intelligence to do their own designing?
Based upon principals they are taught.
Theoretical origin of life: Space is filled with organicsAll points covered elsewhere.
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
dhw: [..] You think cell behaviour only looks intelligent. I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required.
DAVID: As I've noted renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require to maintain the proper balances.
dhw: Thank you for repeating the point I have just made. They have the ability to change when required. That requires intelligence.
Or following intelligent instructions.
Introducing the brainDAVID: neurons are unusual in many ways, again suggesting design. And our brain, compared to others, is quite different. Far more than simple natural evolution should have produced.
dhw: Much of the research is done on mouse brains because there are so many similarities, as there are between bird brains and human brains. The complexities of all types of cell can be said to suggest design. That is one major reason for belief in your God’s existence. Of course our brains are special, but that does not mean they did not develop from earlier brains.
Yes, by design.
Miscellaneous
Negative theology
dhw: We don’t need all this to tell us that even if God exists, we don’t know what he is like! All we can do is theorize, and then test the feasibility of the theories we offer. For example, does it seem feasible that a theoretically all-powerful, all-knowing God would have the sole purpose of designing humans plus food, and therefore deliberately design and then cull 99 out of 100 species because they had no connection with that purpose?
DAVID: Entirely as untrue distortion of God's evolution, Repeated by you as a repetitive
mantra does not make it true. All of evolution is a culling process, isn't it?
Yes, but that does not mean there’s a God whose sole purpose was to create us and therefore he created 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and “had to” cull them. Raup suggests that survival was a matter of luck. I’ve offered you three alternative THEISTIC explanations, which you dismiss on grounds of “humanization”, although you agree that “humanized” attributes are possible and do not mean that your God is a human being.
dhw: […] Looking at your list, I’d say that we can be certain that IF God exists, he is not a human being. (Negative.) I would say that if his motive for creating us was to be recognized and worshipped, or he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations (positive), that is feasible, but then it is not feasible to say he’s selfless.
DAVID: God can certainly be selfless if He has no self-gain in His works.
Of course he is selfless if he is selfless! Your own proposals bolded above, however, are all very feasible “humanizations” and are not selfless. Hence your schizophrenic self-contradictions.
Different birds build different nests
dhw: […] Your comment was: "Not rigid like the weaverbirds, these birds sort of build whatever they wish. It is as if the DNA says build whatever you wish, as long as it is effective."
dhw: Wouldn’t you say this means they were given the intelligence to do their own designing?
DAVID: Based upon principals they are taught.
So you really believe that your God personally designed the weaverbird’s nest but popped in to give nest-building courses to the other birds, which included the instruction to build whatever they wished. Weird.
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
dhw: [..] I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required.
DAVID: As I've noted renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require to maintain the proper balances.
dhw: Thank you for repeating the point I have just made. They have the ability to change when required. That requires intelligence.
DAVID: Or following intelligent instructions.
If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.
Introducing the brain
DAVID: neurons are unusual in many ways, again suggesting design. And our brain, compared to others, is quite different. Far more than simple natural evolution should have produced.
dhw: […] Of course our brains are special, but that does not mean they did not develop from earlier brains.
DAVID: Yes, by design.
I’m quite prepared to accept the possibility that there is a God who designed the mechanisms that have led to the evolution of organs and organisms. It’s the theory of a divine 3.8-billion-year old book of instructions and/or incessant personal divine dabbling that I find so hard to accept.
Stoicism
From an interview with Massimo Pigliucci:
QUOTES:
"...the Stoics were about embracing your fate, or, as Nietzsche famously put it much later on, ‘amor fati’ or love your fate.”
"Not everyone likes seeing Stoicism as a religion, and of course, that’s okay. Pigliucci’s latest book is a fantastic and highly readable exploration of the different ancient philosophies available, and it settles on a kind of balance. We need virtue, sure, but we also need pleasure and epistemic humility. Explore philosophy and find something that works for you. Take what you need. Do whatever you can to get by and to get better."
DAVID: without the support of religion what do you do? This interview tells us face life with a stiff upper lip. DHW should tell us how he does it.
For most people, stoicism is synonymous with Nietzsche’s summary of it. I have no idea why anyone should think that “embracing” fate and living virtuously depend on exploring philosophy or on religion (which while promoting virtue has also been and continues to be the source of much evil). My own basic principles are to enjoy life while I have it, to do my best to help others enjoy their lives, to do no harm, and to accept as best I can whatever aspects of life I am unable to change. That does not eliminate grief or promote insensitivity to my own suffering or other people’s. On the contrary, it enhances empathy and my determination to follow the above principles so long as I am able to do so. How about you?
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Sunday, December 01, 2024, 22:04 (12 days ago) @ dhw
Negative theology
DAVID: Entirely as untrue distortion of God's evolution, Repeated by you as a repetitive
mantra does not make it true. All of evolution is a culling process, isn't it?dhw" Yes, but that does not mean there’s a God whose sole purpose was to create us and therefore he created 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and “had to” cull them. Raup suggests that survival was a matter of luck. I’ve offered you three alternative THEISTIC explanations, which you dismiss on grounds of “humanization”, although you agree that “humanized” attributes are possible and do not mean that your God is a human being.
Natural evolution could not have produced us. We are designed to be here.
dhw: […] Looking at your list, I’d say that we can be certain that IF God exists, he is not a human being. (Negative.) I would say that if his motive for creating us was to be recognized and worshipped, or he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations (positive), that is feasible, but then it is not feasible to say he’s selfless.
God's selflessness means He expects no self-interest gains from His creations.
dhw: Of course he is selfless if he is selfless! Your own proposals bolded above, however, are all very feasible “humanizations” and are not selfless. Hence your schizophrenic self-contradictions.
Total misunderstanding of the point. A God who creates without self-interest is perfectly feasible.
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memorydhw: [..] I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required.
DAVID: As I've noted renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require to maintain the proper balances.
dhw: Thank you for repeating the point I have just made. They have the ability to change when required. That requires intelligence.
DAVID: Or following intelligent instructions.
dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.
I just stated they do it by following directions.
StoicismFrom an interview with Massimo Pigliucci:
QUOTES:
"...the Stoics were about embracing your fate, or, as Nietzsche famously put it much later on, ‘amor fati’ or love your fate.”
"Not everyone likes seeing Stoicism as a religion, and of course, that’s okay. Pigliucci’s latest book is a fantastic and highly readable exploration of the different ancient philosophies available, and it settles on a kind of balance. We need virtue, sure, but we also need pleasure and epistemic humility. Explore philosophy and find something that works for you. Take what you need. Do whatever you can to get by and to get better."
DAVID: without the support of religion what do you do? This interview tells us face life with a stiff upper lip. DHW should tell us how he does it.
dhw: For most people, stoicism is synonymous with Nietzsche’s summary of it. I have no idea why anyone should think that “embracing” fate and living virtuously depend on exploring philosophy or on religion (which while promoting virtue has also been and continues to be the source of much evil). My own basic principles are to enjoy life while I have it, to do my best to help others enjoy their lives, to do no harm, and to accept as best I can whatever aspects of life I am unable to change. That does not eliminate grief or promote insensitivity to my own suffering or other people’s. On the contrary, it enhances empathy and my determination to follow the above principles so long as I am able to do so. How about you?
'You sound like a virtuous guy. I think I am also.
Miscellaneous
Negative theology
DAVID: Natural evolution could not have produced us. We are designed to be here.
According to you, every life form was designed to be here, although 99% of them had no connection with us. Why else would you label your God’s use of evolution as inefficient?
dhw: […] Looking at your list, I’d say that we can be certain that IF God exists, he is not a human being. (Negative.) I would say that if his motive for creating us was to be recognized and worshipped, or he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations(positive), that is feasible, but then it is not feasible to say he’s selfless.
DAVID: God's selflessness means He expects no self-interest gains from His creations.
I know what “selflessness” means. I don’t know how you can apply the term to a God who you think enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and may have created us because he wanted us to recognize and worship him.
DAVID: Total misunderstanding of the point. A God who creates without self-interest is perfectly feasible.
So please once and for all tell us why you think he created life in general and us in particular.
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
dhw: [..] I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required.
DAVID: As I've noted renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require to maintain the proper balances.
dhw: Thank you for repeating the point I have just made. They have the ability to change when required. That requires intelligence.
DAVID: Or following intelligent instructions.
dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.
DAVID: I just stated they do it by following directions.
I know what you have just stated. But you also stated (now bolded) that they have the ability to alter their routines. An ability to do something is not the same as following instructions!
Stoicism
From an interview with Massimo Pigliucci:
DAVID: without the support of religion what do you do? This interview tells us face life with a stiff upper lip. DHW should tell us how he does it.
I gave you a full answer to your personal question, in the hope that you would understand why religion is NOT fundamental to stoicism or to virtue.
DAVID: 'You sound like a virtuous guy. I think I am also.
I have no doubt that you are, and I can assure you that I also do my very best to stick to the principles I listed. They do not require the support of religion, and you may be surprised to know that I have agnostic and atheist friends who are also very decent people.
Time differs on the moon
QUOTES: the net result of this is a 56-microseconds-per-day drift." (That's 0.000056 second.)
When it comes to navigation, a drift of 56 microseconds over a day between a clock on the Moon and [a clock] on Earth is a big difference.
Oh good heavens above, how the heck could all those moon trips back in the 1960s and 1970s possibly have been successfully navigated when nobody knew there was a big difference of 0.000056 second per whole day? Without that blink of an eye, Neil Armstrong should never have been able to take his one small step. I demand a recount.
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Monday, December 02, 2024, 17:38 (11 days ago) @ dhw
Negative theology
DAVID: Natural evolution could not have produced us. We are designed to be here.
dhw: According to you, every life form was designed to be here, although 99% of them had no connection with us. Why else would you label your God’s use of evolution as inefficient?
Wrong! All of evolution was required as you twist Raup's statements. All the 0.1% surviving required the 99.9% extinct to get here.
dhw: […] Looking at your list, I’d say that we can be certain that IF God exists, he is not a human being. (Negative.) I would say that if his motive for creating us was to be recognized and worshipped, or he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations(positive), that is feasible, but then it is not feasible to say he’s selfless.DAVID: God's selflessness means He expects no self-interest gains from His creations.
dhw: I know what “selflessness” means. I don’t know how you can apply the term to a God who you think enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and may have created us because he wanted us to recognize and worship him.
My wishes for a God relationship does not mean God wishes as I do.
DAVID: Total misunderstanding of the point. A God who creates without self-interest is perfectly feasible.dhw: So please once and for all tell us why you think he created life in general and us in particular.
It is obvious, I have no way of knowing.
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memorydhw: [..] I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required.
DAVID: As I've noted renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require to maintain the proper balances.
dhw: Thank you for repeating the point I have just made. They have the ability to change when required. That requires intelligence.
DAVID: Or following intelligent instructions.
dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.
DAVID: I just stated they do it by following directions.
dhw: I know what you have just stated. But you also stated (now bolded) that they have the ability to alter their routines. An ability to do something is not the same as following instructions!
Yes it does if they use instructions to alter their actions.
Stoicism
From an interview with Massimo Pigliucci:DAVID: without the support of religion what do you do? This interview tells us face life with a stiff upper lip. DHW should tell us how he does it.
dhw: I gave you a full answer to your personal question, in the hope that you would understand why religion is NOT fundamental to stoicism or to virtue.
DAVID: 'You sound like a virtuous guy. I think I am also.
dhw: I have no doubt that you are, and I can assure you that I also do my very best to stick to the principles I listed. They do not require the support of religion, and you may be surprised to know that I have agnostic and atheist friends who are also very decent people.
I would think so.
Miscellaneous
Negative theology
I'm afraid some of this goes over the same ground as the "evolution" thread, but perhaps the repetition will make the arguments clearer.
DAVID: Natural evolution could not have produced us. We are designed to be here.
dhw: According to you, every life form was designed to be here, although 99% of them had no connection with us. Why else would you label your God’s use of evolution as inefficient?
DAVID: Wrong! All of evolution was required as you twist Raup's statements. All the 0.1% surviving required the 99.9% extinct to get here.
We needn’t go back over your ridiculous distortion of Raup, which argued that the 0.1% were the children of the 99.9%. It is you who insist that your God designed every species and then had to cull 99.9 % of them because they had no connection with the purpose you impose on him. That is why you ridicule him as being “inefficient”.
dhw: […] Looking at your list, I’d say that we can be certain that IF God exists, he is not a human being. (Negative.) I would say that if his motive for creating us was to be recognized and worshipped, or he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations(positive), that is feasible, but then it is not feasible to say he’s selfless.
DAVID: God's selflessness means He expects no self-interest gains from His creations.
dhw: I know what “selflessness” means. I don’t know how you can apply the term to a God who you think enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and may have created us because he wanted us to recognize and worship him.
DAVID: My wishes for a God relationship does not mean God wishes as I do.
The desire for a relationship, recognition and worship was one of the reasons you gave for God specially creating humans. Of course we don’t know God’s wishes, and can only theorize, but you don’t have to pretend that your theoretical answers are not your theoretical answers.
DAVID: A God who creates without self-interest is perfectly feasible.
dhw: So please once and for all tell us why you think he created life in general and us in particular.
DAVID: It is obvious, I have no way of knowing.
Nobody has. And you have no way of knowing his purpose, but you insist that you do. And there must be a reason or purpose for his wanting to create us, and you have kindly offered us a whole list of (very feasible) possibilities, which you now attribute to me and would like to reject while agreeing that they are all possible!
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
dhw: [..] I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required.
DAVID: As I've noted renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require to maintain the proper balances.
dhw: Thank you for repeating the point I have just made. They have the ability to change when required. That requires intelligence.
DAVID: Or following intelligent instructions.
dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.
DAVID: Yes it does if they use instructions to alter their actions.
Interesting argument. Then let’s try a different approach. Do they have the ability to disobey your God's instructions?
Stoicism
DAVID: without the support of religion what do you do? This interview tells us face life with a stiff upper lip. DHW should tell us how he does it.
dhw: I gave you a full answer to your personal question, in the hope that you would understand why religion is NOT fundamental to stoicism or to virtue.
DAVID: 'You sound like a virtuous guy. I think I am also.
dhw: I have no doubt that you are, and I can assure you that I also do my very best to stick to the principles I listed. They do not require the support of religion, and you may be surprised to know that I have agnostic and atheist friends who are also very decent people.
DAVID: I would think so.
So now you know. It is perfectly possible to be stoical and virtuous without the support of religion, which was our starting point.
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 03, 2024, 18:55 (10 days ago) @ dhw
Negative theology
I'm afraid some of this goes over the same ground as the "evolution" thread, but perhaps the repetition will make the arguments clearer.
DAVID: Natural evolution could not have produced us. We are designed to be here.
dhw: According to you, every life form was designed to be here, although 99% of them had no connection with us. Why else would you label your God’s use of evolution as inefficient?
DAVID: Wrong! All of evolution was required as you twist Raup's statements. All the 0.1% surviving required the 99.9% extinct to get here.
dhw: We needn’t go back over your ridiculous distortion of Raup, which argued that the 0.1% were the children of the 99.9%. It is you who insist that your God designed every species and then had to cull 99.9 % of them because they had no connection with the purpose you impose on him. That is why you ridicule him as being “inefficient”.
The point we can't answer is why God used evolution to create us. Direct creation is much neater.
dhw: […] Looking at your list, I’d say that we can be certain that IF God exists, he is not a human being. (Negative.) I would say that if his motive for creating us was to be recognized and worshipped, or he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations(positive), that is feasible, but then it is not feasible to say he’s selfless.DAVID: God's selflessness means He expects no self-interest gains from His creations.
dhw: I know what “selflessness” means. I don’t know how you can apply the term to a God who you think enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and may have created us because he wanted us to recognize and worship him.
DAVID: My wishes for a God relationship does not mean God wishes as I do.
dhw: The desire for a relationship, recognition and worship was one of the reasons you gave for God specially creating humans. Of course we don’t know God’s wishes, and can only theorize, but you don’t have to pretend that your theoretical answers are not your theoretical answers.
DAVID: A God who creates without self-interest is perfectly feasible.
dhw: So please once and for all tell us why you think he created life in general and us in particular.
DAVID: It is obvious, I have no way of knowing.
dhw: Nobody has. And you have no way of knowing his purpose, but you insist that you do. And there must be a reason or purpose for his wanting to create us, and you have kindly offered us a whole list of (very feasible) possibilities, which you now attribute to me and would like to reject while agreeing that they are all possible!
As above, the point here is humans appeared unreasonably by natural means. Assuming God in control, we are His favorite goal, to make any sense of our appearance.
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memorydhw: Thank you for repeating the point I have just made. They have the ability to change when required. That requires intelligence.
DAVID: Or following intelligent instructions.
dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.
DAVID: Yes it does if they use instructions to alter their actions.
dhw: Interesting argument. Then let’s try a different approach. Do they have the ability to disobey your God's instructions?
No.
StoicismDAVID: 'You sound like a virtuous guy. I think I am also.
dhw: I have no doubt that you are, and I can assure you that I also do my very best to stick to the principles I listed. They do not require the support of religion, and you may be surprised to know that I have agnostic and atheist friends who are also very decent people.
DAVID: I would think so.
dhw: So now you know. It is perfectly possible to be stoical and virtuous without the support of religion, which was our starting point.
Agreed.
Miscellaneous
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
dhw: I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required.
DAVID: […] renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require […]
dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.
DAVID: Yes it does if they use instructions to alter their actions.
dhw: Interesting argument. Then let’s try a different approach. Do they have the ability to disobey your God's instructions?
DAVID: No.
So when people die from renal or liver failure, it’s because your all-powerful, all-knowing God’s instructions are inadequate. All part of his general inefficiency. I get it.
Keeping the brain clean
QUOTE: "It's beautiful to imagine that changing metabolism results in this symphony of molecules cooperating together to improve brain function.'"
DAVID: this adds a whole new approach to protecting the brain. This is certainly a model for design.
Yet another sensational new discovery. I love the emphasis on molecular cooperation which figures so regularly in these articles, as does the fact that so much research is done on mice, which evolved millions and millions of years before we did. Our brains may be unique in their complexity, but clearly they are the product of evolutionary development. Design? Yes indeed. But what conducts the “symphony”? Back we go to our theories: Darwin’s random mutations, David’s divine dabbles or 3.8 billion-years-old instructions, or Shapiro’s intelligent cells (possibly designed by David’s God)?
Theoretical origin of life
QUOTE: "Our new research adds to a small but growing body of evidence that ancient versions of these hot springs could have played a pivotal role in the emergence of life on Earth. This helps bridge the gap between competing hypotheses regarding where life could have emerged.”
I think the emphasis here should be on “could have played” and “where life could have emerged”. This tells us nothing about the mystery of HOW life emerged. We know that certain ingredients were necessary, and we know where these ingredients may be found, but we are not even one tiny step closer to discovering how all the ingredients were assembled and transformed from the inanimate to the animate.
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 04, 2024, 22:50 (9 days ago) @ dhw
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
dhw: I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required.
DAVID: […] renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require […]
dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.
DAVID: Yes it does if they use instructions to alter their actions.
dhw: Interesting argument. Then let’s try a different approach. Do they have the ability to disobey your God's instructions?
DAVID: No.
dhw: So when people die from renal or liver failure, it’s because your all-powerful, all-knowing God’s instructions are inadequate. All part of his general inefficiency. I get it.
No you don't. People die. Does that make God inadequate? I doubt it .
Keeping the brain clean
QUOTE: "It's beautiful to imagine that changing metabolism results in this symphony of molecules cooperating together to improve brain function.'"
DAVID: this adds a whole new approach to protecting the brain. This is certainly a model for design.
dhw: Yet another sensational new discovery. I love the emphasis on molecular cooperation which figures so regularly in these articles, as does the fact that so much research is done on mice, which evolved millions and millions of years before we did. Our brains may be unique in their complexity, but clearly they are the product of evolutionary development. Design? Yes indeed. But what conducts the “symphony”? Back we go to our theories: Darwin’s random mutations, David’s divine dabbles or 3.8 billion-years-old instructions, or Shapiro’s intelligent cells (possibly designed by David’s God)?
Cell's only intelligence is from God's designs.
Theoretical origin of lifeQUOTE: "Our new research adds to a small but growing body of evidence that ancient versions of these hot springs could have played a pivotal role in the emergence of life on Earth. This helps bridge the gap between competing hypotheses regarding where life could have emerged.”
dhw: I think the emphasis here should be on “could have played” and “where life could have emerged”. This tells us nothing about the mystery of HOW life emerged. We know that certain ingredients were necessary, and we know where these ingredients may be found, but we are not even one tiny step closer to discovering how all the ingredients were assembled and transformed from the inanimate to the animate.
Bravo!!!
Miscellaneous
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
dhw: I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required.
DAVID: […] renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require […]
dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.
DAVID: Yes it does if they use instructions to alter their actions.
dhw: Interesting argument. Then let’s try a different approach. Do they have the ability to disobey your God's instructions?
DAVID: No.
dhw: So when people die from renal or liver failure, it’s because your all-powerful, all-knowing God’s instructions are inadequate. All part of his general inefficiency. I get it.
DAVID: No you don't. People die. Does that make God inadequate? I doubt it.
Your God has given the cells instructions on how to alter themselves when required to do so; they obey his instructions, but sometimes they fail to alter themselves when required to do so, suffer the consequences, and often die. How does that come to mean that your God’s instructions are adequate? Would it not make more sense if the cells themselves were responsible for their success or failure?
Keeping the brain clean
QUOTE: "It's beautiful to imagine that changing metabolism results in this symphony of molecules cooperating together to improve brain function.'"
DAVID: this adds a whole new approach to protecting the brain. This is certainly a model for design.
dhw: Yet another sensational new discovery. I love the emphasis on molecular cooperation which figures so regularly in these articles, as does the fact that so much research is done on mice, which evolved millions and millions of years before we did. Our brains may be unique in their complexity, but clearly they are the product of evolutionary development. Design? Yes indeed. But what conducts the “symphony”? Back we go to our theories: Darwin’s random mutations, David’s divine dabbles or 3.8 billion-years-old instructions, or Shapiro’s intelligent cells (possibly designed by David’s God)?
DAVID: Cell's only intelligence is from God's designs.
I have no difficulty accepting the possibility that cellular intelligence is God’s design, as I’ve said in the parenthesis. It’s nice to see that you are no longer rejecting the theory. At least for today.
Theoretical origin of life
QUOTE: "Our new research adds to a small but growing body of evidence that ancient versions of these hot springs could have played a pivotal role in the emergence of life on Earth. This helps bridge the gap between competing hypotheses regarding where life could have emerged.”
dhw: I think the emphasis here should be on “could have played” and “where life could have emerged”. This tells us nothing about the mystery of HOW life emerged. We know that certain ingredients were necessary, and we know where these ingredients may be found, but we are not even one tiny step closer to discovering how all the ingredients were assembled and transformed from the inanimate to the animate.
DAVID: Bravo!!!
Thank you. Perhaps you will eventually realize that I am an agnostic, not an atheist.
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Thursday, December 05, 2024, 22:50 (8 days ago) @ dhw
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
dhw: I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required.
DAVID: […] renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require […]
dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.
DAVID: Yes it does if they use instructions to alter their actions.
dhw: Interesting argument. Then let’s try a different approach. Do they have the ability to disobey your God's instructions?
DAVID: No.
dhw: So when people die from renal or liver failure, it’s because your all-powerful, all-knowing God’s instructions are inadequate. All part of his general inefficiency. I get it.
DAVID: No you don't. People die. Does that make God inadequate? I doubt it.
dhw: Your God has given the cells instructions on how to alter themselves when required to do so; they obey his instructions, but sometimes they fail to alter themselves when required to do so, suffer the consequences, and often die. How does that come to mean that your God’s instructions are adequate? Would it not make more sense if the cells themselves were responsible for their success or failure?
The cells are built to die at some point. All life ends up dead. Not God's fault.
Keeping the brain cleanQUOTE: "It's beautiful to imagine that changing metabolism results in this symphony of molecules cooperating together to improve brain function.'"
DAVID: this adds a whole new approach to protecting the brain. This is certainly a model for design.
dhw: Yet another sensational new discovery. I love the emphasis on molecular cooperation which figures so regularly in these articles, as does the fact that so much research is done on mice, which evolved millions and millions of years before we did. Our brains may be unique in their complexity, but clearly they are the product of evolutionary development. Design? Yes indeed. But what conducts the “symphony”? Back we go to our theories: Darwin’s random mutations, David’s divine dabbles or 3.8 billion-years-old instructions, or Shapiro’s intelligent cells (possibly designed by David’s God)?
DAVID: Cell's only intelligence is from God's designs.
dhw: I have no difficulty accepting the possibility that cellular intelligence is God’s design, as I’ve said in the parenthesis. It’s nice to see that you are no longer rejecting the theory. At least for today.
A designed intelligence is no autonomous intelligence.
Miscellaneous
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.
DAVID: Yes it does if they use instructions to alter their actions.
dhw: So when people die from renal or liver failure, it’s because your all-powerful, all-knowing God’s instructions are inadequate. All part of his general inefficiency. I get it.
DAVID: No you don't. People die. Does that make God inadequate? I doubt it.
dhw: Your God has given the cells instructions on how to alter themselves when required to do so; they obey his instructions, but sometimes they fail to alter themselves when required to do so, suffer the consequences, and often die. How does that come to mean that your God’s instructions are adequate? Would it not make more sense if the cells themselves were responsible for their success or failure?
DAVID: The cells are built to die at some point. All life ends up dead. Not God's fault.
I’d rather not talk of faults here, as we are discussing cellular intelligence, not theodicy. So now what are you saying? Your God gives cells instructions on how to survive new circumstances, but he also gives them instructions NOT to survive?
Keeping the brain clean
QUOTE: "It's beautiful to imagine that changing metabolism results in this symphony of molecules cooperating together to improve brain
DAVID: Cell's only intelligence is from God's designs.
dhw: I have no difficulty accepting the possibility that cellular intelligence is God’s design, as I’ve said in the parenthesis. It’s nice to see that you are no longer rejecting the theory. At least for today.
DAVID: A designed intelligence is no autonomous intelligence.
And there was me thinking you thought God had designed our intelligence to be autonomous, in the form of free will. And you even have viruses mutating on their own, independently of any divine instructions.
Fighting off asteroid hits
DAVID: the Chixculub asteroid demonstrated how dangerous they are. If we are on our way to 90% detection, we are in good shape to protect ourselves. dhw will ask why God allowed this menace. The answer is our planet came from accretion of many planetoid bodies like the asteroids. Earth would not exist without them. Then dhw will ask why God did not do it differently for safety. Perhaps by some other method. The possibility is there is no other method, but dhw continuously knows better than God.
You ask all the right questions, and your answers vividly illustrate the confession you made a little while ago: “I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” It all starts earlier than that. Your first wish is that your God should exist. Therefore any argument against the existence of God is wrong. You wish your God to be omnipotent and omniscient and to have just one purpose for creating life (us), therefore the sheer enormity of the universe and apparent haphazardness of heavenly bodies and earthly species that come and go must be some unknowable, inexplicable part of his plan to create us. You wish your God was benevolent and all-good, and so we should ignore the problem of evil. But your other self tells you that nobody can actually know any of this, and so in one of your more lucid moments you confess that your beliefs are schizophrenic, but even then you can’t see all the contradictions I have listed elsewhere. Dhw is to blame for all them! No, dhw doesn’t even know whether God exists, but if God does exist, dhw tries to understand the logic behind your theories, but how can he when you yourself can’t find any logic in them? They simply express your wishes.
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Friday, December 06, 2024, 20:28 (7 days ago) @ dhw
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
DAVID: The cells are built to die at some point. All life ends up dead. Not God's fault.
dhw: I’d rather not talk of faults here, as we are discussing cellular intelligence, not theodicy. So now what are you saying? Your God gives cells instructions on how to survive new circumstances, but he also gives them instructions NOT to survive?
Cellular apoptosis is built into life. Remember?
Keeping the brain cleandhw: I have no difficulty accepting the possibility that cellular intelligence is God’s design, as I’ve said in the parenthesis. It’s nice to see that you are no longer rejecting the theory. At least for today.
DAVID: A designed intelligence is no autonomous intelligence.
dhw: And there was me thinking you thought God had designed our intelligence to be autonomous, in the form of free will. And you even have viruses mutating on their own, independently of any divine instructions.
Flu virus, yes, and amazingly, our free will thought.
Fighting off asteroid hitsDAVID: the Chixculub asteroid demonstrated how dangerous they are. If we are on our way to 90% detection, we are in good shape to protect ourselves. dhw will ask why God allowed this menace. The answer is our planet came from accretion of many planetoid bodies like the asteroids. Earth would not exist without them. Then dhw will ask why God did not do it differently for safety. Perhaps by some other method. The possibility is there is no other method, but dhw continuously knows better than God.
dhw: You ask all the right questions, and your answers vividly illustrate the confession you made a little while ago: “I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” It all starts earlier than that. Your first wish is that your God should exist. Therefore any argument against the existence of God is wrong. You wish your God to be omnipotent and omniscient and to have just one purpose for creating life (us), therefore the sheer enormity of the universe and apparent haphazardness of heavenly bodies and earthly species that come and go must be some unknowable, inexplicable part of his plan to create us. You wish your God was benevolent and all-good, and so we should ignore the problem of evil. But your other self tells you that nobody can actually know any of this, and so in one of your more lucid moments you confess that your beliefs are schizophrenic, but even then you can’t see all the contradictions I have listed elsewhere. Dhw is to blame for all them! No, dhw doesn’t even know whether God exists, but if God does exist, dhw tries to understand the logic behind your theories, but how can he when you yourself can’t find any logic in them? They simply express your wishes.
I did what you have not done, studied the biochemical basis of life. That is the true start which convinced me life is designed by a superior mind. Then I start to imagine the personage exists with that mind and what's in it for Him, if anything. I admit some of my guesses are wishful thinking.
Miscellaneous
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
dhw: Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.
DAVID: Yes it does if they use instructions to alter their actions.
And:
DAVID: The cells are built to die at some point. All life ends up dead. Not God's fault.
dhw: I’d rather not talk of faults here, as we are discussing cellular intelligence, not theodicy. So now what are you saying? Your God gives cells instructions on how to survive new circumstances, but he also gives them instructions NOT to survive?
DAVID: Cellular apoptosis is built into life. Remember?
So has your God given instructions for precisely which cells should live and which should die when new conditions threaten the immune system? And if his instructions fail, and new threats kill instead of being killed, what does that tell us about his instructions?
Keeping the brain clean
dhw: I have no difficulty accepting the possibility that cellular intelligence is God’s design [...]. It’s nice to see that you are no longer rejecting the theory. At least for today.
DAVID: A designed intelligence is no autonomous intelligence.
dhw: And there was me thinking you thought God had designed our intelligence to be autonomous, in the form of free will. And you even have viruses mutating on their own, independently of any divine instructions.
DAVID: Flu virus, yes, and amazingly, our free will thought.
So when you say that “a designed intelligence is no autonomous intelligence”, you should add “unless it is an autonomous intelligence”. That may include cells.
Fighting off asteroid hits
DAVID[…] dhw will ask why God did not do it differently for safety. Perhaps by some other method. The possibility is there is no other method, but dhw continuously knows better than God.
dhw: You ask all the right questions, and your answers vividly illustrate the confession you made a little while ago: “I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”
I shan’t repeat all the absurdities and contradictiona which are dealt with on the evolution thread and for which you try to blame me!
DAVID: I did what you have not done, studied the biochemical basis of life. That is the true start which convinced me life is designed by a superior mind.
It has been clear to me since I first switched from atheism to agnosticism that the complexities of living things are a powerful argument for the existence of God. Our discussions about a possible God’s purpose, methods and nature have never been about his existence, but I refuse to ignore those inexplicable factors which throw doubt on his existence. The sheer size, composition and history of the universe, and the very concept of an immaterial, sourceless form of conscious mind are among those factors.
DAVID: Then I start to imagine the personage exists with that mind and what's in it for
Him, if anything. I admit some of my guesses are wishful thinking.
What’s “in it for Him” has led you schizophrenically to propose all the humanizing thought patterns and emotions you regard as possible but reject as impossible. (See the evolution thread.)
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Saturday, December 07, 2024, 20:27 (6 days ago) @ dhw
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
dhw: I’d rather not talk of faults here, as we are discussing cellular intelligence, not theodicy. So now what are you saying? Your God gives cells instructions on how to survive new circumstances, but he also gives them instructions NOT to survive?
DAVID: Cellular apoptosis is built into life. Remember?
dhw: So has your God given instructions for precisely which cells should live and which should die when new conditions threaten the immune system? And if his instructions fail, and new threats kill instead of being killed, what does that tell us about his instructions?
Do you imagine a life with no deaths? Insane. Death is a built in part of life.
Fighting off asteroid hitsDAVID[…] dhw will ask why God did not do it differently for safety. Perhaps by some other method. The possibility is there is no other method, but dhw continuously knows better than God.
dhw: You ask all the right questions, and your answers vividly illustrate the confession you made a little while ago: “I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”
I shan’t repeat all the absurdities and contradictiona which are dealt with on the evolution thread and for which you try to blame me!
DAVID: I did what you have not done, studied the biochemical basis of life. That is the true start which convinced me life is designed by a superior mind.
dhw: It has been clear to me since I first switched from atheism to agnosticism that the complexities of living things are a powerful argument for the existence of God. Our discussions about a possible God’s purpose, methods and nature have never been about his existence, but I refuse to ignore those inexplicable factors which throw doubt on his existence. The sheer size, composition and history of the universe, and the very concept of an immaterial, sourceless form of conscious mind are among those factors.
DAVID: Then I start to imagine the personage exists with that mind and what's in it for
Him, if anything. I admit some of my guesses are wishful thinking.dhw: What’s “in it for Him” has led you schizophrenically to propose all the humanizing thought patterns and emotions you regard as possible but reject as impossible. (See the evolution thread.)
I'm on my own journey with God, not asking for help beyond what Adler has published to guide me. The biochemistry of life requires a 'sourceless' mind.
Miscellaneous
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
dhw: I’d rather not talk of faults here, as we are discussing cellular intelligence, not theodicy. So now what are you saying? Your God gives cells instructions on how to survive new circumstances, but he also gives them instructions NOT to survive?
DAVID: Cellular apoptosis is built into life. Remember?
dhw: So has your God given instructions for precisely which cells should live and which should die when new conditions threaten the immune system? And if his instructions fail, and new threats kill instead of being killed, what does that tell us about his instructions?
DAVID: Do you imagine a life with no deaths? Insane. Death is a built in part of life.
I am not questioning the reality of life! I am questioning your interpretation of cellular behaviour! If an omniscient, omnipotent God issued instructions for survival, how come his instructions so often fail? Did he also issue instructions for death? Or is it possible that he gave cells autonomy, and sometimes they succeed in coping with new threats but sometimes they don’t?
Fighting off asteroid hits
DAVID[…] dhw will ask why God did not do it differently for safety. Perhaps by some other method. The possibility is there is no other method, but dhw continuously knows better than God.
dhw: You ask all the right questions, and your answers vividly illustrate the confession you made a little while ago: “I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” I shan’t repeat all the absurdities and contradictiona which are dealt with on the evolution thread and for which you try to blame me!
DAVID: I did what you have not done, studied the biochemical basis of life. That is the true start which convinced me life is designed by a superior mind. […] Then I start to imagine the personage exists with that mind and what's in it for Him, if anything. I admit some of my guesses are wishful thinking.
dhw: What’s “in it for Him” has led you schizophrenically to propose all the humanizing thought patterns and emotions you regard as possible but reject as impossible. (See the evolution thread.)
DAVID: I'm on my own journey with God, not asking for help beyond what Adler has published to guide me. The biochemistry of life requires a 'sourceless' mind.
I am not disputing the latter as evidence of design. The dispute is over your God’s purposes, methods and nature, and you have made it plain on the “evolution” thread that you have fixed wishes and beliefs, and although you acknowledge that they are”schizophrenic”, part of your schizophrenia is to claim that you never contradict yourself.
LUCA
QUOTES: The result is a picture of a cellular organism that was prokaryote grade rather than progenotic and that probably existed as a component of an ecosystem,”
"This basically means it’s more complex than they thought".
"this study means that either life can form much easier and faster than we thought, or it was seeded by some sample from outer space.
DAVID: {...] My view is that life appeared as engineered by God, just like the Cambrian animals did later on. It only took half a billion years to appear once the earliest Earth had formed.
As before, the complexity provides good grounds for your belief in a God who did the original engineering. Your belief in his “de novo” engineering of our Cambrian ancestors has led you to one of many contradictions in your refusal to accept that this makes all pre-Cambrian species irrelevant to the single purpose you impose on your God (in those times when your God has a reason for creating life). And our disagreements concern what happened AFTER life appeared.
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Sunday, December 08, 2024, 19:54 (5 days ago) @ dhw
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
DAVID: Do you imagine a life with no deaths? Insane. Death is a built in part of life.
dhw: I am not questioning the reality of life! I am questioning your interpretation of cellular behaviour! If an omniscient, omnipotent God issued instructions for survival, how come his instructions so often fail? Did he also issue instructions for death? Or is it possible that he gave cells autonomy, and sometimes they succeed in coping with new threats but sometimes they don’t?
You don't understand what I wrote. Cell apoptosis is built into life. When a cell is no longer useful, it is killed. All lives have an end point.
Fighting off asteroid hitsDAVID: I'm on my own journey with God, not asking for help beyond what Adler has published to guide me. The biochemistry of life requires a 'sourceless' mind.
dhw: I am not disputing the latter as evidence of design. The dispute is over your God’s purposes, methods and nature, and you have made it plain on the “evolution” thread that you have fixed wishes and beliefs, and although you acknowledge that they are”schizophrenic”, part of your schizophrenia is to claim that you never contradict yourself.
God's purposes and method are quite clear to produce us. It is His nature where there must be great debates.
LUCAQUOTES: The result is a picture of a cellular organism that was prokaryote grade rather than progenotic and that probably existed as a component of an ecosystem,”
"This basically means it’s more complex than they thought".
"this study means that either life can form much easier and faster than we thought, or it was seeded by some sample from outer space.
DAVID: {...] My view is that life appeared as engineered by God, just like the Cambrian animals did later on. It only took half a billion years to appear once the earliest Earth had formed.
dhw: As before, the complexity provides good grounds for your belief in a God who did the original engineering. Your belief in his “de novo” engineering of our Cambrian ancestors has led you to one of many contradictions in your refusal to accept that this makes all pre-Cambrian species irrelevant to the single purpose you impose on your God (in those times when your God has a reason for creating life). And our disagreements concern what happened AFTER life appeared.
Your refusal to look at the biochemistry of life as a continuum from its beginning is wrong. You look at phenotypical evolution at the simplistic Darwin level. form is not function. Once life is formed, it can have any shape God desires. Thus the Cambrian appears with no form predecessors but with all the necessary life mechanisms in place. The literature is filled with de novo gaps like the Cambrian but of smaller degree.
Miscellaneous
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
DAVID: You don't understand what I wrote. Cell apoptosis is built into life. When a cell is no longer useful, it is killed. All lives have an end point.
I am not questioning what happens! I am questioning your interpretation of what happens. You are dodging the whole question of what you call your God’s “instructions” in connection with cellular responses to threats from outside. Herewith the exchange that started this discussion:
DAVID: As I've noted renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require to maintain the proper balances.
dhw: Thank you for repeating the point I have just made. They have the ability to change when required. That requires intelligence.
DAVID: Or following intelligent instructions.
Now please explain why cells that follow your omniscient, omnipotent God’s instructions sometimes fail to survive.
Fighting off asteroid hits
DAVID: I'm on my own journey with God, not asking for help beyond what Adler has published to guide me. The biochemistry of life requires a 'sourceless' mind.
dhw: I am not disputing the latter as evidence of design. The dispute is over your God’s purposes, methods and nature, and you have made it plain on the “evolution” thread that you have fixed wishes and beliefs, and although you acknowledge that they are”schizophrenic”, part of your schizophrenia is to claim that you never contradict yourself.
DAVID: God's purposes and method are quite clear to produce us. It is His nature where there must be great debates.
God’s purposes and methods are obviously NOT clear since your own interpretation of them leads you to ridicule him as messy and inefficient, whereas I have offered alternative interpretations which allow him to appear perfectly efficient in achieving different purposes from yours, or even the same one.
LUCA
DAVID: {...] My view is that life appeared as engineered by God, just like the Cambrian animals did later on. It only took half a billion years to appear once the earliest Earth had formed.
dhw: As before, the complexity provides good grounds for your belief in a God who did the original engineering. Your belief in his “de novo” engineering of our Cambrian ancestors has led you to one of many contradictions in your refusal to accept that this makes all pre-Cambrian species irrelevant to the single purpose you impose on your God (in those times when your God has a reason for creating life). And our disagreements concern what happened AFTER life appeared.
DAVID: Your refusal to look at the biochemistry of life as a continuum from its beginning is wrong. You look at phenotypical evolution at the simplistic Darwin level. form is not function. Once life is formed, it can have any shape God desires. Thus the Cambrian appears with no form predecessors but with all the necessary life mechanisms in place. The literature is filled with de novo gaps like the Cambrian but of smaller degree.
Of course LUCA must be the original cells from which all life forms have evolved in a continuous process – but the process has been one of diversification! The exact opposite of your theory that the process was meant to head solely towards one species plus its food! It is you who focus on speciation and not on biochemistry, and so it makes no sense to claim that we were its sole purpose! That is why you are at a total loss to explain why your God didn’t create our species directly instead of creating and having to cull 100 out of 100 irrelevant pre-Cambrians, and 99 out of 100 post-Cambrians.
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Monday, December 09, 2024, 19:37 (4 days ago) @ dhw
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
dhw: Thank you for repeating the point I have just made. They have the ability to change when required. That requires intelligence.
DAVID: Or following intelligent instructions.
dhw: Now please explain why cells that follow your omniscient, omnipotent God’s instructions sometimes fail to survive.
Life is not perfect as produced by God. Death is an expected outcome. No one lives forever.
Fighting off asteroid hitsDAVID: God's purposes and method are quite clear to produce us. It is His nature where there must be great debates.
dhw: God’s purposes and methods are obviously NOT clear since your own interpretation of them leads you to ridicule him as messy and inefficient, whereas I have offered alternative interpretations which allow him to appear perfectly efficient in achieving different purposes from yours, or even the same one.
My God produced us by His evolutionary method. He did not enjoy a free-for-all or have to experiment to achieve the goal like you unrecognizable guy.
LUCADAVID: {...] My view is that life appeared as engineered by God, just like the Cambrian animals did later on. It only took half a billion years to appear once the earliest Earth had formed.
dhw: As before, the complexity provides good grounds for your belief in a God who did the original engineering. Your belief in his “de novo” engineering of our Cambrian ancestors has led you to one of many contradictions in your refusal to accept that this makes all pre-Cambrian species irrelevant to the single purpose you impose on your God (in those times when your God has a reason for creating life). And our disagreements concern what happened AFTER life appeared.
DAVID: Your refusal to look at the biochemistry of life as a continuum from its beginning is wrong. You look at phenotypical evolution at the simplistic Darwin level. form is not function. Once life is formed, it can have any shape God desires. Thus the Cambrian appears with no form predecessors but with all the necessary life mechanisms in place. The literature is filled with de novo gaps like the Cambrian but of smaller degree.
dhw: Of course LUCA must be the original cells from which all life forms have evolved in a continuous process – but the process has been one of diversification! The exact opposite of your theory that the process was meant to head solely towards one species plus its food! It is you who focus on speciation and not on biochemistry, and so it makes no sense to claim that we were its sole purpose! That is why you are at a total loss to explain why your God didn’t create our species directly instead of creating and having to cull 100 out of 100 irrelevant pre-Cambrians, and 99 out of 100 post-Cambrians.
You still skip over what evolution produced: us a huge numbers and all the living resources on Earth for our use. Yes God culled, as a normal part of any evolution, but what is here is all necessary to be here for us.
Miscellaneous
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
dhw: Thank you for repeating the point I have just made. They have the ability to change when required. That requires intelligence.
DAVID: Or following intelligent instructions.
dhw: Now please explain why cells that follow your omniscient, omnipotent God’s instructions sometimes fail to survive.
DAVID: Life is not perfect as produced by God. Death is an expected outcome. No one lives forever.
You keep repeating the obvious and ignoring the point at issue, just as you do when we discuss theodicy. Yes, death, suffering and evil are all REAL. In the context of this particular discussion, you tell us that in order to repel invaders, cells automatically obey your God’s instructions. I point out that cells frequently fail to repel invaders, so what does that tell us about your God’s instructions? Then you dodge and doge and dodge. But you said that cells have the ability to change when required, which could suggest that their ability has nothing to do with instructions, and refers solely to their autonomous ability to process information and make decisions on what actions to take. Sometimes THEY will get it wrong. THEY are not supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent.
Fighting off asteroid hits
DAVID: God's purposes and method are quite clear to produce us. It is His nature where there must be great debates.
dhw: God’s purposes and methods are obviously NOT clear since your own interpretation of them leads you to ridicule him as messy and inefficient, whereas I have offered alternative interpretations which allow him to appear perfectly efficient in achieving different purposes from yours, or even the same one.
DAVID: My God produced us by His evolutionary method. He did not enjoy a free-for-all or have to experiment to achieve the goal like you unrecognizable guy.
Although you accept that all my (and your own) alternative theories relating to your God’s purposes, methods and nature are possible, they are impossible for you because they are different from your own fixed wishes and beliefs, including your astonishing conclusion that your perfect God is a messy and inefficient designer.
LUCA
DAVID: Your refusal to look at the biochemistry of life as a continuum from its beginning is wrong. You look at phenotypical evolution at the simplistic Darwin level. form is not function. Once life is formed, it can have any shape God desires. Thus the Cambrian appears with no form predecessors but with all the necessary life mechanisms in place. The literature is filled with de novo gaps like the Cambrian but of smaller degree.
dhw: Of course LUCA must be the original cells from which all life forms have evolved in a continuous process – but the process has been one of diversification! The exact opposite of your theory that the process was meant to head solely towards one species plus its food! It is you who focus on speciation and not on biochemistry, and so it makes no sense to claim that we were its sole purpose! That is why you are at a total loss to explain why your God didn’t create our species directly instead of creating and having to cull 100 out of 100 irrelevant pre-Cambrians, and 99 out of 100 post-Cambrians.
DAVID: You still skip over what evolution produced: us a huge numbers and all the living resources on Earth for our use. Yes God culled, as a normal part of any evolution, but what is here is all necessary to be here for us.
You accuse me of ignoring the biochemistry. I give you a complete response, and so you ignore it and change the subject back to one that has already been demolished time after time: current numbers are descended from the 0.1% survivors out of the 100% that ever existed, 99.9% of which were irrelevant to us and our food. Even the fact that we use whatever resources are here does mean that we would die without them. Many are useful, but not necessary. Now please explain why your perfect God had to create and cull 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him. If you can’t, then please say so and stop changing the subject.
What does the universe expand into?
DAVID: so we are left with the concept that the universe expands into itself. There is nothing out there to expand into. Wow! In creating the universe God has left us with puzzles. Not just that the basis of our universe is quantum mechanics.
If 95% (approx.) of the universe consists of dark matter, and 68% of dark energy – i.e. matter and energy we know nothing about – how do we know WHAT is the basis of our universe? An atheist would argue that in creating God, humans have left us with even more puzzles than a godless universe. We agnostics simply confess that we are puzzled, though that needn’t stop us from looking for clues. Hence this website!
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 10, 2024, 21:05 (3 days ago) @ dhw
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
DAVID: Life is not perfect as produced by God. Death is an expected outcome. No one lives forever.
dhw:c You keep repeating the obvious and ignoring the point at issue, just as you do when we discuss theodicy. Yes, death, suffering and evil are all REAL. In the context of this particular discussion, you tell us that in order to repel invaders, cells automatically obey your God’s instructions. I point out that cells frequently fail to repel invaders, so what does that tell us about your God’s instructions? Then you dodge and doge and dodge. But you said that cells have the ability to change when required, which could suggest that their ability has nothing to do with instructions, and refers solely to their autonomous ability to process information and make decisions on what actions to take. Sometimes THEY will get it wrong. THEY are not supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent.
No dodge. You have simply concluded with my point. Death is expected to happen. Expectedly the instructions will not be adequate.
Fighting off asteroid hitsDAVID: God's purposes and method are quite clear to produce us. It is His nature where there must be great debates.
dhw: God’s purposes and methods are obviously NOT clear since your own interpretation of them leads you to ridicule him as messy and inefficient, whereas I have offered alternative interpretations which allow him to appear perfectly efficient in achieving different purposes from yours, or even the same one.
DAVID: My God produced us by His evolutionary method. He did not enjoy a free-for-all or have to experiment to achieve the goal like you unrecognizable guy.
dhw: Although you accept that all my (and your own) alternative theories relating to your God’s purposes, methods and nature are possible, they are impossible for you because they are different from your own fixed wishes and beliefs, including your astonishing conclusion that your perfect God is a messy and inefficient designer.
Can you describe evolution is any other way ?
LUCADAVID: You still skip over what evolution produced: us a huge numbers and all the living resources on Earth for our use. Yes God culled, as a normal part of any evolution, but what is here is all necessary to be here for us.
dhw: You accuse me of ignoring the biochemistry. I give you a complete response, and so you ignore it and change the subject back to one that has already been demolished time after time: current numbers are descended from the 0.1% survivors out of the 100% that ever existed, 99.9% of which were irrelevant to us and our food. Even the fact that we use whatever resources are here does mean that we would die without them. Many are useful, but not necessary. Now please explain why your perfect God had to create and cull 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him. If you can’t, then please say so and stop changing the subject.
Culling is part of any form of evolution producing useful results. It is time you accepted that point. Nothing is/was irrelevant.
What does the universe expand into?DAVID: so we are left with the concept that the universe expands into itself. There is nothing out there to expand into. Wow! In creating the universe God has left us with puzzles. Not just that the basis of our universe is quantum mechanics.
dhw: If 95% (approx.) of the universe consists of dark matter, and 68% of dark energy – i.e. matter and energy we know nothing about – how do we know WHAT is the basis of our universe? An atheist would argue that in creating God, humans have left us with even more puzzles than a godless universe. We agnostics simply confess that we are puzzled, though that needn’t stop us from looking for clues. Hence this website!
Good summary of the puzzle.
Miscellaneous
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
DAVID: Life is not perfect as produced by God. Death is an expected outcome. No one lives forever.
dhw: You keep repeating the obvious and ignoring the point at issue, just as you do when we discuss theodicy. Yes, death, suffering and evil are all REAL. In the context of this particular discussion, you tell us that in order to repel invaders, cells automatically obey your God’s instructions. I point out that cells frequently fail to repel invaders, so what does that tell us about your God’s instructions? Then you dodge and doge and dodge. But you said that cells have the ability to change when required, which could suggest that their ability has nothing to do with instructions, and refers solely to their autonomous ability to process information and make decisions on what actions to take. Sometimes THEY will get it wrong. THEY are not supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent.
DAVID: No dodge. You have simply concluded with my point. Death is expected to happen. Expectedly the instructions will not be adequate.
A wonderful tribute to your God’s efficiency! We ought to know that when your omnipotent, omniscient God issues instructions, they may fail. But you won’t consider the possibility that the fault may lie in the cells themselves.
LUCA
DAVID: You still skip over what evolution produced: us a huge numbers and all the living resources on Earth for our use. Yes God culled, as a normal part of any evolution, but what is here is all necessary to be here for us.
dhw: You accuse me of ignoring the biochemistry. I give you a complete response, and so you ignore it and change the subject back to one that has already been demolished time after time: current numbers are descended from the 0.1% survivors out of the 100% that ever existed, 99.9% of which were irrelevant to us and our food. Even the fact that we use whatever resources are here does mean that we would die without them. Many are useful, but not necessary. Now please explain why your perfect God had to create and cull 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him. If you can’t, then please say so and stop changing the subject.
DAVID: Culling is part of any form of evolution producing useful results. It is time you accepted that point. Nothing is/was irrelevant.
Something is only irrelevant if it has no connection with a particular subject/purpose. In your case, the subject/purpose is us and our food, and 99 out of 100 species did not lead to us and our food. Extinctions and subsequent new species that can cope with the new conditions are the only form of evolution that we know. Your Raup says it all hinges on luck. You say it all hinges on the messy inefficiency of your God. I offer alternatives which you refuse to consider.
What does the universe expand into?
DAVID: so we are left with the concept that the universe expands into itself. There is nothing out there to expand into. Wow! In creating the universe God has left us with puzzles. Not just that the basis of our universe is quantum mechanics.
dhw: If 95% (approx.) of the universe consists of dark matter, and 68% of dark energy – i.e. matter and energy we know nothing about – how do we know WHAT is the basis of our universe? An atheist would argue that in creating God, humans have left us with even more puzzles than a godless universe. We agnostics simply confess that we are puzzled, though that needn’t stop us from looking for clues. Hence this website!
DAVID: Good summary of the puzzle.
Thank you.
ID view of natural selection
QUOTE: Whenever materialism cannot come up with any empirically verifiable explanation, it invokes natural selection.
DAVID: natural selection is a worthless tautology.
Talk about flogghg a dead horse. In the first edition of my brief guide (2007), I pointed out that “Dawkins blithely announces that natural selection ‘explains the whole of life’”, and throughout the history of this website one thing you and I have always agreed on is that natural selection never created anything. It’s simply a useful expression to explain why some species survive and some don’t – according to their ability to cope with existing conditions. It’s not a tautology (which means saying the same thing twice) but perhaos you might call it a truism: those who survive are those who are best equipped to survive. But for me the basic flaws in Darwin’s theory are his reliance on the creativity of random mutations, and his insistence that nature never jumps. The basic truth of the theory (in my opinion) is that of common descent, and it would have been fascinating to know what he might have thought of Shapiro’s theory, which replaces random mutations with cellular intelligence.
Miscellaneous
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 11, 2024, 20:13 (2 days ago) @ dhw
Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory
DAVID: You have simply concluded with my point. Death is expected to happen. Expectedly the instructions will not be adequate.
dhw: A wonderful tribute to your God’s efficiency! We ought to know that when your omnipotent, omniscient God issues instructions, they may fail. But you won’t consider the possibility that the fault may lie in the cells themselves.
No. cell death is coded in when necessary and predators may overcome cell defenses that are present .
LUCADAVID: You still skip over what evolution produced: us a huge numbers and all the living resources on Earth for our use. Yes God culled, as a normal part of any evolution, but what is here is all necessary to be here for us.
DAVID: Culling is part of any form of evolution producing useful results. It is time you accepted that point. Nothing is/was irrelevant.
dhw: Something is only irrelevant if it has no connection with a particular subject/purpose. In your case, the subject/purpose is us and our food, and 99 out of 100 species did not lead to us and our food. Extinctions and subsequent new species that can cope with the new conditions are the only form of evolution that we know. Your Raup says it all hinges on luck. You say it all hinges on the messy inefficiency of your God. I offer alternatives which you refuse to consider.
Then result of God's evolution is a huge human population with full resources on Earth from His evolutionary process with culling!!!! It is no matter 99.9% were culled to achieve this great result, us and our food.
ID view of natural selectionQUOTE: Whenever materialism cannot come up with any empirically verifiable explanation, it invokes natural selection.
DAVID: natural selection is a worthless tautology.
dhw: Talk about flogghg a dead horse. In the first edition of my brief guide (2007), I pointed out that “Dawkins blithely announces that natural selection ‘explains the whole of life’”, and throughout the history of this website one thing you and I have always agreed on is that natural selection never created anything. It’s simply a useful expression to explain why some species survive and some don’t – according to their ability to cope with existing conditions. It’s not a tautology (which means saying the same thing twice) but perhaos you might call it a truism: those who survive are those who are best equipped to survive. But for me the basic flaws in Darwin’s theory are his reliance on the creativity of random mutations, and his insistence that nature never jumps. The basic truth of the theory (in my opinion) is that of common descent, and it would have been fascinating to know what he might have thought of Shapiro’s theory, which replaces random mutations with cellular intelligence.
Darwin would be amazed at our current knowledge and probably join ID.
Miscellaneous: more on LUCA study
by David Turell , Saturday, December 07, 2024, 18:54 (6 days ago) @ dhw
From Hossenfelder:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/new-study-of-117456284/early-access?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI...
"If you trace back your genetic family line a few billion years, it doesn’t only join with mine, it joins with those of all known animals, and plants, and bacteria, to one organism: LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor. Scientists believe that every living thing on Earth descends from LUCA, it’s just taken us about four billion years to learn speaking English.
"But a recent study delivered quite a surprise. It’s found that LUCA was much more complex than previously thought, and that raises a lot of questions about the origin of life.
"LUCA is a hypothesis, but a well motivated one. It’s based on the observation that all living beings on earth are built up in similar ways. They all have similar molecular and cellular features, such as the genetic code, ribosomes, and metabolic pathways like the way we generate energy from sugar. And to the extent that we can test this with fossils, it’s also the case well back in time.
"Scientists think that LUCA was not the origin of life itself. There were likely simpler self-reproducing structures before that, though it somewhat depends on what you mean by “life”. If life means arguing about the Oxford Comma, I don’t think LUCA was quite there yet. But just exactly what sort of organism LUCA was, no one really knew. This is where the new study comes in.
"These researchers did a sophisticated genomic analysis of pretty much everything they could get their hands on to identify the genes which all known organisms have in common and which therefore likely originated in LUCA. They found a whopping 2,657 of them, much more than any previous study.
"And we mostly know what these genes are good for, because we know what proteins they synthesize. The genes seem to indicate that LUCA was good at using hydrogen gas as an energy source. This is very interesting because it tells us something about the environment in which LUCA must have lived. (my bold)
***
"That part had it that when LUCA lived, about 4 point 2 billion years ago, organism were incredibly basic.
"But this is not what the new study found. Even though this study might have missed some genes, it gives us a minimal set of what LUCA must have contained.
"They estimate Luca’s genome size to be about 2 point 75 million base pairs of DNA. Just for comparison, human DNA has a little over 3 billion base pairs and onions about 13 billion.
***
"They write in the paper “The result is a picture of a cellular organism that was prokaryote grade rather than progenotic and that probably existed as a component of an ecosystem,”
"This basically means it’s more complex than they thought. Prokaryotes are organisms that still live today, for example many types of bacteria like E coli. They are typically 1 to 10 micrometres in size and have a cell wall but no nucleus that holds the DNA. Instead, the DNA floats freely on the inside.
"The reason this is relevant is that we know roughly when LUCA existed and there wasn’t a lot of time for it to grow to that complexity because just half a billion years earlier, Earth was quite literally a hot mess. So this study means that either life can form much easier and faster than we thought, or it was seeded by some sample from outer space. (my bold)
Comment: note my bolds. My view is that life appeared as engineered by God, just like the Cambrian animals did later on. It only took half a billion years to appear once the earliest Earth had formed.