Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > dhw: And a neat way of dodging the “war” issue. Please tell us why you think your God wanted a constant war of survival between his creations.
> 
> You still haven't resolved the issue of everyone has to eat, and plants have to absorb nutrients. The life system we have requires constant homeostasis, which means a constant energy requirement to support it. What kind of non-war life do you imagine?
> > 
> > [b]Carnivorous plants[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]The response is instantaneous, but antibody production takes a little time. Killer immune cells are immediately active.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]An instantaneous response that fails to kill the invader is not going to add a new volume to the library. The need to produce new antibodies makes it abundantly clear that the disease and the protection do NOT arrive simultaneously![/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Neutrophils are spontaneous first responders.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: How does that come to mean that any failure to kill the invader denotes the simultaneous presence of disease and cure? 
> 
> The immune system we have is a stepwise response, first the attack cells and then antibodies
> > 
> > [b]BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER CONTROLS[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID:[i] Must be designed all at once at the time the first real brains appeared, or brained life would not have survived.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]It's possible that just like all other organs and organisms, they were subjected to toxins and antigens, and in what you call “the constant war to survive by eating”, in due course they developed their own forms of protection. No doubt many would have died before the cells were able to design this means of survival. Again, the attack would have preceded development of the defence. Just a theory.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID:[i] More just-so wooliness.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: No more just-so and woolly than your theory that an unknown and sourceless conscious being preprogrammed all these processes 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively kept popping in to deliver new instructions, give courses, or perform operations. (If that being exists, I would regard the process as less woolly if he simply endowed all organisms with the ability to design their own forms of attack and defence.)
> 
> God gave us great defenses. Developing defense systems on the fly takes too much time.
> > 
> > [b]Bird migration[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]God. Another just-so wooliness theory. we are considering thousands of miles just to find a spot.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: So why is it OK for God to choose a spot thousands of miles away, but just-so woolly if birds do it?
> 
> Tell me a logical way for birds to decide on a winter resort over 10,000 miles distant and do it every year?
> > 
> > [b]How cells communicate[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]dhw how do cells exchange design ideas with these molecular signals?[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]These molecular signals are their [b]language[/b]. If they can notify each other of threats, why should they not be able to notify each other of means to counter the threats, and of means to threaten others in what you call “the constant war to survive by eating”?[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]You have not described the ability to think to accomplish complex design in your favored cell committees.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: And as usual you have ignored my question. As I said in my response to the article supporting cellular intelligence: I agree that it doesn’t necessarily extend to innovations. That is why we only have a theory and not a fact.
> 
> And your theory still is cells can design for their future. How?