Direct design versus the intelligent cell

DAVID: I do not see God designing, designing cells. It is secondhand design which is more work than direct design.

dhw: Direct design means that every single mutation leading to every single new species, and every single solution to every single problem, and every lifestyle and every natural wonder must have been designed 3.8 billion years ago or, alternatively, that your God has to pop in on every occasion in order to perform the necessary operations or to give the necessary instructions. Designing intelligent cells to carry out all these tasks independently sounds to me like almost infinitely less work than you impose on your do-it-all-yourself God[/b]!

DAVID: Which is simpler? Telling someone how to do job or directly doing it yourself?

So you would tell the factory owner to sack his 1000 employees, because it’s simpler for him to do it all himself. Your comment completely ignores all the points I have made above.

The human brain

DAVID: I am convinced our very special brain was designed.

dhw: I agree that our brains are special, as is clear from our massively enhanced intelligence, but it also seems reasonable to me that all brains were specially designed, namely by the different cell communities which were responding to new requirements, using their own perhaps God-given forms of intelligence. Or alternatively, do you think your God personally operated on all non-human and pre-sapiens brains as well as on the legs and pelvises of our ancestors? If so, why do you think he chose such a roundabout method of designing the only brains he wanted? No need to answer. You’ve already told us that he’s a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

DAVID: I have no idea why He chose His method.

It would be far more accurate to say you have no idea why your God would have chosen the utterly illogical method you have imposed on him.

Origin of stone tools

DAVID: we have a tendency to assume our ancestors were dumb. They may well have invented knapping stone tools after seeing examples in nature or directly invented the process. Now we have both proposals. Animal use of stone tools support the idea that naturaliths were the first step.

This is a comment which I wholeheartedly endorse. Many humans have a tendency to assume that not just our ancestors but also our fellow organisms are dumb. In the great battle for survival, even the smallest organism must have some sort of intelligence to recognize problems and dangers. Over the course of time, most have eventually become extinct, because their intelligence is not equal to the task, but many have survived for hundreds of thousands of years before that happened. Bacteria have survived from the very beginning. Human scepticism has been beautifully summarized by James A. Shapiro as “large organisms chauvinism”. This article deals simply with sapiens chauvinism in relation to our ancestors.

The savannah theory

DAVID: The savannah theory is now unsupported by the new findings but still a logical theory.

dhw: It is “unsupported” by the new findings because the new findings have nothing to do with the question of sapiens’ origin! You have said yourself that no-one knows the origin, so all we can have is unsupported theories, including your own, which attributes the origin to your God performing operations on individual pelvises, legs and possibly brains, though your post above suggests he left brains to design their own evolution until he decided to pop in and do a sapiens special.

DAVID: Lucy became Erectus and Erectus became sapiens is all we know.

Even that is a bit controversial, but in the context of our discussion, thank you for now agreeing that none of the articles have in any way demonstrated the fading of the savannah theory.

Direct design versus the intelligent cell

DAVID: Which is simpler? Telling someone how to do job or directly doing it yourself?

dhw: So you would tell the factory owner to sack his 1000 employees, because it’s simpler for him to do it all himself. Your comment completely ignores all the points I have made

above.

With a coded DNA conducting design, simple coding changes advance evolution. No factory involved. In your points you want organisms as freed from God as possible.

Origin of stone tools

DAVID: we have a tendency to assume our ancestors were dumb. They may well have invented knapping stone tools after seeing examples in nature or directly invented the process. Now we have both proposals. Animal use of stone tools support the idea that naturaliths were the first step.

dhw: This is a comment which I wholeheartedly endorse. Many humans have a tendency to assume that not just our ancestors but also our fellow organisms are dumb. In the great battle for survival, even the smallest organism must have some sort of intelligence to recognize problems and dangers. Over the course of time, most have eventually become extinct, because their intelligence is not equal to the task, but many have survived for hundreds of thousands of years before that happened. Bacteria have survived from the very beginning. Human scepticism has been beautifully summarized by James A. Shapiro as “large organisms chauvinism”. This article deals simply with sapiens chauvinism in relation to our ancestors.

correct.

The savannah theory

DAVID: The savannah theory is now unsupported by the new findings but still a logical theory.

dhw: It is “unsupported” by the new findings because the new findings have nothing to do with the question of sapiens’ origin! You have said yourself that no-one knows the origin, so all we can have is unsupported theories, including your own, which attributes the origin to your God performing operations on individual pelvises, legs and possibly brains, though your post above suggests he left brains to design their own evolution until he decided to pop in and do a sapiens special.

DAVID: Lucy became Erectus and Erectus became sapiens is all we know.

dhw: Even that is a bit controversial, but in the context of our discussion, thank you for now agreeing that none of the articles have in any way demonstrated the fading of the savannah theory.

With the new findings the savannah theory has been diluted from primary importance.

Intelligence

DAVID: we have a tendency to assume our ancestors were dumb. They may well have invented knapping stone tools after seeing examples in nature or directly invented the process. Now we have both proposals. Animal use of stone tools support the idea that naturaliths were the first step.

dhw: This is a comment which I wholeheartedly endorse. Many humans have a tendency to assume that not just our ancestors but also our fellow organisms are dumb. In the great battle for survival, even the smallest organism must have some sort of intelligence to recognize problems and dangers. Over the course of time, most have eventually become extinct, because their intelligence is not equal to the task, but many have survived for hundreds of thousands of years before that happened. Bacteria have survived from the very beginning. Human scepticism has been beautifully summarized by James A. Shapiro as “large organisms chauvinism”. This article deals simply with sapiens chauvinism in relation to our ancestors.

DAVID: correct.

I’m delighted with yet another agreement, which should cover the entire range of life from bacteria through all species to ourselves.

The savannah theory

DAVID: The savannah theory is now unsupported by the new findings but still a logical theory.

dhw: It is “unsupported” by the new findings because the new findings have nothing to do with the question of sapiens’ origin! You have said yourself that no-one knows the origin, so all we can have is unsupported theories, including your own, which attributes the origin to your God performing operations on individual pelvises, legs and possibly brains, though your post above suggests he left brains to design their own evolution until he decided to pop in and do a sapiens special.

DAVID: Lucy became Erectus and Erectus became sapiens is all we know.

dhw: Even that is a bit controversial, but in the context of our discussion, thank you for now agreeing that none of the articles have in any way demonstrated the fading of the savannah theory.

DAVID: With the new findings the savannah theory has been diluted from primary importance.

How many more times? The new findings tell us nothing about where, when or why our ancestors first descended from the trees. Who decides what is of “primary” or “secondary” importance? Do you think the savannah theory is of secondary importance compared to your belief that one fine day your God popped in to operate on the legs and pelvises of a group or groups of tree-dwellers?

Human origin from different groups

QUOTE: Fossil evidence suggests that species such as Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis lived both in Africa and other regions during this period, making them potential candidates for these ancestral populations

DAVID: this extensive study tells us how various hominins may have mixed to make us as the sole surviving form. It does not satisfy dhw's quest for a full theory as to the development of bipedalism.”

We covered this theory last Thursday and Friday. You have stated categorically that we are descended from Erectus, so I’m really not sure where this theory leads us. It certainly doesn’t lead to the start of the process, and our discussion began with your belief that the savannah theory was fading, though you now acknowledge that it is a logical explanation.

Theoretical origin of life: diurnal stress

Oxygen levels rising and plunging:

https://www.sciencealert.com/extreme-feast-and-famine-cycle-sparked-explosion-of-life-o...
QUOTES: "Imagine a world where the oxygen you need changes dramatically between day and night.

"Now, picture early animals trying to survive in such an extreme environment. This was the reality for early animal life in oceans and seas about half a billion years ago. This was also the time when animal diversity boomed, in what is known as the "Cambrian explosion".

"Daily swings in oxygen levels on the shallow seafloor may have stressed early animals (the ancestors of all animal life today), pus hing them to adapt in ways that fuelled diversification."

DAVID: for once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms. Today's extremophiles show how they modify to handle stressful environments.

Your headline is way off track. This is an explanation of the Cambrian Explosion! And it’s good to see that you accept not only the ability of extremophiles to modify themselves, but also that of the ancestors of all animal life today, which would include ourselves. The changes enabling these life forms to survive would have had to be very rapid, or they could not have survived. So for once you now you have “a logical set of reasons” for the Cambrian Explosion.

Intelligence

The savannah theory

DAVID: With the new findings the savannah theory has been diluted from primary importance.

dhw: How many more times? The new findings tell us nothing about where, when or why our ancestors first descended from the trees. Who decides what is of “primary” or “secondary” importance? Do you think the savannah theory is of secondary importance compared to your belief that one fine day your God popped in to operate on the legs and pelvises of a group or groups of tree-dwellers?

God did it is just as valid as the savannah theory.

Human origin from different groups

QUOTE: Fossil evidence suggests that species such as Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis lived both in Africa and other regions during this period, making them potential candidates for these ancestral populations

DAVID: this extensive study tells us how various hominins may have mixed to make us as the sole surviving form. It does not satisfy dhw's quest for a full theory as to the development of bipedalism.”

dhw: We covered this theory last Thursday and Friday. You have stated categorically that we are descended from Erectus, so I’m really not sure where this theory leads us. It certainly doesn’t lead to the start of the process, and our discussion began with your belief that the savannah theory was fading, though you now acknowledge that it is a logical explanation.

It is one of several theories.

Theoretical origin of life: diurnal stress

Oxygen levels rising and plunging:

https://www.sciencealert.com/extreme-feast-and-famine-cycle-sparked-explosion-of-life-o...
QUOTES: "Imagine a world where the oxygen you need changes dramatically between day and night.

"Now, picture early animals trying to survive in such an extreme environment. This was the reality for early animal life in oceans and seas about half a billion years ago. This was also the time when animal diversity boomed, in what is known as the "Cambrian explosion".

"Daily swings in oxygen levels on the shallow seafloor may have stressed early animals (the ancestors of all animal life today), pus hing them to adapt in ways that fuelled diversification."

DAVID: for once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms. Today's extremophiles show how they modify to handle stressful environments.

dhw: Your headline is way off track. This is an explanation of the Cambrian Explosion! And it’s good to see that you accept not only the ability of extremophiles to modify themselves, but also that of the ancestors of all animal life today, which would include ourselves. The changes enabling these life forms to survive would have had to be very rapid, or they could not have survived. So for once you now you have “a logical set of reasons” for the Cambrian Explosion.

Diurnal stress is exactly the story's point! It is no explanation for all the Cambrian forms with eyes, brains, limbs, etc. from no precursors.

Bacteria and the intelligent cell

DAVID: When in an organism, cells function differently than free-living cells. Yes, environmental change forces responses.

dhw: All agreed. This simply means that if individual cells are intelligent, they will use their intelligence in different ways when they form a community. They are still intelligent, and if they are, what makes you so certain that other cell communities, whose behaviour also appears to be intelligent, cannot possibly BE intelligent?

DAVID: All the biochemical reactions I see are automatic and designed that way.

So back we go: single-cell bacteria are autonomously intelligent, they use their intelligence in different ways when they form communities, but other single cells are automatons that have been preprogrammed or dabbled with, although your God coded them "with the equivalent of a brain that processes all the information, decides what to do with it, and passes its instructions on to the rest of the community?" Your usual volte-face, but I hadn’t expected it to be quite so immediate!

New antibiotics from frogs

DAVID: new potent antibiotics are desperately needed. That antibiotics are processed by all animals is obvious. It is part of the dog-eat-dog world.

Your comment ties in neatly with the whole concept of evolution as a free-for-all. You are willing to accept that bacteria have their own autonomous form of intelligence, but you refuse to believe that the cell communities which fight them may also have autonomy. And the battle for survival is not confined to competition between organisms; it also encompasses the battle between organisms and environmental conditions. Yesterday’s article concerning the rise and fall of oxygen levels illustrated the need not just for minor adaptations but also for changes directly leading to new species. This is the essence of Shapiro’s theory of evolution: “cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly….Evolutionary novelty arises….as a result of cellular self-modification…” Only a theory, of course, but it makes perfect sense. And it should present no problem for a theist, since it allows for God as the designer of the autonomously intelligent cell.

The savannah theory

DAVID: With the new findings the savannah theory has been diluted from primary importance.

dhw: How many more times? The new findings tell us nothing about where, when or why our ancestors first descended from the trees. Who decides what is of “primary” or “secondary” importance? Do you think the savannah theory is of secondary importance compared to your belief that one fine day your God popped in to operate on the legs and pelvises of a group or groups of tree-dwellers?

DAVID: God did it is just as valid as the savannah theory.

So has your God theory been “diluted” by the new findings?

The Cambrian

Oxygen levels rising and plunging:

https://www.sciencealert.com/extreme-feast-and-famine-cycle-sparked-explosion-of-life-o...
QUOTES: "Imagine a world where the oxygen you need changes dramatically between day and night."

"Now, picture early animals trying to survive in such an extreme environment. This was the reality for early animal life in oceans and seas about half a billion years ago. This was also the time when animal diversity boomed, in what is known as the "Cambrian explosion".

"Daily swings in oxygen levels on the shallow seafloor may have stressed early animals (the ancestors of all animal life today), pushing them to adapt in ways that fuelled diversification."

DAVID: for once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms. Today's extremophiles show how they modify to handle stressful environments.

dhw: […] This is an explanation of the Cambrian Explosion! And it’s good to see that you accept not only the ability of extremophiles to modify themselves, but also that of the ancestors of all animal life today, which would include ourselves. The changes enabling these life forms to survive would have had to be very rapid, or they could not have survived. So for once you now you have “a logical set of reasons” for the Cambrian Explosion.

DAVID: Diurnal stress is exactly the story's point! It is no explanation for all the
Cambrian forms with eyes, brains, limbs, etc. from no precursors.

The authors say that diurnal stress IS an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion! Read the quotes! You simply disagree with them, although you thought you were agreeing with them.

New antibiotics from frogs

DAVID: new potent antibiotics are desperately needed. That antibiotics are processed by all animals is obvious. It is part of the dog-eat-dog world.

dhw: Your comment ties in neatly with the whole concept of evolution as a free-for-all. You are willing to accept that bacteria have their own autonomous form of intelligence, but you refuse to believe that the cell communities which fight them may also have autonomy. And the battle for survival is not confined to competition between organisms; it also encompasses the battle between organisms and environmental conditions. Yesterday’s article concerning the rise and fall of oxygen levels illustrated the need not just for minor adaptations but also for changes directly leading to new species. This is the essence of Shapiro’s theory of evolution: “cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly….Evolutionary novelty arises….as a result of cellular self-modification…” Only a theory, of course, but it makes perfect sense. And it should present no problem for a theist, since it allows for God as the designer of the autonomously intelligent cell.

Cells are built to have an enormous degree of automatic adaptability to changing circumstances.

The savannah theory

DAVID: God did it is just as valid as the savannah theory.

dhw: So has your God theory been “diluted” by the new findings?

No. Why did you ask? The two theories are at two different levels of thought.

The Cambrian

Oxygen levels rising and plunging:

https://www.sciencealert.com/extreme-feast-and-famine-cycle-sparked-explosion-of-life-o...
QUOTES: "Imagine a world where the oxygen you need changes dramatically between day and night."

"Now, picture early animals trying to survive in such an extreme environment. This was the reality for early animal life in oceans and seas about half a billion years ago. This was also the time when animal diversity boomed, in what is known as the "Cambrian explosion".

"Daily swings in oxygen levels on the shallow seafloor may have stressed early animals (the ancestors of all animal life today), pushing them to adapt in ways that fuelled diversification."

DAVID: for once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms. Today's extremophiles show how they modify to handle stressful environments.

dhw: […] This is an explanation of the Cambrian Explosion! And it’s good to see that you accept not only the ability of extremophiles to modify themselves, but also that of the ancestors of all animal life today, which would include ourselves. The changes enabling these life forms to survive would have had to be very rapid, or they could not have survived. So for once you now you have “a logical set of reasons” for the Cambrian Explosion.

DAVID: Diurnal stress is exactly the story's point! It is no explanation for all the
Cambrian forms with eyes, brains, limbs, etc. from no precursors.

dhw: The authors say that diurnal stress IS an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion! Read the quotes! You simply disagree with them, although you thought you were agreeing with them.

I never agreed with them!!! As you know, in my fashion, I present all sorts of views.

More about intelligence

dhw: […] You are willing to accept that bacteria have their own autonomous form of intelligence, but you refuse to believe that the cell communities which fight them may also have autonomy. And the battle for survival is not confined to competition between organisms; it also encompasses the battle between organisms and environmental conditions. […] This is the essence of Shapiro’s theory of evolution: “cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly….Evolutionary novelty arises….as a result of cellular self-modification…” Only a theory, of course, but it makes perfect sense. And it should present no problem for a theist, since it allows for God as the designer of the autonomously intelligent cell.

DAVID: Cells are built to have an enormous degree of automatic adaptability to changing circumstances.

You seem to think that by inserting the word “automatic” you have proved that Shapiro is wrong, and therefore the “enormous” range of adaptations, strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. can only be the result of your God’s personal dabbles or his 3.8 billion-year-old instructions. I must confess that given the choice between these two theories (we both reject Darwin’s theory that new species and organs stem from chance mutations), I would find Shapiro’s vastly more convincing, bearing in mind the possibility that your God is the inventor of the intelligent cell.

The savannah theory

DAVID: God did it is just as valid as the savannah theory.

dhw: So has your God theory been “diluted” by the new findings?

DAVID: No. Why did you ask? The two theories are at two different levels of thought.

The two theories are meant to explain what caused our ancestors to descend from the trees. You claim that the new findings “dilute” the savannah theory. I say the new findings are irrelevant to that unknown first cause. You agree. So in what way do the new findings support your theory that your God operated on a group or groups of tree-dwellers’ legs and pelvises (and possibly brains) and then told them to descend from the trees?

The Cambrian

Oxygen levels rising and plunging:

https://www.sciencealert.com/extreme-feast-and-famine-cycle-sparked-explosion-of-life-o...

QUOT0E: "Now, picture early animals trying to survive in such an extreme environment. This was the reality for early animal life in oceans and seas about half a billion years ago. This was also the time when animal diversity boomed, in what is known as the "Cambrian explosion".

DAVID: for once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms. Today's extremophiles show how they modify to handle stressful environments.

dhw: […] […] it’s good to see that you accept not only the ability of extremophiles to modify themselves, but also that of the ancestors of all animal life today, which would include ourselves. The changes enabling these life forms to survive would have had to be very rapid, or they could not have survived. So for once you now you have “a logical set of reasons” for the Cambrian Explosion. […]

DAVID: I never agreed with them!!! As you know, in my fashion, I present all sorts of views.

“For once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms” sounds like agreement to me. But that was before I pointed out to you that they were talking about
the Cambrian.

Theoretical origin of life: soda lakes

QUOTE: "The origin of life could therefore be closely linked to the special environment of large soda lakes, which, due to their geological setting and phosphorus balance, provided ideal conditions for prebiotic chemistry. This new theory helps to solve another piece of the puzzle of the origin of life on Earth," says Walton.

“The origin of life could be closely linked….” would only help to solve the mystery if it WAS closely linked. Every week we read about sensational new discoveries that will somehow solve various mysteries but somehow don’t actually do so. (See all the articles about the origin of sapiens which actually tell us nothing about the origin of sapiens.)

DAVID: a new and interesting approach. Land-based fossils do not support the idea. I still favor deep sea vents.

I thought it was generally agreed that life began in the water. In that case, how would land-based fossils support either theory?

The brain’s cleaning fluid

DAVID: the brain floats in a liquid which is a very good way to protect it from blows to the skull. The CSF must pick up waste and remove it. We still don't know how. Such a intricate system must be designed.

It’s worth remembering that these experiments are carried out on mice, offering yet more proof that the human brain has evolved from earlier brains, as opposed to “de novo” creation.

More about intelligence

DAVID: Cells are built to have an enormous degree of automatic adaptability to changing circumstances.

dhw: You seem to think that by inserting the word “automatic” you have proved that Shapiro is wrong, and therefore the “enormous” range of adaptations, strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. can only be the result of your God’s personal dabbles or his 3.8 billion-year-old instructions. I must confess that given the choice between these two theories (we both reject Darwin’s theory that new species and organs stem from chance mutations), I would find Shapiro’s vastly more convincing, bearing in mind the possibility that your God is the inventor of the intelligent cell.

I remind you, Shapiro's theory is an extrapolation from what free-living bacteria can do.

The savannah theory

DAVID: God did it is just as valid as the savannah theory.

dhw: So has your God theory been “diluted” by the new findings?

DAVID: No. Why did you ask? The two theories are at two different levels of thought.

dhw: The two theories are meant to explain what caused our ancestors to descend from the trees. You claim that the new findings “dilute” the savannah theory. I say the new findings are irrelevant to that unknown first cause. You agree. So in what way do the new findings support your theory that your God operated on a group or groups of tree-dwellers’ legs and pelvises (and possibly brains) and then told them to descend from the trees?

All we can know is they did descend. Why is unknown but I think God did it .

The Cambrian

Oxygen levels rising and plunging:

https://www.sciencealert.com/extreme-feast-and-famine-cycle-sparked-explosion-of-life-o...

QUOT0E: "Now, picture early animals trying to survive in such an extreme environment. This was the reality for early animal life in oceans and seas about half a billion years ago. This was also the time when animal diversity boomed, in what is known as the "Cambrian explosion".

DAVID: for once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms. Today's extremophiles show how they modify to handle stressful environments.

dhw: “For once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms” sounds like agreement to me. But that was before I pointed out to you that they were talking about
the Cambrian.

It is always my point God designed the animals to handle the new conditions.

Theoretical origin of life: soda lakes

QUOTE: "The origin of life could therefore be closely linked to the special environment of large soda lakes, which, due to their geological setting and phosphorus balance, provided ideal conditions for prebiotic chemistry. This new theory helps to solve another piece of the puzzle of the origin of life on Earth," says Walton.

dhw: “The origin of life could be closely linked….” would only help to solve the mystery if it WAS closely linked. Every week we read about sensational new discoveries that will somehow solve various mysteries but somehow don’t actually do so. (See all the articles about the origin of sapiens which actually tell us nothing about the origin of sapiens.)

DAVID: a new and interesting approach. Land-based fossils do not support the idea. I still favor deep sea vents.

dhw: I thought it was generally agreed that life began in the water. In that case, how would land-based fossils support either theory?

It can't.

The brain’s cleaning fluid

DAVID: the brain floats in a liquid which is a very good way to protect it from blows to the skull. The CSF must pick up waste and remove it. We still don't know how. Such a intricate system must be designed.

dhw: It’s worth remembering that these experiments are carried out on mice, offering yet more proof that the human brain has evolved from earlier brains, as opposed to “de novo” creation.

Wow! evolution is progressive process, but God can design jumps for that process.

More about cellular intelligence

DAVID: Cells are built to have an enormous degree of automatic adaptability to changing circumstances.

dhw: You seem to think that by inserting the word “automatic” you have proved that Shapiro is wrong. […]

DAVID: I remind you, Shapiro's theory is an extrapolation from what free-living bacteria can do.

Please stop pretending that Shapiro knows nothing about other life forms, and that you have greater knowledge of cell behaviour than Shapiro, Margulis, McClintock, Albrecht-Buehler and all the other scientists you have quoted on this website as believers in cellular intelligence.

The savannah theory

dhw: You claim that the new findings “dilute” the savannah theory. I say the new findings are irrelevant to that unknown first cause. You agree. So in what way do the new findings support your theory that your God operated on a group or groups of tree-dwellers [...]?

DAVID: All we can know is they did descend. Why is unknown but I think God did it.

So why do the new findings “dilute” the savannah theory but don’t “dilute” yours?

The Cambrian

QUOTE: "Now, picture early animals trying to survive in such an extreme environment. This was the reality for early animal life in oceans and seas about half a billion years ago. This was also the time when animal diversity boomed, in what is known as the "Cambrian explosion".

DAVID: for once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms. Today's extremophiles show how they modify to handle stressful environments.

DAVID: (referring to the authors) I never agreed with them!!!

dhw: “For once, a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms” sounds like agreement to me. But that was before I pointed out to you that they were talking about the Cambrian.

And you even mentioned extremophiles as another example of the same process.

DAVID: It is always my point God designed the animals to handle the new conditions.

Your opinions vary day by day. You regarded this article as providing a logical explanation for the Cambrian.

Theoretical origin of life: soda lakes

QUOTE: "The origin of life could therefore be closely linked to the special environment of large soda lakes, which, due to their geological setting and phosphorus balance, provided ideal conditions for prebiotic chemistry. This new theory helps to solve another piece of the puzzle of the origin of life on Earth," says Walton.

dhw: “The origin of life could be closely linked….” would only help to solve the mystery if it WAS closely linked. Every week we read about sensational new discoveries that will somehow solve various mysteries but somehow don’t actually do so. (See all the articles about the origin of sapiens which actually tell us nothing about the origin of sapiens.)

DAVID: a new and interesting approach. Land-based fossils do not support the idea. I still favor deep sea vents.

dhw: I thought it was generally agreed that life began in the water. In that case, how would land-based fossils support either theory?

DAVID: It can't.

Just clarifying. Thank you.

The brain’s cleaning fluid

DAVID: the brain floats in a liquid which is a very good way to protect it from blows to the skull. The CSF must pick up waste and remove it. We still don't know how. Such a intricate system must be designed.

dhw: It’s worth remembering that these experiments are carried out on mice, offering yet more proof that the human brain has evolved from earlier brains, as opposed to “de novo” creation.

DAVID: Wow! evolution is progressive process, but God can design jumps for that process.

Are you saying that the human brain did not evolve from earlier mammalian brains?

The human brain

QUOTES: Our brain is wired up to be social.

"These findings challenge the idea of a single evolutionary event driving the
emergence of human intelligence. Instead, our study suggests brain evolution happened in steps. Our findings suggest changes in frontal cortex organisation occurred in apes, followed by changes in temporal cortex in the lineage leading to humans.”

I’m amazed that anyone should think human intelligence and/or the brain did anything but evolve in steps! And I would suggest that our brain was not wired up to be social, but being social was a crucial driving force in the wiring of the brain.

QUOTE: "Richard Owen was right about one thing. Our brains are different from those of other species – to an extent. We have a primate brain, but it's wired up to make us even more social than other primates, allowing us to communicate through spoken language."

And language is also the product of our sociability, as an enhanced means of communication would have enhanced our ability to survive and to improve the conditions under which we survived. In brief, new wiring does not precede development but takes place in response to new conditions and ideas.

DAVID: finding this difference is not surprising. Connectivity is one form of complexification, another is an increased number of interconnected neurons. The human brain has more of both.

A neat summing up of the history of the human brain’s evolution: past brains complexified and expanded when they needed more capacity for complexification.

More about cellular intelligence

DAVID: I remind you, Shapiro's theory is an extrapolation from what free-living bacteria can do.

dhw: Please stop pretending that Shapiro knows nothing about other life forms, and that you have greater knowledge of cell behaviour than Shapiro, Margulis, McClintock, Albrecht-Buehler and all the other scientists you have quoted on this website as believers in cellular intelligence.

Shapiro studied bacteria and applied their DNA editing ability to where it does not happen. The bolded heroes are your champions. I recognize only Margolis and McClintock as mainstream.

The savannah theory

DAVID: All we can know is they did descend. Why is unknown but I think God did it.

dhw: So why do the new findings “dilute” the savannah theory but don’t “dilute” yours?

The new findings don't change my view of God as designer.

The Cambrian

DAVID: It is always my point God designed the animals to handle the new conditions.

dhw: Your opinions vary day by day. You regarded this article as providing a logical explanation for the Cambrian.

Yes, a natural explanation.

The brain’s cleaning fluid

DAVID: Wow! evolution is progressive process, but God can design jumps for that process.

dhw: Are you saying that the human brain did not evolve from earlier mammalian brains?

It did, through God's design modifications.

The human brain

QUOTES: Our brain is wired up to be social.

"These findings challenge the idea of a single evolutionary event driving the
emergence of human intelligence. Instead, our study suggests brain evolution happened in steps. Our findings suggest changes in frontal cortex organisation occurred in apes, followed by changes in temporal cortex in the lineage leading to humans.”

dhw: I’m amazed that anyone should think human intelligence and/or the brain did anything but evolve in steps! And I would suggest that our brain was not wired up to be social, but being social was a crucial driving force in the wiring of the brain.

Agreed

QUOTE: "Richard Owen was right about one thing. Our brains are different from those of other species – to an extent. We have a primate brain, but it's wired up to make us even more social than other primates, allowing us to communicate through spoken language."

dhw: And language is also the product of our sociability, as an enhanced means of communication would have enhanced our ability to survive and to improve the conditions under which we survived. In brief, new wiring does not precede development but takes place in response to new conditions and ideas.

Our 315,000-year-old brain tells us it was designed in advanced= of need.

DAVID: finding this difference is not surprising. Connectivity is one form of complexification, another is an increased number of interconnected neurons. The human brain has more of both.

dhw: A neat summing up of the history of the human brain’s evolution: past brains complexified and expanded when they needed more capacity for complexification.

Yes.

More about cellular intelligence

DAVID: I remind you, Shapiro's theory is an extrapolation from what free-living bacteria can do.

dhw: Please stop pretending that Shapiro knows nothing about other life forms, and that you have greater knowledge of cell behaviour than Shapiro, Margulis, McClintock, Albrecht-Buehler and all the other scientists you have quoted on this website as believers in cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Shapiro studied bacteria and applied their DNA editing ability to where it does not happen. The bolded heroes are your champions. I recognize only Margolis and McClintock as mainstream.

You've offered us several articles in support of the theory, but you regard as “mainstream” your belief in a God who 3.8 billion years ago pre-preprogrammed the whole of evolution's history, or who keeps popping in to perform operations or give lessons.

The savannah theory

DAVID: All we can know is they did descend. Why is unknown but I think God did it.

dhw: So why do the new findings “dilute” the savannah theory but don’t “dilute” yours?

DAVID: The new findings don't change my view of God as designer.

The savannah theory is that for whatever reason, a group of pre-sapiens descended from the trees in order to explore the savannah. Why do you think the new findings “dilute” this theory but do not “dilute” your theory that your God performed operations on legs and pelvises and told the group(s) of pre-sapiens that they should now descend from the trees?

The Cambrian

DAVID: It is always my point God designed the animals to handle the new conditions.

dhw: Your opinions vary day by day. You regarded this article as providing a logical explanation for the Cambrian.

DAVID: Yes, a natural explanation.

With which you agreed. (“For once a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms”). So why did you say “I never agreed with them!!!”?

The brain’s cleaning fluid

DAVID: Wow! evolution is progressive process, but God can design jumps for that process.

dhw: Are you saying that the human brain did not evolve from earlier mammalian brains?

DAVID: It did, through God's design modifications.

But I thought he knew from the start exactly what he wanted. You make him sound just like a human scientist or inventor, experimenting, adjusting, jettisoning (let’s not forget the 99.9%), operating….And yet for some reason, you hate the very idea of humans reflecting their creator through their own processes of creation.

The human brain

QUOTES: Our brain is wired up to be social.

"These findings challenge the idea of a single evolutionary event driving the
emergence of human intelligence. Instead, our study suggests brain evolution happened in steps. Our findings suggest changes in frontal cortex organisation occurred in apes, followed by changes in temporal cortex in the lineage leading to humans.”

dhw: I’m amazed that anyone should think human intelligence and/or the brain did anything but evolve in steps! And I would suggest that our brain was not wired up to be social, but being social was a crucial driving force in the wiring of the brain.

DAVID: Agreed.

An important agreement in the light of your next comment.

QUOTE: "Richard Owen was right about one thing. Our brains are different from those of other species – to an extent. We have a primate brain, but it's wired up to make us even more social than other primates, allowing us to communicate through spoken language."

dhw: And language is also the product of our sociability, as an enhanced means of communication would have enhanced our ability to survive and to improve the conditions under which we survived. In brief, new wiring does not precede development but takes place in response to new conditions and ideas.

DAVID: Our 315,000-year-old brain tells us it was designed in advance of need.

The wiring of the brain takes place in response to needs. When needs arose in our history, the brain responded and still responds by making new connections (complexification). The new connections would not have been present 315,000 years ago.

DAVID: finding this difference is not surprising. Connectivity is one form of complexification, another is an increased number of interconnected neurons. The human brain has more of both.

dhw: A neat summing up of the history of the human brain’s evolution: past brains complexified and expanded when they needed more capacity for complexification.

DAVID: Yes.

Thank you for confirming the obvious fact that brains, including our own, change in response to new needs and not in anticipation of them.

Extreme extremophiles: from dormancy to living

DAVID:: these diatoms are very simple forms that can assume dormancy. It just shows how tough living cells can be. The hibernating bear is a different form of this.

Yes,they are tough, and each example illustrates the versatility of cell/cell communities as they find different ways to cope with different environments. Some of us would suggest that these ingenious forms of adaptability are evidence of autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) rather than evidence of direct design by a God whose sole purpose was to design humans plus food.

The savannah theory

DAVID: The new findings don't change my view of God as designer.

dhw: The savannah theory is that for whatever reason, a group of pre-sapiens descended from the trees in order to explore the savannah. Why do you think the new findings “dilute” this theory but do not “dilute” your theory that your God performed operations on legs and pelvises and told the group(s) of pre-sapiens that they should now descend from the trees?

With hominins living everywhere does not support the savannah theory of homo evolution.

The Cambrian

DAVID: It is always my point God designed the animals to handle the new conditions.

dhw: Your opinions vary day by day. You regarded this article as providing a logical explanation for the Cambrian.

DAVID: Yes, a natural explanation.

dhw: With which you agreed. (“For once a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms”). So why did you say “I never agreed with them!!!”?

These are the reasons for God's designs!

The brain’s cleaning fluid

dhw: Are you saying that the human brain did not evolve from earlier mammalian brains?

DAVID: It did, through God's design modifications.

dhw: But I thought he knew from the start exactly what he wanted. You make him sound just like a human scientist or inventor, experimenting, adjusting, jettisoning (let’s not forget the 99.9%), operating….And yet for some reason, you hate the very idea of humans reflecting their creator through their own processes of creation.

Evolution is a process to a goal God had from the beginning.

The human brain

DAVID: Our 315,000-year-old brain tells us it was designed in advance of need.

dhw: The wiring of the brain takes place in response to needs. When needs arose in our history, the brain responded and still responds by making new connections (complexification). The new connections would not have been present 315,000 years ago.

The original brain had the capacity to be today's brain with no size change.

dhw: Thank you for confirming the obvious fact that brains, including our own, change in response to new needs and not in anticipation of them.

Not confirmed. God made our big brain anticipating future needs.

Extreme extremophiles: from dormancy to living

DAVID:: these diatoms are very simple forms that can assume dormancy. It just shows how tough living cells can be. The hibernating bear is a different form of this.

dhw: Yes, they are tough, and each example illustrates the versatility of cell/cell communities as they find different ways to cope with different environments. Some of us would suggest that these ingenious forms of adaptability are evidence of autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) rather than evidence of direct design by a God whose sole purpose was to design humans plus food.

That is to your view.

The savannah theory

DAVID: The new findings don't change my view of God as designer.

dhw: The savannah theory is that for whatever reason, a group of pre-sapiens descended from the trees in order to explore the savannah. Why do you think the new findings “dilute” this theory but do not “dilute” your theory that your God performed operations on legs and pelvises and told the group(s) of pre-sapiens that they should now descend from the trees?

Not answered.

DAVID: With hominins living everywhere does not support the savannah theory of homo evolution.

Hominins lived everywhere after they had evolved from hominids. The question is why our direct ancestors descended from the trees, and that is not answered by telling us that after they had descended from the trees, they spread far and wide.

The Cambrian

DAVID: It is always my point God designed the animals to handle the new conditions.

dhw: Your opinions vary day by day. You regarded this article as providing a logical explanation for the Cambrian.

DAVID: Yes, a natural explanation.

dhw: With which you agreed. (“For once a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms”). So why did you say “I never agreed with them!!!”?

DAVID: These are the reasons for God's designs!

So you agree that life forms respond to changing conditions, but you disagree because it is your God who responds to changing conditions. Although if I remember rightly, your God preprogrammed all the adaptations 3.8 billion years ago, or looked into his crystal ball and operated beforehand on those creatures he wanted to rescue.

The brain’s cleaning fluid

dhw: Are you saying that the human brain did not evolve from earlier mammalian brains?

DAVID: It did, through God's design modifications.

dhw: But I thought you thought he knew from the start exactly what he wanted. You make him sound just like a human scientist or inventor, experimenting, adjusting, jettisoning (let’s not forget the 99.9%), operating….And yet for some reason, you hate the very idea of humans reflecting their creator through their own processes of creation.

DAVID: Evolution is a process to a goal God had from the beginning.

So either he was ridiculously messy, cumbersome and inefficient (your proposal), or just like humans, he conducted numerous experiments before he was able to produce what he wanted. You prefer the former explanation.

The human brain

DAVID: Our 315,000-year-old brain tells us it was designed in advance of need.

dhw: The wiring of the brain takes place in response to needs. When needs arose in our history, the brain responded and still responds by making new connections (complexification). The new connections would not have been present 315,000 years ago.

1) DAVID: God made our big brain anticipating future needs.
And:
2)DAVID: The original brain had the capacity to be today's brain with no size change.

Number 2) is correct. The big brain – as with every earlier expansion – added new cells to cope with new requirements (e.g. perhaps a change of environment, such as trees to savannah), and since then all new requirements have been met by complexification in an ongoing process. There were no complexifications made in anticipation of not yet existing requirements.

Extreme extremophiles: from dormancy to living

DAVID:: these diatoms are very simple forms that can assume dormancy. It just shows how tough living cells can be. The hibernating bear is a different form of this.

dhw: Yes, they are tough, and each example illustrates the versatility of cell/cell communities as they find different ways to cope with different environments. Some of us would suggest that these ingenious forms of adaptability are evidence of autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) rather than evidence of direct design by a God whose sole purpose was to design humans plus food.

DAVID: That is to your view.

I am not alone, as you well know. And as we have seen, you remain at a complete loss as to why your God should have created so many different organisms and modes of survival if his only purpose was us and our food. But you continue to champion your belief in an all-powerful, highly inefficient God.

The savannah theory

DAVID: With hominins living everywhere does not support the savannah theory of homo evolution.

dhw: Hominins lived everywhere after they had evolved from hominids. The question is why our direct ancestors descended from the trees, and that is not answered by telling us that after they had descended from the trees, they spread far and wide.

The savannah theory said without trees hominids had to be bipedal, i.e., the new climate forced it. How does that explain bipedalism in forests, as shown?

The Cambrian

DAVID: It is always my point God designed the animals to handle the new conditions.

dhw: Your opinions vary day by day. You regarded this article as providing a logical explanation for the Cambrian.

DAVID: Yes, a natural explanation.

dhw: With which you agreed. (“For once a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms”). So why did you say “I never agreed with them!!!”?

DAVID: These are the reasons for God's designs!

dhw: So you agree that life forms respond to changing conditions, but you disagree because it is your God who responds to changing conditions. Although if I remember rightly, your God preprogrammed all the adaptations 3.8 billion years ago, or looked into his crystal ball and operated beforehand on those creatures he wanted to rescue.

God, as designer, handled all new environments.

The brain’s cleaning fluid

dhw: Are you saying that the human brain did not evolve from earlier mammalian brains?

DAVID: It did, through God's design modifications.

dhw: But I thought you thought he knew from the start exactly what he wanted. You make him sound just like a human scientist or inventor, experimenting, adjusting, jettisoning (let’s not forget the 99.9%), operating….And yet for some reason, you hate the very idea of humans reflecting their creator through their own processes of creation.

DAVID: Evolution is a process to a goal God had from the beginning.

dhw: So either he was ridiculously messy, cumbersome and inefficient (your proposal), or just like humans, he conducted numerous experiments before he was able to produce what he wanted. You prefer the former explanation.

Yes.

The human brain

1) DAVID: God made our big brain anticipating future needs.
And:
2)DAVID: The original brain had the capacity to be today's brain with no size change.

dhw: Number 2) is correct. The big brain – as with every earlier expansion – added new cells to cope with new requirements (e.g. perhaps a change of environment, such as trees to savannah), and since then all new requirements have been met by complexification in an ongoing process. There were no complexifications made in anticipation of not yet existing requirements.

Agree.

Extreme extremophiles: from dormancy to living

DAVID:: these diatoms are very simple forms that can assume dormancy. It just shows how tough living cells can be. The hibernating bear is a different form of this.

dhw: Yes, they are tough, and each example illustrates the versatility of cell/cell communities as they find different ways to cope with different environments. Some of us would suggest that these ingenious forms of adaptability are evidence of autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) rather than evidence of direct design by a God whose sole purpose was to design humans plus food.

DAVID: That is to your view.

dhw: I am not alone, as you well know. And as we have seen, you remain at a complete loss as to why your God should have created so many different organisms and modes of survival if his only purpose was us and our food. But you continue to champion your belief in an all-powerful, highly inefficient God.

I have never known why God chose to evolve us.

The savannah theory

DAVID: With hominins living everywhere does not support the savannah theory of homo evolution.

dhw: Hominins lived everywhere after they had evolved from hominids. The question is why our direct ancestors descended from the trees, and that is not answered by telling us that after they had descended from the trees, they spread far and wide.

DAVID: The savannah theory said without trees hominids had to be bipedal, i.e., the new climate forced it. How does that explain bipedalism in forests, as shown?

You should ask yourself the same question: if your God operated on tree-dwellers’ legs and pelvises and told them to descend from the trees, how does that explain bipedalism in forests? We can only theorize. Perhaps the answer is that when the first hominids began to explore further and further afield, some would have reached forests and would have interbred with the tree-dwellers. Your explanation?

The Cambrian

dhw: You regarded this article as providing a logical explanation for the Cambrian.

DAVID: Yes, a natural explanation.

dhw: With which you agreed. (“For once a logical set of reasons for developing early life forms”). So why did you say “I never agreed with them!!!”?

DAVID: These are the reasons for God's designs!

dhw: So you agree that life forms respond to changing conditions, but you disagree because it is your God who responds to changing conditions. Although if I remember rightly, your God preprogrammed all the adaptations 3.8 billion years ago, or looked into his crystal ball and operated beforehand on those creatures he wanted to rescue.

DAVID: God, as designer, handled all new environments.

You have always vacillated over this – especially when it comes to the local (as opposed to global) changes which would have led to so many new species. But this reinforces the illogicality of your theory. He started out with the sole intention of creating us, but deliberately kept designing new organisms in preparation for the environmental changes he deliberately created, although this meant that he was deliberately creating 99.9 out of 100 species which he knew he would have to cull because they had no connection with the only species he actually wanted to create. Divine lunacy. Especially since you believe that our line of evolution actually began “de novo” in the Cambrian, when at last he invented an environment that was suitable for us and our ancestors!

DAVID: ( under “the brain’s cleaning fluid”): Evolution is a process to a goal God had from the beginning.

dhw: So either he was ridiculously messy, cumbersome and inefficient (your proposal), or just like humans, he conducted numerous experiments before he was able to produce what he wanted. You prefer the former explanation.

DAVID: Yes.

Even I, an agnostic, have more respect for your hypothetical God than you do!

The human brain

1) DAVID: God made our big brain anticipating future needs.
And:
2)DAVID: The original brain had the capacity to be today's brain with no size change.

dhw: Number 2) is correct. The big brain – as with every earlier expansion – added new cells to cope with new requirements (e.g. perhaps a change of environment, such as trees to savannah), and since then all new requirements have been met by complexification in an ongoing process. There were no complexifications made in anticipation of not yet existing requirements.

DAVID: Agree.

Although you think he made our big brains in anticipation of future needs, you agree that our big brain was not made in anticipation of future needs, and I suppose that tomorrow you will tell me you agreed because NOT in anticipation actually means in anticipation.

Extreme extremophiles: from dormancy to living

dhw: Some of us would suggest that these ingenious forms of adaptability are evidence of autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) rather than evidence of direct design by a God whose sole purpose was to design humans plus food.

DAVID: That is to your view.

dhw: I am not alone, as you well know. And as we have seen, you remain at a complete loss as to why your God should have created so many different organisms and modes of survival if his only purpose was us and our food. But you continue to champion your belief in an all-powerful, highly inefficient God.

DAVID: I have never known why God chose to evolve us.

You have never known why he chose to design 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his purpose, but you simply choose to ridicule him instead of questioning your illogical theories concerning his purpose and method of achieving that purpose. Why does it never occur to you that your all-powerful God might simply have created what he wanted to create, instead of being the blunderer you make him out to be?

The savannah theory

DAVID: The savannah theory said without trees hominids had to be bipedal, i.e., the new climate forced it. How does that explain bipedalism in forests, as shown?

dhw: You should ask yourself the same question: if your God operated on tree-dwellers’ legs and pelvises and told them to descend from the trees, how does that explain bipedalism in forests? We can only theorize. Perhaps the answer is that when the first hominids began to explore further and further afield, some would have reached forests and would have interbred with the tree-dwellers. Your explanation?

Bipedalism is a result of God's designs, no natural cause needed.

The Cambrian

DAVID: These are the reasons for God's designs!

dhw: So you agree that life forms respond to changing conditions, but you disagree because it is your God who responds to changing conditions. Although if I remember rightly, your God preprogrammed all the adaptations 3.8 billion years ago, or looked into his crystal ball and operated beforehand on those creatures he wanted to rescue.

DAVID: God, as designer, handled all new environments.

dhw: You have always vacillated over this – especially when it comes to the local (as opposed to global) changes which would have led to so many new species. But this reinforces the illogicality of your theory. He started out with the sole intention of creating us, but deliberately kept designing new organisms in preparation for the environmental changes he deliberately created, although this meant that he was deliberately creating 99.9 out of 100 species which he knew he would have to cull because they had no connection with the only species he actually wanted to create. Divine lunacy. Especially since you believe that our line of evolution actually began “de novo” in the Cambrian, when at last he invented an environment that was suitable for us and our ancestors!

Yes, evolution is an illogical method for a God who can create the Cambrian Explosion de novo.

The human brain

1) DAVID: God made our big brain anticipating future needs.
And:
2)DAVID: The original brain had the capacity to be today's brain with no size change.

dhw: Number 2) is correct. The big brain – as with every earlier expansion – added new cells to cope with new requirements (e.g. perhaps a change of environment, such as trees to savannah), and since then all new requirements have been met by complexification in an ongoing process. There were no complexifications made in anticipation of not yet existing requirements.

DAVID: Agree.

dhw: Although you think he made our big brains in anticipation of future needs, you agree that our big brain was not made in anticipation of future needs, and I suppose that tomorrow you will tell me you agreed because NOT in anticipation actually means in anticipation.

Our new brain was so large, only complexification was needed from 315,000 years ago. That is design in anticipation of need.>

Extreme extremophiles: from dormancy to living

dhw: Some of us would suggest that these ingenious forms of adaptability are evidence of autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) rather than evidence of direct design by a God whose sole purpose was to design humans plus food.

DAVID: That is to your view.

dhw: I am not alone, as you well know. And as we have seen, you remain at a complete loss as to why your God should have created so many different organisms and modes of survival if his only purpose was us and our food. But you continue to champion your belief in an all-powerful, highly inefficient God.

DAVID: I have never known why God chose to evolve us.

dhw: You have never known why he chose to design 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his purpose, but you simply choose to ridicule him instead of questioning your illogical theories concerning his purpose and method of achieving that purpose. Why does it never occur to you that your all-powerful God might simply have created what he wanted to create, instead of being the blunderer you make him out to be?

He did create exactly what is needed for a huge human population.