Larry Moran offers this analysis:
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed in the population and it's these fixed mutations that produce most of the
changes in the genome of evolving populations. According to the neutral theory of population genetics, the number of fixed neutral mutations corresponds to the mutation rate. Thus, in every evolving population
there will be 100 new fixed mutations per generation. This means that fixation of 22 million mutations would take 220,000 generations. The
average generation time of humans and chimps is 27.5 years so this corresponds to about 6 million years. That's close to the time that
humans and chimps diverged according to the fossil record. What this
means is that evolutionary theory is able to explain the differences in
the human genomerCoit has explanatory power." https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites-in-human.html
However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound) adaptations, including:
- Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and endurance
running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long legs relative to
arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe.
- Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity; dramatically expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal cortex; these produce: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc.
- Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long lifespan;
high energy investment in brain development; reduced muscle mass
relative to body size; craniofacial morphology supporting speech articulation and dietary flexibility; precision hand grip and fine motor control.
How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly adaptive,
complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are required, over and
above the estimated neutral/near-neutral mutations, to produce these adaptations, and how are these accounted for in the time available?
Larry Moran offers this analysis:
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed in the population and it's these fixed mutations that produce most of the
changes in the genome of evolving populations. According to the neutral theory of population genetics, the number of fixed neutral mutations corresponds to the mutation rate. Thus, in every evolving population
there will be 100 new fixed mutations per generation. This means that fixation of 22 million mutations would take 220,000 generations. The
average generation time of humans and chimps is 27.5 years so this corresponds to about 6 million years. That's close to the time that
humans and chimps diverged according to the fossil record. What this
means is that evolutionary theory is able to explain the differences in
the human genomerCoit has explanatory power." https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites-in- human.html
However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound) adaptations, including:
- Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and endurance
running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long legs relative to
arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe.
- Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity; dramatically expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal cortex; these produce: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc.
- Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long lifespan;
high energy investment in brain development; reduced muscle mass
relative to body size; craniofacial morphology supporting speech articulation and dietary flexibility; precision hand grip and fine motor control.
How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly adaptive,
complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are required, over and
above the estimated neutral/near-neutral mutations, to produce these adaptations, and how are these accounted for in the time available?
On 12/15/25 4:53 PM, MarkE wrote:
Larry Moran offers this analysis:How many adaptive mutations? A few thousand, perhaps. Coordinated
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed in the
population and it's these fixed mutations that produce most of the
changes in the genome of evolving populations. According to the
neutral theory of population genetics, the number of fixed neutral
mutations corresponds to the mutation rate. Thus, in every evolving
population there will be 100 new fixed mutations per generation. This
means that fixation of 22 million mutations would take 220,000
generations. The average generation time of humans and chimps is 27.5
years so this corresponds to about 6 million years. That's close to
the time that humans and chimps diverged according to the fossil
record. What this means is that evolutionary theory is able to explain
the differences in the human genomerCoit has explanatory power."
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites-in-
human.html
However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound)
adaptations, including:
- Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and endurance
running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long legs relative to
arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe.
- Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity; dramatically
expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal cortex; these produce:
abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term planning;
mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc.
- Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long lifespan;
high energy investment in brain development; reduced muscle mass
relative to body size; craniofacial morphology supporting speech
articulation and dietary flexibility; precision hand grip and fine
motor control.
How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly adaptive,
complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are required, over and
above the estimated neutral/near-neutral mutations, to produce these
adaptations, and how are these accounted for in the time available?
suites? Why would that be necessary? And how they would be accounted for
is simple: you should understand that a number of mutations many orders
of magnitude greater than the ones that eventually became fixed would
have happened during human evolution. The ones that were advantageous
were therefore a small sample of a much larger number than you are
imagining here.
Here's your dilemma:
1. The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe*
2. Chimps are uncannily intelligent, but human intelligence is on
another level: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term
planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc
3. Therefore, the evolution of the human brain and human intelligence
from a chimp requires either:
(a) a very large increase in functional complexity; or
(b) the activation of largely pre-existing, latent capacity
Larry Moran offers this analysis:
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed in the population and it's these fixed mutations that produce most of the
changes in the genome of evolving populations. According to the neutral theory of population genetics, the number of fixed neutral mutations corresponds to the mutation rate. Thus, in every evolving population
there will be 100 new fixed mutations per generation. This means that fixation of 22 million mutations would take 220,000 generations. The
average generation time of humans and chimps is 27.5 years so this corresponds to about 6 million years. That's close to the time that
humans and chimps diverged according to the fossil record. What this
means is that evolutionary theory is able to explain the differences in
the human genomerCoit has explanatory power." https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites-in- human.html
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/15/25 4:53 PM, MarkE wrote:
Larry Moran offers this analysis:How many adaptive mutations? A few thousand, perhaps. Coordinated
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed in
the population and it's these fixed mutations that produce most of
the changes in the genome of evolving populations. According to the
neutral theory of population genetics, the number of fixed neutral
mutations corresponds to the mutation rate. Thus, in every evolving
population there will be 100 new fixed mutations per generation. This
means that fixation of 22 million mutations would take 220,000
generations. The average generation time of humans and chimps is 27.5
years so this corresponds to about 6 million years. That's close to
the time that humans and chimps diverged according to the fossil
record. What this means is that evolutionary theory is able to
explain the differences in the human genomerCoit has explanatory power." >>> https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites-in-
human.html
However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound)
adaptations, including:
- Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and endurance
running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long legs relative to
arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe.
- Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity; dramatically
expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal cortex; these
produce: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term planning;
mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc.
- Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long
lifespan; high energy investment in brain development; reduced muscle
mass relative to body size; craniofacial morphology supporting speech
articulation and dietary flexibility; precision hand grip and fine
motor control.
How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly adaptive,
complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are required, over and
above the estimated neutral/near-neutral mutations, to produce these
adaptations, and how are these accounted for in the time available?
suites? Why would that be necessary? And how they would be accounted
for is simple: you should understand that a number of mutations many
orders of magnitude greater than the ones that eventually became fixed
would have happened during human evolution. The ones that were
advantageous were therefore a small sample of a much larger number
than you are imagining here.
Here's your dilemma:
1. The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe*
2. Chimps are uncannily intelligent, but human intelligence is on
another level: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term
planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc
3. Therefore, the evolution of the human brain and human intelligence
from a chimp requires either:
(a) a very large increase in functional complexity; or
(b) the activation of largely pre-existing, latent capacity
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without strong selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional complexity);
therefore, the number of adaptive mutations required in this case would
be much, much more than "A few thousand".
Larry Moran has taken most of the available mutations off the table in declaring them neutral or near-neutral, and in doing so has left dramatically too few adaptive mutations to do the necessary heavy lifting*
If (b), then you've only shifted the problem, and raised this question:
how then did chimp brains acquire this latent capacity, since by
definition it has not previously been activated and expressed, and
therefore has not been selectable and built up over time.
Moreover, this option is something like suggesting that an Apple M5 processor can be activated from an Intel Pentium processor with "a few thousand gates of tweaking", or that GPT 1.0 plus "a few thousand lines
of code" could give you GPT 5.
_______
* "So, is it really the most complex structure we know of? Many experts still seem to believe so, from physicist Michio Kaku (2014) who
described the three pounds in our head as the most complex object in the solar system (pp.2-3), to neuroscientist Christof Koch (2013),
psychiatrist Sir Robing Murray (2012), and neurobiologist Gerald
Fischbach (1992), who all described it as the most complex structure in
the known universe. This is because the complexity is much greater than
the number of cells themselves: The many complex connections and the
myriad interactions give the brain not only structural complexity but
turns it into an intricately functioning whole." https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/consciousness-and-beyond/202309/the-staggering-complexity-of-the-human-brain
* "There are roughly 23 thousand genes in the human genome. But, Kaku
said, rCLThe human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected to 10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on your shoulders is the most
complicated object in the known universe.rCY https://www.wnyc.org/story/michio-kaku-explores-human-brain/
* "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny,
tiny part of it. But theyrCOre the most perfectly organized part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump" https://joydas.medium.com/the-enigma-of-human-brain-910d6111758d
On 12/16/25 4:22 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/15/25 4:53 PM, MarkE wrote:
Larry Moran offers this analysis:How many adaptive mutations? A few thousand, perhaps. Coordinated
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed in
the population and it's these fixed mutations that produce most of
the changes in the genome of evolving populations. According to the
neutral theory of population genetics, the number of fixed neutral
mutations corresponds to the mutation rate. Thus, in every evolving
population there will be 100 new fixed mutations per generation.
This means that fixation of 22 million mutations would take 220,000
generations. The average generation time of humans and chimps is
27.5 years so this corresponds to about 6 million years. That's
close to the time that humans and chimps diverged according to the
fossil record. What this means is that evolutionary theory is able
to explain the differences in the human genomerCoit has explanatory
power."
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites-in-
human.html
However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound)
adaptations, including:
- Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and endurance
running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long legs relative to
arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe.
- Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity; dramatically
expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal cortex; these
produce: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term planning;
mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc.
- Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long
lifespan; high energy investment in brain development; reduced
muscle mass relative to body size; craniofacial morphology
supporting speech articulation and dietary flexibility; precision
hand grip and fine motor control.
How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly adaptive,
complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are required, over and
above the estimated neutral/near-neutral mutations, to produce these
adaptations, and how are these accounted for in the time available?
suites? Why would that be necessary? And how they would be accounted
for is simple: you should understand that a number of mutations many
orders of magnitude greater than the ones that eventually became
fixed would have happened during human evolution. The ones that were
advantageous were therefore a small sample of a much larger number
than you are imagining here.
Here's your dilemma:
1. The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe*
I've heard that said. But is it true? Is it more complex than a blue
whale's brain, or an elephant's? And how much more complex is it than a chimp's brain, by whatever measure you're using?
2. Chimps are uncannily intelligent, but human intelligence is on
another level: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term
planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc
Chimps have some of those in embryonic form.
3. Therefore, the evolution of the human brain and human intelligence
from a chimp requires either:
(a) a very large increase in functional complexity; or
(b) the activation of largely pre-existing, latent capacity
You fail to define "functional complexity". How do you measure it?
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without strong
selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional complexity);
therefore, the number of adaptive mutations required in this case
would be much, much more than "A few thousand".
You keep using that word "therefore"; I do not think it means what you
think it means. Generally, it signals a conclusion that follows from a preceding premise. But here it doesn't.
Larry Moran has taken most of the available mutations off the table in
declaring them neutral or near-neutral, and in doing so has left
dramatically too few adaptive mutations to do the necessary heavy
lifting*
Only if you demonstrate that millions of mutations would be necessary.
But look at the evidence here: the great bulk of our differences from
chimps are in junk DNA, and a majority of those in functional DNA are
also nearly neutral. The differences that count must be in the even
smaller fraction of functional differences. Where are the millions of changes you think would be necessary?
If (b), then you've only shifted the problem, and raised this
question: how then did chimp brains acquire this latent capacity,
since by definition it has not previously been activated and
expressed, and therefore has not been selectable and built up over time.
No problem. Nobody is arguing for this.
Moreover, this option is something like suggesting that an Apple M5
processor can be activated from an Intel Pentium processor with "a few
thousand gates of tweaking", or that GPT 1.0 plus "a few thousand
lines of code" could give you GPT 5.
_______
* "So, is it really the most complex structure we know of? Many
experts still seem to believe so, from physicist Michio Kaku (2014)
who described the three pounds in our head as the most complex object
in the solar system (pp.2-3), to neuroscientist Christof Koch (2013),
psychiatrist Sir Robing Murray (2012), and neurobiologist Gerald
Fischbach (1992), who all described it as the most complex structure
in the known universe. This is because the complexity is much greater
than the number of cells themselves: The many complex connections and
the myriad interactions give the brain not only structural complexity
but turns it into an intricately functioning whole."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/consciousness-and-
beyond/202309/the-staggering-complexity-of-the-human-brain
All very nice, but what about, say, the 15 pounds of a blue whale's brain?
* "There are roughly 23 thousand genes in the human genome. But, Kaku
said, rCLThe human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected
to 10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on your shoulders is the most
complicated object in the known universe.rCY
https://www.wnyc.org/story/michio-kaku-explores-human-brain/
* "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny,
tiny part of it. But theyrCOre the most perfectly organized part.
Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump"
https://joydas.medium.com/the-enigma-of-human-brain-910d6111758d
Still waiting for their thoughts on blue whales.
On 17/12/2025 6:47 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/16/25 4:22 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/15/25 4:53 PM, MarkE wrote:
Larry Moran offers this analysis:How many adaptive mutations? A few thousand, perhaps. Coordinated
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed in
the population and it's these fixed mutations that produce most of
the changes in the genome of evolving populations. According to the >>>>> neutral theory of population genetics, the number of fixed neutral
mutations corresponds to the mutation rate. Thus, in every evolving >>>>> population there will be 100 new fixed mutations per generation.
This means that fixation of 22 million mutations would take 220,000 >>>>> generations. The average generation time of humans and chimps is
27.5 years so this corresponds to about 6 million years. That's
close to the time that humans and chimps diverged according to the
fossil record. What this means is that evolutionary theory is able
to explain the differences in the human genomerCoit has explanatory >>>>> power."
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites-in- >>>>> human.html
However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound)
adaptations, including:
- Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and endurance
running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long legs relative to >>>>> arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe.
- Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity;
dramatically expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal
cortex; these produce: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long- >>>>> term planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative
societies; etc.
- Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long
lifespan; high energy investment in brain development; reduced
muscle mass relative to body size; craniofacial morphology
supporting speech articulation and dietary flexibility; precision
hand grip and fine motor control.
How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly adaptive,
complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are required, over and >>>>> above the estimated neutral/near-neutral mutations, to produce
these adaptations, and how are these accounted for in the time
available?
suites? Why would that be necessary? And how they would be accounted
for is simple: you should understand that a number of mutations many
orders of magnitude greater than the ones that eventually became
fixed would have happened during human evolution. The ones that were
advantageous were therefore a small sample of a much larger number
than you are imagining here.
Here's your dilemma:
1. The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe*
I've heard that said. But is it true? Is it more complex than a blue
whale's brain, or an elephant's? And how much more complex is it than
a chimp's brain, by whatever measure you're using?
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps and
humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and
spaceflight, for example.
If you claim a functional difference of that magnitude could be obtained with the addition of only a few thousand bits of information, I'd say
you've never designed anything. Sorry, no free lunch.
2. Chimps are uncannily intelligent, but human intelligence is on
another level: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term
planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc
Chimps have some of those in embryonic form.
And an earlier version of ChatGPT is ChatGPT 5.2 in embryonic form, just needing a few thousand bytes of code to evolve?
3. Therefore, the evolution of the human brain and human intelligence
from a chimp requires either:
(a) a very large increase in functional complexity; or
(b) the activation of largely pre-existing, latent capacity
You fail to define "functional complexity". How do you measure it?
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without strong
selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional complexity);
therefore, the number of adaptive mutations required in this case
would be much, much more than "A few thousand".
You keep using that word "therefore"; I do not think it means what you
think it means. Generally, it signals a conclusion that follows from a
preceding premise. But here it doesn't.
That was sloppy of me. I'll rephrase it as:
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without strong selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional complexity);
therefore, adaptive mutations are required in this case, and as I argue above, the number required would be much, much more than "A few thousand".
Larry Moran has taken most of the available mutations off the table
in declaring them neutral or near-neutral, and in doing so has left
dramatically too few adaptive mutations to do the necessary heavy
lifting*
Only if you demonstrate that millions of mutations would be necessary.
But look at the evidence here: the great bulk of our differences from
chimps are in junk DNA, and a majority of those in functional DNA are
also nearly neutral. The differences that count must be in the even
smaller fraction of functional differences. Where are the millions of
changes you think would be necessary?
If (b), then you've only shifted the problem, and raised this
question: how then did chimp brains acquire this latent capacity,
since by definition it has not previously been activated and
expressed, and therefore has not been selectable and built up over time.
No problem. Nobody is arguing for this.
Moreover, this option is something like suggesting that an Apple M5
processor can be activated from an Intel Pentium processor with "a
few thousand gates of tweaking", or that GPT 1.0 plus "a few thousand
lines of code" could give you GPT 5.
_______
* "So, is it really the most complex structure we know of? Many
experts still seem to believe so, from physicist Michio Kaku (2014)
who described the three pounds in our head as the most complex object
in the solar system (pp.2-3), to neuroscientist Christof Koch (2013),
psychiatrist Sir Robing Murray (2012), and neurobiologist Gerald
Fischbach (1992), who all described it as the most complex structure
in the known universe. This is because the complexity is much greater
than the number of cells themselves: The many complex connections and
the myriad interactions give the brain not only structural complexity
but turns it into an intricately functioning whole."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/consciousness-and-
beyond/202309/the-staggering-complexity-of-the-human-brain
All very nice, but what about, say, the 15 pounds of a blue whale's
brain?
* "There are roughly 23 thousand genes in the human genome. But, Kaku
said, rCLThe human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected >>> to 10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on your shoulders is the most
complicated object in the known universe.rCY
https://www.wnyc.org/story/michio-kaku-explores-human-brain/
* "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny,
tiny part of it. But theyrCOre the most perfectly organized part.
Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump"
https://joydas.medium.com/the-enigma-of-human-brain-910d6111758d
Still waiting for their thoughts on blue whales.
On 17/12/2025 6:47 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/16/25 4:22 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/15/25 4:53 PM, MarkE wrote:
Larry Moran offers this analysis:How many adaptive mutations? A few thousand, perhaps. Coordinated
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed in
the population and it's these fixed mutations that produce most of
the changes in the genome of evolving populations. According to the >>>>> neutral theory of population genetics, the number of fixed neutral
mutations corresponds to the mutation rate. Thus, in every evolving >>>>> population there will be 100 new fixed mutations per generation.
This means that fixation of 22 million mutations would take 220,000 >>>>> generations. The average generation time of humans and chimps is
27.5 years so this corresponds to about 6 million years. That's
close to the time that humans and chimps diverged according to the
fossil record. What this means is that evolutionary theory is able
to explain the differences in the human genomerCoit has explanatory >>>>> power."
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites-in- >>>>> human.html
However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound)
adaptations, including:
- Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and endurance
running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long legs relative to >>>>> arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe.
- Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity;
dramatically expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal
cortex; these produce: abstract reasoning; symbolic language;
long-term planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative
societies; etc.
- Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long
lifespan; high energy investment in brain development; reduced
muscle mass relative to body size; craniofacial morphology
supporting speech articulation and dietary flexibility; precision
hand grip and fine motor control.
How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly adaptive,
complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are required, over and >>>>> above the estimated neutral/near-neutral mutations, to produce
these adaptations, and how are these accounted for in the time
available?
suites? Why would that be necessary? And how they would be accounted
for is simple: you should understand that a number of mutations many
orders of magnitude greater than the ones that eventually became
fixed would have happened during human evolution. The ones that were
advantageous were therefore a small sample of a much larger number
than you are imagining here.
Here's your dilemma:
1. The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe*
I've heard that said. But is it true? Is it more complex than a blue
whale's brain, or an elephant's? And how much more complex is it than
a chimp's brain, by whatever measure you're using?
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps and
humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and
spaceflight, for example.
If you claim a functional difference of that magnitude could be obtained with the addition of only a few thousand bits of information, I'd say
you've never designed anything. Sorry, no free lunch.
2. Chimps are uncannily intelligent, but human intelligence is on
another level: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term
planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc
Chimps have some of those in embryonic form.
And an earlier version of ChatGPT is ChatGPT 5.2 in embryonic form, just needing a few thousand bytes of code to evolve?
3. Therefore, the evolution of the human brain and human intelligence
from a chimp requires either:
(a) a very large increase in functional complexity; or
(b) the activation of largely pre-existing, latent capacity
You fail to define "functional complexity". How do you measure it?
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without strong
selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional complexity);
therefore, the number of adaptive mutations required in this case
would be much, much more than "A few thousand".
You keep using that word "therefore"; I do not think it means what you
think it means. Generally, it signals a conclusion that follows from a
preceding premise. But here it doesn't.
That was sloppy of me. I'll rephrase it as:
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without strong selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional complexity);
therefore, adaptive mutations are required in this case, and as I argue above, the number required would be much, much more than "A few thousand".
Larry Moran has taken most of the available mutations off the table
in declaring them neutral or near-neutral, and in doing so has left
dramatically too few adaptive mutations to do the necessary heavy
lifting*
Only if you demonstrate that millions of mutations would be necessary.
But look at the evidence here: the great bulk of our differences from
chimps are in junk DNA, and a majority of those in functional DNA are
also nearly neutral. The differences that count must be in the even
smaller fraction of functional differences. Where are the millions of
changes you think would be necessary?
If (b), then you've only shifted the problem, and raised this
question: how then did chimp brains acquire this latent capacity,
since by definition it has not previously been activated and
expressed, and therefore has not been selectable and built up over time.
No problem. Nobody is arguing for this.
Moreover, this option is something like suggesting that an Apple M5
processor can be activated from an Intel Pentium processor with "a
few thousand gates of tweaking", or that GPT 1.0 plus "a few thousand
lines of code" could give you GPT 5.
_______
* "So, is it really the most complex structure we know of? Many
experts still seem to believe so, from physicist Michio Kaku (2014)
who described the three pounds in our head as the most complex object
in the solar system (pp.2-3), to neuroscientist Christof Koch (2013),
psychiatrist Sir Robing Murray (2012), and neurobiologist Gerald
Fischbach (1992), who all described it as the most complex structure
in the known universe. This is because the complexity is much greater
than the number of cells themselves: The many complex connections and
the myriad interactions give the brain not only structural complexity
but turns it into an intricately functioning whole."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/consciousness-and-
beyond/202309/the-staggering-complexity-of-the-human-brain
All very nice, but what about, say, the 15 pounds of a blue whale's
brain?
* "There are roughly 23 thousand genes in the human genome. But, Kaku
said, rCLThe human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected >>> to 10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on your shoulders is the most
complicated object in the known universe.rCY
https://www.wnyc.org/story/michio-kaku-explores-human-brain/
* "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny,
tiny part of it. But theyrCOre the most perfectly organized part.
Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump"
https://joydas.medium.com/the-enigma-of-human-brain-910d6111758d
Still waiting for their thoughts on blue whales.
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps and
humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and
spaceflight, for example.
If you claim a functional difference of that magnitude could be obtained with the addition of only a few thousand bits of information, I'd say
you've never designed anything. Sorry, no free lunch.
Chimps make and use tools.
On 12/17/25 10:36 AM, RonO wrote:
Chimps make and use tools.
No they don't. It's stupid. And pretending they do doesn't make
Chimps more like us, it makes "Tools" irrelevant. Because Chimps
use "Tools" the same way countless mammals, birds and even
invertebrates use "Tools." So either the history of tool use is
unknown and unknowable, and thus useless to science, or you're
using "Tool" as a verb and then turning around and pretending
it's a noun.
I'll explain it, and your extensively documented mental illness
coupled to your idiocy will cause you to ignore it...
Show us a million year old Chimp tool.
Show us some 600,000 year old Chimp tools.
You pretend Chimps have been around for millions of years, right?
And they make tools... right?-a So show us some million year old
Chimp tools.
But you can't. Because you're not witnessing tools -- which are
nouns and CAN be preserved in the archaeological record -- you
are witnessing ACTIONS. So if you don't see the rock in use you
can't see a "Tool" as you mistakenly use the term. This rock,
a million years later, is completely indistinguishable from any
random rock.
It was THE ACTIONS -- verb -- that was special, not the rock.
What a nut job.-a They strip the leaves off a stick and fish for
termites.
What a nut job, RonO wrote:
What a nut job.-a They strip the leaves off a stick and fish for termites.
And if they don't the stick won't fit in the hole. Big whoop.
By your testimony, Chimps are intellectual inferiors to ants:
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.13671
So maybe after millions of years of evolution, Chimps will yet
achieve the level of sophistication of ants, you're saying.
Or you're VERY disturbed, mentally.
But another thing you're saying is that "Tools" is an action. The
removal of a leaf is an action and that action makes a tool,
according to you.
No noun, no object -- nothing remaining in the archaeological
record -- because you can't preserve an action.
Wow. You're a fucking idiot!
On 12/15/25 7:53 PM, MarkE wrote:
Larry Moran offers this analysis:
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed in the
population and it's these fixed mutations that produce most of the
changes in the genome of evolving populations. According to the
neutral theory of population genetics, the number of fixed neutral
mutations corresponds to the mutation rate. Thus, in every evolving
population there will be 100 new fixed mutations per generation. This
means that fixation of 22 million mutations would take 220,000
generations. The average generation time of humans and chimps is 27.5
years so this corresponds to about 6 million years. That's close to
the time that humans and chimps diverged according to the fossil
record. What this means is that evolutionary theory is able to explain
the differences in the human genomerCoit has explanatory power."
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites-in-
human.html
Humans evolved so much because we evolved under a Distributive Computing model. It wasn't time -- or not just time -- it's that "the problem" of
our evolution was being worked on by numerous populations,
simultaneously.
You are obviously "Classically Trained," and I do mean "Trained."
You think in terms of linear models. And this is not how nature works.
Sorry.
"Evolution" isn't only in one direction, time isn't the only factor.
Necessity is a massive factor.
Take a population well adapted to an environment and then change that environment. If and only if that population has the genetic capacity
to adapt, it will leave descendants... it will evolve. DNA that
previously lay on the on the fringes can "Take over," so to speak, in
a single generation... no "Clock like" changes.
On 12/17/25 3:22 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 17/12/2025 6:47 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/16/25 4:22 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/15/25 4:53 PM, MarkE wrote:
Larry Moran offers this analysis:How many adaptive mutations? A few thousand, perhaps. Coordinated
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed in >>>>>> the population and it's these fixed mutations that produce most of >>>>>> the changes in the genome of evolving populations. According to
the neutral theory of population genetics, the number of fixed
neutral mutations corresponds to the mutation rate. Thus, in every >>>>>> evolving population there will be 100 new fixed mutations per
generation. This means that fixation of 22 million mutations would >>>>>> take 220,000 generations. The average generation time of humans
and chimps is 27.5 years so this corresponds to about 6 million
years. That's close to the time that humans and chimps diverged
according to the fossil record. What this means is that
evolutionary theory is able to explain the differences in the
human genomerCoit has explanatory power."
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites-
in- human.html
However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound)
adaptations, including:
- Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and endurance >>>>>> running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long legs relative
to arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe.
- Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity;
dramatically expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal
cortex; these produce: abstract reasoning; symbolic language;
long-term planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative
societies; etc.
- Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long
lifespan; high energy investment in brain development; reduced
muscle mass relative to body size; craniofacial morphology
supporting speech articulation and dietary flexibility; precision >>>>>> hand grip and fine motor control.
How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly adaptive, >>>>>> complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are required, over
and above the estimated neutral/near-neutral mutations, to produce >>>>>> these adaptations, and how are these accounted for in the time
available?
suites? Why would that be necessary? And how they would be
accounted for is simple: you should understand that a number of
mutations many orders of magnitude greater than the ones that
eventually became fixed would have happened during human evolution. >>>>> The ones that were advantageous were therefore a small sample of a
much larger number than you are imagining here.
Here's your dilemma:
1. The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe*
I've heard that said. But is it true? Is it more complex than a blue
whale's brain, or an elephant's? And how much more complex is it than
a chimp's brain, by whatever measure you're using?
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps and
humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and
spaceflight, for example.
If you claim a functional difference of that magnitude could be
obtained with the addition of only a few thousand bits of information,
I'd say you've never designed anything. Sorry, no free lunch.
You could have shortened your response to "I feel that I'm right, and
I'm ignoring everything you say".
2. Chimps are uncannily intelligent, but human intelligence is on
another level: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term
planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc
Chimps have some of those in embryonic form.
And an earlier version of ChatGPT is ChatGPT 5.2 in embryonic form,
just needing a few thousand bytes of code to evolve?
Your brain isn't a computer program.
3. Therefore, the evolution of the human brain and human
intelligence from a chimp requires either:
(a) a very large increase in functional complexity; or
(b) the activation of largely pre-existing, latent capacity
You fail to define "functional complexity". How do you measure it?
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without
strong selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional
complexity); therefore, the number of adaptive mutations required in
this case would be much, much more than "A few thousand".
You keep using that word "therefore"; I do not think it means what
you think it means. Generally, it signals a conclusion that follows
from a preceding premise. But here it doesn't.
That was sloppy of me. I'll rephrase it as:
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without strong
selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional complexity);
therefore, adaptive mutations are required in this case, and as I
argue above, the number required would be much, much more than "A few
thousand".
Same problem, just passed off to other places. You don't argue, you just claim without evidence.
Larry Moran has taken most of the available mutations off the table
in declaring them neutral or near-neutral, and in doing so has left
dramatically too few adaptive mutations to do the necessary heavy
lifting*
Only if you demonstrate that millions of mutations would be
necessary. But look at the evidence here: the great bulk of our
differences from chimps are in junk DNA, and a majority of those in
functional DNA are also nearly neutral. The differences that count
must be in the even smaller fraction of functional differences. Where
are the millions of changes you think would be necessary?
I see you ignored the bit above. Try reading it.
To quantify a bit: The average difference between us and chimps in the
10% of the genome that's functional is about 0.5%. About half of that is attributable to changes in the human lineage, so 0.25%. If all of those
were functional differences (they aren't) that would be around 750,000. That's an upper limit, but of course the true number is much less. Even
in functional sequences the bulk of the differences are neutral or
nearly so, and a high proportion of the functional differences are not
in the parts you're interested in, the ones that "make us human". I have
no good estimate for those numbers, but I would imagine less than
10,000. If you think more are needed, where would you find them?
If (b), then you've only shifted the problem, and raised this
question: how then did chimp brains acquire this latent capacity,
since by definition it has not previously been activated and
expressed, and therefore has not been selectable and built up over
time.
No problem. Nobody is arguing for this.
Moreover, this option is something like suggesting that an Apple M5
processor can be activated from an Intel Pentium processor with "a
few thousand gates of tweaking", or that GPT 1.0 plus "a few
thousand lines of code" could give you GPT 5.
_______
* "So, is it really the most complex structure we know of? Many
experts still seem to believe so, from physicist Michio Kaku (2014)
who described the three pounds in our head as the most complex
object in the solar system (pp.2-3), to neuroscientist Christof Koch
(2013), psychiatrist Sir Robing Murray (2012), and neurobiologist
Gerald Fischbach (1992), who all described it as the most complex
structure in the known universe. This is because the complexity is
much greater than the number of cells themselves: The many complex
connections and the myriad interactions give the brain not only
structural complexity but turns it into an intricately functioning
whole."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/consciousness-and-
beyond/202309/the-staggering-complexity-of-the-human-brain
All very nice, but what about, say, the 15 pounds of a blue whale's
brain?
* "There are roughly 23 thousand genes in the human genome. But,
Kaku said, rCLThe human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron
connected to 10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on your shoulders is
the most complicated object in the known universe.rCY
https://www.wnyc.org/story/michio-kaku-explores-human-brain/
* "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny,
tiny part of it. But theyrCOre the most perfectly organized part.
Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump" >>>> https://joydas.medium.com/the-enigma-of-human-brain-910d6111758d
Still waiting for their thoughts on blue whales.
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.13671
This is a nifty paper.-a Was it ever verified?-a Ants take slaves, some species farm fungi.-a How do they determine if decisions are being made?
For chimps making the tool and using it appropriately
Whatever the case, there remains the question of where the large amount
of additional functionality came from.
On 18/12/2025 3:26 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/17/25 3:22 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 17/12/2025 6:47 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/16/25 4:22 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/15/25 4:53 PM, MarkE wrote:
Larry Moran offers this analysis:How many adaptive mutations? A few thousand, perhaps. Coordinated >>>>>> suites? Why would that be necessary? And how they would be
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed >>>>>>> in the population and it's these fixed mutations that produce
most of the changes in the genome of evolving populations.
According to the neutral theory of population genetics, the
number of fixed neutral mutations corresponds to the mutation
rate. Thus, in every evolving population there will be 100 new
fixed mutations per generation. This means that fixation of 22
million mutations would take 220,000 generations. The average
generation time of humans and chimps is 27.5 years so this
corresponds to about 6 million years. That's close to the time
that humans and chimps diverged according to the fossil record. >>>>>>> What this means is that evolutionary theory is able to explain
the differences in the human genomerCoit has explanatory power." >>>>>>> https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites- >>>>>>> in- human.html
However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound)
adaptations, including:
- Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and endurance >>>>>>> running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long legs relative >>>>>>> to arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe.
- Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity;
dramatically expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal
cortex; these produce: abstract reasoning; symbolic language;
long-term planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative
societies; etc.
- Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long
lifespan; high energy investment in brain development; reduced
muscle mass relative to body size; craniofacial morphology
supporting speech articulation and dietary flexibility; precision >>>>>>> hand grip and fine motor control.
How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly
adaptive, complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are
required, over and above the estimated neutral/near-neutral
mutations, to produce these adaptations, and how are these
accounted for in the time available?
accounted for is simple: you should understand that a number of
mutations many orders of magnitude greater than the ones that
eventually became fixed would have happened during human
evolution. The ones that were advantageous were therefore a small >>>>>> sample of a much larger number than you are imagining here.
Here's your dilemma:
1. The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe*
I've heard that said. But is it true? Is it more complex than a blue
whale's brain, or an elephant's? And how much more complex is it
than a chimp's brain, by whatever measure you're using?
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps and
humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and
spaceflight, for example.
If you claim a functional difference of that magnitude could be
obtained with the addition of only a few thousand bits of
information, I'd say you've never designed anything. Sorry, no free
lunch.
You could have shortened your response to "I feel that I'm right, and
I'm ignoring everything you say".
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans in terms
of what either can and have accomplished is self-evidently profoundly greater for humans than chimps: civilisation, spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a cumulative,
cultural process, but even that relies on the innate capacity of individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very large
and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
2. Chimps are uncannily intelligent, but human intelligence is on
another level: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term
planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc
Chimps have some of those in embryonic form.
And an earlier version of ChatGPT is ChatGPT 5.2 in embryonic form,
just needing a few thousand bytes of code to evolve?
Your brain isn't a computer program.
3. Therefore, the evolution of the human brain and human
intelligence from a chimp requires either:
(a) a very large increase in functional complexity; or
(b) the activation of largely pre-existing, latent capacity
You fail to define "functional complexity". How do you measure it?
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without
strong selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional
complexity); therefore, the number of adaptive mutations required
in this case would be much, much more than "A few thousand".
You keep using that word "therefore"; I do not think it means what
you think it means. Generally, it signals a conclusion that follows
from a preceding premise. But here it doesn't.
That was sloppy of me. I'll rephrase it as:
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without strong
selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional complexity);
therefore, adaptive mutations are required in this case, and as I
argue above, the number required would be much, much more than "A few
thousand".
Same problem, just passed off to other places. You don't argue, you
just claim without evidence.
Larry Moran has taken most of the available mutations off the table >>>>> in declaring them neutral or near-neutral, and in doing so has left >>>>> dramatically too few adaptive mutations to do the necessary heavy
lifting*
Only if you demonstrate that millions of mutations would be
necessary. But look at the evidence here: the great bulk of our
differences from chimps are in junk DNA, and a majority of those in
functional DNA are also nearly neutral. The differences that count
must be in the even smaller fraction of functional differences.
Where are the millions of changes you think would be necessary?
I see you ignored the bit above. Try reading it.
To quantify a bit: The average difference between us and chimps in the
10% of the genome that's functional is about 0.5%. About half of that
is attributable to changes in the human lineage, so 0.25%. If all of
those were functional differences (they aren't) that would be around
750,000. That's an upper limit, but of course the true number is much
less. Even in functional sequences the bulk of the differences are
neutral or nearly so, and a high proportion of the functional
differences are not in the parts you're interested in, the ones that
"make us human". I have no good estimate for those numbers, but I
would imagine less than 10,000. If you think more are needed, where
would you find them?
If (b), then you've only shifted the problem, and raised this
question: how then did chimp brains acquire this latent capacity,
since by definition it has not previously been activated and
expressed, and therefore has not been selectable and built up over
time.
No problem. Nobody is arguing for this.
Moreover, this option is something like suggesting that an Apple M5 >>>>> processor can be activated from an Intel Pentium processor with "a
few thousand gates of tweaking", or that GPT 1.0 plus "a few
thousand lines of code" could give you GPT 5.
_______
* "So, is it really the most complex structure we know of? Many
experts still seem to believe so, from physicist Michio Kaku (2014) >>>>> who described the three pounds in our head as the most complex
object in the solar system (pp.2-3), to neuroscientist Christof
Koch (2013), psychiatrist Sir Robing Murray (2012), and
neurobiologist Gerald Fischbach (1992), who all described it as the >>>>> most complex structure in the known universe. This is because the
complexity is much greater than the number of cells themselves: The >>>>> many complex connections and the myriad interactions give the brain >>>>> not only structural complexity but turns it into an intricately
functioning whole."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/consciousness-and-
beyond/202309/the-staggering-complexity-of-the-human-brain
All very nice, but what about, say, the 15 pounds of a blue whale's
brain?
* "There are roughly 23 thousand genes in the human genome. But,
Kaku said, rCLThe human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron
connected to 10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on your shoulders
is the most complicated object in the known universe.rCY
https://www.wnyc.org/story/michio-kaku-explores-human-brain/
* "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a
tiny, tiny part of it. But theyrCOre the most perfectly organized
part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an
inert lump"
https://joydas.medium.com/the-enigma-of-human-brain-910d6111758d
Still waiting for their thoughts on blue whales.
Licks the round exit hole of dogs, RonO wrote:
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.13671
This is a nifty paper.-a Was it ever verified?-a Ants take slaves, some
species farm fungi.-a How do they determine if decisions are being made?
Oh. So you point at Chimps, wet your pants & shriek "TOOLS!" without explaining how you determined if decisions are being made but, when
you see far complex behaviors in an invertebrate you can't accept that
you're witnessing far more complex behavior because... "HOW'S DE
DETERMINE & STUFF?!?!"
I just burped and then blew it in your direction.
For chimps making the tool and using it appropriately
Oh. So the ants aren't using their tools appropriately? Their more sophisticated behaviors aren't appropriate?
You're trying to rig the conversation, avoid dealing with new
information.
Pretty typical of the overly religious mind.
The French knight in Monty Python was much better.
Snuggles with donkey testicles, RonO wrote:
The French knight in Monty Python was much better.
How are we supposed to determine if you're making decisions?
But you clearly lost it. It's gone. You stopped even trying
to hide your mental illness!
The behavior you referenced is far from sophisticated. It's
less impressive than that observed in some ants.
Ants.
So pretending that Chimps make & use tools doesn't make them
more like us, it places them well below ants and it makes
tool use completely meaningless. The history of tools would
be unknown and unknowable, as we need to witnesses "Tools,"
as you misuse the term, in order to know they exist.
Also, it means that "Tools" would have to back as far as...
What?-a The Cambrian Explosion?
It's just stupid.
Science is meant to tell us things about the world, nature,
and you're trying to enforce a "Science" where it instead
obscures. It lays things well beyond our means to ever
learn them.
Which is stupid. You're a regular Tim Walz, you are.
On 12/18/25 4:24 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/12/2025 3:26 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/17/25 3:22 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 17/12/2025 6:47 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/16/25 4:22 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:I've heard that said. But is it true? Is it more complex than a
On 12/15/25 4:53 PM, MarkE wrote:
Larry Moran offers this analysis:How many adaptive mutations? A few thousand, perhaps. Coordinated >>>>>>> suites? Why would that be necessary? And how they would be
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed >>>>>>>> in the population and it's these fixed mutations that produce >>>>>>>> most of the changes in the genome of evolving populations.
According to the neutral theory of population genetics, the
number of fixed neutral mutations corresponds to the mutation >>>>>>>> rate. Thus, in every evolving population there will be 100 new >>>>>>>> fixed mutations per generation. This means that fixation of 22 >>>>>>>> million mutations would take 220,000 generations. The average >>>>>>>> generation time of humans and chimps is 27.5 years so this
corresponds to about 6 million years. That's close to the time >>>>>>>> that humans and chimps diverged according to the fossil record. >>>>>>>> What this means is that evolutionary theory is able to explain >>>>>>>> the differences in the human genomerCoit has explanatory power." >>>>>>>> https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites- >>>>>>>> in- human.html
However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound)
adaptations, including:
- Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and
endurance running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long
legs relative to arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe. >>>>>>>>
- Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity;
dramatically expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal
cortex; these produce: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; >>>>>>>> long-term planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative >>>>>>>> societies; etc.
- Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long
lifespan; high energy investment in brain development; reduced >>>>>>>> muscle mass relative to body size; craniofacial morphology
supporting speech articulation and dietary flexibility;
precision hand grip and fine motor control.
How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly
adaptive, complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are
required, over and above the estimated neutral/near-neutral
mutations, to produce these adaptations, and how are these
accounted for in the time available?
accounted for is simple: you should understand that a number of >>>>>>> mutations many orders of magnitude greater than the ones that
eventually became fixed would have happened during human
evolution. The ones that were advantageous were therefore a small >>>>>>> sample of a much larger number than you are imagining here.
Here's your dilemma:
1. The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe* >>>>>
blue whale's brain, or an elephant's? And how much more complex is
it than a chimp's brain, by whatever measure you're using?
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps
and humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and
spaceflight, for example.
If you claim a functional difference of that magnitude could be
obtained with the addition of only a few thousand bits of
information, I'd say you've never designed anything. Sorry, no free
lunch.
You could have shortened your response to "I feel that I'm right, and
I'm ignoring everything you say".
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans in
terms of what either can and have accomplished is self-evidently
profoundly greater for humans than chimps: civilisation, spaceflight,
surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a cumulative,
cultural process, but even that relies on the innate capacity of
individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very large
and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
Sure. But that explanation may rely on a fairly small number of genetic differences. Why not? A small quantitative change can result in a large qualitative change.
Nothing at all to say about anything below?
2. Chimps are uncannily intelligent, but human intelligence is on >>>>>> another level: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-termChimps have some of those in embryonic form.
planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc >>>>>
And an earlier version of ChatGPT is ChatGPT 5.2 in embryonic form,
just needing a few thousand bytes of code to evolve?
Your brain isn't a computer program.
3. Therefore, the evolution of the human brain and human
intelligence from a chimp requires either:
(a) a very large increase in functional complexity; or
(b) the activation of largely pre-existing, latent capacity
You fail to define "functional complexity". How do you measure it?
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without
strong selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional
complexity); therefore, the number of adaptive mutations required >>>>>> in this case would be much, much more than "A few thousand".
You keep using that word "therefore"; I do not think it means what
you think it means. Generally, it signals a conclusion that follows >>>>> from a preceding premise. But here it doesn't.
That was sloppy of me. I'll rephrase it as:
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without
strong selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional
complexity); therefore, adaptive mutations are required in this
case, and as I argue above, the number required would be much, much
more than "A few thousand".
Same problem, just passed off to other places. You don't argue, you
just claim without evidence.
Larry Moran has taken most of the available mutations off the
table in declaring them neutral or near-neutral, and in doing so
has left dramatically too few adaptive mutations to do the
necessary heavy lifting*
Only if you demonstrate that millions of mutations would be
necessary. But look at the evidence here: the great bulk of our
differences from chimps are in junk DNA, and a majority of those in >>>>> functional DNA are also nearly neutral. The differences that count
must be in the even smaller fraction of functional differences.
Where are the millions of changes you think would be necessary?
I see you ignored the bit above. Try reading it.
To quantify a bit: The average difference between us and chimps in
the 10% of the genome that's functional is about 0.5%. About half of
that is attributable to changes in the human lineage, so 0.25%. If
all of those were functional differences (they aren't) that would be
around 750,000. That's an upper limit, but of course the true number
is much less. Even in functional sequences the bulk of the
differences are neutral or nearly so, and a high proportion of the
functional differences are not in the parts you're interested in, the
ones that "make us human". I have no good estimate for those numbers,
but I would imagine less than 10,000. If you think more are needed,
where would you find them?
If (b), then you've only shifted the problem, and raised this
question: how then did chimp brains acquire this latent capacity, >>>>>> since by definition it has not previously been activated and
expressed, and therefore has not been selectable and built up over >>>>>> time.
No problem. Nobody is arguing for this.
Moreover, this option is something like suggesting that an Apple
M5 processor can be activated from an Intel Pentium processor with >>>>>> "a few thousand gates of tweaking", or that GPT 1.0 plus "a few
thousand lines of code" could give you GPT 5.
_______
* "So, is it really the most complex structure we know of? Many
experts still seem to believe so, from physicist Michio Kaku
(2014) who described the three pounds in our head as the most
complex object in the solar system (pp.2-3), to neuroscientist
Christof Koch (2013), psychiatrist Sir Robing Murray (2012), and
neurobiologist Gerald Fischbach (1992), who all described it as
the most complex structure in the known universe. This is because >>>>>> the complexity is much greater than the number of cells
themselves: The many complex connections and the myriad
interactions give the brain not only structural complexity but
turns it into an intricately functioning whole."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/consciousness-and-
beyond/202309/the-staggering-complexity-of-the-human-brain
All very nice, but what about, say, the 15 pounds of a blue whale's >>>>> brain?
* "There are roughly 23 thousand genes in the human genome. But,
Kaku said, rCLThe human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron >>>>>> connected to 10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on your shoulders >>>>>> is the most complicated object in the known universe.rCY
https://www.wnyc.org/story/michio-kaku-explores-human-brain/
* "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a
tiny, tiny part of it. But theyrCOre the most perfectly organized >>>>>> part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an
inert lump"
https://joydas.medium.com/the-enigma-of-human-brain-910d6111758d
Still waiting for their thoughts on blue whales.
On 12/18/25 6:40 AM, MarkE wrote:
Whatever the case, there remains the question of where the large
amount of additional functionality came from.
What I'm saying is, the actual problem is that a lot was lost along
the way.
The ancestor of Chimps had a larger brain. Their brains shrunk as
they evolved away from us and towards hairy jungle gnomes.
It all works perfectly with Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT), and we all
know this because our brains are so dependent upon DHA, which is
abundant in seafood but not in a forest or on a savanna. So some
numbers from the AAT population pushed inland. They followed the
fresh water sources inland -- in Africa this had to be at the
Horn of Africa, in East Africa, right where the "Cradle of
"Humankind" is. Yes, THEY'VE GOT IT BACKWARDS!-a That's not where
"Humankind" arose, that's where individuals from the AAT population
entered Africa, settled & adapted.
Your projection
On 12/19/25 11:43 AM, RonO wrote:
Your projection
So you're insane, true, but you were pretending that actions
(verbs) are tools (nouns) and now you stopped even trying to
defend your stupid position.
Again:-a Show me million year old Chimp tools.
Chimps aren't even as sophisticated as ants, according to
your disordered world view... right?
If you want to now pretend a different position, explain:
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.13671
Give us examples of Chimp "Tool use" that is more
sophisticated than the "Tools" referenced above.
Yeah, explain YOUR OWN GODDAMN POSITION... as if you could.
Lol!
It's no mystery why you act out emotionally. You're a regular
Nick Reiner!
On 19/12/2025 9:26 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/18/25 4:24 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/12/2025 3:26 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/17/25 3:22 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 17/12/2025 6:47 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/16/25 4:22 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:I've heard that said. But is it true? Is it more complex than a
On 12/15/25 4:53 PM, MarkE wrote:
Larry Moran offers this analysis:How many adaptive mutations? A few thousand, perhaps.
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed >>>>>>>>> in the population and it's these fixed mutations that produce >>>>>>>>> most of the changes in the genome of evolving populations.
According to the neutral theory of population genetics, the >>>>>>>>> number of fixed neutral mutations corresponds to the mutation >>>>>>>>> rate. Thus, in every evolving population there will be 100 new >>>>>>>>> fixed mutations per generation. This means that fixation of 22 >>>>>>>>> million mutations would take 220,000 generations. The average >>>>>>>>> generation time of humans and chimps is 27.5 years so this
corresponds to about 6 million years. That's close to the time >>>>>>>>> that humans and chimps diverged according to the fossil record. >>>>>>>>> What this means is that evolutionary theory is able to explain >>>>>>>>> the differences in the human genomerCoit has explanatory power." >>>>>>>>> https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites- in- human.html
However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound) >>>>>>>>> adaptations, including:
- Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and
endurance running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long >>>>>>>>> legs relative to arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe. >>>>>>>>>
- Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity;
dramatically expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal >>>>>>>>> cortex; these produce: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; >>>>>>>>> long-term planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative >>>>>>>>> societies; etc.
- Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long >>>>>>>>> lifespan; high energy investment in brain development; reduced >>>>>>>>> muscle mass relative to body size; craniofacial morphology
supporting speech articulation and dietary flexibility;
precision hand grip and fine motor control.
How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly
adaptive, complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are
required, over and above the estimated neutral/near-neutral >>>>>>>>> mutations, to produce these adaptations, and how are these
accounted for in the time available?
Coordinated suites? Why would that be necessary? And how they >>>>>>>> would be accounted for is simple: you should understand that a >>>>>>>> number of mutations many orders of magnitude greater than the >>>>>>>> ones that eventually became fixed would have happened during
human evolution. The ones that were advantageous were therefore >>>>>>>> a small sample of a much larger number than you are imagining here. >>>>>>>>
Here's your dilemma:
1. The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe* >>>>>>
blue whale's brain, or an elephant's? And how much more complex is >>>>>> it than a chimp's brain, by whatever measure you're using?
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps
and humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and >>>>> spaceflight, for example.
If you claim a functional difference of that magnitude could be
obtained with the addition of only a few thousand bits of
information, I'd say you've never designed anything. Sorry, no free >>>>> lunch.
You could have shortened your response to "I feel that I'm right,
and I'm ignoring everything you say".
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans in
terms of what either can and have accomplished is self-evidently
profoundly greater for humans than chimps: civilisation, spaceflight,
surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, string theory, and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a cumulative,
cultural process, but even that relies on the innate capacity of
individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very large
and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
Sure. But that explanation may rely on a fairly small number of
genetic differences. Why not? A small quantitative change can result
in a large qualitative change.
Let's consider your appeal to nonlinearity. One version of this is saltationism or "hopeful monsters", but these are widely rejected as too improbable.
Another is developmental change, e.g. a mutation in regulatory genes,
which I assume is what you have in mind.
Hox genes in fruit flies
demonstrate highly nonlinear morphological effects, e.g. legs grow where antennae should be, duplicated wings, etc. We could go down a
rabbit-hole of macromutations and macroevolution.
Another approach is to recognise that the gains of natural section are hard-won and gradual. Flicking switches during development cannot
substitute for the slow and steady work of adaptation that progressively locks in new functionality. This work has to be done somewhere.
We agree that a large amount functionality has been created. The heavy lifting for this cannot be skipped or minimised. Real functionality (aka "the appearance of design") requires proportionate, progressive,
trialling, selecting, fixing. Otherwise, you're at risk of admitting saltation through a back door.
On another note, the accumulation of human knowledge and collective capability can rightly be called cultural evolution, in that these
develop through competition between ideas and practices with selection
of the "best". Interestingly (in the context of our discussion of chimps
vs humans) this cultural evolution may be on the verge of AGI.
The cultural evolution has itself arrived only by the slow, costly
process described, accelerated at times by nonlinear perturbations such
as the printing press or the semiconductor. To my point above, a similar principle and price applies.
Nothing at all to say about anything below?
2. Chimps are uncannily intelligent, but human intelligence is on >>>>>>> another level: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term >>>>>>> planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc >>>>>>Chimps have some of those in embryonic form.
And an earlier version of ChatGPT is ChatGPT 5.2 in embryonic form, >>>>> just needing a few thousand bytes of code to evolve?
Your brain isn't a computer program.
Agreed. I'm making a comparison by analogy and similar principle, and
not suggesting structural likeness.
3. Therefore, the evolution of the human brain and human
intelligence from a chimp requires either:
(a) a very large increase in functional complexity; or
(b) the activation of largely pre-existing, latent capacity
You fail to define "functional complexity". How do you measure it? >>>>>>
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without
strong selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional
complexity); therefore, the number of adaptive mutations required >>>>>>> in this case would be much, much more than "A few thousand".
You keep using that word "therefore"; I do not think it means what >>>>>> you think it means. Generally, it signals a conclusion that
follows from a preceding premise. But here it doesn't.
That was sloppy of me. I'll rephrase it as:
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without
strong selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional
complexity); therefore, adaptive mutations are required in this
case, and as I argue above, the number required would be much, much >>>>> more than "A few thousand".
Same problem, just passed off to other places. You don't argue, you
just claim without evidence.
Larry Moran has taken most of the available mutations off the
table in declaring them neutral or near-neutral, and in doing so >>>>>>> has left dramatically too few adaptive mutations to do the
necessary heavy lifting*
Only if you demonstrate that millions of mutations would be
necessary. But look at the evidence here: the great bulk of our
differences from chimps are in junk DNA, and a majority of those
in functional DNA are also nearly neutral. The differences that
count must be in the even smaller fraction of functional
differences. Where are the millions of changes you think would be >>>>>> necessary?
I see you ignored the bit above. Try reading it.
To quantify a bit: The average difference between us and chimps in
the 10% of the genome that's functional is about 0.5%. About half of
that is attributable to changes in the human lineage, so 0.25%. If
all of those were functional differences (they aren't) that would be
around 750,000. That's an upper limit, but of course the true number
is much less. Even in functional sequences the bulk of the
differences are neutral or nearly so, and a high proportion of the
functional differences are not in the parts you're interested in,
the ones that "make us human". I have no good estimate for those
numbers, but I would imagine less than 10,000. If you think more are
needed, where would you find them?
If (b), then you've only shifted the problem, and raised this
question: how then did chimp brains acquire this latent capacity, >>>>>>> since by definition it has not previously been activated and
expressed, and therefore has not been selectable and built up
over time.
No problem. Nobody is arguing for this.
Moreover, this option is something like suggesting that an Apple >>>>>>> M5 processor can be activated from an Intel Pentium processor
with "a few thousand gates of tweaking", or that GPT 1.0 plus "a >>>>>>> few thousand lines of code" could give you GPT 5.
_______
* "So, is it really the most complex structure we know of? Many >>>>>>> experts still seem to believe so, from physicist Michio Kaku
(2014) who described the three pounds in our head as the most
complex object in the solar system (pp.2-3), to neuroscientist
Christof Koch (2013), psychiatrist Sir Robing Murray (2012), and >>>>>>> neurobiologist Gerald Fischbach (1992), who all described it as >>>>>>> the most complex structure in the known universe. This is because >>>>>>> the complexity is much greater than the number of cells
themselves: The many complex connections and the myriad
interactions give the brain not only structural complexity but
turns it into an intricately functioning whole."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/consciousness-and-
beyond/202309/the-staggering-complexity-of-the-human-brain
All very nice, but what about, say, the 15 pounds of a blue
whale's brain?
* "There are roughly 23 thousand genes in the human genome. But, >>>>>>> Kaku said, rCLThe human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron >>>>>>> connected to 10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on your shoulders >>>>>>> is the most complicated object in the known universe.rCY
https://www.wnyc.org/story/michio-kaku-explores-human-brain/
* "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a
tiny, tiny part of it. But theyrCOre the most perfectly organized >>>>>>> part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an >>>>>>> inert lump"
https://joydas.medium.com/the-enigma-of-human-brain-910d6111758d
Still waiting for their thoughts on blue whales.
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.13671
Just a nut job.
Just go back up and see how you responded to my
previous post on this paper.
Give us examples of Chimp "Tool use" that is more
sophisticated than the "Tools" referenced above.
As you know these ants have an instinctive behavior
Chimps modify what they find in nature and
Regularly wets his bed, RonO wrote:
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.13671
Just a nut job.
Regularly wets his bed, RonO wrote:
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.13671
Just a nut job.
You're so emotionally invested in a particular answer that posting
cites is nuts?
Just go back up and see how you responded to my previous post on this
paper.
You're pretending that Chimps use tools. Okay, explain who Chimps
are so inferior to ants.
Give us examples of Chimp "Tool use" that is more
sophisticated than the "Tools" referenced above.
As you know these ants have an instinctive behavior
So it's not biological? They get something sticky on their feet and
then "Use tools" only in a far more sophisticated manner than a
Chimp's brain?
Still waiting for you to show me a 1 million year old Chimp "Tool."
Why haven't you?
HINT:-a It's because BEHAVIORS can't be preserved within the
archaeological record. Nope. Only object, only nouns can be
preserved -- not verbs.
Chimps modify what they find in nature and
Okay show us.
Show us million year old Chimp "Tools."
On 12/21/25 4:59 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/12/2025 9:26 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/18/25 4:24 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/12/2025 3:26 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/17/25 3:22 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 17/12/2025 6:47 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/16/25 4:22 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/15/25 4:53 PM, MarkE wrote:
Larry Moran offers this analysis:How many adaptive mutations? A few thousand, perhaps.
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become >>>>>>>>>> fixed in the population and it's these fixed mutations that >>>>>>>>>> produce most of the changes in the genome of evolving
populations. According to the neutral theory of population >>>>>>>>>> genetics, the number of fixed neutral mutations corresponds to >>>>>>>>>> the mutation rate. Thus, in every evolving population there >>>>>>>>>> will be 100 new fixed mutations per generation. This means >>>>>>>>>> that fixation of 22 million mutations would take 220,000
generations. The average generation time of humans and chimps >>>>>>>>>> is 27.5 years so this corresponds to about 6 million years. >>>>>>>>>> That's close to the time that humans and chimps diverged
according to the fossil record. What this means is that
evolutionary theory is able to explain the differences in the >>>>>>>>>> human genomerCoit has explanatory power."
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory- >>>>>>>>>> sites- in- human.html
However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound) >>>>>>>>>> adaptations, including:
- Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and
endurance running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long >>>>>>>>>> legs relative to arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe. >>>>>>>>>>
- Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity;
dramatically expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal >>>>>>>>>> cortex; these produce: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; >>>>>>>>>> long-term planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative >>>>>>>>>> societies; etc.
- Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long >>>>>>>>>> lifespan; high energy investment in brain development; reduced >>>>>>>>>> muscle mass relative to body size; craniofacial morphology >>>>>>>>>> supporting speech articulation and dietary flexibility;
precision hand grip and fine motor control.
How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly
adaptive, complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are >>>>>>>>>> required, over and above the estimated neutral/near-neutral >>>>>>>>>> mutations, to produce these adaptations, and how are these >>>>>>>>>> accounted for in the time available?
Coordinated suites? Why would that be necessary? And how they >>>>>>>>> would be accounted for is simple: you should understand that a >>>>>>>>> number of mutations many orders of magnitude greater than the >>>>>>>>> ones that eventually became fixed would have happened during >>>>>>>>> human evolution. The ones that were advantageous were therefore >>>>>>>>> a small sample of a much larger number than you are imagining >>>>>>>>> here.
Here's your dilemma:
1. The human brain is the most complex object in the known
universe*
I've heard that said. But is it true? Is it more complex than a >>>>>>> blue whale's brain, or an elephant's? And how much more complex >>>>>>> is it than a chimp's brain, by whatever measure you're using?
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps >>>>>> and humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation
and spaceflight, for example.
If you claim a functional difference of that magnitude could be
obtained with the addition of only a few thousand bits of
information, I'd say you've never designed anything. Sorry, no
free lunch.
You could have shortened your response to "I feel that I'm right,
and I'm ignoring everything you say".
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans in
terms of what either can and have accomplished is self-evidently
profoundly greater for humans than chimps: civilisation,
spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, string theory, and
sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a cumulative,
cultural process, but even that relies on the innate capacity of
individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very
large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
Sure. But that explanation may rely on a fairly small number of
genetic differences. Why not? A small quantitative change can result
in a large qualitative change.
Let's consider your appeal to nonlinearity. One version of this is
saltationism or "hopeful monsters", but these are widely rejected as
too improbable.
No such appeal. The anatomical differences between humans and chimps are fairly small. It's just that they're small differences with large
effect. A bigger brain results in greater capacity for language,
learning, larger social groups, etc. Fairly small changes in pelvic
bones result in an upright gait. And so on. The magnitude of these
changes can plausibly the results of changes at relatively few loci. And they can easily be gradual, as cumulative changes to regulatory sites
can gradually alter the strength of transcription factor binding,
affecting gradually increasing alterations to development.
Another is developmental change, e.g. a mutation in regulatory genes,
which I assume is what you have in mind.
No. Hox genes generally act much earlier in development than would be necessary to make the difference between humans and chimps. Also, it's likely that changes to promoters are more important than changes to the coding regions.
Hox genes in fruit flies demonstrate highly nonlinear morphological
effects, e.g. legs grow where antennae should be, duplicated wings,
etc. We could go down a rabbit-hole of macromutations and macroevolution.
Another approach is to recognise that the gains of natural section are
hard-won and gradual. Flicking switches during development cannot
substitute for the slow and steady work of adaptation that
progressively locks in new functionality. This work has to be done
somewhere.
Correct. Gradual evolution, by means of a few thousand genetic changes.
We agree that a large amount functionality has been created. The heavy
lifting for this cannot be skipped or minimised. Real functionality
(aka "the appearance of design") requires proportionate, progressive,
trialling, selecting, fixing. Otherwise, you're at risk of admitting
saltation through a back door.
Certainly. No saltation proposed or necessary.
On another note, the accumulation of human knowledge and collective
capability can rightly be called cultural evolution, in that these
develop through competition between ideas and practices with selection
of the "best". Interestingly (in the context of our discussion of
chimps vs humans) this cultural evolution may be on the verge of AGI.
The cultural evolution has itself arrived only by the slow, costly
process described, accelerated at times by nonlinear perturbations
such as the printing press or the semiconductor. To my point above, a
similar principle and price applies.
Sure. But of course the cultural changes are much more radical than the morphological ones.
Nothing at all to say about anything below?
2. Chimps are uncannily intelligent, but human intelligence is >>>>>>>> on another level: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long- >>>>>>>> term planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative
societies; etc
Chimps have some of those in embryonic form.
And an earlier version of ChatGPT is ChatGPT 5.2 in embryonic
form, just needing a few thousand bytes of code to evolve?
Your brain isn't a computer program.
Agreed. I'm making a comparison by analogy and similar principle, and
not suggesting structural likeness.
Analogy requires similarity in relevant features. No such here.
But how many genetic changes do you think were necessary to turn the human-chimp ancestor into a modern human? Give me a ballpark.
3. Therefore, the evolution of the human brain and human
intelligence from a chimp requires either:
(a) a very large increase in functional complexity; or
(b) the activation of largely pre-existing, latent capacity
You fail to define "functional complexity". How do you measure it? >>>>>>>
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional >>>>>>>> complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without >>>>>>>> strong selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional
complexity); therefore, the number of adaptive mutations
required in this case would be much, much more than "A few
thousand".
You keep using that word "therefore"; I do not think it means
what you think it means. Generally, it signals a conclusion that >>>>>>> follows from a preceding premise. But here it doesn't.
That was sloppy of me. I'll rephrase it as:
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without
strong selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional
complexity); therefore, adaptive mutations are required in this
case, and as I argue above, the number required would be much,
much more than "A few thousand".
Same problem, just passed off to other places. You don't argue, you >>>>> just claim without evidence.
Larry Moran has taken most of the available mutations off the >>>>>>>> table in declaring them neutral or near-neutral, and in doing so >>>>>>>> has left dramatically too few adaptive mutations to do the
necessary heavy lifting*
Only if you demonstrate that millions of mutations would be
necessary. But look at the evidence here: the great bulk of our >>>>>>> differences from chimps are in junk DNA, and a majority of those >>>>>>> in functional DNA are also nearly neutral. The differences that >>>>>>> count must be in the even smaller fraction of functional
differences. Where are the millions of changes you think would be >>>>>>> necessary?
I see you ignored the bit above. Try reading it.
To quantify a bit: The average difference between us and chimps in
the 10% of the genome that's functional is about 0.5%. About half
of that is attributable to changes in the human lineage, so 0.25%.
If all of those were functional differences (they aren't) that
would be around 750,000. That's an upper limit, but of course the
true number is much less. Even in functional sequences the bulk of
the differences are neutral or nearly so, and a high proportion of
the functional differences are not in the parts you're interested
in, the ones that "make us human". I have no good estimate for
those numbers, but I would imagine less than 10,000. If you think
more are needed, where would you find them?
If (b), then you've only shifted the problem, and raised this >>>>>>>> question: how then did chimp brains acquire this latent
capacity, since by definition it has not previously been
activated and expressed, and therefore has not been selectable >>>>>>>> and built up over time.
No problem. Nobody is arguing for this.
Moreover, this option is something like suggesting that an Apple >>>>>>>> M5 processor can be activated from an Intel Pentium processor >>>>>>>> with "a few thousand gates of tweaking", or that GPT 1.0 plus "a >>>>>>>> few thousand lines of code" could give you GPT 5.
_______
* "So, is it really the most complex structure we know of? Many >>>>>>>> experts still seem to believe so, from physicist Michio Kaku
(2014) who described the three pounds in our head as the most >>>>>>>> complex object in the solar system (pp.2-3), to neuroscientist >>>>>>>> Christof Koch (2013), psychiatrist Sir Robing Murray (2012), and >>>>>>>> neurobiologist Gerald Fischbach (1992), who all described it as >>>>>>>> the most complex structure in the known universe. This is
because the complexity is much greater than the number of cells >>>>>>>> themselves: The many complex connections and the myriad
interactions give the brain not only structural complexity but >>>>>>>> turns it into an intricately functioning whole."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/consciousness-and-
beyond/202309/the-staggering-complexity-of-the-human-brain
All very nice, but what about, say, the 15 pounds of a blue
whale's brain?
* "There are roughly 23 thousand genes in the human genome. But, >>>>>>>> Kaku said, rCLThe human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron >>>>>>>> connected to 10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on yourStill waiting for their thoughts on blue whales.
shoulders is the most complicated object in the known universe.rCY >>>>>>>> https://www.wnyc.org/story/michio-kaku-explores-human-brain/
* "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a >>>>>>>> tiny, tiny part of it. But theyrCOre the most perfectly organized >>>>>>>> part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an >>>>>>>> inert lump"
https://joydas.medium.com/the-enigma-of-human-brain-910d6111758d >>>>>>>
On 22/12/2025 2:20 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/21/25 4:59 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/12/2025 9:26 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/18/25 4:24 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/12/2025 3:26 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/17/25 3:22 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 17/12/2025 6:47 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/16/25 4:22 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/15/25 4:53 PM, MarkE wrote:
Larry Moran offers this analysis:How many adaptive mutations? A few thousand, perhaps.
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become >>>>>>>>>>> fixed in the population and it's these fixed mutations that >>>>>>>>>>> produce most of the changes in the genome of evolving
populations. According to the neutral theory of population >>>>>>>>>>> genetics, the number of fixed neutral mutations corresponds >>>>>>>>>>> to the mutation rate. Thus, in every evolving population >>>>>>>>>>> there will be 100 new fixed mutations per generation. This >>>>>>>>>>> means that fixation of 22 million mutations would take
220,000 generations. The average generation time of humans >>>>>>>>>>> and chimps is 27.5 years so this corresponds to about 6 >>>>>>>>>>> million years. That's close to the time that humans and >>>>>>>>>>> chimps diverged according to the fossil record. What this >>>>>>>>>>> means is that evolutionary theory is able to explain the >>>>>>>>>>> differences in the human genomerCoit has explanatory power." >>>>>>>>>>> https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory- >>>>>>>>>>> sites- in- human.html
However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound) >>>>>>>>>>> adaptations, including:
- Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and >>>>>>>>>>> endurance running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long >>>>>>>>>>> legs relative to arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe. >>>>>>>>>>>
- Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity; >>>>>>>>>>> dramatically expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal >>>>>>>>>>> cortex; these produce: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; >>>>>>>>>>> long-term planning; mathematics, music, art; large
cooperative societies; etc.
- Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long >>>>>>>>>>> lifespan; high energy investment in brain development;
reduced muscle mass relative to body size; craniofacial >>>>>>>>>>> morphology supporting speech articulation and dietary
flexibility; precision hand grip and fine motor control. >>>>>>>>>>>
How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly >>>>>>>>>>> adaptive, complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are >>>>>>>>>>> required, over and above the estimated neutral/near-neutral >>>>>>>>>>> mutations, to produce these adaptations, and how are these >>>>>>>>>>> accounted for in the time available?
Coordinated suites? Why would that be necessary? And how they >>>>>>>>>> would be accounted for is simple: you should understand that a >>>>>>>>>> number of mutations many orders of magnitude greater than the >>>>>>>>>> ones that eventually became fixed would have happened during >>>>>>>>>> human evolution. The ones that were advantageous were
therefore a small sample of a much larger number than you are >>>>>>>>>> imagining here.
Here's your dilemma:
1. The human brain is the most complex object in the known
universe*
I've heard that said. But is it true? Is it more complex than a >>>>>>>> blue whale's brain, or an elephant's? And how much more complex >>>>>>>> is it than a chimp's brain, by whatever measure you're using?
It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of chimps >>>>>>> and humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation >>>>>>> and spaceflight, for example.
If you claim a functional difference of that magnitude could be >>>>>>> obtained with the addition of only a few thousand bits of
information, I'd say you've never designed anything. Sorry, no
free lunch.
You could have shortened your response to "I feel that I'm right, >>>>>> and I'm ignoring everything you say".
No. I'm observing that the difference between chimps and humans in
terms of what either can and have accomplished is self-evidently
profoundly greater for humans than chimps: civilisation,
spaceflight, surgery, symphonies, semiconductors, string theory,
and sandwiches.
To be sure, human knowledge and achievement has been a cumulative,
cultural process, but even that relies on the innate capacity of
individuals.
Regardless of how we might quantify this difference, it is very
large and therefore needs explanation.
Would you agree?
Sure. But that explanation may rely on a fairly small number of
genetic differences. Why not? A small quantitative change can result
in a large qualitative change.
Let's consider your appeal to nonlinearity. One version of this is
saltationism or "hopeful monsters", but these are widely rejected as
too improbable.
No such appeal. The anatomical differences between humans and chimps
are fairly small. It's just that they're small differences with large
effect. A bigger brain results in greater capacity for language,
learning, larger social groups, etc. Fairly small changes in pelvic
bones result in an upright gait. And so on. The magnitude of these
changes can plausibly the results of changes at relatively few loci.
And they can easily be gradual, as cumulative changes to regulatory
sites can gradually alter the strength of transcription factor
binding, affecting gradually increasing alterations to development.
Another is developmental change, e.g. a mutation in regulatory genes,
which I assume is what you have in mind.
No. Hox genes generally act much earlier in development than would be
necessary to make the difference between humans and chimps. Also, it's
likely that changes to promoters are more important than changes to
the coding regions.
Hox genes in fruit flies demonstrate highly nonlinear morphological
effects, e.g. legs grow where antennae should be, duplicated wings,
etc. We could go down a rabbit-hole of macromutations and
macroevolution.
Another approach is to recognise that the gains of natural section
are hard-won and gradual. Flicking switches during development cannot
substitute for the slow and steady work of adaptation that
progressively locks in new functionality. This work has to be done
somewhere.
Correct. Gradual evolution, by means of a few thousand genetic changes.
We agree that a large amount functionality has been created. The
heavy lifting for this cannot be skipped or minimised. Real
functionality (aka "the appearance of design") requires
proportionate, progressive, trialling, selecting, fixing. Otherwise,
you're at risk of admitting saltation through a back door.
Certainly. No saltation proposed or necessary.
On another note, the accumulation of human knowledge and collective
capability can rightly be called cultural evolution, in that these
develop through competition between ideas and practices with
selection of the "best". Interestingly (in the context of our
discussion of chimps vs humans) this cultural evolution may be on the
verge of AGI.
The cultural evolution has itself arrived only by the slow, costly
process described, accelerated at times by nonlinear perturbations
such as the printing press or the semiconductor. To my point above, a
similar principle and price applies.
Sure. But of course the cultural changes are much more radical than
the morphological ones.
Nothing at all to say about anything below?
2. Chimps are uncannily intelligent, but human intelligence is >>>>>>>>> on another level: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long- >>>>>>>>> term planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative
societies; etc
Chimps have some of those in embryonic form.
And an earlier version of ChatGPT is ChatGPT 5.2 in embryonic
form, just needing a few thousand bytes of code to evolve?
Your brain isn't a computer program.
Agreed. I'm making a comparison by analogy and similar principle, and
not suggesting structural likeness.
Analogy requires similarity in relevant features. No such here.
But how many genetic changes do you think were necessary to turn the
human-chimp ancestor into a modern human? Give me a ballpark.
As I've argued here before, the genes/blueprint model is inadequate. My contention is the human genome alone contains insufficient information
to specify a human. If this is correct, then we need to ask different questions.
The human genome is 3.2 billion base pairs or 6.4 billion bits, 10% of
which is not junk (according to some estimates). Therefore
-a-a-a functional information = 6.4 x 10^9 x 10% / 8 = 80 megabytes
A photo on your phone is about 3 MB, so that's the equivalent of 27
holiday snaps. 27 photos on your phone to specify arguably the most functionally complex object/system we know (as demonstrated by the capabilities listed elsewhere).
I'm with people like Dennis Noble on this, at least in general in
rejecting Dawkinsian reductionism for something like this:
- No information flows from protein to nucleic acid sequence, but
- Information alone is not causation
- Control is not just sequence encoding
This is a rejection of gene-centric causal supremacy, and an argument
for multi-level, bidirectional causation and information sourcing. The
cell (zygote in the first instance) in its entirety e.g. proteins, RNA, sugars etc and their structural arrangement (cytoplasm, organelles,
membrane etc) and interactions regulate and control gene expression. The distribution of these in the cell represent essential "analogue" information. That's where I think the unaccounted information is to be found.
Indeed, this is why you can't resurrect an extinct species with just
DNA, but requires a complete cell from very a close relative.
3. Therefore, the evolution of the human brain and human
intelligence from a chimp requires either:
(a) a very large increase in functional complexity; or
(b) the activation of largely pre-existing, latent capacity
You fail to define "functional complexity". How do you measure it? >>>>>>>>
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional >>>>>>>>> complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without >>>>>>>>> strong selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional
complexity); therefore, the number of adaptive mutations
required in this case would be much, much more than "A few
thousand".
You keep using that word "therefore"; I do not think it means >>>>>>>> what you think it means. Generally, it signals a conclusion that >>>>>>>> follows from a preceding premise. But here it doesn't.
That was sloppy of me. I'll rephrase it as:
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without
strong selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional
complexity); therefore, adaptive mutations are required in this >>>>>>> case, and as I argue above, the number required would be much,
much more than "A few thousand".
Same problem, just passed off to other places. You don't argue,
you just claim without evidence.
Larry Moran has taken most of the available mutations off the >>>>>>>>> table in declaring them neutral or near-neutral, and in doing >>>>>>>>> so has left dramatically too few adaptive mutations to do the >>>>>>>>> necessary heavy lifting*
Only if you demonstrate that millions of mutations would be
necessary. But look at the evidence here: the great bulk of our >>>>>>>> differences from chimps are in junk DNA, and a majority of those >>>>>>>> in functional DNA are also nearly neutral. The differences that >>>>>>>> count must be in the even smaller fraction of functional
differences. Where are the millions of changes you think would >>>>>>>> be necessary?
I see you ignored the bit above. Try reading it.
To quantify a bit: The average difference between us and chimps in >>>>>> the 10% of the genome that's functional is about 0.5%. About half >>>>>> of that is attributable to changes in the human lineage, so 0.25%. >>>>>> If all of those were functional differences (they aren't) that
would be around 750,000. That's an upper limit, but of course the >>>>>> true number is much less. Even in functional sequences the bulk of >>>>>> the differences are neutral or nearly so, and a high proportion of >>>>>> the functional differences are not in the parts you're interested >>>>>> in, the ones that "make us human". I have no good estimate for
those numbers, but I would imagine less than 10,000. If you think >>>>>> more are needed, where would you find them?
If (b), then you've only shifted the problem, and raised this >>>>>>>>> question: how then did chimp brains acquire this latent
capacity, since by definition it has not previously been
activated and expressed, and therefore has not been selectable >>>>>>>>> and built up over time.
No problem. Nobody is arguing for this.
Moreover, this option is something like suggesting that an
Apple M5 processor can be activated from an Intel Pentium
processor with "a few thousand gates of tweaking", or that GPT >>>>>>>>> 1.0 plus "a few thousand lines of code" could give you GPT 5. >>>>>>>>>
_______
* "So, is it really the most complex structure we know of? Many >>>>>>>>> experts still seem to believe so, from physicist Michio Kaku >>>>>>>>> (2014) who described the three pounds in our head as the most >>>>>>>>> complex object in the solar system (pp.2-3), to neuroscientist >>>>>>>>> Christof Koch (2013), psychiatrist Sir Robing Murray (2012), >>>>>>>>> and neurobiologist Gerald Fischbach (1992), who all described >>>>>>>>> it as the most complex structure in the known universe. This is >>>>>>>>> because the complexity is much greater than the number of cells >>>>>>>>> themselves: The many complex connections and the myriad
interactions give the brain not only structural complexity but >>>>>>>>> turns it into an intricately functioning whole."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/consciousness-and-
beyond/202309/the-staggering-complexity-of-the-human-brain
All very nice, but what about, say, the 15 pounds of a blue
whale's brain?
* "There are roughly 23 thousand genes in the human genome. >>>>>>>>> But, Kaku said, rCLThe human brain has 100 billion neurons, each >>>>>>>>> neuron connected to 10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on your >>>>>>>>> shoulders is the most complicated object in the known universe.rCY >>>>>>>>> https://www.wnyc.org/story/michio-kaku-explores-human-brain/ >>>>>>>>>Still waiting for their thoughts on blue whales.
* "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a >>>>>>>>> tiny, tiny part of it. But theyrCOre the most perfectly organized >>>>>>>>> part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just >>>>>>>>> an inert lump"
https://joydas.medium.com/the-enigma-of-human-brain-910d6111758d >>>>>>>>
This is a rejection of gene-centric causal supremacy, and an argument
for multi-level, bidirectional causation and information sourcing. The
cell (zygote in the first instance) in its entirety e.g. proteins, RNA, sugars etc and their structural arrangement (cytoplasm, organelles,
membrane etc) and interactions regulate and control gene expression. The distribution of these in the cell represent essential "analogue" information. That's where I think the unaccounted information is to be found.
On 12/22/25 11:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
This is a rejection of gene-centric causal supremacy, and an argument
for multi-level, bidirectional causation and information sourcing. The
cell (zygote in the first instance) in its entirety e.g. proteins,
RNA, sugars etc and their structural arrangement (cytoplasm,
organelles, membrane etc) and interactions regulate and control gene
expression. The distribution of these in the cell represent essential
"analogue" information. That's where I think the unaccounted
information is to be found.
That doesn't work. For one thing, almost all the information about
different sorts of cells doesn't reach the germ line, other than through
the genome that gives rise to those sorts. The ovum does contain certain maternal proteins and transcripts that help to get development going,
but those are specified by the maternal genome, and the rest of the
zygote's cellular contents are quickly recycles using transcription and translation from the zygote's genome. Whether a zygote turns into a
chimp or a human is determined by the contents of its genome, not all
that other stuff.
You're just avoiding the question, which I will repeat:
But how many genetic changes do you think were necessary to turn the human-chimp ancestor into a modern human? Give me a ballpark.
On 12/22/25 11:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
This is a rejection of gene-centric causal supremacy, and an argument
for multi-level, bidirectional causation and information sourcing. The
cell (zygote in the first instance) in its entirety e.g. proteins,
RNA, sugars etc and their structural arrangement (cytoplasm,
organelles, membrane etc) and interactions regulate and control gene
expression. The distribution of these in the cell represent essential
"analogue" information. That's where I think the unaccounted
information is to be found.
That doesn't work. For one thing, almost all the information about
different sorts of cells doesn't reach the germ line, other than through
the genome that gives rise to those sorts. The ovum does contain certain maternal proteins and transcripts that help to get development going,
but those are specified by the maternal genome, and the rest of the
zygote's cellular contents are quickly recycles using transcription and translation from the zygote's genome. Whether a zygote turns into a
chimp or a human is determined by the contents of its genome, not all
that other stuff.
On 24/12/2025 7:27 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/22/25 11:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
This is a rejection of gene-centric causal supremacy, and an argument
for multi-level, bidirectional causation and information sourcing.
The cell (zygote in the first instance) in its entirety e.g.
proteins, RNA, sugars etc and their structural arrangement
(cytoplasm, organelles, membrane etc) and interactions regulate and
control gene expression. The distribution of these in the cell
represent essential "analogue" information. That's where I think the
unaccounted information is to be found.
That doesn't work. For one thing, almost all the information about
different sorts of cells doesn't reach the germ line, other than
through the genome that gives rise to those sorts. The ovum does
contain certain maternal proteins and transcripts that help to get
development going, but those are specified by the maternal genome, and
the rest of the zygote's cellular contents are quickly recycles using
transcription and translation from the zygote's genome. Whether a
zygote turns into a chimp or a human is determined by the contents of
its genome, not all that other stuff.
You're just avoiding the question, which I will repeat:
But how many genetic changes do you think were necessary to turn the
human-chimp ancestor into a modern human? Give me a ballpark.
Much more than "a few thousand", i.e. orders of magnitude.
But don't avoid the undergirding question I'm asking: what is the total
and necessary information content of the zygote to produce a human?
You seem to be asserting that just the functional genome is sufficient,
i.e. ~80 megabytes. Am I understanding you correctly?
On 24/12/2025 7:27 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/22/25 11:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
This is a rejection of gene-centric causal supremacy, and an argument
for multi-level, bidirectional causation and information sourcing.
The cell (zygote in the first instance) in its entirety e.g.
proteins, RNA, sugars etc and their structural arrangement
(cytoplasm, organelles, membrane etc) and interactions regulate and
control gene expression. The distribution of these in the cell
represent essential "analogue" information. That's where I think the
unaccounted information is to be found.
That doesn't work. For one thing, almost all the information about
different sorts of cells doesn't reach the germ line, other than
through the genome that gives rise to those sorts. The ovum does
contain certain maternal proteins and transcripts that help to get
development going, but those are specified by the maternal genome, and
the rest of the zygote's cellular contents are quickly recycles using
transcription and translation from the zygote's genome. Whether a
zygote turns into a chimp or a human is determined by the contents of
its genome, not all that other stuff.
"Whether a zygote turns into a chimp or a human is determined by the contents of its genome, not all that other stuff."
Are you implying by this claim that, in principle, human DNA could be inserted in a chimp ovum or vice-versa, to produce a human or chimp?
On 24/12/2025 7:27 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/22/25 11:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
This is a rejection of gene-centric causal supremacy, and an argument
for multi-level, bidirectional causation and information sourcing.
The cell (zygote in the first instance) in its entirety e.g.
proteins, RNA, sugars etc and their structural arrangement
(cytoplasm, organelles, membrane etc) and interactions regulate and
control gene expression. The distribution of these in the cell
represent essential "analogue" information. That's where I think the
unaccounted information is to be found.
That doesn't work. For one thing, almost all the information about
different sorts of cells doesn't reach the germ line, other than
through the genome that gives rise to those sorts. The ovum does
contain certain maternal proteins and transcripts that help to get
development going, but those are specified by the maternal genome, and
the rest of the zygote's cellular contents are quickly recycles using
transcription and translation from the zygote's genome. Whether a
zygote turns into a chimp or a human is determined by the contents of
its genome, not all that other stuff.
You're just avoiding the question, which I will repeat:
But how many genetic changes do you think were necessary to turn the
human-chimp ancestor into a modern human? Give me a ballpark.
Much more than "a few thousand", i.e. orders of magnitude.
But don't avoid the undergirding question I'm asking: what is the total
and necessary information content of the zygote to produce a human?
You seem to be asserting that just the functional genome is sufficient,
i.e. ~80 megabytes. Am I understanding you correctly?
On 24/12/2025 7:27 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/22/25 11:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
This is a rejection of gene-centric causal supremacy, and an argument
for multi-level, bidirectional causation and information sourcing.
The cell (zygote in the first instance) in its entirety e.g.
proteins, RNA, sugars etc and their structural arrangement
(cytoplasm, organelles, membrane etc) and interactions regulate and
control gene expression. The distribution of these in the cell
represent essential "analogue" information. That's where I think the
unaccounted information is to be found.
That doesn't work. For one thing, almost all the information about
different sorts of cells doesn't reach the germ line, other than
through the genome that gives rise to those sorts. The ovum does
contain certain maternal proteins and transcripts that help to get
development going, but those are specified by the maternal genome, and
the rest of the zygote's cellular contents are quickly recycles using
transcription and translation from the zygote's genome. Whether a
zygote turns into a chimp or a human is determined by the contents of
its genome, not all that other stuff.
"Whether a zygote turns into a chimp or a human is determined by the contents of its genome, not all that other stuff."
Are you implying by this claim that, in principle, human DNA could be inserted in a chimp ovum or vice-versa, to produce a human or chimp?
On 12/27/2025 5:27 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/12/2025 7:27 am, John Harshman wrote:There is no reason to wallow in IDiotic denial when you do not want to
On 12/22/25 11:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
This is a rejection of gene-centric causal supremacy, and an
argument for multi-level, bidirectional causation and information
sourcing. The cell (zygote in the first instance) in its entirety
e.g. proteins, RNA, sugars etc and their structural arrangement
(cytoplasm, organelles, membrane etc) and interactions regulate and
control gene expression. The distribution of these in the cell
represent essential "analogue" information. That's where I think the
unaccounted information is to be found.
That doesn't work. For one thing, almost all the information about
different sorts of cells doesn't reach the germ line, other than
through the genome that gives rise to those sorts. The ovum does
contain certain maternal proteins and transcripts that help to get
development going, but those are specified by the maternal genome,
and the rest of the zygote's cellular contents are quickly recycles
using transcription and translation from the zygote's genome. Whether
a zygote turns into a chimp or a human is determined by the contents
of its genome, not all that other stuff.
You're just avoiding the question, which I will repeat:
But how many genetic changes do you think were necessary to turn the
human-chimp ancestor into a modern human? Give me a ballpark.
Much more than "a few thousand", i.e. orders of magnitude.
But don't avoid the undergirding question I'm asking: what is the
total and necessary information content of the zygote to produce a human?
You seem to be asserting that just the functional genome is
sufficient, i.e. ~80 megabytes. Am I understanding you correctly?
fill the gap with your designer.-a This designer is not the Biblical designer.-a It is a designer that did not create our mammalian lineage
after the crop plants were designed during the 3rd period of time.
Mammals existed before this 3rd period of time.-a This designer took an
ape genetic template and changed it little by little to evolve apes and
then used the ape genetic template to evolve humans through a series of smaller brained bipedal intermediates.-a This is not the designer
described in the Bible, so there is no reason to deny reality in order
to try to support your Biblical beliefs.
Behe understands that chimps and humans share a common ancestor and that humans evolved by descent with modification from that ape common
ancestor.-a The molecular data just cannot be denied.-a Just look how the reason to believe ex IDiots have had to try to account for reality with their constant recreation of new kinds from the existing kinds (they
even claim that these new creations can interbreed with the previous creations).-a They have to claim that this recreation is still going on today because biological evolution is just a fact of nature.
More genetic variation exists within the extant human population than
exists as differences between chimps and humans.-a You just have to look
at the project published with 2500 human genomes.-a They found that each relatively unrelated human differed from any other by around 1 in 1,000 base-pairs for SNP (single nucleotide polymorphisms).-a This is 0.1% and
is around 3 million differences for a 3 billion base-pair genome.-a You
have a different 0.1% difference with another human-a It is mainly due to the standing genetic variation that exists in our species.-a Because of
the limit of the number of individuals that have been tested the cut off
for standing genetic variation used to be down to 0.01 (1%), but larger populations like the human genome can push accurate estimates out to
0.005 (0.5%).-a Around 40 million people would have a variant found at
0.005 in the extant population, so these variants exist in significant numbers in the human population.
As noted the standing genetic variation is the main factor in making
each human around 1 in 1,000 base-pairs different from each other and
this standing genetic variation contains the variants that are
responsible for making each human phenotypically different from the
others (we are not all identical clones).-a You can look at the extant
human population and you should understand that there is likely enough phenotypic variation that exists to make several different species of
humans as some measure phenotypic differences between species.-a It was
just noted that the Neanderthal sloped forehead can be observed in Trump
(it may not be that common, but it is easy to find other examples in
news photos) and the Denisovan heavy brow ridges can be found in
Indonesian and Australian populations.-a We have quite a range of brain sizes that do not necessarily correlate with how well that brain works. Einstein had a smaller than average brain for his body weight.-a Our
current range of brain sizes overlaps with Homo erectus.
This standing genetic variation is constantly being added to.-a Due to a population bottleneck that our species went through we have around 1/3
of the standing genetic variation found in chimps even though their populations have been declining.-a We have around 1/5 of the standing genetic variation of your average species.-a Species have a boat load of genetic variation segregating within their population.-a In the extant
human population every position in the human genome has likely been hit
by a new mutation event on the order of 100 times.-a Most of this new genetic variation is lost through drift, rare deleterious variants are selected against, and a few might increase in the population due to
positive selection.-a Most just drift in the population even if they do something that you might be able to detect like increase some enzymatic activity a bit, but not enough to make a significant difference in the survival of the organism.-a As Behe and Dembski have to admit these "neutral" variants can get together to specify something that does
something different enough to produce a new function that natural
selection can act on.
When new species form due to isolation of the population it is the
standing genetic variation that initially gets selected to differentiate
the new population from the progenitor population.-a Species
differentiation do not have to be selected for, but once two populations
can no longer interbreed the standing genetic variation can drift to
produce phenotypic differences between the two isolated populations.-a It
is obvious that this genetic difference already exists within the
population and does not have to be designed into any new species.
Ron Okimoto
On 27/12/2025 11:44, MarkE wrote:
On 24/12/2025 7:27 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/22/25 11:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
This is a rejection of gene-centric causal supremacy, and an
argument for multi-level, bidirectional causation and information
sourcing. The cell (zygote in the first instance) in its entirety
e.g. proteins, RNA, sugars etc and their structural arrangement
(cytoplasm, organelles, membrane etc) and interactions regulate and
control gene expression. The distribution of these in the cell
represent essential "analogue" information. That's where I think the
unaccounted information is to be found.
That doesn't work. For one thing, almost all the information about
different sorts of cells doesn't reach the germ line, other than
through the genome that gives rise to those sorts. The ovum does
contain certain maternal proteins and transcripts that help to get
development going, but those are specified by the maternal genome,
and the rest of the zygote's cellular contents are quickly recycles
using transcription and translation from the zygote's genome. Whether
a zygote turns into a chimp or a human is determined by the contents
of its genome, not all that other stuff.
"Whether a zygote turns into a chimp or a human is determined by the
contents of its genome, not all that other stuff."
Are you implying by this claim that, in principle, human DNA could be
inserted in a chimp ovum or vice-versa, to produce a human or chimp?
One class of genetic diseases is associated with mutations in the mitochondrial genome. To address these medically IVF has been used, replacing the nucleus of a zygote (I think that the BBC article linked
below should refer to zygotes, not embryos) with that the nucleus from another.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8179z199vo
You have been inching towards a prediction the children here should be
more similar to the egg donor that towards the parents. I predict that
that prediction will fail.
Turning to interspecies nuclear transfer, mouflon nuclei have been
inserted into sheep zygotes. The resulting lambs were mouflons.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt1001-962
Nuclear transfer between sufficiently distantly related species can be expected to fail. Over the course of development the maternal proteome
is swamped by new proteins synthesised from the nuclear genome, and it
is those proteins that proceed to control development of the organism.
But if the newly synthesised proteins fail to interact correctly with
the maternal proteome that development program may be aborted, or
diverted into an inviable pathway. I am not aware of any data that bears
on the viability of nuclear transfer between chimpanzees and humans,
which are rather more distantly related than are sheep and mouflon.
There is also a potential for mitochondrial incompatibility. (Viability
of plant hybrids is somewhat erratic, and one cause is incompatibility between the paternal genome and the mitome.)
On 12/27/25 3:27 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 24/12/2025 7:27 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/22/25 11:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
This is a rejection of gene-centric causal supremacy, and an
argument for multi-level, bidirectional causation and information
sourcing. The cell (zygote in the first instance) in its entirety
e.g. proteins, RNA, sugars etc and their structural arrangement
(cytoplasm, organelles, membrane etc) and interactions regulate and
control gene expression. The distribution of these in the cell
represent essential "analogue" information. That's where I think the
unaccounted information is to be found.
That doesn't work. For one thing, almost all the information about
different sorts of cells doesn't reach the germ line, other than
through the genome that gives rise to those sorts. The ovum does
contain certain maternal proteins and transcripts that help to get
development going, but those are specified by the maternal genome,
and the rest of the zygote's cellular contents are quickly recycles
using transcription and translation from the zygote's genome. Whether
a zygote turns into a chimp or a human is determined by the contents
of its genome, not all that other stuff.
You're just avoiding the question, which I will repeat:
But how many genetic changes do you think were necessary to turn the
human-chimp ancestor into a modern human? Give me a ballpark.
Much more than "a few thousand", i.e. orders of magnitude.
Where could this be found in the genome, then? Remember that the cell's protein and RNA contents have their origin int he genome. Where else,
then, could this information be stored?
But don't avoid the undergirding question I'm asking: what is the
total and necessary information content of the zygote to produce a human?
You seem to be asserting that just the functional genome is
sufficient, i.e. ~80 megabytes. Am I understanding you correctly?
If we consider the entire (haploid) functional genome, that's about 10%
of 3 billion bases, which would be, at 4 bases per byte, about 80
megabytes. Sure. What else is there?
And why is that relevant to the difference between chimps and humans?
The difference in the functional part of the genome is less than 1%, so that's 1% (being generous) of 10%, or 3 million bases, the great
majority of which are themselves likely not to matter, for example 3rd position transitions in exons.
On 24/12/2025 7:27 am, John Harshman wrote:Keep in mind mtDNA, which is part of cellular mitochondria, is also
On 12/22/25 11:16 PM, MarkE wrote:
This is a rejection of gene-centric causal supremacy, and an argument
for multi-level, bidirectional causation and information sourcing. The
cell (zygote in the first instance) in its entirety e.g. proteins,
RNA, sugars etc and their structural arrangement (cytoplasm,
organelles, membrane etc) and interactions regulate and control gene
expression. The distribution of these in the cell represent essential
"analogue" information. That's where I think the unaccounted
information is to be found.
That doesn't work. For one thing, almost all the information about
different sorts of cells doesn't reach the germ line, other than through
the genome that gives rise to those sorts. The ovum does contain certain
maternal proteins and transcripts that help to get development going,
but those are specified by the maternal genome, and the rest of the
zygote's cellular contents are quickly recycles using transcription and
translation from the zygote's genome. Whether a zygote turns into a
chimp or a human is determined by the contents of its genome, not all
that other stuff.
"Whether a zygote turns into a chimp or a human is determined by the >contents of its genome, not all that other stuff."
Are you implying by this claim that, in principle, human DNA could be >inserted in a chimp ovum or vice-versa, to produce a human or chimp?
On 24/12/2025 7:27 am, John Harshman wrote:
You're just avoiding the question, which I will repeat:
But how many genetic changes do you think were necessary to turn the
human-chimp ancestor into a modern human? Give me a ballpark.
Much more than "a few thousand", i.e. orders of magnitude.
On 12/27/25 06:27, MarkE wrote:
On 24/12/2025 7:27 am, John Harshman wrote:
You're just avoiding the question, which I will repeat:
But how many genetic changes do you think were necessary to turn the
human-chimp ancestor into a modern human? Give me a ballpark.
Much more than "a few thousand", i.e. orders of magnitude.
Can you say something actually quantitative, ie. something of the
form x plus or minus y percent, and if you do this, can you show
how you calculated it?
It's your job to justify your claim.-a If you haven't made the effort
to justify your claim, nobody owes you the effort to justify their non-agreement with your claim.-a You're freeloading.
On 30/12/2025 1:49 pm, David Canzi wrote:
On 12/27/25 06:27, MarkE wrote:
On 24/12/2025 7:27 am, John Harshman wrote:
You're just avoiding the question, which I will repeat:
But how many genetic changes do you think were necessary to turn the
human-chimp ancestor into a modern human? Give me a ballpark.
Much more than "a few thousand", i.e. orders of magnitude.
Can you say something actually quantitative, ie. something of the
form x plus or minus y percent, and if you do this, can you show
how you calculated it?
It's your job to justify your claim.-a If you haven't made the effort
to justify your claim, nobody owes you the effort to justify their
non-agreement with your claim.-a You're freeloading.
I acknowledge that I can't put a number on it. Partly because of a lack
of expertise/ability, and partly because, well, who can? But that does
not mean it doesn't exist.
See my more recent post "The information problem", where I attempt to grapple with this some more.
I think it's a fascinating area, even setting aside the creation/
evolution arguments. A single fertilised egg dividing and exponentially multiplying to create an new and unique human should always astonish us,
no matter how much we may understand the processes involved.
What do you think?
_______
FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND ITS
MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a single cell:
the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, genetically unique human organism exists. Yet nothing visible distinguishes this cell from countless
others. What follows is one of the most extraordinary processes known in nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, then 4, 8,
16, and so on. These early divisions, called *cleavage*, are remarkable because the total size of the embryo does not increase. Instead, the original cytoplasm is partitioned into ever-smaller cells.
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane.
* The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already on
trajectories that will lead to radically different fates.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetriesrCosubtle differences in molecular concentrations, mechanics, and timingrCobias later cell fate decisions with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a *blastocyst*rCoa hollow structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body),
* and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta).
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing a
biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows pregnancy to continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells rCLdeciderCY their roles through local interactions, gene regulation, and physical constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, and why implantation succeeds or fails so often despite apparently normal embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes *gastrulation*, often called *the most important event in your life*. A simple sheet of cells folds
and rearranges to form three foundational layers:
* *Ectoderm* raA nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* raA muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* raA gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axesrCohead to tail, back to
front, left to rightrCoare established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic cellular movements
that look, under a microscope, almost chaotic.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and mechanical forces are integrated in real time to yield precise, repeatable anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types and assemble
into organs. Neural cells wire themselves into circuits. Blood vessels branch through tissues. The heart begins beating while still forming.
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching *tens of trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* leftrCoright symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell rCLknowsrCY the whole plan, yet the whole plan reliably appears.
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or neural
connectivity) are specified without explicit blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development
* How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two individuals are the
same. Small genetic differences, epigenetic marks, maternal factors, and environmental influences interact throughout development to shape:
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the endrCoit emerges continuously, from the
very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into macroscopic
individuality, especially in the brain.
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, arises:
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a *deeply interdependent, multiscale process* that blends genetic rules, physical
law, cellular context, and self-organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and embryology, we still
lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction,
* and a unifying theory of biological development comparable to those in physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the rules.
But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique human being remains one of the most profound and humbling questions in science.
(ChatGPT 5.2)
On 30/12/2025 1:49 pm, David Canzi wrote:
On 12/27/25 06:27, MarkE wrote:
On 24/12/2025 7:27 am, John Harshman wrote:
You're just avoiding the question, which I will repeat:
But how many genetic changes do you think were necessary to turn the
human-chimp ancestor into a modern human? Give me a ballpark.
Much more than "a few thousand", i.e. orders of magnitude.
Can you say something actually quantitative, ie. something of the
form x plus or minus y percent, and if you do this, can you show
how you calculated it?
It's your job to justify your claim.-a If you haven't made the effort
to justify your claim, nobody owes you the effort to justify their
non-agreement with your claim.-a You're freeloading.
I acknowledge that I can't put a number on it. Partly because of a lack
of expertise/ability, and partly because, well, who can? But that does
not mean it doesn't exist.
See my more recent post "The information problem", where I attempt to grapple with this some more.
I think it's a fascinating area, even setting aside the creation/
evolution arguments. A single fertilised egg dividing and exponentially multiplying to create an new and unique human should always astonish us,
no matter how much we may understand the processes involved.
What do you think?
_______
FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND ITS
MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a single cell:
the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, genetically unique human organism exists. Yet nothing visible distinguishes this cell from countless
others. What follows is one of the most extraordinary processes known in nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, then 4, 8,
16, and so on. These early divisions, called *cleavage*, are remarkable because the total size of the embryo does not increase. Instead, the original cytoplasm is partitioned into ever-smaller cells.
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane.
* The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already on
trajectories that will lead to radically different fates.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetriesrCosubtle differences in molecular concentrations, mechanics, and timingrCobias later cell fate decisions with such reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a *blastocyst*rCoa hollow structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body),
* and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta).
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing a
biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows pregnancy to continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells rCLdeciderCY their roles through local interactions, gene regulation, and physical constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, and why implantation succeeds or fails so often despite apparently normal embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes *gastrulation*, often called *the most important event in your life*. A simple sheet of cells folds
and rearranges to form three foundational layers:
* *Ectoderm* raA nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* raA muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* raA gut, liver, lungs
From this point onward, the basic body axesrCohead to tail, back to
front, left to rightrCoare established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic cellular movements
that look, under a microscope, almost chaotic.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and mechanical forces are integrated in real time to yield precise, repeatable anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types and assemble
into organs. Neural cells wire themselves into circuits. Blood vessels branch through tissues. The heart begins beating while still forming.
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching *tens of trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* leftrCoright symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell rCLknowsrCY the whole plan, yet the whole plan reliably appears.
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or neural
connectivity) are specified without explicit blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development
* How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two individuals are the
same. Small genetic differences, epigenetic marks, maternal factors, and environmental influences interact throughout development to shape:
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the endrCoit emerges continuously, from the
very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into macroscopic
individuality, especially in the brain.
---
## The deeper wonder
From a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, arises:
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a *deeply interdependent, multiscale process* that blends genetic rules, physical
law, cellular context, and self-organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and embryology, we still
lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction,
* and a unifying theory of biological development comparable to those in physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the rules.
But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique human being remains one of the most profound and humbling questions in science.
(ChatGPT 5.2)
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/15/25 4:53 PM, MarkE wrote:
Larry Moran offers this analysis:How many adaptive mutations? A few thousand, perhaps. Coordinated
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed in the
population and it's these fixed mutations that produce most of the
changes in the genome of evolving populations. According to the
neutral theory of population genetics, the number of fixed neutral
mutations corresponds to the mutation rate. Thus, in every evolving
population there will be 100 new fixed mutations per generation. This
means that fixation of 22 million mutations would take 220,000
generations. The average generation time of humans and chimps is 27.5
years so this corresponds to about 6 million years. That's close to
the time that humans and chimps diverged according to the fossil
record. What this means is that evolutionary theory is able to explain
the differences in the human genomerCoit has explanatory power."
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites-in-
human.html
However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound)
adaptations, including:
- Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and endurance
running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long legs relative to
arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe.
- Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity; dramatically
expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal cortex; these produce:
abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term planning;
mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc.
- Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long lifespan;
high energy investment in brain development; reduced muscle mass
relative to body size; craniofacial morphology supporting speech
articulation and dietary flexibility; precision hand grip and fine
motor control.
How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly adaptive,
complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are required, over and
above the estimated neutral/near-neutral mutations, to produce these
adaptations, and how are these accounted for in the time available?
suites? Why would that be necessary? And how they would be accounted for
is simple: you should understand that a number of mutations many orders
of magnitude greater than the ones that eventually became fixed would
have happened during human evolution. The ones that were advantageous
were therefore a small sample of a much larger number than you are
imagining here.
Here's your dilemma:
1. The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe*
2. Chimps are uncannily intelligent, but human intelligence is on
another level: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term
planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc
3. Therefore, the evolution of the human brain and human intelligence
from a chimp requires either:
(a) a very large increase in functional complexity; or
(b) the activation of largely pre-existing, latent capacity
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without strong >selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional complexity);
therefore, the number of adaptive mutations required in this case would
be much, much more than "A few thousand".
Larry Moran has taken most of the available mutations off the table in >declaring them neutral or near-neutral, and in doing so has left >dramatically too few adaptive mutations to do the necessary heavy lifting*
If (b), then you've only shifted the problem, and raised this question:
how then did chimp brains acquire this latent capacity, since by
definition it has not previously been activated and expressed, and
therefore has not been selectable and built up over time.
Moreover, this option is something like suggesting that an Apple M5 >processor can be activated from an Intel Pentium processor with "a few >thousand gates of tweaking", or that GPT 1.0 plus "a few thousand lines
of code" could give you GPT 5.
_______
* "So, is it really the most complex structure we know of? Many experts >still seem to believe so, from physicist Michio Kaku (2014) who
described the three pounds in our head as the most complex object in the >solar system (pp.2-3), to neuroscientist Christof Koch (2013),
psychiatrist Sir Robing Murray (2012), and neurobiologist Gerald
Fischbach (1992), who all described it as the most complex structure in
the known universe. This is because the complexity is much greater than
the number of cells themselves: The many complex connections and the
myriad interactions give the brain not only structural complexity but
turns it into an intricately functioning whole." >https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/consciousness-and-beyond/202309/the-staggering-complexity-of-the-human-brain
* "There are roughly 23 thousand genes in the human genome. But, Kaku
said, rCLThe human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected to >10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on your shoulders is the most
complicated object in the known universe.rCY >https://www.wnyc.org/story/michio-kaku-explores-human-brain/
* "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny,
tiny part of it. But theyrCOre the most perfectly organized part. Compared >to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump" >https://joydas.medium.com/the-enigma-of-human-brain-910d6111758d
On 30/12/2025 3:55 pm, MarkE wrote:
On 30/12/2025 1:49 pm, David Canzi wrote:
On 12/27/25 06:27, MarkE wrote:
On 24/12/2025 7:27 am, John Harshman wrote:
You're just avoiding the question, which I will repeat:
But how many genetic changes do you think were necessary to turn
the human-chimp ancestor into a modern human? Give me a ballpark.
Much more than "a few thousand", i.e. orders of magnitude.
Can you say something actually quantitative, ie. something of the
form x plus or minus y percent, and if you do this, can you show
how you calculated it?
It's your job to justify your claim.-a If you haven't made the effort
to justify your claim, nobody owes you the effort to justify their
non-agreement with your claim.-a You're freeloading.
I acknowledge that I can't put a number on it. Partly because of a
lack of expertise/ability, and partly because, well, who can? But that
does not mean it doesn't exist.
See my more recent post "The information problem", where I attempt to
grapple with this some more.
I think it's a fascinating area, even setting aside the creation/
evolution arguments. A single fertilised egg dividing and
exponentially multiplying to create an new and unique human should
always astonish us, no matter how much we may understand the processes
involved.
What do you think?
_______
FROM ONE CELL TO A HUMAN BEING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND ITS
MYSTERIES
*Fertilisation* begins when a sperm and ovum fuse to form a single
cell: the *zygote*. In that moment, a new, genetically unique human
organism exists. Yet nothing visible distinguishes this cell from
countless others. What follows is one of the most extraordinary
processes known in nature.
---
## 1. Exponential division without growth: cleavage
Within hours, the zygote begins dividing: 1 cell becomes 2, then 4, 8,
16, and so on. These early divisions, called *cleavage*, are
remarkable because the total size of the embryo does not increase.
Instead, the original cytoplasm is partitioned into ever-smaller cells.
Key features:
* Division is rapid and tightly synchronized.
* Cells remain enclosed in the original outer membrane.
* The embryo reaches ~100 cells in a few days.
*What is striking:*
All cells initially appear equivalent, yet they are already on
trajectories that will lead to radically different fates.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early asymmetriesrCosubtle differences in molecular concentrations,
mechanics, and timingrCobias later cell fate decisions with such
reliability.
---
## 2. Self-organisation and implantation: the blastocyst
After several days, the embryo reorganises into a *blastocyst*rCoa
hollow structure with:
* an *inner cell mass* (which will become the body),
* and an *outer layer* (which will help form the placenta).
The blastocyst implants into the uterine wall, establishing a
biochemical dialogue with the mother that allows pregnancy to continue.
*What is striking:*
This organisation emerges without a central controller. Cells rCLdeciderCY >> their roles through local interactions, gene regulation, and physical
constraints.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How global structure arises so robustly from local rules, and why
implantation succeeds or fails so often despite apparently normal
embryos.
---
## 3. The body plan appears: gastrulation
Around the third week, the embryo undergoes *gastrulation*, often
called *the most important event in your life*. A simple sheet of
cells folds and rearranges to form three foundational layers:
* *Ectoderm* raA nervous system, skin
* *Mesoderm* raA muscle, bone, blood, heart
* *Endoderm* raA gut, liver, lungs
-aFrom this point onward, the basic body axesrCohead to tail, back to
front, left to rightrCoare established.
*What is striking:*
A consistent human body plan emerges from dramatic cellular movements
that look, under a microscope, almost chaotic.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How genetic instructions, chemical gradients, and mechanical forces
are integrated in real time to yield precise, repeatable anatomy.
---
## 4. Differentiation and organ formation: organogenesis
Cells now differentiate into hundreds of specialised types and
assemble into organs. Neural cells wire themselves into circuits.
Blood vessels branch through tissues. The heart begins beating while
still forming.
Cell numbers increase exponentially, eventually reaching *tens of
trillions*, yet:
* proportions are maintained,
* leftrCoright symmetry is mostly preserved,
* errors are detected and corrected.
*What is striking:*
No cell rCLknowsrCY the whole plan, yet the whole plan reliably appears.
*What we do not fully understand:*
* How large-scale structures (like vascular trees or neural
connectivity) are specified without explicit blueprints
* How errors are corrected without derailing development
* How timing is coordinated across vastly different scales
---
## 5. Uniqueness emerges
Although humans share a common body plan, no two individuals are the
same. Small genetic differences, epigenetic marks, maternal factors,
and environmental influences interact throughout development to shape:
* brain wiring,
* facial structure,
* physiology,
* and predispositions across a lifetime.
*What is striking:*
Uniqueness is not added at the endrCoit emerges continuously, from the
very first divisions.
*What we do not fully understand:*
How early microscopic differences propagate into macroscopic
individuality, especially in the brain.
---
## The deeper wonder
-aFrom a single cell, governed by chemistry and physics, arises:
* consciousness,
* memory,
* creativity,
* moral agency.
This happens not through rigid instruction, but through a *deeply
interdependent, multiscale process* that blends genetic rules,
physical law, cellular context, and self-organisation.
Despite immense progress in molecular biology and embryology, we still
lack:
* a complete causal map from genes to form,
* a full explanation of robustness and error correction,
* and a unifying theory of biological development comparable to those
in physics.
*In short:*
We understand many of the parts. We understand some of the rules.
But how those rules so reliably give rise to a new, unique human being
remains one of the most profound and humbling questions in science.
(ChatGPT 5.2)
Psalm 139 is pertinent in this context:
13 For you created my inmost being;
-a-a-a you knit me together in my motherrCOs womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
-a-a-a your works are wonderful,
-a-a-a I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
-a-a-a when I was made in the secret place,
-a-a-a when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
-a-a-a all the days ordained for me were written in your book
-a-a-a before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts, God!
-a-a-a How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them,
-a-a-a they would outnumber the grains of sandrCo
-a-a-a when I awake, I am still with you.
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 23:22:43 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/15/25 4:53 PM, MarkE wrote:
Larry Moran offers this analysis:How many adaptive mutations? A few thousand, perhaps. Coordinated
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed in the >>>> population and it's these fixed mutations that produce most of the
changes in the genome of evolving populations. According to the
neutral theory of population genetics, the number of fixed neutral
mutations corresponds to the mutation rate. Thus, in every evolving
population there will be 100 new fixed mutations per generation. This
means that fixation of 22 million mutations would take 220,000
generations. The average generation time of humans and chimps is 27.5
years so this corresponds to about 6 million years. That's close to
the time that humans and chimps diverged according to the fossil
record. What this means is that evolutionary theory is able to explain >>>> the differences in the human genomerCoit has explanatory power."
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites-in-
human.html
However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound)
adaptations, including:
- Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and endurance
running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long legs relative to
arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe.
- Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity; dramatically
expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal cortex; these produce: >>>> abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term planning;
mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc.
- Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long lifespan; >>>> high energy investment in brain development; reduced muscle mass
relative to body size; craniofacial morphology supporting speech
articulation and dietary flexibility; precision hand grip and fine
motor control.
How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly adaptive,
complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are required, over and
above the estimated neutral/near-neutral mutations, to produce these
adaptations, and how are these accounted for in the time available?
suites? Why would that be necessary? And how they would be accounted for >>> is simple: you should understand that a number of mutations many orders
of magnitude greater than the ones that eventually became fixed would
have happened during human evolution. The ones that were advantageous
were therefore a small sample of a much larger number than you are
imagining here.
Here's your dilemma:
1. The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe*
2. Chimps are uncannily intelligent, but human intelligence is on
another level: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term
planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc
3. Therefore, the evolution of the human brain and human intelligence
from a chimp requires either:
(a) a very large increase in functional complexity; or
(b) the activation of largely pre-existing, latent capacity
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without strong
selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional complexity);
therefore, the number of adaptive mutations required in this case would
be much, much more than "A few thousand".
Larry Moran has taken most of the available mutations off the table in
declaring them neutral or near-neutral, and in doing so has left
dramatically too few adaptive mutations to do the necessary heavy lifting* >>
If (b), then you've only shifted the problem, and raised this question:
how then did chimp brains acquire this latent capacity, since by
definition it has not previously been activated and expressed, and
therefore has not been selectable and built up over time.
Moreover, this option is something like suggesting that an Apple M5
processor can be activated from an Intel Pentium processor with "a few
thousand gates of tweaking", or that GPT 1.0 plus "a few thousand lines
of code" could give you GPT 5.
What is *your* solution to this dilemma? It seem to me you have two possibilities:
#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and
chimps so that a human descendant would eventually appear.
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a
designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps.
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't thought of?
_______
* "So, is it really the most complex structure we know of? Many experts
still seem to believe so, from physicist Michio Kaku (2014) who
described the three pounds in our head as the most complex object in the
solar system (pp.2-3), to neuroscientist Christof Koch (2013),
psychiatrist Sir Robing Murray (2012), and neurobiologist Gerald
Fischbach (1992), who all described it as the most complex structure in
the known universe. This is because the complexity is much greater than
the number of cells themselves: The many complex connections and the
myriad interactions give the brain not only structural complexity but
turns it into an intricately functioning whole."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/consciousness-and-beyond/202309/the-staggering-complexity-of-the-human-brain
* "There are roughly 23 thousand genes in the human genome. But, Kaku
said, rCLThe human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected to >> 10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on your shoulders is the most
complicated object in the known universe.rCY
https://www.wnyc.org/story/michio-kaku-explores-human-brain/
* "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny,
tiny part of it. But theyrCOre the most perfectly organized part. Compared >> to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump"
https://joydas.medium.com/the-enigma-of-human-brain-910d6111758d
On 31/12/2025 3:52 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 23:22:43 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/15/25 4:53 PM, MarkE wrote:
Larry Moran offers this analysis:How many adaptive mutations? A few thousand, perhaps. Coordinated
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed in the >>>>> population and it's these fixed mutations that produce most of the
changes in the genome of evolving populations. According to the
neutral theory of population genetics, the number of fixed neutral
mutations corresponds to the mutation rate. Thus, in every evolving
population there will be 100 new fixed mutations per generation. This >>>>> means that fixation of 22 million mutations would take 220,000
generations. The average generation time of humans and chimps is 27.5 >>>>> years so this corresponds to about 6 million years. That's close to
the time that humans and chimps diverged according to the fossil
record. What this means is that evolutionary theory is able to explain >>>>> the differences in the human genomeuit has explanatory power."
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites-in-
human.html
However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound)
adaptations, including:
- Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and endurance
running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long legs relative to
arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe.
- Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity; dramatically >>>>> expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal cortex; these produce: >>>>> abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term planning;
mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc.
- Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long lifespan; >>>>> high energy investment in brain development; reduced muscle mass
relative to body size; craniofacial morphology supporting speech
articulation and dietary flexibility; precision hand grip and fine
motor control.
How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly adaptive,
complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are required, over and
above the estimated neutral/near-neutral mutations, to produce these >>>>> adaptations, and how are these accounted for in the time available?
suites? Why would that be necessary? And how they would be accounted for >>>> is simple: you should understand that a number of mutations many orders >>>> of magnitude greater than the ones that eventually became fixed would
have happened during human evolution. The ones that were advantageous
were therefore a small sample of a much larger number than you are
imagining here.
Here's your dilemma:
1. The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe*
2. Chimps are uncannily intelligent, but human intelligence is on
another level: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term
planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc
3. Therefore, the evolution of the human brain and human intelligence >>>from a chimp requires either:
(a) a very large increase in functional complexity; or
(b) the activation of largely pre-existing, latent capacity
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without strong
selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional complexity);
therefore, the number of adaptive mutations required in this case would
be much, much more than "A few thousand".
Larry Moran has taken most of the available mutations off the table in
declaring them neutral or near-neutral, and in doing so has left
dramatically too few adaptive mutations to do the necessary heavy lifting* >>>
If (b), then you've only shifted the problem, and raised this question:
how then did chimp brains acquire this latent capacity, since by
definition it has not previously been activated and expressed, and
therefore has not been selectable and built up over time.
Moreover, this option is something like suggesting that an Apple M5
processor can be activated from an Intel Pentium processor with "a few
thousand gates of tweaking", or that GPT 1.0 plus "a few thousand lines
of code" could give you GPT 5.
What is *your* solution to this dilemma? It seem to me you have two
possibilities:
#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and
chimps so that a human descendant would eventually appear.
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a
designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps.
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't thought of?
Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2, as a >tentative OEC.
My own convictions are that
1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to support
2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of
these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in some
shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate endeavour,
and is not a requirement for 2-5.
_______
* "So, is it really the most complex structure we know of? Many experts
still seem to believe so, from physicist Michio Kaku (2014) who
described the three pounds in our head as the most complex object in the >>> solar system (pp.2-3), to neuroscientist Christof Koch (2013),
psychiatrist Sir Robing Murray (2012), and neurobiologist Gerald
Fischbach (1992), who all described it as the most complex structure in
the known universe. This is because the complexity is much greater than
the number of cells themselves: The many complex connections and the
myriad interactions give the brain not only structural complexity but
turns it into an intricately functioning whole."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/consciousness-and-beyond/202309/the-staggering-complexity-of-the-human-brain
* "There are roughly 23 thousand genes in the human genome. But, Kaku
said, oThe human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected to >>> 10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on your shoulders is the most
complicated object in the known universe.o
https://www.wnyc.org/story/michio-kaku-explores-human-brain/
* "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny,
tiny part of it. But theyAre the most perfectly organized part. Compared >>> to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump"
https://joydas.medium.com/the-enigma-of-human-brain-910d6111758d
On 31/12/2025 3:52 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 23:22:43 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/15/25 4:53 PM, MarkE wrote:
Larry Moran offers this analysis:How many adaptive mutations? A few thousand, perhaps. Coordinated
"...A small number of these neutral mutations will become fixed in the >>>>> population and it's these fixed mutations that produce most of the
changes in the genome of evolving populations. According to the
neutral theory of population genetics, the number of fixed neutral
mutations corresponds to the mutation rate. Thus, in every evolving
population there will be 100 new fixed mutations per generation. This >>>>> means that fixation of 22 million mutations would take 220,000
generations. The average generation time of humans and chimps is 27.5 >>>>> years so this corresponds to about 6 million years. That's close to
the time that humans and chimps diverged according to the fossil
record. What this means is that evolutionary theory is able to explain >>>>> the differences in the human genomerCoit has explanatory power."
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2025/12/how-many-regulatory-sites-in-
human.html
However, chimp to human evolution involves major (profound)
adaptations, including:
- Bipedalism and capacity for long-distance walking and endurance
running: short, broad pelvis; S-shaped spine; long legs relative to
arms; arched feet with non-opposable big toe.
- Cognitive capacity increase: larger cranial capacity; dramatically >>>>> expanded neocortex; highly developed prefrontal cortex; these produce: >>>>> abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term planning;
mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc.
- Other physiology: extended childhood and adolescence; long lifespan; >>>>> high energy investment in brain development; reduced muscle mass
relative to body size; craniofacial morphology supporting speech
articulation and dietary flexibility; precision hand grip and fine
motor control.
How many non-neutral adaptive mutations (in fact, highly adaptive,
complex and coordinated suites of mutations) are required, over and
above the estimated neutral/near-neutral mutations, to produce these >>>>> adaptations, and how are these accounted for in the time available?
suites? Why would that be necessary? And how they would be accounted
for
is simple: you should understand that a number of mutations many orders >>>> of magnitude greater than the ones that eventually became fixed would
have happened during human evolution. The ones that were advantageous
were therefore a small sample of a much larger number than you are
imagining here.
Here's your dilemma:
1. The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe*
2. Chimps are uncannily intelligent, but human intelligence is on
another level: abstract reasoning; symbolic language; long-term
planning; mathematics, music, art; large cooperative societies; etc
3. Therefore, the evolution of the human brain and human intelligence
from a chimp requires either:
(a) a very large increase in functional complexity; or
(b) the activation of largely pre-existing, latent capacity
If (a), then the generation of large amounts of new functional
complexity must be driven by adaptation (neutral drift without strong
selection cannot refine and ratchet up functional complexity);
therefore, the number of adaptive mutations required in this case would
be much, much more than "A few thousand".
Larry Moran has taken most of the available mutations off the table in
declaring them neutral or near-neutral, and in doing so has left
dramatically too few adaptive mutations to do the necessary heavy
lifting*
If (b), then you've only shifted the problem, and raised this question:
how then did chimp brains acquire this latent capacity, since by
definition it has not previously been activated and expressed, and
therefore has not been selectable and built up over time.
Moreover, this option is something like suggesting that an Apple M5
processor can be activated from an Intel Pentium processor with "a few
thousand gates of tweaking", or that GPT 1.0 plus "a few thousand lines
of code" could give you GPT 5.
What is *your* solution to this dilemma? It seem to me you have two
possibilities:
#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and
chimps so that a human-a descendant would eventually appear.
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a
designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps.
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't thought of?
Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2, as a tentative OEC.
My own convictions are that
-a-a-a 1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations are inadequate for
-a-a-a 2. origin of the universe
-a-a-a 3. fine tuning
-a-a-a 4. origin of life
-a-a-a 5. macroevolution
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to support
2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of
these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in some
shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate endeavour,
and is not a requirement for 2-5.
_______
* "So, is it really the most complex structure we know of? Many experts
still seem to believe so, from physicist Michio Kaku (2014) who
described the three pounds in our head as the most complex object in the >>> solar system (pp.2-3), to neuroscientist Christof Koch (2013),
psychiatrist Sir Robing Murray (2012), and neurobiologist Gerald
Fischbach (1992), who all described it as the most complex structure in
the known universe. This is because the complexity is much greater than
the number of cells themselves: The many complex connections and the
myriad interactions give the brain not only structural complexity but
turns it into an intricately functioning whole."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/consciousness-and-
beyond/202309/the-staggering-complexity-of-the-human-brain
* "There are roughly 23 thousand genes in the human genome. But, Kaku
said, rCLThe human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected to >>> 10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on your shoulders is the most
complicated object in the known universe.rCY
https://www.wnyc.org/story/michio-kaku-explores-human-brain/
* "If you look at the entire physical cosmos, our brains are a tiny,
tiny part of it. But theyrCOre the most perfectly organized part. Compared >>> to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump"
https://joydas.medium.com/the-enigma-of-human-brain-910d6111758d
What is *your* solution to this dilemma? It seem to me you have two
possibilities:
#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and
chimps so that a human descendant would eventually appear.
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a
designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps.
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't thought of?
Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2, as a
tentative OEC.
My own convictions are that
1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations
By supernaturalistic, don't you mean "I can make up whatever I want
and call it a solution"?
are inadequate for
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to support
2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of
these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in some
shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate endeavour,
and is not a requirement for 2-5.
On 31/12/2025 1:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
...
What is *your* solution to this dilemma? It seem to me you have two
possibilities:
#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and
chimps so that a human descendant would eventually appear.
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a
designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps.
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't thought of?
Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2, as a
tentative OEC.
My own convictions are that
1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations
By supernaturalistic, don't you mean "I can make up whatever I want
and call it a solution"?
Vince, what were you hoping to achieve with this comment?
are inadequate for
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to support
2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of
these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in some
shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate endeavour,
and is not a requirement for 2-5.
...
On 31/12/2025 3:52 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 23:22:43 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:
I would suggest you get the book "God, the Science, the Evidence" by Michel-Yves Bollore, Olivier Bonnassies. The first half of it he does#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and
chimps so that a human-a descendant would eventually appear.
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a
designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps.
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't thought of?
Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2, as a tentative OEC.
My own convictions are that
-a-a-a 1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations are inadequate for
-a-a-a 2. origin of the universe
-a-a-a 3. fine tuning
-a-a-a 4. origin of life
-a-a-a 5. macroevolution
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to support
2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of
these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in some
shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate endeavour,
and is not a requirement for 2-5.
On 12/30/2025 5:51 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/12/2025 3:52 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 23:22:43 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:
---snip---
I would suggest you get the book "God, the Science, the Evidence" by >Michel-Yves Bollore, Olivier Bonnassies. The first half of it he does >exactly what you would like to do with the same points. Very well done#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and
chimps so that a humana descendant would eventually appear.
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a
designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps.
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't thought of?
Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2, as a
tentative OEC.
My own convictions are that
aaa 1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations are inadequate for
aaa 2. origin of the universe
aaa 3. fine tuning
aaa 4. origin of life
aaa 5. macroevolution
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to support
2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of
these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in some
shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate endeavour,
and is not a requirement for 2-5.
and it is not a difficult read. For me, this book steeled the issues.
He uses research from atheists and agnostics often and then builds upon
it. I wish I could provide some quotes
and more details, but I had a
full knee replacement two days ago and I'm suffering right now, sorry.
They also have a chapter with 100 quotes from some of the giants in the >fields saying the exact opposite of what Vincent Maycock does. They get >into a little bit of how materialists
stop debate with tactics like
Maycock uses, and why that crap don't fly anymore.
Similar to what
Miller does in "Return of the God Hypothesis."
"God, the Science, the Evidence" I am certain you will find a worthwhile >read.
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 00:22:08 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2025 1:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
...
What is *your* solution to this dilemma? It seem to me you have twoPersonally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2, as a
possibilities:
#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and
chimps so that a human descendant would eventually appear.
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a
designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps.
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't thought of? >>>>
tentative OEC.
My own convictions are that
1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations
By supernaturalistic, don't you mean "I can make up whatever I want
and call it a solution"?
Vince, what were you hoping to achieve with this comment?
I meant that "I don't know" is a better intellectual evaluation than
"A supernatural agent was at work."
are inadequate for
Supernaturalism is always inadequate. Let's look at your scientific
puzzles and their supposed solutions:
2. origin of the universe
God did it.
3. fine tuning
God did it.
4. origin of life
God did it.
5. macroevolution
God did it.
6. My car won't start
God did it. Better offer some sacrifices!
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to support >>>> 2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of
these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in some
shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate endeavour, >>>> and is not a requirement for 2-5.
...
On 1/01/2026 1:00 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 00:22:08 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2025 1:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
...
What is *your* solution to this dilemma? It seem to me you have two >>>>>> possibilities:Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2, as a >>>>> tentative OEC.
#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and
chimps so that a human descendant would eventually appear.
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a
designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps.
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't thought of? >>>>>
My own convictions are that
1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations
By supernaturalistic, don't you mean "I can make up whatever I want
and call it a solution"?
Vince, what were you hoping to achieve with this comment?
I meant that "I don't know" is a better intellectual evaluation than
"A supernatural agent was at work."
are inadequate for
Supernaturalism is always inadequate. Let's look at your scientific
puzzles and their supposed solutions:
2. origin of the universe
God did it.
3. fine tuning
God did it.
4. origin of life
God did it.
5. macroevolution
God did it.
6. My car won't start
God did it. Better offer some sacrifices!
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to support >>>>> 2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of
these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in some >>>>> shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate endeavour, >>>>> and is not a requirement for 2-5.
...
Genuine question: What is your reason for removing God from any >consideration?
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 1:00 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 00:22:08 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2025 1:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
...
What is *your* solution to this dilemma? It seem to me you have two >>>>>>> possibilities:Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2, as a >>>>>> tentative OEC.
#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and >>>>>>> chimps so that a human descendant would eventually appear.
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a
designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps.
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't thought of? >>>>>>
My own convictions are that
1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations
By supernaturalistic, don't you mean "I can make up whatever I want
and call it a solution"?
Vince, what were you hoping to achieve with this comment?
I meant that "I don't know" is a better intellectual evaluation than
"A supernatural agent was at work."
are inadequate for
Supernaturalism is always inadequate. Let's look at your scientific
puzzles and their supposed solutions:
2. origin of the universe
God did it.
3. fine tuning
God did it.
4. origin of life
God did it.
5. macroevolution
God did it.
6. My car won't start
God did it. Better offer some sacrifices!
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to support >>>>>> 2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of >>>>>> these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in some >>>>>> shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate endeavour, >>>>>> and is not a requirement for 2-5.
...
Genuine question: What is your reason for removing God from any
consideration?
Well, it's not because we don't like him. It's just that we can't
test the hypothesis that God did it, since the idea of God is
compatible with any conceivable evidence.
On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 1:00 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 00:22:08 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2025 1:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
...
What is *your* solution to this dilemma? It seem to me you have two >>>>>>>> possibilities:
#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and >>>>>>>> chimps so that a human-a descendant would eventually appear.
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a >>>>>>>> designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps. >>>>>>>>
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't
thought of?
Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2, as a >>>>>>> tentative OEC.
My own convictions are that
-a-a-a-a-a-a 1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations
By supernaturalistic, don't you mean "I can make up whatever I want >>>>>> and call it a solution"?
Vince, what were you hoping to achieve with this comment?
I meant that "I don't know" is a better intellectual evaluation than
"A supernatural agent was at work."
-a-a-a are inadequate for
Supernaturalism is always inadequate.-a Let's look at your scientific
puzzles and their supposed solutions:
-a-a-a-a-a-a 2. origin of the universe
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a 3. fine tuning
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a 4. origin of life
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a 5. macroevolution
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 6.-a My car won't start
God did it.-a Better offer some sacrifices!
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to
support
2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of >>>>>>> these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in some >>>>>>> shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate
endeavour,
and is not a requirement for 2-5.
...
Genuine question: What is your reason for removing God from any
consideration?
Well, it's not because we don't like him.-a It's just that we can't
test the hypothesis that God did it, since the idea of God is
compatible with any conceivable evidence.
You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but
insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says the
light is better there.
You have have arbitrarily truncated your epistemology to metaphysical naturalism.
This is neither rational, justifiable, nor wise.
On 12/30/2025 5:51 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/12/2025 3:52 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 23:22:43 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:
---snip---
I would suggest you get the book "God, the Science, the Evidence" by Michel-Yves Bollore, Olivier Bonnassies.-a The first half of it he does exactly what you would like to do with the same points.-a Very well done#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and
chimps so that a human-a descendant would eventually appear.
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a
designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps.
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't thought of?
Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2, as a
tentative OEC.
My own convictions are that
-a-a-a-a 1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations are inadequate for
-a-a-a-a 2. origin of the universe
-a-a-a-a 3. fine tuning
-a-a-a-a 4. origin of life
-a-a-a-a 5. macroevolution
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to support
2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of
these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in some
shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate endeavour,
and is not a requirement for 2-5.
and it is not a difficult read.-a For me, this book steeled the issues.
He uses research from atheists and agnostics often and then builds upon it.-a I wish I could provide some quotes and more details, but I had a
full knee replacement two days ago and I'm suffering right now, sorry.
They also have a chapter with 100 quotes from some of the giants in the fields saying the exact opposite of what Vincent Maycock does.-a They get into a little bit of how materialists stop debate with tactics like
Maycock uses, and why that crap don't fly anymore.-a Similar to what
Miller does in "Return of the God Hypothesis."
"God, the Science, the Evidence" I am certain you will find a worthwhile read.
On 12/31/2025 7:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:Your god did it claims have had a 100% failure rate.-a They have never
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 1:00 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 00:22:08 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 31/12/2025 1:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
...
What is *your* solution to this dilemma? It seem to me you have >>>>>>>>> two
possibilities:
#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and >>>>>>>>> chimps so that a human-a descendant would eventually appear. >>>>>>>>>
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a >>>>>>>>> designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps. >>>>>>>>>
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't
thought of?
Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2, >>>>>>>> as a
tentative OEC.
My own convictions are that
-a-a-a-a-a-a 1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations
By supernaturalistic, don't you mean "I can make up whatever I want >>>>>>> and call it a solution"?
Vince, what were you hoping to achieve with this comment?
I meant that "I don't know" is a better intellectual evaluation than >>>>> "A supernatural agent was at work."
-a-a-a are inadequate for
Supernaturalism is always inadequate.-a Let's look at your scientific >>>>> puzzles and their supposed solutions:
-a-a-a-a-a-a 2. origin of the universe
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a 3. fine tuning
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a 4. origin of life
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a 5. macroevolution
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 6.-a My car won't start
God did it.-a Better offer some sacrifices!
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to >>>>>>>> support
2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of >>>>>>>> these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in >>>>>>>> some
shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate
endeavour,
and is not a requirement for 2-5.
...
Genuine question: What is your reason for removing God from any
consideration?
Well, it's not because we don't like him.-a It's just that we can't
test the hypothesis that God did it, since the idea of God is
compatible with any conceivable evidence.
You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but
insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says the
light is better there.
You have have arbitrarily truncated your epistemology to metaphysical
naturalism.
This is neither rational, justifiable, nor wise.
been testable on their own, and only failed when it has been figured out what was actually happening.-a The Bible claims that God opens the
firmament to let the rain fall through, but the firmament was never determined to exist, and we figured out the water cycle and how water
cycles through the earth and atmosphere.-a Look at how Genesis 1 has
failed to describe the creation accurately.-a We do not live in a
geocentric universe, and the earth is not flat.-a When Pasteur performed
his experiments to look for spontaneous generation one of the players
were Biblical creationists that wanted to believe that the creation was ongoing, but his experiments falsified the notion of special creation of
the life forms.-a Centuries ago the creationists who were dealing with geology and the initial fossil record understood that there would have
had to have been multiple floods to account for the fossil record even
as incomplete as it initially was.-a They knew of many ancient biomes consisting of organisms that must not have survived each successive
flood because life has been evolving on this planet for billions of years.
It hasn't just been Biblical god did it claims that have a 100% failure rate.-a There is no god making babies.-a No god was needed to develop something from a fertilized egg.-a It was discovered that the cells of
the developing embryo communicated with each other, and that no god was directing development unless it was a god that could be thwarted by
placing slivers of mica between cells of the developing embryo.-a No god
is needed to pull the sun and moon across the sky.-a No god causes the seasons to change by taking a vacation.-a 100% failure means a zero
success rate in the entire history of humanity.-a Why would you consider something that has had zero value in our scientific understanding of
nature?
The 100% failure rate is the main reason why the god did it explanation
is no longer considered as a viable option by anyone competent enough to understand the situation.-a Zero success rate is a pretty good reason for only considering the notion as a last resort.-a The church fathers may
not have been flat earth creationists, but they were all geocentric creationists.-a Some of them were not even young earth creationists at
that time.-a Some of them believed in an ancient or eternal earth, and
did not take Genesis literally.
It isn't only the 100% failure rate.-a Kalk and Bill both realized that
they had never wanted some god to fill the Top Six god of the gap denial arguments that you still embrace.-a They were only using the gap denial
to lie to themselves so that they could keep believing what they wanted
to believe, but placing the Top Six in the context of the order in which they must have occurred in this universe made them realize that the gap denial never supported their Biblical beliefs.-a It is why you can't face what filling the origin of life gap with a non Bibilical designer would
do to your religious beliefs.-a For Kalk and Bill such an event would destroy their religious beliefs, and they could not deal with any
scientific success, no matter what the result, so they quit supporting
the ID scam.-a These gaps occur within a context that is already well
enough understood to exclude the Biblical description of creation.
It turns out that IDiotic type creationist like yourself never wanted
any ID science to succeed and be verified as intelligent design in
nature because that designer would not be the designer described in the Bible.
Ron Okimoto
On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 1:00 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 00:22:08 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2025 1:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
...
What is *your* solution to this dilemma? It seem to me you have two >>>>>>>> possibilities:Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2, as a >>>>>>> tentative OEC.
#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and >>>>>>>> chimps so that a human descendant would eventually appear.
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a >>>>>>>> designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps. >>>>>>>>
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't thought of? >>>>>>>
My own convictions are that
1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations
By supernaturalistic, don't you mean "I can make up whatever I want >>>>>> and call it a solution"?
Vince, what were you hoping to achieve with this comment?
I meant that "I don't know" is a better intellectual evaluation than
"A supernatural agent was at work."
are inadequate for
Supernaturalism is always inadequate. Let's look at your scientific
puzzles and their supposed solutions:
2. origin of the universe
God did it.
3. fine tuning
God did it.
4. origin of life
God did it.
5. macroevolution
God did it.
6. My car won't start
God did it. Better offer some sacrifices!
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to support >>>>>>> 2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of >>>>>>> these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in some >>>>>>> shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate endeavour, >>>>>>> and is not a requirement for 2-5.
...
Genuine question: What is your reason for removing God from any
consideration?
Well, it's not because we don't like him. It's just that we can't
test the hypothesis that God did it, since the idea of God is
compatible with any conceivable evidence.
You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but
insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says the
light is better there.
You have have arbitrarily truncated your epistemology to metaphysical >naturalism.
This is neither rational, justifiable, nor wise.
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 12:09:54 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 1:00 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 00:22:08 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 31/12/2025 1:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
...
What is *your* solution to this dilemma? It seem to me you have two >>>>>>>>> possibilities:Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2, as a >>>>>>>> tentative OEC.
#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and >>>>>>>>> chimps so that a human descendant would eventually appear.
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a >>>>>>>>> designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps. >>>>>>>>>
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't thought of? >>>>>>>>
My own convictions are that
1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations
By supernaturalistic, don't you mean "I can make up whatever I want >>>>>>> and call it a solution"?
Vince, what were you hoping to achieve with this comment?
I meant that "I don't know" is a better intellectual evaluation than >>>>> "A supernatural agent was at work."
are inadequate for
Supernaturalism is always inadequate. Let's look at your scientific >>>>> puzzles and their supposed solutions:
2. origin of the universe
God did it.
3. fine tuning
God did it.
4. origin of life
God did it.
5. macroevolution
God did it.
6. My car won't start
God did it. Better offer some sacrifices!
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to support >>>>>>>> 2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of >>>>>>>> these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in some >>>>>>>> shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate endeavour, >>>>>>>> and is not a requirement for 2-5.
...
Genuine question: What is your reason for removing God from any
consideration?
Well, it's not because we don't like him. It's just that we can't
test the hypothesis that God did it, since the idea of God is
compatible with any conceivable evidence.
You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but
insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says the
light is better there.
How so?
You have have arbitrarily truncated your epistemology to metaphysical
naturalism.
Actually, my reply would be consistent with *methodological*
naturalism as well.
This is neither rational, justifiable, nor wise.
Okay, let's say you claim that you have this explanation for, say, the
origin of life, namely that God was responsible for it. How do you
test, check, verify, or falsify that explanation? I mean, how do we distinguish between "science" and "just making things up" when
considering your claims?
On 12/30/2025 5:51 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 31/12/2025 3:52 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 23:22:43 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2025 1:23 pm, John Harshman wrote:
---snip---
I would suggest you get the book "God, the Science, the Evidence" by Michel-Yves Bollore, Olivier Bonnassies.-a The first half of it he does exactly what you would like to do with the same points.-a Very well done#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and
chimps so that a human-a descendant would eventually appear.
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a
designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps.
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't thought of?
Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2, as a
tentative OEC.
My own convictions are that
-a-a-a-a 1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations are inadequate for
-a-a-a-a 2. origin of the universe
-a-a-a-a 3. fine tuning
-a-a-a-a 4. origin of life
-a-a-a-a 5. macroevolution
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to support
2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of
these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in some
shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate endeavour,
and is not a requirement for 2-5.
and it is not a difficult read.-a For me, this book steeled the issues.
He uses research from atheists and agnostics often and then builds upon it.-a I wish I could provide some quotes and more details, but I had a
full knee replacement two days ago and I'm suffering right now, sorry.
They also have a chapter with 100 quotes from some of the giants in the fields saying the exact opposite of what Vincent Maycock does.-a They get into a little bit of how materialists stop debate with tactics like
Maycock uses, and why that crap don't fly anymore.-a Similar to what
Miller does in "Return of the God Hypothesis."
"God, the Science, the Evidence" I am certain you will find a worthwhile read.
On 1/01/2026 3:17 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 12:09:54 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 1:00 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
Supernaturalism is always inadequate. Let's look at your scientific >>>>>> puzzles and their supposed solutions:
2. origin of the universe
God did it.
3. fine tuning
God did it.
4. origin of life
God did it.
5. macroevolution
God did it.
6. My car won't start
God did it. Better offer some sacrifices!
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to support
2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of >>>>>>>>> these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in some >>>>>>>>> shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate endeavour,
and is not a requirement for 2-5.
...
Genuine question: What is your reason for removing God from any
consideration?
Well, it's not because we don't like him. It's just that we can't
test the hypothesis that God did it, since the idea of God is
compatible with any conceivable evidence.
You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but
insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says the
light is better there.
How so?
You'll only consider materialistic explanations within the scope of
science (i.e. under the lampost).
You refuse to consider supernatural explanations, i.e. if
suggested/pointed to by science, and elaborated by religion, philosophy,
etc (i.e. elsewhere in the carpark).
You have have arbitrarily truncated your epistemology to metaphysical
naturalism.
Actually, my reply would be consistent with *methodological*
naturalism as well.
By excluding the supernatural upfront you go beyond methodological
to metaphysical naturalism:
"also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, or >antisupernaturalism u is a philosophical worldview that holds that there
is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind >studied by the natural sciences." >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Would you agree?
This is neither rational, justifiable, nor wise.
Okay, let's say you claim that you have this explanation for, say, the
origin of life, namely that God was responsible for it. How do you
test, check, verify, or falsify that explanation? I mean, how do we
distinguish between "science" and "just making things up" when
considering your claims?
Let's deal with points above first.
On 1/01/2026 1:09 pm, RonO wrote:
On 12/31/2025 7:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:Your god did it claims have had a 100% failure rate.-a They have never
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 1:00 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 00:22:08 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 31/12/2025 1:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
...
What is *your* solution to this dilemma? It seem to me you >>>>>>>>>> have two
possibilities:
#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and >>>>>>>>>> chimps so that a human-a descendant would eventually appear. >>>>>>>>>>
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a >>>>>>>>>> designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps. >>>>>>>>>>
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't >>>>>>>>>> thought of?
Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward #2, >>>>>>>>> as a
tentative OEC.
My own convictions are that
-a-a-a-a-a-a 1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations
By supernaturalistic, don't you mean "I can make up whatever I want >>>>>>>> and call it a solution"?
Vince, what were you hoping to achieve with this comment?
I meant that "I don't know" is a better intellectual evaluation than >>>>>> "A supernatural agent was at work."
-a-a-a are inadequate for
Supernaturalism is always inadequate.-a Let's look at your scientific >>>>>> puzzles and their supposed solutions:
-a-a-a-a-a-a 2. origin of the universe
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a 3. fine tuning
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a 4. origin of life
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a 5. macroevolution
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 6.-a My car won't start
God did it.-a Better offer some sacrifices!
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to >>>>>>>>> support
2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of >>>>>>>>> more of
these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in >>>>>>>>> some
shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate >>>>>>>>> endeavour,
and is not a requirement for 2-5.
...
Genuine question: What is your reason for removing God from any
consideration?
Well, it's not because we don't like him.-a It's just that we can't
test the hypothesis that God did it, since the idea of God is
compatible with any conceivable evidence.
You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but
insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says
the light is better there.
You have have arbitrarily truncated your epistemology to metaphysical
naturalism.
This is neither rational, justifiable, nor wise.
been testable on their own, and only failed when it has been figured
out what was actually happening.-a The Bible claims that God opens the
firmament to let the rain fall through, but the firmament was never
determined to exist, and we figured out the water cycle and how water
cycles through the earth and atmosphere.-a Look at how Genesis 1 has
failed to describe the creation accurately.-a We do not live in a
geocentric universe, and the earth is not flat.-a When Pasteur
performed his experiments to look for spontaneous generation one of
the players were Biblical creationists that wanted to believe that the
creation was ongoing, but his experiments falsified the notion of
special creation of the life forms.-a Centuries ago the creationists
who were dealing with geology and the initial fossil record understood
that there would have had to have been multiple floods to account for
the fossil record even as incomplete as it initially was.-a They knew
of many ancient biomes consisting of organisms that must not have
survived each successive flood because life has been evolving on this
planet for billions of years.
It hasn't just been Biblical god did it claims that have a 100%
failure rate.-a There is no god making babies.-a No god was needed to
develop something from a fertilized egg.-a It was discovered that the
cells of the developing embryo communicated with each other, and that
no god was directing development unless it was a god that could be
thwarted by placing slivers of mica between cells of the developing
embryo.-a No god is needed to pull the sun and moon across the sky.-a No
god causes the seasons to change by taking a vacation.-a 100% failure
means a zero success rate in the entire history of humanity.-a Why
would you consider something that has had zero value in our scientific
understanding of nature?
The 100% failure rate is the main reason why the god did it
explanation is no longer considered as a viable option by anyone
competent enough to understand the situation.-a Zero success rate is a
pretty good reason for only considering the notion as a last resort.
The church fathers may not have been flat earth creationists, but they
were all geocentric creationists.-a Some of them were not even young
earth creationists at that time.-a Some of them believed in an ancient
or eternal earth, and did not take Genesis literally.
It isn't only the 100% failure rate.-a Kalk and Bill both realized that
they had never wanted some god to fill the Top Six god of the gap
denial arguments that you still embrace.-a They were only using the gap
denial to lie to themselves so that they could keep believing what
they wanted to believe, but placing the Top Six in the context of the
order in which they must have occurred in this universe made them
realize that the gap denial never supported their Biblical beliefs.
It is why you can't face what filling the origin of life gap with a
non Bibilical designer would do to your religious beliefs.-a For Kalk
and Bill such an event would destroy their religious beliefs, and they
could not deal with any scientific success, no matter what the result,
so they quit supporting the ID scam.-a These gaps occur within a
context that is already well enough understood to exclude the Biblical
description of creation.
It turns out that IDiotic type creationist like yourself never wanted
any ID science to succeed and be verified as intelligent design in
nature because that designer would not be the designer described in
the Bible.
Ron Okimoto
Speaking of science, do you think that 80 megabytes is sufficient
specify a human?
The tired, fallacious dismissals I think are being increasingly exposed.
On 12/31/2025 10:14 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/01/2026 1:09 pm, RonO wrote:Lying to yourself about the 100% failure rate of any god did it claims
On 12/31/2025 7:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:Your god did it claims have had a 100% failure rate.-a They have never
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 1/01/2026 1:00 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 00:22:08 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 31/12/2025 1:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
...
What is *your* solution to this dilemma? It seem to me you >>>>>>>>>>> have two
possibilities:
#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man and >>>>>>>>>>> chimps so that a human-a descendant would eventually appear. >>>>>>>>>>>
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a >>>>>>>>>>> designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps. >>>>>>>>>>>
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't >>>>>>>>>>> thought of?
Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward >>>>>>>>>> #2, as a
tentative OEC.
My own convictions are that
-a-a-a-a-a-a 1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations
By supernaturalistic, don't you mean "I can make up whatever I >>>>>>>>> want
and call it a solution"?
Vince, what were you hoping to achieve with this comment?
I meant that "I don't know" is a better intellectual evaluation than >>>>>>> "A supernatural agent was at work."
-a-a-a are inadequate for
Supernaturalism is always inadequate.-a Let's look at your scientific >>>>>>> puzzles and their supposed solutions:
-a-a-a-a-a-a 2. origin of the universe
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a 3. fine tuning
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a 4. origin of life
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a 5. macroevolution
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 6.-a My car won't start
God did it.-a Better offer some sacrifices!
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to >>>>>>>>>> support
2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of >>>>>>>>>> more of
these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative >>>>>>>>>> in some
shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate >>>>>>>>>> endeavour,
and is not a requirement for 2-5.
...
Genuine question: What is your reason for removing God from any
consideration?
Well, it's not because we don't like him.-a It's just that we can't
test the hypothesis that God did it, since the idea of God is
compatible with any conceivable evidence.
You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but
insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says
the light is better there.
You have have arbitrarily truncated your epistemology to
metaphysical naturalism.
This is neither rational, justifiable, nor wise.
been testable on their own, and only failed when it has been figured
out what was actually happening.-a The Bible claims that God opens the
firmament to let the rain fall through, but the firmament was never
determined to exist, and we figured out the water cycle and how water
cycles through the earth and atmosphere.-a Look at how Genesis 1 has
failed to describe the creation accurately.-a We do not live in a
geocentric universe, and the earth is not flat.-a When Pasteur
performed his experiments to look for spontaneous generation one of
the players were Biblical creationists that wanted to believe that
the creation was ongoing, but his experiments falsified the notion of
special creation of the life forms.-a Centuries ago the creationists
who were dealing with geology and the initial fossil record
understood that there would have had to have been multiple floods to
account for the fossil record even as incomplete as it initially
was.-a They knew of many ancient biomes consisting of organisms that
must not have survived each successive flood because life has been
evolving on this planet for billions of years.
It hasn't just been Biblical god did it claims that have a 100%
failure rate.-a There is no god making babies.-a No god was needed to
develop something from a fertilized egg.-a It was discovered that the
cells of the developing embryo communicated with each other, and that
no god was directing development unless it was a god that could be
thwarted by placing slivers of mica between cells of the developing
embryo.-a No god is needed to pull the sun and moon across the sky.
No god causes the seasons to change by taking a vacation.-a 100%
failure means a zero success rate in the entire history of humanity.
Why would you consider something that has had zero value in our
scientific understanding of nature?
The 100% failure rate is the main reason why the god did it
explanation is no longer considered as a viable option by anyone
competent enough to understand the situation.-a Zero success rate is a
pretty good reason for only considering the notion as a last resort.
The church fathers may not have been flat earth creationists, but
they were all geocentric creationists.-a Some of them were not even
young earth creationists at that time.-a Some of them believed in an
ancient or eternal earth, and did not take Genesis literally.
It isn't only the 100% failure rate.-a Kalk and Bill both realized
that they had never wanted some god to fill the Top Six god of the
gap denial arguments that you still embrace.-a They were only using
the gap denial to lie to themselves so that they could keep believing
what they wanted to believe, but placing the Top Six in the context
of the order in which they must have occurred in this universe made
them realize that the gap denial never supported their Biblical
beliefs. It is why you can't face what filling the origin of life gap
with a non Bibilical designer would do to your religious beliefs.
For Kalk and Bill such an event would destroy their religious
beliefs, and they could not deal with any scientific success, no
matter what the result, so they quit supporting the ID scam.-a These
gaps occur within a context that is already well enough understood to
exclude the Biblical description of creation.
It turns out that IDiotic type creationist like yourself never wanted
any ID science to succeed and be verified as intelligent design in
nature because that designer would not be the designer described in
the Bible.
Ron Okimoto
Speaking of science, do you think that 80 megabytes is sufficient
specify a human?
is just stupid at this time.-a You know that it is 100% failure because
if there ever had been a success you would not be supporting a bogus and dishonest bait and switch scam being run on yourself and your fellow creationists still in denial of the stupid and obvious fact that gap
denial has never resulted in demonstrating god did it in the entire existence of humanity.-a You and Sticks just have to deal with the 100% failure rate.-a It means that what you are doing is stupid and dishonest.
-aYou need to face the fact that if there had not been 100% failure of
the god did it option, you and Sticks would not be doing what you are
doing now, and your god would already be part of nature, and so science, because science is just our best means for understanding nature.
Your inadequate understanding of what it takes to create a lifeform is
no excuse for your continued dishonest support for the ID creationist scam.-a ID is a stupid bait and switch scam being run on creationists
like yourself.
It is true that there are a limited number of physical laws and
structures such as enzymes and other physical structures life is
dependent on, but your estimate of 80 megabytes does not take into
account how those limited number of physical laws that underlay things
like electrical signal transduction, and chemical diffusion.-a Life has always been more than the genome.-a The first lifeforms that we would
likely call "living" did not have a genetic code.-a The genetic code
evolved after there was a self replicating cellular lifeform.-a The
genetic code and subsequent protein production and replacement of
cellular components had to evolve and work within what was already working.-a Everything produced by the genome works within what was
already working, and is dependent on that information to this day.-a That would just be the way that some designer did it, and there isn't
anything that your continued denial will do about that or the 100%
failure rate of your continued gap denial.
Just think about how much information already existed to make an ape.
All that is happened since is just changing things a bit, but all
changes have had to work within the information frame work needed to
create a chimp.-a Such lesser specified complexity is acknowledged by Dembski and Behe to be possible to evolve by natural mechanisms.-a It requires none of the "greater specified complexity" that was needed to create life.
Ron Okimoto
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 18:49:27 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 3:17 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 12:09:54 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 1/01/2026 1:00 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
Supernaturalism is always inadequate. Let's look at your scientific >>>>>>> puzzles and their supposed solutions:
2. origin of the universe
God did it.
3. fine tuning
God did it.
4. origin of life
God did it.
5. macroevolution
God did it.
6. My car won't start
God did it. Better offer some sacrifices!
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to support
2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of >>>>>>>>>> these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in some >>>>>>>>>> shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate endeavour,
and is not a requirement for 2-5.
...
Genuine question: What is your reason for removing God from any
consideration?
Well, it's not because we don't like him. It's just that we can't
test the hypothesis that God did it, since the idea of God is
compatible with any conceivable evidence.
You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but
insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says the >>>> light is better there.
How so?
You'll only consider materialistic explanations within the scope of
science (i.e. under the lampost).
Okay. In your case you announce "Found them!" when you find an
unusual pebble in the dark. I, on the other hand, am always willing
to wait for more light after I've searched for the keys under the lamp
post before announcing success.
You refuse to consider supernatural explanations, i.e. if
suggested/pointed to by science, and elaborated by religion, philosophy,
etc (i.e. elsewhere in the carpark).
That's the problem; the evidence can't "point to" a supernatural
explanation, any more than a blank clock face can "point to" the
current time. It's just not possible!
You have have arbitrarily truncated your epistemology to metaphysical
naturalism.
Actually, my reply would be consistent with *methodological*
naturalism as well.
By excluding the supernatural upfront you go beyond methodological
to metaphysical naturalism:
I exclude them *from science.* That's, of course, the standard
secular claim, and it's consistent with methodological naturalism. I
will, say, though that it's rather silly to include entities in your
life (even beyond science) without good evidence for them.
"also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, or
antisupernaturalism rCo is a philosophical worldview that holds that there >> is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind
studied by the natural sciences."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Would you agree?
It's really the only way to think about things, given, that there's
more to study in life than "the natural world," as it were, (I'm
referring here to disciplines like history or psychology, not Casper
the Friendly Ghost). What's called "naturalism" should really be
called "critical thinking."
This is neither rational, justifiable, nor wise.
Okay, let's say you claim that you have this explanation for, say, the
origin of life, namely that God was responsible for it. How do you
test, check, verify, or falsify that explanation? I mean, how do we
distinguish between "science" and "just making things up" when
considering your claims?
Let's deal with points above first.
Done. So how do you *dis*prove your "God did it" claims?
On 2/01/2026 12:24 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 18:49:27 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 3:17 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 12:09:54 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: <snip>
Genuine question: What is your reason for removing God from any
consideration?
Well, it's not because we don't like him. It's just that we can't >>>>>> test the hypothesis that God did it, since the idea of God is
compatible with any conceivable evidence.
You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but
insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says the >>>>> light is better there.
How so?
You'll only consider materialistic explanations within the scope of
science (i.e. under the lampost).
Okay. In your case you announce "Found them!" when you find an
unusual pebble in the dark. I, on the other hand, am always willing
to wait for more light after I've searched for the keys under the lamp
post before announcing success.
No, but enough on an analogy.
You refuse to consider supernatural explanations, i.e. if
suggested/pointed to by science, and elaborated by religion, philosophy, >>> etc (i.e. elsewhere in the carpark).
That's the problem; the evidence can't "point to" a supernatural
explanation, any more than a blank clock face can "point to" the
current time. It's just not possible!
This is foundational in this debate. To reiterate a thought experiment:
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted scientific >research over that time, there is a large majority scientific consensus
that all postulated naturalistic explanations for each of the following
had been excluded or shown be excessively improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
Within the terms of this hypothetical, how would you respond?
You have have arbitrarily truncated your epistemology to metaphysical >>>>> naturalism.
Actually, my reply would be consistent with *methodological*
naturalism as well.
By excluding the supernatural upfront you go beyond methodological
to metaphysical naturalism:
I exclude them *from science.* That's, of course, the standard
secular claim, and it's consistent with methodological naturalism. I
will, say, though that it's rather silly to include entities in your
life (even beyond science) without good evidence for them.
"also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, or
antisupernaturalism u is a philosophical worldview that holds that there >>> is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind
studied by the natural sciences."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Would you agree?
It's really the only way to think about things, given, that there's
more to study in life than "the natural world," as it were, (I'm
referring here to disciplines like history or psychology, not Casper
the Friendly Ghost). What's called "naturalism" should really be
called "critical thinking."
This is neither rational, justifiable, nor wise.
Okay, let's say you claim that you have this explanation for, say, the >>>> origin of life, namely that God was responsible for it. How do you
test, check, verify, or falsify that explanation? I mean, how do we
distinguish between "science" and "just making things up" when
considering your claims?
Let's deal with points above first.
Done. So how do you *dis*prove your "God did it" claims?
On 2/01/2026 12:24 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:Your argument above IOW is: If there's insufficient evidence for X aka naturalistic explanations, then that is evidence for Y aka
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 18:49:27 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 3:17 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 12:09:54 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 1/01/2026 1:00 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
Supernaturalism is always inadequate. Let's look at your scientific >>>>>>>> puzzles and their supposed solutions:
2. origin of the universe
God did it.
3. fine tuning
God did it.
4. origin of life
God did it.
5. macroevolution
God did it.
6. My car won't start
God did it. Better offer some sacrifices!
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence to support
2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of more of >>>>>>>>>>> these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative in some
shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate endeavour,
and is not a requirement for 2-5.
...
Genuine question: What is your reason for removing God from any
consideration?
Well, it's not because we don't like him. It's just that we can't >>>>>> test the hypothesis that God did it, since the idea of God is
compatible with any conceivable evidence.
You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but
insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says the >>>>> light is better there.
How so?
You'll only consider materialistic explanations within the scope of
science (i.e. under the lampost).
Okay. In your case you announce "Found them!" when you find an
unusual pebble in the dark. I, on the other hand, am always willing
to wait for more light after I've searched for the keys under the lamp
post before announcing success.
No, but enough on an analogy.
You refuse to consider supernatural explanations, i.e. if
suggested/pointed to by science, and elaborated by religion, philosophy, >>> etc (i.e. elsewhere in the carpark).
That's the problem; the evidence can't "point to" a supernatural
explanation, any more than a blank clock face can "point to" the
current time. It's just not possible!
This is foundational in this debate. To reiterate a thought experiment:
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted scientific >research over that time, there is a large majority scientific consensus
that all postulated naturalistic explanations for each of the following
had been excluded or shown be excessively improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
Within the terms of this hypothetical, how would you respond?
--You have have arbitrarily truncated your epistemology to metaphysical >>>>> naturalism.
Actually, my reply would be consistent with *methodological*
naturalism as well.
By excluding the supernatural upfront you go beyond methodological
to metaphysical naturalism:
I exclude them *from science.* That's, of course, the standard
secular claim, and it's consistent with methodological naturalism. I
will, say, though that it's rather silly to include entities in your
life (even beyond science) without good evidence for them.
"also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, or
antisupernaturalism rCo is a philosophical worldview that holds that there >>> is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind
studied by the natural sciences."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Would you agree?
It's really the only way to think about things, given, that there's
more to study in life than "the natural world," as it were, (I'm
referring here to disciplines like history or psychology, not Casper
the Friendly Ghost). What's called "naturalism" should really be
called "critical thinking."
This is neither rational, justifiable, nor wise.
Okay, let's say you claim that you have this explanation for, say, the >>>> origin of life, namely that God was responsible for it. How do you
test, check, verify, or falsify that explanation? I mean, how do we
distinguish between "science" and "just making things up" when
considering your claims?
Let's deal with points above first.
Done. So how do you *dis*prove your "God did it" claims?
On 2/01/2026 2:21 am, RonO wrote:
On 12/31/2025 10:14 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/01/2026 1:09 pm, RonO wrote:Lying to yourself about the 100% failure rate of any god did it claims
On 12/31/2025 7:09 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:Your god did it claims have had a 100% failure rate.-a They have
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 1/01/2026 1:00 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 00:22:08 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 31/12/2025 1:56 pm, Vincent Maycock wrote:
...
What is *your* solution to this dilemma? It seem to me you >>>>>>>>>>>> have two
possibilities:
#1
God tweaked the existing systems in a common ancestor of man >>>>>>>>>>>> and
chimps so that a human-a descendant would eventually appear. >>>>>>>>>>>>
#2
God directly created man as a brand new species but acting as a >>>>>>>>>>>> designer, he adapted the plans he had already used for chimps. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Which of those is it or have you a third option I haven't >>>>>>>>>>>> thought of?
Personally, I haven't resolved that question. I lean toward >>>>>>>>>>> #2, as a
tentative OEC.
My own convictions are that
-a-a-a-a-a-a 1. God created
and, that purely naturalistic explanations
By supernaturalistic, don't you mean "I can make up whatever I >>>>>>>>>> want
and call it a solution"?
Vince, what were you hoping to achieve with this comment?
I meant that "I don't know" is a better intellectual evaluation >>>>>>>> than
"A supernatural agent was at work."
-a-a-a are inadequate for
Supernaturalism is always inadequate.-a Let's look at your
scientific
puzzles and their supposed solutions:
-a-a-a-a-a-a 2. origin of the universe
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a 3. fine tuning
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a 4. origin of life
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a 5. macroevolution
God did it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 6.-a My car won't start
God did it.-a Better offer some sacrifices!
My approach on TO is to attempt to use scientistic evidence >>>>>>>>>>> to support
2-5. If this can be done to a significant degree for one of >>>>>>>>>>> more of
these, then I think 1 becomes the most realistic alternative >>>>>>>>>>> in some
shape or form. The who/why/what/when/how of 1 is a separate >>>>>>>>>>> endeavour,
and is not a requirement for 2-5.
...
Genuine question: What is your reason for removing God from any
consideration?
Well, it's not because we don't like him.-a It's just that we can't >>>>>> test the hypothesis that God did it, since the idea of God is
compatible with any conceivable evidence.
You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but >>>>> insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says
the light is better there.
You have have arbitrarily truncated your epistemology to
metaphysical naturalism.
This is neither rational, justifiable, nor wise.
never been testable on their own, and only failed when it has been
figured out what was actually happening.-a The Bible claims that God
opens the firmament to let the rain fall through, but the firmament
was never determined to exist, and we figured out the water cycle
and how water cycles through the earth and atmosphere.-a Look at how
Genesis 1 has failed to describe the creation accurately.-a We do not >>>> live in a geocentric universe, and the earth is not flat.-a When
Pasteur performed his experiments to look for spontaneous generation
one of the players were Biblical creationists that wanted to believe
that the creation was ongoing, but his experiments falsified the
notion of special creation of the life forms.-a Centuries ago the
creationists who were dealing with geology and the initial fossil
record understood that there would have had to have been multiple
floods to account for the fossil record even as incomplete as it
initially was.-a They knew of many ancient biomes consisting of
organisms that must not have survived each successive flood because
life has been evolving on this planet for billions of years.
It hasn't just been Biblical god did it claims that have a 100%
failure rate.-a There is no god making babies.-a No god was needed to >>>> develop something from a fertilized egg.-a It was discovered that the >>>> cells of the developing embryo communicated with each other, and
that no god was directing development unless it was a god that could
be thwarted by placing slivers of mica between cells of the
developing embryo.-a No god is needed to pull the sun and moon across >>>> the sky. No god causes the seasons to change by taking a vacation.
100% failure means a zero success rate in the entire history of
humanity. Why would you consider something that has had zero value
in our scientific understanding of nature?
The 100% failure rate is the main reason why the god did it
explanation is no longer considered as a viable option by anyone
competent enough to understand the situation.-a Zero success rate is
a pretty good reason for only considering the notion as a last
resort. The church fathers may not have been flat earth
creationists, but they were all geocentric creationists.-a Some of
them were not even young earth creationists at that time.-a Some of
them believed in an ancient or eternal earth, and did not take
Genesis literally.
It isn't only the 100% failure rate.-a Kalk and Bill both realized
that they had never wanted some god to fill the Top Six god of the
gap denial arguments that you still embrace.-a They were only using
the gap denial to lie to themselves so that they could keep
believing what they wanted to believe, but placing the Top Six in
the context of the order in which they must have occurred in this
universe made them realize that the gap denial never supported their
Biblical beliefs. It is why you can't face what filling the origin
of life gap with a non Bibilical designer would do to your religious
beliefs. For Kalk and Bill such an event would destroy their
religious beliefs, and they could not deal with any scientific
success, no matter what the result, so they quit supporting the ID
scam.-a These gaps occur within a context that is already well enough >>>> understood to exclude the Biblical description of creation.
It turns out that IDiotic type creationist like yourself never
wanted any ID science to succeed and be verified as intelligent
design in nature because that designer would not be the designer
described in the Bible.
Ron Okimoto
Speaking of science, do you think that 80 megabytes is sufficient
specify a human?
is just stupid at this time.-a You know that it is 100% failure because
if there ever had been a success you would not be supporting a bogus
and dishonest bait and switch scam being run on yourself and your
fellow creationists still in denial of the stupid and obvious fact
that gap denial has never resulted in demonstrating god did it in the
entire existence of humanity.-a You and Sticks just have to deal with
the 100% failure rate.-a It means that what you are doing is stupid and
dishonest. -a-aYou need to face the fact that if there had not been 100%
failure of the god did it option, you and Sticks would not be doing
what you are doing now, and your god would already be part of nature,
and so science, because science is just our best means for
understanding nature.
Your inadequate understanding of what it takes to create a lifeform is
no excuse for your continued dishonest support for the ID creationist
scam.-a ID is a stupid bait and switch scam being run on creationists
like yourself.
It is true that there are a limited number of physical laws and
structures such as enzymes and other physical structures life is
dependent on, but your estimate of 80 megabytes does not take into
account how those limited number of physical laws that underlay things
like electrical signal transduction, and chemical diffusion.-a Life has
always been more than the genome.-a The first lifeforms that we would
likely call "living" did not have a genetic code.-a The genetic code
evolved after there was a self replicating cellular lifeform.-a The
genetic code and subsequent protein production and replacement of
cellular components had to evolve and work within what was already
working.-a Everything produced by the genome works within what was
already working, and is dependent on that information to this day.
That would just be the way that some designer did it, and there isn't
anything that your continued denial will do about that or the 100%
failure rate of your continued gap denial.
Just think about how much information already existed to make an ape.
All that is happened since is just changing things a bit, but all
changes have had to work within the information frame work needed to
create a chimp.-a Such lesser specified complexity is acknowledged by
Dembski and Behe to be possible to evolve by natural mechanisms.-a It
requires none of the "greater specified complexity" that was needed to
create life.
Ron Okimoto
So you're agreeing that 80MB of genomic information is insufficient the specify a human? Good. The implication of this is radical: non-genomic information information is heritable and needs to be taken into account
in evolutionary theory.
This is foundational in this debate. To reiterate a thought experiment:
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted scientific research over that time, there is a large majority scientific consensus
that all postulated naturalistic explanations for each of the following
had been excluded or shown be excessively improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
Within the terms of this hypothetical, how would you respond?
On 02/01/2026 12:06, MarkE wrote:
This is foundational in this debate. To reiterate a thought experiment:
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted
scientific research over that time, there is a large majority
scientific consensus that all postulated naturalistic explanations for
each of the following had been excluded or shown be excessively
improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
Within the terms of this hypothetical, how would you respond?
As I wrote earlier, nobody is stopping you proposing supernatural explanations.
If, say, 1000 years from now, no-one has proposed a substantive
supernatural explanation (implicit in your thought experiment), would
you consider stopping looking for a gap to stuff your god into, and
consider that perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that there's
a natural explanation.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/01/2026 12:06, MarkE wrote:
This is foundational in this debate. To reiterate a thought experiment:
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted
scientific research over that time, there is a large majority
scientific consensus that all postulated naturalistic explanations
for each of the following had been excluded or shown be excessively
improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
Within the terms of this hypothetical, how would you respond?
As I wrote earlier, nobody is stopping you proposing supernatural
explanations.
If, say, 1000 years from now, no-one has proposed a substantive
supernatural explanation (implicit in your thought experiment), would
you consider stopping looking for a gap to stuff your god into, and
consider that perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that
there's a natural explanation.
If I might...
ISTM that in the last 1000 years, humans have proposed scores or
hundreds (or more) supernatural explanations for the origin of the
universe (or just this world) and certainly the origin of life. Some religions have even put forth explanations for the planet's biodiversity.
But none of these hypotheses- not one, ever- has ever succeeded in satisfactorily accounting for what we actually know of biology or
cosmology to the exclusion of all other hypotheses.
It seems like humans have been considering supernatural explanations for lots of stuff for considerably more than 1000 years, and none of it has
been worth a tinker's damn.
Chris
I would suggest you get the book "God, the Science, the Evidence" by >Michel-Yves Bollore, Olivier Bonnassies. The first half of it he does >exactly what you would like to do with the same points. Very well done
and it is not a difficult read. For me, this book steeled the issues.
He uses research from atheists and agnostics often and then builds upon
it. I wish I could provide some quotes and more details, but I had a
full knee replacement two days ago and I'm suffering right now, sorry.
They also have a chapter with 100 quotes from some of the giants in the >fields saying the exact opposite of what Vincent Maycock does. They get >into a little bit of how materialists stop debate with tactics like
Maycock uses, and why that crap don't fly anymore.
Similar to what
Miller does in "Return of the God Hypothesis."
"God, the Science, the Evidence" I am certain you will find a worthwhile >read.
On 12/31/25 11:22 AM, sticks wrote:
"God, the Science, the Evidence" I am certain you will find a worthwhile
read.
Hope the knee works out, but your book sounds like a typical creationist >exercise in quote-mining.
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 18:49:27 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
I exclude them *from science.* That's, of course, the standard
secular claim, and it's consistent with methodological naturalism. I
will, say, though that it's rather silly to include entities in your
life (even beyond science) without good evidence for them.
"also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, or >>antisupernaturalism rCo is a philosophical worldview that holds that there >>is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind >>studied by the natural sciences." >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Would you agree?
It's really the only way to think about things, given, that there's
more to study in life than "the natural world," as it were, (I'm
referring here to disciplines like history or psychology, not Casper
the Friendly Ghost). What's called "naturalism" should really be
called "critical thinking."
This is neither rational, justifiable, nor wise.
Okay, let's say you claim that you have this explanation for, say, the
origin of life, namely that God was responsible for it. How do you
test, check, verify, or falsify that explanation? I mean, how do we
distinguish between "science" and "just making things up" when
considering your claims?
Let's deal with points above first.
Done. So how do you *dis*prove your "God did it" claims?
On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but
insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says the
light is better there.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 19:51:23 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/31/25 11:22 AM, sticks wrote:
[...]
"God, the Science, the Evidence" I am certain you will find a worthwhile >>> read.
Hope the knee works out, but your book sounds like a typical creationist
exercise in quote-mining.
Dismissing a book of which you have not even read a page tells us more
about your prejudices than those of the authors.
I have posted a review of it in a response to sticks and, whilst I
disagree with some of their conclusions, it is certainly not just an
exercise in quote-mining.
On Thu, 01 Jan 2026 05:24:59 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<ma.ycock@gm.ail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 18:49:27 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
The problem is that some people regard "exclude from science" as
grounds for outright dismissal. I am not accusing *you* of that but
you seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
I exclude them *from science.* That's, of course, the standard
secular claim, and it's consistent with methodological naturalism. I >>will, say, though that it's rather silly to include entities in your
life (even beyond science) without good evidence for them.
That seems to be contradict what you say below about learning from >disciplines like history or psychology. The lengthy review I just did
about "God, the Science, the Evidence" focuses on the first half of
the book about science, has a lot in the second half about evidence
from areas outside of science; that, to me, is possibly the most
important part of the book but I don't feel like writing another 1500
words about stuff that isn't directly relevant to TO.
"also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, or >>>antisupernaturalism u is a philosophical worldview that holds that there >>>is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind >>>studied by the natural sciences." >>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Would you agree?
It's really the only way to think about things, given, that there's
more to study in life than "the natural world," as it were, (I'm
referring here to disciplines like history or psychology, not Casper
the Friendly Ghost). What's called "naturalism" should really be
called "critical thinking."
This is neither rational, justifiable, nor wise.
Okay, let's say you claim that you have this explanation for, say, the >>>> origin of life, namely that God was responsible for it. How do you
test, check, verify, or falsify that explanation? I mean, how do we
distinguish between "science" and "just making things up" when
considering your claims?
Let's deal with points above first.
Done. So how do you *dis*prove your "God did it" claims?
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 13:22:06 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
[...]
I would suggest you get the book "God, the Science, the Evidence" by
Michel-Yves Bollore, Olivier Bonnassies. The first half of it he does
exactly what you would like to do with the same points. Very well done
and it is not a difficult read. For me, this book steeled the issues.
He uses research from atheists and agnostics often and then builds upon
it. I wish I could provide some quotes and more details, but I had a
full knee replacement two days ago and I'm suffering right now, sorry.
They also have a chapter with 100 quotes from some of the giants in the
fields saying the exact opposite of what Vincent Maycock does. They get
into a little bit of how materialists stop debate with tactics like
Maycock uses, and why that crap don't fly anymore.
In a funny coincidence, I am reading that book right now - I'm about
three quarters of the way through it. You say it's an easy read but I disagree; there is a lot of interesting stuff in the book but I am
actually finding parts of it quite tedious - too much repetition of
the same stuff, reminds me of a certainposter here:)
The book is divided roughly into two halves with the first half
focusing on science and what the authors see as the shortfalls there
are. They give a very detailed history of development of cosmology
over the centuries. I was not aware of how much opposition there was
from the scientific community in recent times towards the Big Bang as scientists totally opposed to any possibility of the universe having a
finite beginning. Thery similarly opposed the idea of an eventual "big crunch" as that too, in the opinion of the authors, meant a finite
universe with a beginning though I'm not entirely sure that that is a
valid argument.
I was not aware how much both the Soviets under Lenin
and the Nazis went to such extreme lengths to eliminate any suggestion
of a finite universe, or that eliminating the concept played such a
major role in the Nazi oppression of scientists.
The authors draw out another good point from this; we hear much about
the rejection of science by religious believers but we rarely hear the
other side of that coin, just how much opposition there is among
scientists towards anything that might in the slightest way support
religious belief not on any scientific grounds but just in their
ideological belief that *everything* must have a materialist
explanation. Neither I nor the authors are suggesting that is the case
with *all* scientists but there is a lot more of it than I actually
realised.
The authors offer as a counterbalance to this a long list of
scientists (including a number of Nobel Laureates) who believe that
many of the things we have found in science do point towards some sort
of something beyond materialism though they are honest that most of
those scientists are reluctant to identify that 'something' as God.
They examine Einstein and Godel in detail and conclude that both of
them were inclined towards something that could be described as
religious but both rejected any form of organised religion.
The authors summarise the main arguments presented in this part of the
book as:
<quote P222>
A single valid proof is enough to disprove the hypothesis of a purely material Universe But cosmology allows us to establish two separate
proofs:
o The Universe had a beginning.
This we know, most notably from thermodynamics and the
Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which is based on Hawking and Penrose's
work on initial singularity.
o The laws of the Universe are very favorable to human life, and the
complex, minute fine-tuning of these physical laws is extremely
improbable, as demonstrated by the anthropic principle.
The two proofs are even stronger because they are totally independent
of one another. Firstly and fundamentally, the fact that the Universe
had a beginning and that its structure and laws are improbable are two distinct facts with no relation between them. Furthermore, their
results are not correlated because they were determined by independent methods. This double independence reinforces their value as proof,
because the falsity of one has no impact on the truth or falsity of
the other. This significantly lowers the probability that the two are simultaneously false.
</quote>
I don't have any issue with the logic regarding their first claim, it
is essentially the 'First Cause' argument that goes back to at least Aristotle and was taken up by Thomas Aquinas. I don't think
materialists have been able to put up any substantive argument against
this; all they seem to have to offer is that of infinite regression
which I do not regard as a valid argument - not least when scientists
accept an end to regression other areas. For example, keeping dividing
any piece of material into two is a form of potentially infinite
regression but scientists recognise that you get to a point where the
piece of material gets to the smallest possible size - the Planck
constant - and can be divided no further; i.e. the regression is not
infinite and has a starting point. I don't see dividing a piece of
material should be excluded from infinite regression but First Cause
should not.
Where I do have an issue is getting from that First Cause to the God I
and other Christians believe in - a personal God with whom we can
interact.
I also have serious issues with the second 'proof' which is
essentially the 'fine tuning' argument that has been hammered to death
so many times. To summarise yet again my own objections to it, firstly
the authors make the fundamental error of assuming that proving
materialism wrong proves theism right. No theory can be proved by
simply disproving an opposing theory, a theory can only be proved in
his own right, with its own supporting evidence.
The second thing I found wrong with it is that there is a big element
of the 'Texas Sharpshooter' fallacy in this - it makes the a priori assumption that life *as we know it* somehow had to come into
existence; they make no provision whatsoever for any other form of
life or any other set of physical laws coming into existence. Here
again, I also have trouble getting from a God fiddling about with
these fine constants to the personal God that I believe in. The
initial conditions that existed immediately after the Big Bang were
actually totally inhospitable to the development of life; no lifeform
we know today could have existed then. So why did God go about
creating human life in his image by starting with an environment where
there was absolutely no possibility of human life existing and leaving
those conditions continue for billions of years? Every creationist for
idea I have asked this question to has simply walked away from it; the
best they have to offer is that God works in mysterious ways and I
just don't find that an acceptable argument for the dismissal of
science.
I've just halfway through the second part of the book which is focused
on what we can learn from other sources, not just science. Perhaps it
will address the issues that I have just described but I'm not overly hopeful. Having said that, I glad to see someone putting work into
showing how religious belief in general and the Bible in particular
had many explanation that science initially disputed but ended up
having to agree with. The first of those is the universe having a
discrete beginning. Genesis may be wrong in the detail (more about
that in a moment) but nevertheless it does identify that discrete
beginning which science almost universally vehemently opposed well
into the 20th century.
The authors do a very good job of tackling those "errors" in Genesis;
they explain how claims about the errors are based on a false
representation of the Bible as a historical record.
I knew that as far
back as the fifth century, Augustine was dismissing using the Bible as
an historical source but I didn't realise how much further back that actually went. To repeat one quote from the book:
"Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the
second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed
without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may
so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to
believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted a paradise
eastward in Eden,' and set in it a visible and palpable 'tree of
life,' of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily
teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of 'good and
evil' by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And
when God is said to 'walk in the paradise in the cool of the day' and
Adam to hide himself behind a tree I do not think anyone will doubt
that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history and not through actual events."
That was not written by some modern-day writer scoffing Genesis, it
was written around 230 AD by Origen, the most important theologian and biblical scholar of the early Greek church and identified as a Father
of the Christian Church. When he pointed out these things 1800 years
ago, it beats me how anyone can try to make an argument that it took
modern science to prove them wrong.
There is a lot more than that in the book but I am already at over
1500 words which is more than long enough! I'll simply sum up that I
don't think the book is convincing in all its arguments but, although
it is overly long in my opinion, it is an immense piece of work and definitely a worthwhile read.
Similar to what
Miller does in "Return of the God Hypothesis."
Similai in some ways but, despite the issues I have, it is a much
better book than Meyer's. (Correcting your typo about the name).
"God, the Science, the Evidence" I am certain you will find a worthwhile
read.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 13:22:06 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
[...]
I would suggest you get the book "God, the Science, the Evidence" by
Michel-Yves Bollore, Olivier Bonnassies. The first half of it he does
exactly what you would like to do with the same points. Very well done
and it is not a difficult read. For me, this book steeled the issues.
He uses research from atheists and agnostics often and then builds upon
it. I wish I could provide some quotes and more details, but I had a
full knee replacement two days ago and I'm suffering right now, sorry.
They also have a chapter with 100 quotes from some of the giants in the
fields saying the exact opposite of what Vincent Maycock does. They get
into a little bit of how materialists stop debate with tactics like
Maycock uses, and why that crap don't fly anymore.
In a funny coincidence, I am reading that book right now - I'm about
three quarters of the way through it. You say it's an easy read but I disagree; there is a lot of interesting stuff in the book but I am
actually finding parts of it quite tedious - too much repetition of
the same stuff, reminds me of a certainposter here:)
The book is divided roughly into two halves with the first half
focusing on science and what the authors see as the shortfalls there
are. They give a very detailed history of development of cosmology
over the centuries. I was not aware of how much opposition there was
from the scientific community in recent times towards the Big Bang as scientists totally opposed to any possibility of the universe having a
finite beginning. Thery similarly opposed the idea of an eventual "big crunch" as that too, in the opinion of the authors, meant a finite
universe with a beginning though I'm not entirely sure that that is a
valid argument. I was not aware how much both the Soviets under Lenin
and the Nazis went to such extreme lengths to eliminate any suggestion
of a finite universe, or that eliminating the concept played such a
major role in the Nazi oppression of scientists.
The authors draw out another good point from this; we hear much about
the rejection of science by religious believers but we rarely hear the
other side of that coin, just how much opposition there is among
scientists towards anything that might in the slightest way support
religious belief not on any scientific grounds but just in their
ideological belief that *everything* must have a materialist
explanation. Neither I nor the authors are suggesting that is the case
with *all* scientists but there is a lot more of it than I actually
realised.
The authors offer as a counterbalance to this a long list of
scientists (including a number of Nobel Laureates) who believe that
many of the things we have found in science do point towards some sort
of something beyond materialism though they are honest that most of
those scientists are reluctant to identify that 'something' as God.
They examine Einstein and Godel in detail and conclude that both of
them were inclined towards something that could be described as
religious but both rejected any form of organised religion.
The authors summarise the main arguments presented in this part of the
book as:
<quote P222>
A single valid proof is enough to disprove the hypothesis of a purely material Universe But cosmology allows us to establish two separate
proofs:
o The Universe had a beginning.
This we know, most notably from thermodynamics and the
Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which is based on Hawking and Penrose's
work on initial singularity.
o The laws of the Universe are very favorable to human life, and the
complex, minute fine-tuning of these physical laws is extremely
improbable, as demonstrated by the anthropic principle.
The two proofs are even stronger because they are totally independent
of one another. Firstly and fundamentally, the fact that the Universe
had a beginning and that its structure and laws are improbable are two distinct facts with no relation between them. Furthermore, their
results are not correlated because they were determined by independent methods. This double independence reinforces their value as proof,
because the falsity of one has no impact on the truth or falsity of
the other. This significantly lowers the probability that the two are simultaneously false.
</quote>
I don't have any issue with the logic regarding their first claim, it
is essentially the 'First Cause' argument that goes back to at least Aristotle and was taken up by Thomas Aquinas. I don't think
materialists have been able to put up any substantive argument against
this; all they seem to have to offer is that of infinite regression
which I do not regard as a valid argument - not least when scientists
accept an end to regression other areas. For example, keeping dividing
any piece of material into two is a form of potentially infinite
regression but scientists recognise that you get to a point where the
piece of material gets to the smallest possible size - the Planck
constant - and can be divided no further; i.e. the regression is not
infinite and has a starting point. I don't see dividing a piece of
material should be excluded from infinite regression but First Cause
should not.
Where I do have an issue is getting from that First Cause to the God I
and other Christians believe in - a personal God with whom we can
interact.
I also have serious issues with the second 'proof' which is
essentially the 'fine tuning' argument that has been hammered to death
so many times. To summarise yet again my own objections to it, firstly
the authors make the fundamental error of assuming that proving
materialism wrong proves theism right. No theory can be proved by
simply disproving an opposing theory, a theory can only be proved in
his own right, with its own supporting evidence.
The second thing I found wrong with it is that there is a big element
of the 'Texas Sharpshooter' fallacy in this - it makes the a priori assumption that life *as we know it* somehow had to come into
existence; they make no provision whatsoever for any other form of
life or any other set of physical laws coming into existence. Here
again, I also have trouble getting from a God fiddling about with
these fine constants to the personal God that I believe in. The
initial conditions that existed immediately after the Big Bang were
actually totally inhospitable to the development of life; no lifeform
we know today could have existed then. So why did God go about
creating human life in his image by starting with an environment where
there was absolutely no possibility of human life existing and leaving
those conditions continue for billions of years? Every creationist for
idea I have asked this question to has simply walked away from it; the
best they have to offer is that God works in mysterious ways and I
just don't find that an acceptable argument for the dismissal of
science.
I've just halfway through the second part of the book which is focused
on what we can learn from other sources, not just science. Perhaps it
will address the issues that I have just described but I'm not overly hopeful. Having said that, I glad to see someone putting work into
showing how religious belief in general and the Bible in particular
had many explanation that science initially disputed but ended up
having to agree with. The first of those is the universe having a
discrete beginning. Genesis may be wrong in the detail (more about
that in a moment) but nevertheless it does identify that discrete
beginning which science almost universally vehemently opposed well
into the 20th century.
The authors do a very good job of tackling those "errors" in Genesis;
they explain how claims about the errors are based on a false
representation of the Bible as a historical record. I knew that as far
back as the fifth century, Augustine was dismissing using the Bible as
an historical source but I didn't realise how much further back that actually went. To repeat one quote from the book:
"Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the
second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed
without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may
so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to
believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted a paradise
eastward in Eden,' and set in it a visible and palpable 'tree of
life,' of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily
teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of 'good and
evil' by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And
when God is said to 'walk in the paradise in the cool of the day' and
Adam to hide himself behind a tree I do not think anyone will doubt
that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history and not through actual events."
That was not written by some modern-day writer scoffing Genesis, it
was written around 230 AD by Origen, the most important theologian and biblical scholar of the early Greek church and identified as a Father
of the Christian Church. When he pointed out these things 1800 years
ago, it beats me how anyone can try to make an argument that it took
modern science to prove them wrong.
There is a lot more than that in the book but I am already at over
1500 words which is more than long enough! I'll simply sum up that I
don't think the book is convincing in all its arguments but, although
it is overly long in my opinion, it is an immense piece of work and definitely a worthwhile read.
Similar to what
Miller does in "Return of the God Hypothesis."
Similai in some ways but, despite the issues I have, it is a much
better book than Meyer's. (Correcting your typo about the name).
"God, the Science, the Evidence" I am certain you will find a worthwhile
read.
On 02/01/2026 12:06, MarkE wrote:
This is foundational in this debate. To reiterate a thought experiment:
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted
scientific research over that time, there is a large majority
scientific consensus that all postulated naturalistic explanations for
each of the following had been excluded or shown be excessively
improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
Within the terms of this hypothetical, how would you respond?
As I wrote earlier, nobody is stopping you proposing supernatural explanations.
If, say, 1000 years from now, no-one has proposed a substantive
supernatural explanation (implicit in your thought experiment), would
you consider stopping looking for a gap to stuff your god into, and
consider that perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that there's
a natural explanation.
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 12:09:54 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but
insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says the
light is better there.
The problem with that analogy is that you are not offering the man a
torch or a candle or even a lit match to help him search in the
darkness, you are simply leaving him to stumble around. Even if he
does find something in the darkness that feels like it might be keys,
he will have to bring them into the light to examine them and make
sure they are indeed keys and, unless they are clearly identified, he
will have to try them out in a lock to make sure that they do fit.
[...]
On 4/01/2026 1:45 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 12:09:54 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but
insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says the
light is better there.
The problem with that analogy is that you are not offering the man a
torch or a candle or even a lit match to help him search in the
darkness, you are simply leaving him to stumble around. Even if he
does find something in the darkness that feels like it might be keys,
he will have to bring them into the light to examine them and make
sure they are indeed keys and, unless they are clearly identified, he
will have to try them out in a lock to make sure that they do fit.
[...]
I'm happy to extend the analogy and give him a torch or a candle, i.e. >religion, philosophy, history, etc. Does that address your concern?
On 1/3/2026 8:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 13:22:06 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
[...]
I would suggest you get the book "God, the Science, the Evidence" by
Michel-Yves Bollore, Olivier Bonnassies. The first half of it he does
exactly what you would like to do with the same points. Very well done
and it is not a difficult read. For me, this book steeled the issues.
He uses research from atheists and agnostics often and then builds upon
it. I wish I could provide some quotes and more details, but I had a
full knee replacement two days ago and I'm suffering right now, sorry.
They also have a chapter with 100 quotes from some of the giants in the
fields saying the exact opposite of what Vincent Maycock does. They get >>> into a little bit of how materialists stop debate with tactics like
Maycock uses, and why that crap don't fly anymore.
In a funny coincidence, I am reading that book right now - I'm about
three quarters of the way through it. You say it's an easy read but I
disagree; there is a lot of interesting stuff in the book but I am
actually finding parts of it quite tedious - too much repetition of
the same stuff, reminds me of a certainposter here:)
These guys claim to see evidence of the existence of some god using >scientific discoveries. Sticks should be running from this book instead
of allowing himself to lie about reality by using the book as evidence
for his Biblical designer.
These guys can never do any better than the ID perps, and what Sticks
should get out of the book is that if some god exists that it is not the
god described in the Bible.
On 3/01/2026 9:24 am, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/01/2026 12:06, MarkE wrote:
This is foundational in this debate. To reiterate a thought experiment:
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted
scientific research over that time, there is a large majority
scientific consensus that all postulated naturalistic explanations
for each of the following had been excluded or shown be excessively
improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
Within the terms of this hypothetical, how would you respond?
As I wrote earlier, nobody is stopping you proposing supernatural
explanations.
If, say, 1000 years from now, no-one has proposed a substantive
supernatural explanation (implicit in your thought experiment), would
you consider stopping looking for a gap to stuff your god into, and
consider that perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that
there's a natural explanation.
The range of Christian creationist positions (TE, OEC, ID, RTB/PC, YEC) demonstrate that reconciling a supernatural explanation (i.e. interpretations of the biblical account of creation) with observations
of the material world is of real importance. How successful this has
been or will be is another topic.
All the same, whenever I pose this thought experiment here, a common response is to unconditionally reject consideration of supernatural explanations, often asserting that science is the only source of knowledge.
IMO, this resistance goes transparently beyond, for example, reasonable caution against premature god-of-the-gaps appeals. Physicist Brian Cox
gives us a clue I think as to where this is coming from (capitalisation mine):
rCLThererCOs no evidence that the universe has purpose or intent, and it doesnrCOt care about us at all. The laws of physics will continue to
operate whether we exist or not. I donrCOt find that depressing rCo I FIND IT LIBERATING, BECAUSE IT MEANS MEANING ISNrCOT IMPOSED FROM OUTSIDE. ItrCOs something we create for ourselves, and with that comes complete responsibility for what we do."
On 4/01/2026 1:45 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 12:09:54 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/01/2026 11:33 am, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:20:42 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
You are the man who lost his keys somewhere in the carpark, and but
insists on looking only under the lamppost because because he says the
light is better there.
The problem with that analogy is that you are not offering the man a
torch or a candle or even a lit match to help him search in the
darkness, you are simply leaving him to stumble around. Even if he
does find something in the darkness that feels like it might be keys,
he will have to bring them into the light to examine them and make
sure they are indeed keys and, unless they are clearly identified, he
will have to try them out in a lock to make sure that they do fit.
[...]
I'm happy to extend the analogy and give him a torch or a candle, i.e. religion, philosophy, history, etc. Does that address your concern?
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 22:06:38 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/3/2026 8:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 13:22:06 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
[...]
I would suggest you get the book "God, the Science, the Evidence" by
Michel-Yves Bollore, Olivier Bonnassies. The first half of it he does >>>> exactly what you would like to do with the same points. Very well done >>>> and it is not a difficult read. For me, this book steeled the issues. >>>> He uses research from atheists and agnostics often and then builds upon >>>> it. I wish I could provide some quotes and more details, but I had a
full knee replacement two days ago and I'm suffering right now, sorry. >>>> They also have a chapter with 100 quotes from some of the giants in the >>>> fields saying the exact opposite of what Vincent Maycock does. They get >>>> into a little bit of how materialists stop debate with tactics like
Maycock uses, and why that crap don't fly anymore.
In a funny coincidence, I am reading that book right now - I'm about
three quarters of the way through it. You say it's an easy read but I
disagree; there is a lot of interesting stuff in the book but I am
actually finding parts of it quite tedious - too much repetition of
the same stuff, reminds me of a certainposter here:)
These guys claim to see evidence of the existence of some god using
scientific discoveries. Sticks should be running from this book instead
of allowing himself to lie about reality by using the book as evidence
for his Biblical designer.
Ah, another person who has the gift of being able to evaluate a book
without reading a single page of it.
These guys can never do any better than the ID perps, and what Sticks
should get out of the book is that if some god exists that it is not the
god described in the Bible.
cf. what I said about people trying to make claims about the god
described in the Bible using a description that the Christian Church dismissed at least 1800 years ago.
[rCa]
On 1/3/26 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 13:22:06 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
[...]
I would suggest you get the book "God, the Science, the Evidence" by
Michel-Yves Bollore, Olivier Bonnassies. The first half of it he does
exactly what you would like to do with the same points. Very well done
and it is not a difficult read. For me, this book steeled the issues.
He uses research from atheists and agnostics often and then builds upon
it. I wish I could provide some quotes and more details, but I had a
full knee replacement two days ago and I'm suffering right now, sorry.
They also have a chapter with 100 quotes from some of the giants in the
fields saying the exact opposite of what Vincent Maycock does. They get >>> into a little bit of how materialists stop debate with tactics like
Maycock uses, and why that crap don't fly anymore.
In a funny coincidence, I am reading that book right now - I'm about
three quarters of the way through it. You say it's an easy read but I
disagree; there is a lot of interesting stuff in the book but I am
actually finding parts of it quite tedious - too much repetition of
the same stuff, reminds me of a certainposter here:)
The book is divided roughly into two halves with the first half
focusing on science and what the authors see as the shortfalls there
are. They give a very detailed history of development of cosmology
over the centuries. I was not aware of how much opposition there was
from the scientific community in recent times towards the Big Bang as
scientists totally opposed to any possibility of the universe having a
finite beginning. Thery similarly opposed the idea of an eventual "big
crunch" as that too, in the opinion of the authors, meant a finite
universe with a beginning though I'm not entirely sure that that is a
valid argument.
Just to note: the big crunch is now out, given dark energy. That seems
to imply a beginning more than a big crunch would, since continual
expansion has to start somewhere.
I was not aware how much both the Soviets under Lenin
and the Nazis went to such extreme lengths to eliminate any suggestion
of a finite universe, or that eliminating the concept played such a
major role in the Nazi oppression of scientists.
The authors draw out another good point from this; we hear much about
the rejection of science by religious believers but we rarely hear the
other side of that coin, just how much opposition there is among
scientists towards anything that might in the slightest way support
religious belief not on any scientific grounds but just in their
ideological belief that *everything* must have a materialist
explanation. Neither I nor the authors are suggesting that is the case
with *all* scientists but there is a lot more of it than I actually
realised.
The authors offer as a counterbalance to this a long list of
scientists (including a number of Nobel Laureates) who believe that
many of the things we have found in science do point towards some sort
of something beyond materialism though they are honest that most of
those scientists are reluctant to identify that 'something' as God.
They examine Einstein and Godel in detail and conclude that both of
them were inclined towards something that could be described as
religious but both rejected any form of organised religion.
The authors summarise the main arguments presented in this part of the
book as:
<quote P222>
A single valid proof is enough to disprove the hypothesis of a purely
material Universe But cosmology allows us to establish two separate
proofs:
o The Universe had a beginning.
This we know, most notably from thermodynamics and the
Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which is based on Hawking and Penrose's
work on initial singularity.
o The laws of the Universe are very favorable to human life, and the
complex, minute fine-tuning of these physical laws is extremely
improbable, as demonstrated by the anthropic principle.
The two proofs are even stronger because they are totally independent
of one another. Firstly and fundamentally, the fact that the Universe
had a beginning and that its structure and laws are improbable are two
distinct facts with no relation between them. Furthermore, their
results are not correlated because they were determined by independent
methods. This double independence reinforces their value as proof,
because the falsity of one has no impact on the truth or falsity of
the other. This significantly lowers the probability that the two are
simultaneously false.
</quote>
I don't have any issue with the logic regarding their first claim, it
is essentially the 'First Cause' argument that goes back to at least
Aristotle and was taken up by Thomas Aquinas. I don't think
materialists have been able to put up any substantive argument against
this; all they seem to have to offer is that of infinite regression
which I do not regard as a valid argument - not least when scientists
accept an end to regression other areas. For example, keeping dividing
any piece of material into two is a form of potentially infinite
regression but scientists recognise that you get to a point where the
piece of material gets to the smallest possible size - the Planck
constant - and can be divided no further; i.e. the regression is not
infinite and has a starting point. I don't see dividing a piece of
material should be excluded from infinite regression but First Cause
should not.
I don't see any reason why lack of infinite regression in one thing
should require us to reject it in all things.
And there are other
options: 1) a multiverse that had a beginning and that gave rise to this >universe; 2) a causeless beginning of the universe. There may be others.
Where I do have an issue is getting from that First Cause to the God I
and other Christians believe in - a personal God with whom we can
interact.
Or, perhaps, anything we would call a god. Anyway, an "uncaused cause"
seem merely a rhetorical device to get rid of infinite regress without >noticing that it substitutes one infinity for another.
I also have serious issues with the second 'proof' which is
essentially the 'fine tuning' argument that has been hammered to death
so many times. To summarise yet again my own objections to it, firstly
the authors make the fundamental error of assuming that proving
materialism wrong proves theism right. No theory can be proved by
simply disproving an opposing theory, a theory can only be proved in
his own right, with its own supporting evidence.
This might be a good point to object to the quote's (and your) use of >"proof", which is of course something we don't see in science.
I also
don't like your model of science, though it seems better than the
book's. You are right that the quote sets up a false dichotomy. But
theories can't be proven, and a better model of science would involve >testing of one theory against another or several others, provisionally >accepting the one that fits the data best, or least badly, and with some >credit given for simplicity. The God theory has problems here, because
it makes no predictions for what the data ought to look like, so there
can in principle be no evidence against it, i.e. that fits another
theory better. We compare theories against data, disliking those that
give the data low probability of being observed and preferring those
that give the data higher probability of being observed. And we should >always be prepared to test our preferred theories against newer ones.
The second thing I found wrong with it is that there is a big element
of the 'Texas Sharpshooter' fallacy in this - it makes the a priori
assumption that life *as we know it* somehow had to come into
existence; they make no provision whatsoever for any other form of
life or any other set of physical laws coming into existence. Here
again, I also have trouble getting from a God fiddling about with
these fine constants to the personal God that I believe in. The
initial conditions that existed immediately after the Big Bang were
actually totally inhospitable to the development of life; no lifeform
we know today could have existed then. So why did God go about
creating human life in his image by starting with an environment where
there was absolutely no possibility of human life existing and leaving
those conditions continue for billions of years? Every creationist for
idea I have asked this question to has simply walked away from it; the
best they have to offer is that God works in mysterious ways and I
just don't find that an acceptable argument for the dismissal of
science.
"Mysterious ways" is another problem with trying to do science withe the
God hypothesis. It again makes any data fit.
And there are many more problems with the fine tuning hypothesis, if you >care to go into them. It assumes the parameters of the universe are
drawn from a known distribution, which they are not. It assumes that a >creator would or could have acted only by adjusting a few particular >constants in a big bang, which seems an odd constraint. Or it assumes
that the best universe for life is one consisting almost entirely of
vacuum, which seems odd.
I've just halfway through the second part of the book which is focused
on what we can learn from other sources, not just science. Perhaps it
will address the issues that I have just described but I'm not overly
hopeful. Having said that, I glad to see someone putting work into
showing how religious belief in general and the Bible in particular
had many explanation that science initially disputed but ended up
having to agree with. The first of those is the universe having a
discrete beginning. Genesis may be wrong in the detail (more about
that in a moment) but nevertheless it does identify that discrete
beginning which science almost universally vehemently opposed well
into the 20th century.
This may have been a reaction to previous dogma that the universe began >quite recently. Certainly that was the case in geology, when deep time >expanded radically during the 18th and 19th Centuries with considerable >resistance from outside science, early on claiming a steady state,
possible infinitely extended earth history. Anyway, don't most religions >posit a beginning for the universe?
I would be interested to know what these many other biblical and
religious explanations are that science ended up having to agree with. >Nothing immediately comes to mind.
The authors do a very good job of tackling those "errors" in Genesis;
they explain how claims about the errors are based on a false
representation of the Bible as a historical record.
So the error is to assume that the bible has anything to do with the
real world?
That increases my curiosity about what these other biblical
explanations, once resisted but now accepted by science, could be.
I knew that as far
back as the fifth century, Augustine was dismissing using the Bible as
an historical source but I didn't realise how much further back that
actually went. To repeat one quote from the book:
"Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the
second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed
without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may
so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to
believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted a paradise
eastward in Eden,' and set in it a visible and palpable 'tree of
life,' of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily
teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of 'good and
evil' by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And
when God is said to 'walk in the paradise in the cool of the day' and
Adam to hide himself behind a tree I do not think anyone will doubt
that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries
through a semblance of history and not through actual events."
That was not written by some modern-day writer scoffing Genesis, it
was written around 230 AD by Origen, the most important theologian and
biblical scholar of the early Greek church and identified as a Father
of the Christian Church. When he pointed out these things 1800 years
ago, it beats me how anyone can try to make an argument that it took
modern science to prove them wrong.
Again with "prove". But I would say that it took something like ancient >science, something so simple as to note that the light we get comes from
the sun, and that "evening" and "morning" are words with particular
meanings relating to position of the sun in the sky.
There is a lot more than that in the book but I am already at over
1500 words which is more than long enough! I'll simply sum up that I
don't think the book is convincing in all its arguments but, although
it is overly long in my opinion, it is an immense piece of work and
definitely a worthwhile read.
Perhaps. Could you summarize why? For the historical bits, perhaps?
Similar to what
Miller does in "Return of the God Hypothesis."
Similai in some ways but, despite the issues I have, it is a much
better book than Meyer's. (Correcting your typo about the name).
"God, the Science, the Evidence" I am certain you will find a worthwhile >>> read.
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 10:17:00 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/3/26 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 13:22:06 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
[...]
I would suggest you get the book "God, the Science, the Evidence" by
Michel-Yves Bollore, Olivier Bonnassies. The first half of it he does >>>> exactly what you would like to do with the same points. Very well done >>>> and it is not a difficult read. For me, this book steeled the issues. >>>> He uses research from atheists and agnostics often and then builds upon >>>> it. I wish I could provide some quotes and more details, but I had a
full knee replacement two days ago and I'm suffering right now, sorry. >>>> They also have a chapter with 100 quotes from some of the giants in the >>>> fields saying the exact opposite of what Vincent Maycock does. They get >>>> into a little bit of how materialists stop debate with tactics like
Maycock uses, and why that crap don't fly anymore.
In a funny coincidence, I am reading that book right now - I'm about
three quarters of the way through it. You say it's an easy read but I
disagree; there is a lot of interesting stuff in the book but I am
actually finding parts of it quite tedious - too much repetition of
the same stuff, reminds me of a certainposter here:)
The book is divided roughly into two halves with the first half
focusing on science and what the authors see as the shortfalls there
are. They give a very detailed history of development of cosmology
over the centuries. I was not aware of how much opposition there was
from the scientific community in recent times towards the Big Bang as
scientists totally opposed to any possibility of the universe having a
finite beginning. Thery similarly opposed the idea of an eventual "big
crunch" as that too, in the opinion of the authors, meant a finite
universe with a beginning though I'm not entirely sure that that is a
valid argument.
Just to note: the big crunch is now out, given dark energy. That seems
to imply a beginning more than a big crunch would, since continual
expansion has to start somewhere.
Fair enough but I think that falls into the category of a difference
that makes no difference in the context we are discussing.
I was not aware how much both the Soviets under Lenin
and the Nazis went to such extreme lengths to eliminate any suggestion
of a finite universe, or that eliminating the concept played such a
major role in the Nazi oppression of scientists.
The authors draw out another good point from this; we hear much about
the rejection of science by religious believers but we rarely hear the
other side of that coin, just how much opposition there is among
scientists towards anything that might in the slightest way support
religious belief not on any scientific grounds but just in their
ideological belief that *everything* must have a materialist
explanation. Neither I nor the authors are suggesting that is the case
with *all* scientists but there is a lot more of it than I actually
realised.
The authors offer as a counterbalance to this a long list of
scientists (including a number of Nobel Laureates) who believe that
many of the things we have found in science do point towards some sort
of something beyond materialism though they are honest that most of
those scientists are reluctant to identify that 'something' as God.
They examine Einstein and Godel in detail and conclude that both of
them were inclined towards something that could be described as
religious but both rejected any form of organised religion.
The authors summarise the main arguments presented in this part of the
book as:
<quote P222>
A single valid proof is enough to disprove the hypothesis of a purely
material Universe But cosmology allows us to establish two separate
proofs:
o The Universe had a beginning.
This we know, most notably from thermodynamics and the
Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which is based on Hawking and Penrose's
work on initial singularity.
o The laws of the Universe are very favorable to human life, and the
complex, minute fine-tuning of these physical laws is extremely
improbable, as demonstrated by the anthropic principle.
The two proofs are even stronger because they are totally independent
of one another. Firstly and fundamentally, the fact that the Universe
had a beginning and that its structure and laws are improbable are two
distinct facts with no relation between them. Furthermore, their
results are not correlated because they were determined by independent
methods. This double independence reinforces their value as proof,
because the falsity of one has no impact on the truth or falsity of
the other. This significantly lowers the probability that the two are
simultaneously false.
</quote>
I don't have any issue with the logic regarding their first claim, it
is essentially the 'First Cause' argument that goes back to at least
Aristotle and was taken up by Thomas Aquinas. I don't think
materialists have been able to put up any substantive argument against
this; all they seem to have to offer is that of infinite regression
which I do not regard as a valid argument - not least when scientists
accept an end to regression other areas. For example, keeping dividing
any piece of material into two is a form of potentially infinite
regression but scientists recognise that you get to a point where the
piece of material gets to the smallest possible size - the Planck
constant - and can be divided no further; i.e. the regression is not
infinite and has a starting point. I don't see dividing a piece of
material should be excluded from infinite regression but First Cause
should not.
I don't see any reason why lack of infinite regression in one thing
should require us to reject it in all things.
I didn't say reject it in all things; I said that I can't see why it
should be invoked in the 'First Cause ' but not in the case of the
Planck constant. Can you offer a reason why it should?
And there are other
options: 1) a multiverse that had a beginning and that gave rise to this
universe; 2) a causeless beginning of the universe. There may be others.
And those are entirely speculative; but more about that a little
further down.
Where I do have an issue is getting from that First Cause to the God I
and other Christians believe in - a personal God with whom we can
interact.
Or, perhaps, anything we would call a god. Anyway, an "uncaused cause"
seem merely a rhetorical device to get rid of infinite regress without
noticing that it substitutes one infinity for another.
But religious believers believe in an infinity - we call it
"eternity". The argument about first cause is related only to the
universe in which we exist, not what came before or after it.
I also have serious issues with the second 'proof' which is
essentially the 'fine tuning' argument that has been hammered to death
so many times. To summarise yet again my own objections to it, firstly
the authors make the fundamental error of assuming that proving
materialism wrong proves theism right. No theory can be proved by
simply disproving an opposing theory, a theory can only be proved in
his own right, with its own supporting evidence.
This might be a good point to object to the quote's (and your) use of
"proof", which is of course something we don't see in science.
I too don't like the use of the word which is why I put it in quote
marks. In fairness to the authors, and this is a problem with
selecting parts of the book for review; they do cover this whole
concept of 'proof' in detail earlier in the book.
Accepting the price of making this already long post even longer, I
think is worth quoting some extracts from what they say in the book:
<quote>
rCa further clarification is needed, since evidence can be categorized
into two types:
*Absolute proofs* (often referred to simply as "proof") exist in
theoretical or formal domains such as mathematics, games, and logic.
These proofs are definitive and incontestable because they result from
a finite set of clearly defined principles, axioms, and rules.
*Relative proofs* (often simply referred to as "evidence") are those
that exist in the real world. They are never absolute, since they rely
on our inherently imperfect and incomplete understanding of reality.
</quote>
They go on to look at how relative proofs can get things badly wrong
not considering all data. They use the example Mao Zedong ordering the eradication of sparrows as officials had told him that sparrows eating
the sown seed was a significant factor in low crop yields. That was
true but they did not take into consideration that sparrows eat worms
and insects that are far more destructive to crops. The result of the eradication programme was a catastrophic famine that led to millions
of deaths.
They also discuss the role of relative proof in the justice system.
They then look at how 'proof' is approached in science. They first go
through the scientific method describing 4 steps:
Step1: the theory (careless use of the word IMO)
Step 2: the implications
Step 3: the mathematical model
Step4: experimentation
They continue:
<quote>
Scientific theories can be classified into groups based on the level
of evidence supporting them.
The strength of a theory is determined by the number of validation
steps it has successfully passed. Depending on whether it is validated
by two, three, or all four of the steps listed previously, a theory's strength can be categorized into different groups, from Group 2 (the strongest) to Group 6 (the weakest), with Group 1 reserved for
absolute proof.
o Group 1: Absolute proof
This type is found only in theoretical or formal domains.
o Group 2: Theories that can be tested against reality, that are mathematically modelable, and that are subject to experimentationThis
group encompasses fields like physics, mechanics, electricity, electromagnetism, and chemistry. The evidence in this category is so compelling that it approaches absolute proof and is rarely contested,
though it may be refined by future convergent models.
o Group 3: Theories that can be tested against reality, that are
modelable, but that are not subject to experimentation. This group
includes fields like cosmology, climatology (especially climate change research), and econometrics. While these theories may not be testable
in the traditional sense, they can be modeled, and the predictions
generated by these models can be verified. The level of evidence
supporting theories in this group is strong.
o Group 4: Theories that can be tested against reality, that can be
subject to experimentation, but that are not mathematically modelable.
This group includes fields like physiology, pharmacology, and biology. Although these theories may not be modelable, their reliability is
reinforced through repeated experimentation, which provides strong verification. The level of evidence in this group is high, as with
Group 3, but achieved through different means.
o Group 5: Theories that can be tested against reality, but that are
neither modelable nor subject to experimentation. While lacking the
probative strength of previous groups, this category encompasses many widely-accepted scientific fields. Examples include Darwinian
evolution (which, for a long time, was neither modelable nor subject
to experimentation), paleontology (e.g., theories about dinosaur
extinction and Neanderthal disappearance), and origin-related
questions (e.g., the origin of life on Earth, the Moon, and water on
our planet). These theories are validated solely by comparing their implications with observable aspects of the real world. This group
also includes the thesis "there is a creator God" and the thesis
"nothing exists beyond the material universe." Although neither of
these theories is modelable or testable, they do carry logical
implications that can be compared to reality. This topic will be
explored further in the next chapter.
o Group 6: Theories without implications, and that are neither
modelable nor subject to experimentationThese are purely speculative hypotheses. They generate no observable implications that can be
tested against reality and, therefore, hold no level of validation.
One example in this group is the multiverse theory, also known as
"parallel universes." This theory has no observable implications.
Another example is the theory of the existence of extra-terrestrials,
which likewise has no observable implications and therefore remains
pure science fiction.
</quote>
FWIW, I think they done a good job overall here but have made it a bit unnecessary complex by careless use of the word 'proof' .
I also
don't like your model of science, though it seems better than the
book's. You are right that the quote sets up a false dichotomy. But
theories can't be proven, and a better model of science would involve
testing of one theory against another or several others, provisionally
accepting the one that fits the data best, or least badly, and with some
credit given for simplicity. The God theory has problems here, because
it makes no predictions for what the data ought to look like, so there
can in principle be no evidence against it, i.e. that fits another
theory better. We compare theories against data, disliking those that
give the data low probability of being observed and preferring those
that give the data higher probability of being observed. And we should
always be prepared to test our preferred theories against newer ones.
Going back to what you said earlier about a multiverse that had a
beginning or a causeless beginning of the universe, I think that they
are right in putting that sort of speculation into Group 6 and the
creator God into Group 5 as that can at least be compared to reality
whereas the firmer cannot.
The second thing I found wrong with it is that there is a big element
of the 'Texas Sharpshooter' fallacy in this - it makes the a priori
assumption that life *as we know it* somehow had to come into
existence; they make no provision whatsoever for any other form of
life or any other set of physical laws coming into existence. Here
again, I also have trouble getting from a God fiddling about with
these fine constants to the personal God that I believe in. The
initial conditions that existed immediately after the Big Bang were
actually totally inhospitable to the development of life; no lifeform
we know today could have existed then. So why did God go about
creating human life in his image by starting with an environment where
there was absolutely no possibility of human life existing and leaving
those conditions continue for billions of years? Every creationist for
idea I have asked this question to has simply walked away from it; the
best they have to offer is that God works in mysterious ways and I
just don't find that an acceptable argument for the dismissal of
science.
"Mysterious ways" is another problem with trying to do science withe the
God hypothesis. It again makes any data fit.
Yes, that's why I don't like it in discussions about science.
And there are many more problems with the fine tuning hypothesis, if you
care to go into them. It assumes the parameters of the universe are
drawn from a known distribution, which they are not. It assumes that a
creator would or could have acted only by adjusting a few particular
constants in a big bang, which seems an odd constraint. Or it assumes
that the best universe for life is one consisting almost entirely of
vacuum, which seems odd.
I've just halfway through the second part of the book which is focused
on what we can learn from other sources, not just science. Perhaps it
will address the issues that I have just described but I'm not overly
hopeful. Having said that, I glad to see someone putting work into
showing how religious belief in general and the Bible in particular
had many explanation that science initially disputed but ended up
having to agree with. The first of those is the universe having a
discrete beginning. Genesis may be wrong in the detail (more about
that in a moment) but nevertheless it does identify that discrete
beginning which science almost universally vehemently opposed well
into the 20th century.
This may have been a reaction to previous dogma that the universe began
quite recently. Certainly that was the case in geology, when deep time
expanded radically during the 18th and 19th Centuries with considerable
resistance from outside science, early on claiming a steady state,
possible infinitely extended earth history. Anyway, don't most religions
posit a beginning for the universe?
Sorry, I don't get your point here. Whether or not it was a reaction
to previous dogma (and I don't think it was), that doesn't change the
point that the idea of Adam and Eve walking around a pleasant garden, engaging in chat with a snake, was dismissed by the Christian Church
*at least* 1800 years ago, at least 1300 years before the beginnings
of what we would regard as modern science.
..
I would be interested to know what these many other biblical and
religious explanations are that science ended up having to agree with.
Nothing immediately comes to mind.
I'll identify some of them in a separate post as this one is already
far too long. That, however, will be later today or maybe tomorrow.
The authors do a very good job of tackling those "errors" in Genesis;
they explain how claims about the errors are based on a false
representation of the Bible as a historical record.
So the error is to assume that the bible has anything to do with the
real world?
No, not at all - the Bible does have everything to do with the real
world but that is about who we are, why we are what we are, and where
we are going; although it touches on some aspects of history and
science, it is not a history book or a scientific treatise.
That increases my curiosity about what these other biblical
explanations, once resisted but now accepted by science, could be.
I knew that as far
back as the fifth century, Augustine was dismissing using the Bible as
an historical source but I didn't realise how much further back that
actually went. To repeat one quote from the book:
"Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the
second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed
without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may
so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to
believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted a paradise
eastward in Eden,' and set in it a visible and palpable 'tree of
life,' of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily
teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of 'good and
evil' by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And
when God is said to 'walk in the paradise in the cool of the day' and
Adam to hide himself behind a tree I do not think anyone will doubt
that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries
through a semblance of history and not through actual events."
That was not written by some modern-day writer scoffing Genesis, it
was written around 230 AD by Origen, the most important theologian and
biblical scholar of the early Greek church and identified as a Father
of the Christian Church. When he pointed out these things 1800 years
ago, it beats me how anyone can try to make an argument that it took
modern science to prove them wrong.
Again with "prove". But I would say that it took something like ancient
science, something so simple as to note that the light we get comes from
the sun, and that "evening" and "morning" are words with particular
meanings relating to position of the sun in the sky.
There is a lot more than that in the book but I am already at over
1500 words which is more than long enough! I'll simply sum up that I
don't think the book is convincing in all its arguments but, although
it is overly long in my opinion, it is an immense piece of work and
definitely a worthwhile read.
Perhaps. Could you summarize why? For the historical bits, perhaps?
Similar to what
Miller does in "Return of the God Hypothesis."
Similai in some ways but, despite the issues I have, it is a much
better book than Meyer's. (Correcting your typo about the name).
"God, the Science, the Evidence" I am certain you will find a worthwhile >>>> read.
On 3/01/2026 9:24 am, Ernest Major wrote:I for one find it depressing that a rational thoughtful human would be
On 02/01/2026 12:06, MarkE wrote:
This is foundational in this debate. To reiterate a thought experiment:
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted
scientific research over that time, there is a large majority
scientific consensus that all postulated naturalistic explanations for
each of the following had been excluded or shown be excessively
improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
Within the terms of this hypothetical, how would you respond?
As I wrote earlier, nobody is stopping you proposing supernatural
explanations.
If, say, 1000 years from now, no-one has proposed a substantive
supernatural explanation (implicit in your thought experiment), would
you consider stopping looking for a gap to stuff your god into, and
consider that perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that there's
a natural explanation.
The range of Christian creationist positions (TE, OEC, ID, RTB/PC, YEC) >demonstrate that reconciling a supernatural explanation (i.e. >interpretations of the biblical account of creation) with observations
of the material world is of real importance. How successful this has
been or will be is another topic.
All the same, whenever I pose this thought experiment here, a common >response is to unconditionally reject consideration of supernatural >explanations, often asserting that science is the only source of knowledge.
IMO, this resistance goes transparently beyond, for example, reasonable >caution against premature god-of-the-gaps appeals. Physicist Brian Cox
gives us a clue I think as to where this is coming from (capitalisation >mine):
rCLThererCOs no evidence that the universe has purpose or intent, and it >doesnrCOt care about us at all. The laws of physics will continue to
operate whether we exist or not. I donrCOt find that depressing rCo I FIND >IT LIBERATING, BECAUSE IT MEANS MEANING ISNrCOT IMPOSED FROM OUTSIDE. ItrCOs >something we create for ourselves, and with that comes complete >responsibility for what we do."
On 1/3/26 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:[...]
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 13:22:06 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
[...]
Exactly. It's bizarre how Harran claims materialists haven't put any substantive argument against First Cause, when in fact First Cause isI don't have any issue with the logic regarding their first claim, it
is essentially the 'First Cause' argument that goes back to at least
Aristotle and was taken up by Thomas Aquinas. I don't think
materialists have been able to put up any substantive argument against
this; all they seem to have to offer is that of infinite regression
which I do not regard as a valid argument - not least when scientists
accept an end to regression other areas. For example, keeping dividing
any piece of material into two is a form of potentially infinite
regression but scientists recognise that you get to a point where the
piece of material gets to the smallest possible size - the Planck
constant - and can be divided no further; i.e. the regression is not
infinite and has a starting point. I don't see dividing a piece of
material should be excluded from infinite regression but First Cause
should not.
I don't see any reason why lack of infinite regression in one thing
should require us to reject it in all things. And there are other
options: 1) a multiverse that had a beginning and that gave rise to this >universe; 2) a causeless beginning of the universe. There may be others.
Where I do have an issue is getting from that First Cause to the God I
and other Christians believe in - a personal God with whom we can
interact.
Or, perhaps, anything we would call a god. Anyway, an "uncaused cause"
seem merely a rhetorical device to get rid of infinite regress without >noticing that it substitutes one infinity for another.
I don't have any issue with the logic regarding their first claim, it
is essentially the 'First Cause' argument that goes back to at least
Aristotle and was taken up by Thomas Aquinas. I don't think
materialists have been able to put up any substantive argument against >>>> this; all they seem to have to offer is that of infinite regression
which I do not regard as a valid argument - not least when scientists
accept an end to regression other areas. For example, keeping dividing >>>> any piece of material into two is a form of potentially infinite
regression but scientists recognise that you get to a point where the
piece of material gets to the smallest possible size - the Planck
constant - and can be divided no further; i.e. the regression is not
infinite and has a starting point. I don't see dividing a piece of
material should be excluded from infinite regression but First Cause
should not.
I don't see any reason why lack of infinite regression in one thing
should require us to reject it in all things.
I didn't say reject it in all things; I said that I can't see why it
should be invoked in the 'First Cause ' but not in the case of the
Planck constant. Can you offer a reason why it should?
Can you offer a reason why what we do in one case should be the same as
what we do in a quite different case? I don't see the Planck distance as
an attempt to avoid infinite regress at all. Then again, I'm not a physicist.
On 1/3/26 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
I've just halfway through the second part of the book which is focused
on what we can learn from other sources, not just science. Perhaps it
will address the issues that I have just described but I'm not overly
hopeful. Having said that, I glad to see someone putting work into
showing how religious belief in general and the Bible in particular
had many explanation that science initially disputed but ended up
having to agree with. The first of those is the universe having a
discrete beginning. Genesis may be wrong in the detail (more about
that in a moment) but nevertheless it does identify that discrete
beginning which science almost universally vehemently opposed well
into the 20th century.
I would be interested to know what these many other biblical and
religious explanations are that science ended up having to agree with. >Nothing immediately comes to mind.
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 10:17:00 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/3/26 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[snip for focus]
I've just halfway through the second part of the book which is focused
on what we can learn from other sources, not just science. Perhaps it
will address the issues that I have just described but I'm not overly
hopeful. Having said that, I glad to see someone putting work into
showing how religious belief in general and the Bible in particular
had many explanation that science initially disputed but ended up
having to agree with. The first of those is the universe having a
discrete beginning. Genesis may be wrong in the detail (more about
that in a moment) but nevertheless it does identify that discrete
beginning which science almost universally vehemently opposed well
into the 20th century.
[...]
I would be interested to know what these many other biblical and
religious explanations are that science ended up having to agree with.
Nothing immediately comes to mind.
It's a long book covering a lot of ground so I can only give you a
partial selection of some of the things that resonated with me.
First of all they do a lengthy discussion on the Hebrew awareness of a
finite beginning and finite end to the universe as we have already
discussed.
Time - ancient Hebrews considered time to relate only to this universe
and only came into being with it with the past, the present and the
future being one thing to God; that ties in with modern conclusions
about space-time curvature.
Most if not all ancient civilisations thought the sun and the moon
were gods; the Hebrews never thought that, they always recognised the
moon and sun as celestial objects.
They also point out that the Hebrews never deified any mortal being
unlike most other civilisations e.g. the Egyptians with their pharaohs
and the Romans with their emperors; they regarded man in physical
terms to be nothing beyond matter which again science has obviously confirmed.
They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a single
couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal
Adam. I know that you and I have argued this one before; my argument
was that it is only an issue if someone argues that they were the
*only* common ancestor but the Hebrews did not claim that - the story
of Cain going to live in the land of Nod is a clear indication that
they accepted there were other humans around at that time..
The Hebrews believed that notwithstanding the figurative language of
Genesis, man came from the mud of the earth; as the authors put it:
"Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our first parent, is matter"
which is exactly what modern science has figured out.
They also make a point that is more to do with the second half of the
book (evidence outside science) which I hope to summarise later in the
week but worth mentioning here: "The Jews are likely the only people
from antiquity who have preserved their original country, language,
and religion ...
[yet] ...Twenty-two percent of Nobel prize winners
are Jews, while they represent only 0.2% of the world population".
That at the very least shows that living in a culture that is
dominated by belief in the Bible is not a barrier to science and
arguably may be a contributor to encouraging scientific exploration.
They do an in-depth analysis of G||del's Incompleteness Theorems. This
is somewhat beyond my pay grade and there seems to be quite a bit of
dispute about the implications but according to the authors, G||del
himself was convinced that the mind was something beyond natural
causes: "I don't think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In
fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can't yield the brain."
They also do an in-depth analysis of Einstein and his work, noting
that he was vehemently opposed to the idea of a personal god and
dismissed organised religion, stating, for example, "For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most
childish superstition." They point out, however, that Einstein's work
is sprinkled with references to God and the organisation of the
universe being beyond any natural explanation.
They also do quote their 100 scientists which you suspected of being quote-mining. I don't think they are quote-mined as they are all fully referenced; here are a few that I have checked out and seem valid -
YMMV.
Robert Millikan (1868- 1953), the physicist who calculated the charge
of the electron and the Planck constant, winner of the 1923 Nobel
Prize in Physics: "A lifetime of scientific research has convinced
[me] that there is a divinity who is shaping the destiny of man."[333]
George Thomson (1892- 1975), British physicist, Nobel co-laureate
1937: "Probably every physicist would believe in a creation [of the
Universe] if the Bible had not unfortunately said something about it
many years ago and made it seem old-fashioned. [334]
Shoichi Yoshikawa (1935- 2010), Professor of Astrophysics at
Princeton: "I think that God originated the universe and life. Homo
sapiens was created by God using a process which does not violate any
of the physical laws of the Universe in any significant way." [366]
Max Planck (1858- 1947), one of the founders of quantum mechanics,
1918 Nobel Laureate in Physics, and discoverer of the quantum
structure of radiation: "Metaphysical reality does not stand spatially
behind what is given in experience, but lies fully within it." [373]
Again: "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of
any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: You must have faith. It is a quality
which the scientists cannot dispense with." [374] Also: "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force [. . .]. We must
assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent spirit." [375]
Stephen Hawking (1942- 2018), Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge
(who, despite the following words, was an atheist all the same): " rCa
The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like
the Big Bang are enormous... I think clearly there are religious
implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the
universe. But I think that most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it."[393]
John Eccles (1903- 1997), neurologist, electrophysiologist, winner of
the 1963 Nobel Prize in Medicine: "I maintain that the human mystery
is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual
world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be
classed as a superstition."[408] Again: "I am constrained to attribute
the uniqueness of the Self or Soul to a supernatural spiritual
creation." [409]
References for above as cited by authors
=================================
333. The Autobiography of Robert A. Millikan (New York: Arno Press,
1980). As cited in the Observance of Rural Life Sunday by 4-H Clubs,
1952: Theme, Serving as Loyal Citizens Through 4-H (United States
Department of Agriculture Extension Service, 1952), 10.
334. Sir George Paget Thomson, "Continuous Creation and the Edge of
Space," New Republic 124 (1951): 21- 22.
366. Shoichi Yoshikawa, "The Hidden Variables of Quantum Mechanics Are
Under God's Power," in Cosmos, Bios, Theos, ed. Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese
373. Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography (New York: Philosophical
Library, 1949), 98. 374. Max Planck, Where Is Science Going? (London:
Allen & Unwin, 1913), 214.
375. Max Planck, "Das Wesen der Materie" [" The Nature of Matter"],
speech at Florence, Italy (1944), in Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Boltzmannstra|fe 14, D-14195 Berlin-Dahlem).
393. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam,
1988), 174; see also David Filkin, Stephen Hawking's Universe: The
Cosmos Explained (New York: Basic Books, 1998), 109.
408. Jojn C. Eccles, Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self
(London: Routledge, 1991), 241.
409. Ibid., 322
[...]
They also make a point that is more to do with the second half of the
book (evidence outside science) which I hope to summarise later in the
week but worth mentioning here: "The Jews are likely the only people
from antiquity who have preserved their original country, language,
and religion ...
"Preserved" as in fossilized until a recent revival. Comes with having a sacred book or two. One might mention northern India, where Sanskrit has been preserved for similar reasons. Of course it's no longer spoken, but neither was Hebrew until quite recently. I don't see any of this as
relevant to the next point.
On 1/5/26 6:11 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 10:17:00 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/3/26 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[snip for focus]
I've just halfway through the second part of the book which is focused >>>> on what we can learn from other sources, not just science. Perhaps it
will address the issues that I have just described but I'm not overly
hopeful. Having said that, I glad to see someone putting work into
showing how religious belief in general and the Bible in particular
had many explanation that science initially disputed but ended up
having to agree with. The first of those is the universe having a
discrete beginning. Genesis may be wrong in the detail (more about
that in a moment) but nevertheless it does identify that discrete
beginning which science almost universally vehemently opposed well
into the 20th century.
[...]
I would be interested to know what these many other biblical and
religious explanations are that science ended up having to agree with.
Nothing immediately comes to mind.
It's a long book covering a lot of ground so I can only give you a
partial selection of some of the things that resonated with me.
Have to say that none of them resonated with me.
On 1/5/26 6:11 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 10:17:00 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/3/26 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[snip for focus]
I've just halfway through the second part of the book which is focused >>>> on what we can learn from other sources, not just science. Perhaps it
will address the issues that I have just described but I'm not overly
hopeful. Having said that, I glad to see someone putting work into
showing how religious belief in general and the Bible in particular
had many explanation that science initially disputed but ended up
having to agree with. The first of those is the universe having a
discrete beginning. Genesis may be wrong in the detail (more about
that in a moment) but nevertheless it does identify that discrete
beginning which science almost universally vehemently opposed well
into the 20th century.
[...]
I would be interested to know what these many other biblical and
religious explanations are that science ended up having to agree with.
Nothing immediately comes to mind.
It's a long book covering a lot of ground so I can only give you a
partial selection of some of the things that resonated with me.
Have to say that none of them resonated with me.
First of all they do a lengthy discussion on the Hebrew awareness of a
finite beginning and finite end to the universe as we have already
discussed.
Note that there is now no finite end to the universe according to
current theory and observation. Even after all the protons decay.
Time - ancient Hebrews considered time to relate only to this universe
and only came into being with it with the past, the present and the
future being one thing to God; that ties in with modern conclusions
about space-time curvature.
What evidence is there that ancient Hebrews had this belief? Sounds like >shoehorning to me.
Most if not all ancient civilisations thought the sun and the moon
were gods; the Hebrews never thought that, they always recognised the
moon and sun as celestial objects.
Sure, goes along with monotheism, as does the next one. But how is this
(and the next one) relevant to the case of a biblical and religious >explanation that science ended up having to agree with? Was there a lot
of resistance in science to the sun not being a god?
They also point out that the Hebrews never deified any mortal being
unlike most other civilisations e.g. the Egyptians with their pharaohs
and the Romans with their emperors; they regarded man in physical
terms to be nothing beyond matter which again science has obviously
confirmed.
So you think that science has disconfirmed he existence of a soul? >Interesting. Or is "in physical terms" a weasel wording here?
They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a single
couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal
Adam. I know that you and I have argued this one before; my argument
was that it is only an issue if someone argues that they were the
*only* common ancestor but the Hebrews did not claim that - the story
of Cain going to live in the land of Nod is a clear indication that
they accepted there were other humans around at that time..
I think there are other explanations regarding Cain. One is that the
bible isn't entirely self-consistent, and the Cain story and the
Adam/Eve story were sewn together at some point, and the joints are
showing. Another is that these other people were also descendants of
A&E. I'd also say that Jewish tradition is mixed on that point.
And of course Y-Adam and mt-Eve were not a couple. There are only so
many round holes into which you can fit a square peg before the strain >shows.
The Hebrews believed that notwithstanding the figurative language of
Genesis, man came from the mud of the earth; as the authors put it:
"Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our first parent, is matter"
which is exactly what modern science has figured out.
Note the elision of "mud" into "matter". Another square peg in a round
hole. And again, not one of these is "a biblical and religious
explanation that science ended up having to agree with".
They also make a point that is more to do with the second half of the
book (evidence outside science) which I hope to summarise later in the
week but worth mentioning here: "The Jews are likely the only people
from antiquity who have preserved their original country, language,
and religion ...
"Preserved" as in fossilized until a recent revival. Comes with having a >sacred book or two. One might mention northern India, where Sanskrit has >been preserved for similar reasons. Of course it's no longer spoken, but >neither was Hebrew until quite recently. I don't see any of this as
relevant to the next point.
[yet] ...Twenty-two percent of Nobel prize winners
are Jews, while they represent only 0.2% of the world population".
That at the very least shows that living in a culture that is
dominated by belief in the Bible is not a barrier to science and
arguably may be a contributor to encouraging scientific exploration.
....but only when embedded in a foreign culture, apparently. I suppose
this has more to do with Jewish tradition respecting learning, though
only of their religious documents, which seems in some cases to have >transferred to learning in general. How is this relevant to any point?
They do an in-depth analysis of G||del's Incompleteness Theorems. This
is somewhat beyond my pay grade and there seems to be quite a bit of
dispute about the implications but according to the authors, G||del
himself was convinced that the mind was something beyond natural
causes: "I don't think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In
fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can't yield the brain."
I don't see G||del's qualifications to pronounce on evolution. Was he not >aware that "the brain" has a long evolutionary history going back to the >beginnings of bilaterians? At what point are these other processes involved?
They also do an in-depth analysis of Einstein and his work, noting
that he was vehemently opposed to the idea of a personal god and
dismissed organised religion, stating, for example, "For me the Jewish
religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most
childish superstition." They point out, however, that Einstein's work
is sprinkled with references to God and the organisation of the
universe being beyond any natural explanation.
How many of these references are purely figurative? Now there's evidence
of quote-mining, if they're using those references to make some point
about ... well, I'm not quite sure what.
They also do quote their 100 scientists which you suspected of being
quote-mining. I don't think they are quote-mined as they are all fully
referenced; here are a few that I have checked out and seem valid -
YMMV.
Fully referenced quotes can be as mined as any; It's just that you can
check them to find out. What's more important is to ask what point
they're trying to make with the quotes (I'm guessing multiple unrelated >ones).
Robert Millikan (1868- 1953), the physicist who calculated the charge
of the electron and the Planck constant, winner of the 1923 Nobel
Prize in Physics: "A lifetime of scientific research has convinced
[me] that there is a divinity who is shaping the destiny of man."[333]
George Thomson (1892- 1975), British physicist, Nobel co-laureate
1937: "Probably every physicist would believe in a creation [of the
Universe] if the Bible had not unfortunately said something about it
many years ago and made it seem old-fashioned. [334]
Shoichi Yoshikawa (1935- 2010), Professor of Astrophysics at
Princeton: "I think that God originated the universe and life. Homo
sapiens was created by God using a process which does not violate any
of the physical laws of the Universe in any significant way." [366]
Max Planck (1858- 1947), one of the founders of quantum mechanics,
1918 Nobel Laureate in Physics, and discoverer of the quantum
structure of radiation: "Metaphysical reality does not stand spatially
behind what is given in experience, but lies fully within it." [373]
Again: "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of
any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of
science are written the words: You must have faith. It is a quality
which the scientists cannot dispense with." [374] Also: "All matter
originates and exists only by virtue of a force [. . .]. We must
assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent
spirit." [375]
Stephen Hawking (1942- 2018), Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge
(who, despite the following words, was an atheist all the same): " rCa
The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like
the Big Bang are enormous... I think clearly there are religious
implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the
universe. But I think that most scientists prefer to shy away from the
religious side of it."[393]
Doesn't this strongly suggest that there has been quote-mining at work?
What was Hawking trying to say? What point do the authors draw from it?
Are the two compatible?
John Eccles (1903- 1997), neurologist, electrophysiologist, winner of
the 1963 Nobel Prize in Medicine: "I maintain that the human mystery
is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in
promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual
world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be
classed as a superstition."[408] Again: "I am constrained to attribute
the uniqueness of the Self or Soul to a supernatural spiritual
creation." [409]
Doesn't that contradict the supposed biblical claim that we are merely >matter?
References for above as cited by authors
=================================
333. The Autobiography of Robert A. Millikan (New York: Arno Press,
1980). As cited in the Observance of Rural Life Sunday by 4-H Clubs,
1952: Theme, Serving as Loyal Citizens Through 4-H (United States
Department of Agriculture Extension Service, 1952), 10.
334. Sir George Paget Thomson, "Continuous Creation and the Edge of
Space," New Republic 124 (1951): 21- 22.
366. Shoichi Yoshikawa, "The Hidden Variables of Quantum Mechanics Are
Under God's Power," in Cosmos, Bios, Theos, ed. Henry Margenau and Roy
Abraham Varghese
373. Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography (New York: Philosophical
Library, 1949), 98. 374. Max Planck, Where Is Science Going? (London:
Allen & Unwin, 1913), 214.
375. Max Planck, "Das Wesen der Materie" [" The Nature of Matter"],
speech at Florence, Italy (1944), in Archiv zur Geschichte der
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Boltzmannstra|fe 14, D-14195 Berlin-Dahlem).
393. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam,
1988), 174; see also David Filkin, Stephen Hawking's Universe: The
Cosmos Explained (New York: Basic Books, 1998), 109.
408. Jojn C. Eccles, Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self
(London: Routledge, 1991), 241.
409. Ibid., 322
[...]
First of all they do a lengthy discussion on the Hebrew awareness of a
finite beginning and finite end to the universe as we have already
discussed.
Note that there is now no finite end to the universe according to
current theory and observation. Even after all the protons decay.
Time - ancient Hebrews considered time to relate only to this universe
and only came into being with it with the past, the present and the
future being one thing to God; that ties in with modern conclusions
about space-time curvature.
What evidence is there that ancient Hebrews had this belief? Sounds like >shoehorning to me.
Most if not all ancient civilisations thought the sun and the moon
were gods; the Hebrews never thought that, they always recognised the
moon and sun as celestial objects.
Sure, goes along with monotheism, as does the next one. But how is this
(and the next one) relevant to the case of a biblical and religious >explanation that science ended up having to agree with? Was there a lot
of resistance in science to the sun not being a god?
They also point out that the Hebrews never deified any mortal being
unlike most other civilisations e.g. the Egyptians with their pharaohs
and the Romans with their emperors; they regarded man in physical
terms to be nothing beyond matter which again science has obviously
confirmed.
So you think that science has disconfirmed he existence of a soul? >Interesting. Or is "in physical terms" a weasel wording here?
They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a single
couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal
Adam. I know that you and I have argued this one before; my argument
was that it is only an issue if someone argues that they were the
*only* common ancestor but the Hebrews did not claim that - the story
of Cain going to live in the land of Nod is a clear indication that
they accepted there were other humans around at that time..
I think there are other explanations regarding Cain. One is that the
bible isn't entirely self-consistent, and the Cain story and the
Adam/Eve story were sewn together at some point, and the joints are
showing. Another is that these other people were also descendants of
A&E. I'd also say that Jewish tradition is mixed on that point.
And of course Y-Adam and mt-Eve were not a couple. There are only so
many round holes into which you can fit a square peg before the strain >shows.
The Hebrews believed that notwithstanding the figurative language of
Genesis, man came from the mud of the earth; as the authors put it:
"Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our first parent, is matter"
which is exactly what modern science has figured out.
Note the elision of "mud" into "matter". Another square peg in a round
hole. And again, not one of these is "a biblical and religious
explanation that science ended up having to agree with".
They also make a point that is more to do with the second half of the
book (evidence outside science) which I hope to summarise later in the
week but worth mentioning here: "The Jews are likely the only people
from antiquity who have preserved their original country, language,
and religion ...
"Preserved" as in fossilized until a recent revival. Comes with having a >sacred book or two. One might mention northern India, where Sanskrit has >been preserved for similar reasons. Of course it's no longer spoken, but >neither was Hebrew until quite recently. I don't see any of this as
relevant to the next point.
[yet] ...Twenty-two percent of Nobel prize winners
are Jews, while they represent only 0.2% of the world population".
That at the very least shows that living in a culture that is
dominated by belief in the Bible is not a barrier to science and
arguably may be a contributor to encouraging scientific exploration.
....but only when embedded in a foreign culture, apparently. I suppose
this has more to do with Jewish tradition respecting learning, though
only of their religious documents, which seems in some cases to have >transferred to learning in general. How is this relevant to any point?
They do an in-depth analysis of G||del's Incompleteness Theorems. This
is somewhat beyond my pay grade and there seems to be quite a bit of
dispute about the implications but according to the authors, G||del
himself was convinced that the mind was something beyond natural
causes: "I don't think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In
fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can't yield the brain."
I don't see G||del's qualifications to pronounce on evolution. Was he not >aware that "the brain" has a long evolutionary history going back to the >beginnings of bilaterians? At what point are these other processes involved?
They also do an in-depth analysis of Einstein and his work, noting
that he was vehemently opposed to the idea of a personal god and
dismissed organised religion, stating, for example, "For me the Jewish
religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most
childish superstition." They point out, however, that Einstein's work
is sprinkled with references to God and the organisation of the
universe being beyond any natural explanation.
How many of these references are purely figurative? Now there's evidence
of quote-mining, if they're using those references to make some point
about ... well, I'm not quite sure what.
They also do quote their 100 scientists which you suspected of being
quote-mining. I don't think they are quote-mined as they are all fully
referenced; here are a few that I have checked out and seem valid -
YMMV.
Fully referenced quotes can be as mined as any; It's just that you can
check them to find out. What's more important is to ask what point
they're trying to make with the quotes (I'm guessing multiple unrelated >ones).
Robert Millikan (1868- 1953), the physicist who calculated the charge
of the electron and the Planck constant, winner of the 1923 Nobel
Prize in Physics: "A lifetime of scientific research has convinced
[me] that there is a divinity who is shaping the destiny of man."[333]
George Thomson (1892- 1975), British physicist, Nobel co-laureate
1937: "Probably every physicist would believe in a creation [of the
Universe] if the Bible had not unfortunately said something about it
many years ago and made it seem old-fashioned. [334]
Shoichi Yoshikawa (1935- 2010), Professor of Astrophysics at
Princeton: "I think that God originated the universe and life. Homo
sapiens was created by God using a process which does not violate any
of the physical laws of the Universe in any significant way." [366]
Max Planck (1858- 1947), one of the founders of quantum mechanics,
1918 Nobel Laureate in Physics, and discoverer of the quantum
structure of radiation: "Metaphysical reality does not stand spatially
behind what is given in experience, but lies fully within it." [373]
Again: "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of
any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of
science are written the words: You must have faith. It is a quality
which the scientists cannot dispense with." [374] Also: "All matter
originates and exists only by virtue of a force [. . .]. We must
assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent
spirit." [375]
Stephen Hawking (1942- 2018), Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge
(who, despite the following words, was an atheist all the same): " rCa
The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like
the Big Bang are enormous... I think clearly there are religious
implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the
universe. But I think that most scientists prefer to shy away from the
religious side of it."[393]
Doesn't this strongly suggest that there has been quote-mining at work?
What was Hawking trying to say? What point do the authors draw from it?
Are the two compatible?
John Eccles (1903- 1997), neurologist, electrophysiologist, winner of
the 1963 Nobel Prize in Medicine: "I maintain that the human mystery
is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in
promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual
world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be
classed as a superstition."[408] Again: "I am constrained to attribute
the uniqueness of the Self or Soul to a supernatural spiritual
creation." [409]
Doesn't that contradict the supposed biblical claim that we are merely >matter?
References for above as cited by authors
=================================
333. The Autobiography of Robert A. Millikan (New York: Arno Press,
1980). As cited in the Observance of Rural Life Sunday by 4-H Clubs,
1952: Theme, Serving as Loyal Citizens Through 4-H (United States
Department of Agriculture Extension Service, 1952), 10.
334. Sir George Paget Thomson, "Continuous Creation and the Edge of
Space," New Republic 124 (1951): 21- 22.
366. Shoichi Yoshikawa, "The Hidden Variables of Quantum Mechanics Are
Under God's Power," in Cosmos, Bios, Theos, ed. Henry Margenau and Roy
Abraham Varghese
373. Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography (New York: Philosophical
Library, 1949), 98. 374. Max Planck, Where Is Science Going? (London:
Allen & Unwin, 1913), 214.
375. Max Planck, "Das Wesen der Materie" [" The Nature of Matter"],
speech at Florence, Italy (1944), in Archiv zur Geschichte der
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Boltzmannstra|fe 14, D-14195 Berlin-Dahlem).
393. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam,
1988), 174; see also David Filkin, Stephen Hawking's Universe: The
Cosmos Explained (New York: Basic Books, 1998), 109.
408. Jojn C. Eccles, Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self
(London: Routledge, 1991), 241.
409. Ibid., 322
[...]
A related problem is that a supposedly omnipotent being can't be nailed down.Nailed up on the other hand...
I think "relative proof" is oxymoronic. There seems no reason to add it
to the lexicon.
On 2026-01-04 7:18 p.m., John Harshman wrote:
[big snip to get to the obvious joke]
Nailed up on the other hand...
A related problem is that a supposedly omnipotent being can't be nailed
down.
[rest of snip] [and sorry]
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 17:18:13 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
I think "relative proof" is oxymoronic. There seems no reason to add it
to the lexicon.
I've said in another post that I don't see much point in a to-and-fro
on the various points, but something occurs to me on this particular
point. I agree with you entirely about the expression adding nothing;
that's why I already said that I too don't like the use of the word
which is why I put it in quote marks and I think it just makes their arguments a bit unnecessarily complex.
I couldn't figure out why they were so careless in using the word when
it struck me that the book was originally written in French and
something may have been lost in the translation. It's a pity that
Athel Cornish-Bowden seems to have left the room; he might have been
able to shed some light on that.
[...]
On 05/01/2026 14:53, John Harshman wrote:
They also make a point that is more to do with the second half of the
book (evidence outside science) which I hope to summarise later in the
week but worth mentioning here: "The Jews are likely the only people
from antiquity who have preserved their original country, language,
and religion ...
"Preserved" as in fossilized until a recent revival. Comes with having
a sacred book or two. One might mention northern India, where Sanskrit
has been preserved for similar reasons. Of course it's no longer
spoken, but neither was Hebrew until quite recently. I don't see any
of this as relevant to the next point.
With regards to Sanskrit, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_revival
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 06:53:35 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/5/26 6:11 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 10:17:00 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/3/26 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[snip for focus]
I've just halfway through the second part of the book which is focused >>>>> on what we can learn from other sources, not just science. Perhaps it >>>>> will address the issues that I have just described but I'm not overly >>>>> hopeful. Having said that, I glad to see someone putting work into
showing how religious belief in general and the Bible in particular
had many explanation that science initially disputed but ended up
having to agree with. The first of those is the universe having a
discrete beginning. Genesis may be wrong in the detail (more about
that in a moment) but nevertheless it does identify that discrete
beginning which science almost universally vehemently opposed well
into the 20th century.
[...]
I would be interested to know what these many other biblical and
religious explanations are that science ended up having to agree with. >>>> Nothing immediately comes to mind.
It's a long book covering a lot of ground so I can only give you a
partial selection of some of the things that resonated with me.
Have to say that none of them resonated with me.
Quelle surprise!
I don't think there is much point in prolonging this discussion, I'm
not going to go through the individual points below as we are simply
going to keep going backwards and forwards with no likelihood of
reaching any real agreement. You asked me what the book says and I
have told you or at least given a new flavour of it. I will, however,
make one overall observation.
There are two types of evidence used in the justice system - forensic
and circumstantial. Scientific evidence in this discussion is the
equivalent of forensic evidence, it is based on testing and
examination. The evidence that I have summarised in this part of the discussion is the equivalent of circumstantial evidence, not any form
of direct proof but it can lead to conclusions. I had the unpleasant experience of sitting through a murder trial which was based entirely
on circumstantial evidence. Instructing the jury, the judge carefully explained to the jury how they should treat the circumstantial
evidence. He explained that the probative value of such evidence lies
in how much of it there is and how the various pieces fit together. He
made the comparison with the strands of a rope; those individual
strands are weak on their own but wrapped together, they can form an extremely strong rope. He said the same applies to circumstantial
evidence; each individual piece may be open to challenge but
ultimately the pieces have to be considered together.
I think that is what you are doing here. You are challenging each
individual piece of evidence like separating the strands of a rope,
without taking account of how they all add up together.
Perhaps the most important feature of the book is that it tries to
merge what science tells us with what theology and philosophy tells
us; it embraces scientific explanation, not seeking to dismiss it as
MarkE and other ID proponents try to do.
On 2026-01-04 7:18 p.m., John Harshman wrote:IIUC both hands, or more precisely, both wrists.
[big snip to get to the obvious joke]
Nailed up on the other hand...
A related problem is that a supposedly omnipotent being can't be nailed
down.
[rest of snip] [and sorry]--
They also do quote their 100 scientists which you suspected of being >quote-mining. I don't think they are quote-mined as they are all fully >referenced; here are a few that I have checked out and seem valid -
YMMV.
Robert Millikan (1868- 1953), the physicist who calculated the charge
of the electron and the Planck constant, winner of the 1923 Nobel
Prize in Physics: "A lifetime of scientific research has convinced
[me] that there is a divinity who is shaping the destiny of man."[333]
George Thomson (1892- 1975), British physicist, Nobel co-laureate
1937: "Probably every physicist would believe in a creation [of the
Universe] if the Bible had not unfortunately said something about it
many years ago and made it seem old-fashioned. [334]
Shoichi Yoshikawa (1935- 2010), Professor of Astrophysics at
Princeton: "I think that God originated the universe and life. Homo
sapiens was created by God using a process which does not violate any
of the physical laws of the Universe in any significant way." [366]
Max Planck (1858- 1947), one of the founders of quantum mechanics,
1918 Nobel Laureate in Physics, and discoverer of the quantum
structure of radiation: "Metaphysical reality does not stand spatially
behind what is given in experience, but lies fully within it." [373]
Again: "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of
any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of >science are written the words: You must have faith. It is a quality
which the scientists cannot dispense with." [374] Also: "All matter >originates and exists only by virtue of a force [. . .]. We must
assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent >spirit." [375]
Stephen Hawking (1942- 2018), Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge
(who, despite the following words, was an atheist all the same): " a
The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like
the Big Bang are enormous... I think clearly there are religious
implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the
universe. But I think that most scientists prefer to shy away from the >religious side of it."[393]
John Eccles (1903- 1997), neurologist, electrophysiologist, winner of
the 1963 Nobel Prize in Medicine: "I maintain that the human mystery
is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in >promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual
world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be
classed as a superstition."[408] Again: "I am constrained to attribute
the uniqueness of the Self or Soul to a supernatural spiritual
creation." [409]
References for above as cited by authors
=================================
333. The Autobiography of Robert A. Millikan (New York: Arno Press,
1980). As cited in the Observance of Rural Life Sunday by 4-H Clubs,
1952: Theme, Serving as Loyal Citizens Through 4-H (United States
Department of Agriculture Extension Service, 1952), 10.
334. Sir George Paget Thomson, "Continuous Creation and the Edge of
Space," New Republic 124 (1951): 21- 22.
366. Shoichi Yoshikawa, "The Hidden Variables of Quantum Mechanics Are
Under God's Power," in Cosmos, Bios, Theos, ed. Henry Margenau and Roy >Abraham Varghese
373. Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography (New York: Philosophical
Library, 1949), 98. 374. Max Planck, Where Is Science Going? (London:
Allen & Unwin, 1913), 214.
375. Max Planck, "Das Wesen der Materie" [" The Nature of Matter"],
speech at Florence, Italy (1944), in Archiv zur Geschichte der >Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Boltzmannstra#e 14, D-14195 Berlin-Dahlem).
393. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam,
1988), 174; see also David Filkin, Stephen Hawking's Universe: The
Cosmos Explained (New York: Basic Books, 1998), 109.
408. Jojn C. Eccles, Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self
(London: Routledge, 1991), 241.
409. Ibid., 322
[...]
On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 14:11:04 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
They also do quote their 100 scientists which you suspected of being >>quote-mining. I don't think they are quote-mined as they are all fully >>referenced; here are a few that I have checked out and seem valid -
YMMV.
Robert Millikan (1868- 1953), the physicist who calculated the charge
of the electron and the Planck constant, winner of the 1923 Nobel
Prize in Physics: "A lifetime of scientific research has convinced
[me] that there is a divinity who is shaping the destiny of man."[333]
George Thomson (1892- 1975), British physicist, Nobel co-laureate
1937: "Probably every physicist would believe in a creation [of the >>Universe] if the Bible had not unfortunately said something about it
many years ago and made it seem old-fashioned. [334]
Shoichi Yoshikawa (1935- 2010), Professor of Astrophysics at
Princeton: "I think that God originated the universe and life. Homo
sapiens was created by God using a process which does not violate any
of the physical laws of the Universe in any significant way." [366]
Max Planck (1858- 1947), one of the founders of quantum mechanics,
1918 Nobel Laureate in Physics, and discoverer of the quantum
structure of radiation: "Metaphysical reality does not stand spatially >>behind what is given in experience, but lies fully within it." [373]
Again: "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of
any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of >>science are written the words: You must have faith. It is a quality
which the scientists cannot dispense with." [374] Also: "All matter >>originates and exists only by virtue of a force [. . .]. We must
assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent >>spirit." [375]
Stephen Hawking (1942- 2018), Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge
(who, despite the following words, was an atheist all the same): " rCa
The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like
the Big Bang are enormous... I think clearly there are religious >>implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the
universe. But I think that most scientists prefer to shy away from the >>religious side of it."[393]
John Eccles (1903- 1997), neurologist, electrophysiologist, winner of
the 1963 Nobel Prize in Medicine: "I maintain that the human mystery
is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in >>promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual
world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be >>classed as a superstition."[408] Again: "I am constrained to attribute
the uniqueness of the Self or Soul to a supernatural spiritual
creation." [409]
The upshot of all these quotes seems to be that it's possible to be
religious and be a scientist at the same time.
There's nothing wrong
with that, as long as the religion doesn't begin to creep into the
science. For example, we don't consider a "spiritual world" to be
something that's addressable by science. Or at least that's something >theists can tell themselves if they want to keep up with atheists >intellectually.
References for above as cited by authors
=================================
333. The Autobiography of Robert A. Millikan (New York: Arno Press,
1980). As cited in the Observance of Rural Life Sunday by 4-H Clubs,
1952: Theme, Serving as Loyal Citizens Through 4-H (United States >>Department of Agriculture Extension Service, 1952), 10.
334. Sir George Paget Thomson, "Continuous Creation and the Edge of
Space," New Republic 124 (1951): 21- 22.
366. Shoichi Yoshikawa, "The Hidden Variables of Quantum Mechanics Are >>Under God's Power," in Cosmos, Bios, Theos, ed. Henry Margenau and Roy >>Abraham Varghese
373. Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography (New York: Philosophical
Library, 1949), 98. 374. Max Planck, Where Is Science Going? (London:
Allen & Unwin, 1913), 214.
375. Max Planck, "Das Wesen der Materie" [" The Nature of Matter"],
speech at Florence, Italy (1944), in Archiv zur Geschichte der >>Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Boltzmannstra|fe 14, D-14195 Berlin-Dahlem).
393. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam,
1988), 174; see also David Filkin, Stephen Hawking's Universe: The
Cosmos Explained (New York: Basic Books, 1998), 109.
408. Jojn C. Eccles, Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self
(London: Routledge, 1991), 241.
409. Ibid., 322
[...]
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted scientific >research over that time, there is a large majority scientific consensus
that all postulated naturalistic explanations for each of the following
had been excluded or shown be excessively improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 14:11:04 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
They also do quote their 100 scientists which you suspected of being >>quote-mining. I don't think they are quote-mined as they are all fully >>referenced; here are a few that I have checked out and seem valid -
YMMV.
Robert Millikan (1868- 1953), the physicist who calculated the charge
of the electron and the Planck constant, winner of the 1923 Nobel
Prize in Physics: "A lifetime of scientific research has convinced
[me] that there is a divinity who is shaping the destiny of man."[333]
George Thomson (1892- 1975), British physicist, Nobel co-laureate
1937: "Probably every physicist would believe in a creation [of the >>Universe] if the Bible had not unfortunately said something about it
many years ago and made it seem old-fashioned. [334]
Shoichi Yoshikawa (1935- 2010), Professor of Astrophysics at
Princeton: "I think that God originated the universe and life. Homo
sapiens was created by God using a process which does not violate any
of the physical laws of the Universe in any significant way." [366]
Max Planck (1858- 1947), one of the founders of quantum mechanics,
1918 Nobel Laureate in Physics, and discoverer of the quantum
structure of radiation: "Metaphysical reality does not stand spatially >>behind what is given in experience, but lies fully within it." [373]
Again: "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of
any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of >>science are written the words: You must have faith. It is a quality
which the scientists cannot dispense with." [374] Also: "All matter >>originates and exists only by virtue of a force [. . .]. We must
assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent >>spirit." [375]
Stephen Hawking (1942- 2018), Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge
(who, despite the following words, was an atheist all the same): " rCa
The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like
the Big Bang are enormous... I think clearly there are religious >>implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the
universe. But I think that most scientists prefer to shy away from the >>religious side of it."[393]
John Eccles (1903- 1997), neurologist, electrophysiologist, winner of
the 1963 Nobel Prize in Medicine: "I maintain that the human mystery
is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in >>promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual
world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be >>classed as a superstition."[408] Again: "I am constrained to attribute
the uniqueness of the Self or Soul to a supernatural spiritual
creation." [409]
The upshot of all these quotes seems to be that it's possible to be
religious and be a scientist at the same time.
There's nothing wrong
with that, as long as the religion doesn't begin to creep into the
science. For example, we don't consider a "spiritual world" to be
something that's addressable by science. Or at least that's something >theists can tell themselves if they want to keep up with atheists >intellectually.
References for above as cited by authors
=================================
333. The Autobiography of Robert A. Millikan (New York: Arno Press,
1980). As cited in the Observance of Rural Life Sunday by 4-H Clubs,
1952: Theme, Serving as Loyal Citizens Through 4-H (United States >>Department of Agriculture Extension Service, 1952), 10.
334. Sir George Paget Thomson, "Continuous Creation and the Edge of
Space," New Republic 124 (1951): 21- 22.
366. Shoichi Yoshikawa, "The Hidden Variables of Quantum Mechanics Are >>Under God's Power," in Cosmos, Bios, Theos, ed. Henry Margenau and Roy >>Abraham Varghese
373. Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography (New York: Philosophical
Library, 1949), 98. 374. Max Planck, Where Is Science Going? (London:
Allen & Unwin, 1913), 214.
375. Max Planck, "Das Wesen der Materie" [" The Nature of Matter"],
speech at Florence, Italy (1944), in Archiv zur Geschichte der >>Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Boltzmannstra|fe 14, D-14195 Berlin-Dahlem).
393. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam,
1988), 174; see also David Filkin, Stephen Hawking's Universe: The
Cosmos Explained (New York: Basic Books, 1998), 109.
408. Jojn C. Eccles, Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self
(London: Routledge, 1991), 241.
409. Ibid., 322
[...]
On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 15:37:42 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 14:11:04 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
They also do quote their 100 scientists which you suspected of being >>>quote-mining. I don't think they are quote-mined as they are all fully >>>referenced; here are a few that I have checked out and seem valid - >>>YMMV.
Robert Millikan (1868- 1953), the physicist who calculated the charge
of the electron and the Planck constant, winner of the 1923 Nobel
Prize in Physics: "A lifetime of scientific research has convinced
[me] that there is a divinity who is shaping the destiny of man."[333]
George Thomson (1892- 1975), British physicist, Nobel co-laureate
1937: "Probably every physicist would believe in a creation [of the >>>Universe] if the Bible had not unfortunately said something about it
many years ago and made it seem old-fashioned. [334]
Shoichi Yoshikawa (1935- 2010), Professor of Astrophysics at
Princeton: "I think that God originated the universe and life. Homo >>>sapiens was created by God using a process which does not violate any
of the physical laws of the Universe in any significant way." [366]
Max Planck (1858- 1947), one of the founders of quantum mechanics,
1918 Nobel Laureate in Physics, and discoverer of the quantum
structure of radiation: "Metaphysical reality does not stand spatially >>>behind what is given in experience, but lies fully within it." [373] >>>Again: "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of
any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of >>>science are written the words: You must have faith. It is a quality
which the scientists cannot dispense with." [374] Also: "All matter >>>originates and exists only by virtue of a force [. . .]. We must
assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent >>>spirit." [375]
Stephen Hawking (1942- 2018), Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge
(who, despite the following words, was an atheist all the same): " a
The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like
the Big Bang are enormous... I think clearly there are religious >>>implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the
universe. But I think that most scientists prefer to shy away from the >>>religious side of it."[393]
John Eccles (1903- 1997), neurologist, electrophysiologist, winner of
the 1963 Nobel Prize in Medicine: "I maintain that the human mystery
is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in >>>promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual >>>world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be >>>classed as a superstition."[408] Again: "I am constrained to attribute >>>the uniqueness of the Self or Soul to a supernatural spiritual
creation." [409]
The upshot of all these quotes seems to be that it's possible to be >>religious and be a scientist at the same time.
I think, however, the significant thing in the quotes in this book is
that many of them come from scientists who were not driven by
religious beliefs, in some cases vehemently opposed to religious
belief, but arrived at belief in "something" beyond materialism
as a result of the scientific work. Whether that "something" equates, for >example to the Judeo-Christian God is. of course, a separate argument.
There's nothing wrong
with that, as long as the religion doesn't begin to creep into the
science. For example, we don't consider a "spiritual world" to be >>something that's addressable by science. Or at least that's something >>theists can tell themselves if they want to keep up with atheists >>intellectually.
There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are >Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict
with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas
just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent
opposition to the Big Bang
was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science.
John Polkinghorne uses the lovely analogy of kettle boiling on a stove
and someone asks "Why is that kettle boiling?" The scientific answer
is that the burning gas is creating heat which is conducted through
the metal to the water inside the kettle and causes it also to heat.
The non-scientific answer is that he is expecting a good friend to
arrive shortly and wants to have a nice cup of tea ready for him.
Both answers relate to the same kettle and are both equally valid
answers. In a similar way, I believe that religion and science are
both seeking answers about the same things and one ruling out the
other loses out.
References for above as cited by authors >>>=================================
333. The Autobiography of Robert A. Millikan (New York: Arno Press, >>>1980). As cited in the Observance of Rural Life Sunday by 4-H Clubs, >>>1952: Theme, Serving as Loyal Citizens Through 4-H (United States >>>Department of Agriculture Extension Service, 1952), 10.
334. Sir George Paget Thomson, "Continuous Creation and the Edge of >>>Space," New Republic 124 (1951): 21- 22.
366. Shoichi Yoshikawa, "The Hidden Variables of Quantum Mechanics Are >>>Under God's Power," in Cosmos, Bios, Theos, ed. Henry Margenau and Roy >>>Abraham Varghese
373. Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography (New York: Philosophical >>>Library, 1949), 98. 374. Max Planck, Where Is Science Going? (London: >>>Allen & Unwin, 1913), 214.
375. Max Planck, "Das Wesen der Materie" [" The Nature of Matter"], >>>speech at Florence, Italy (1944), in Archiv zur Geschichte der >>>Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Boltzmannstra#e 14, D-14195 Berlin-Dahlem).
393. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam,
1988), 174; see also David Filkin, Stephen Hawking's Universe: The
Cosmos Explained (New York: Basic Books, 1998), 109.
408. Jojn C. Eccles, Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self >>>(London: Routledge, 1991), 241.
409. Ibid., 322
[...]
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 23:06:02 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted scientific
research over that time, there is a large majority scientific consensus
that all postulated naturalistic explanations for each of the following
had been excluded or shown be excessively improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
Borrowing from an old thread, back in the fifth century BCE,
Democritus proposed that matter consists of indestructible,
indivisible units called atoms. It took nearly two and a half
millennia before Dalton showed that it was a valid proposition. Why do
you think that 1000 years of what you see as failure is enough to
abandon the search?
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
There are plenty of people doing that. Only a few of them are
scientists because science is not a particularly useful way of trying
to figure God out.
[...]
On 7/01/2026 3:28 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 23:06:02 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted scientific
research over that time, there is a large majority scientific consensus
that all postulated naturalistic explanations for each of the following
had been excluded or shown be excessively improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
Borrowing from an old thread, back in the fifth century BCE,
Democritus proposed that matter consists of indestructible,
indivisible units called atoms. It took nearly two and a half
millennia before Dalton showed that it was a valid proposition. Why do
you think that 1000 years of what you see as failure is enough to
abandon the search?
My thought experiment is intended to demonstrate your point:
"There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are >Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict
with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas
just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent
opposition to the Big Bang was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science."
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
There are plenty of people doing that. Only a few of them are
scientists because science is not a particularly useful way of trying
to figure God out.
[...]
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:28:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/01/2026 3:28 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 23:06:02 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted scientific >>>> research over that time, there is a large majority scientific consensus >>>> that all postulated naturalistic explanations for each of the following >>>> had been excluded or shown be excessively improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
Borrowing from an old thread, back in the fifth century BCE,
Democritus proposed that matter consists of indestructible,
indivisible units called atoms. It took nearly two and a half
millennia before Dalton showed that it was a valid proposition. Why do
you think that 1000 years of what you see as failure is enough to
abandon the search?
My thought experiment is intended to demonstrate your point:
"There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are
Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict
with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas
just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent
opposition to the Big Bang was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science."
How does suggesting we give up looking for naturalistic explanations
address that problem?
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
There are plenty of people doing that. Only a few of them are
scientists because science is not a particularly useful way of trying
to figure God out.
[...]
On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 15:37:42 -0800, Vincent MaycockYou make the same mistake above as MarkE, specifically to assert a
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 14:11:04 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
They also do quote their 100 scientists which you suspected of being >>>quote-mining. I don't think they are quote-mined as they are all fully >>>referenced; here are a few that I have checked out and seem valid - >>>YMMV.
Robert Millikan (1868- 1953), the physicist who calculated the charge
of the electron and the Planck constant, winner of the 1923 Nobel
Prize in Physics: "A lifetime of scientific research has convinced
[me] that there is a divinity who is shaping the destiny of man."[333]
George Thomson (1892- 1975), British physicist, Nobel co-laureate
1937: "Probably every physicist would believe in a creation [of the >>>Universe] if the Bible had not unfortunately said something about it
many years ago and made it seem old-fashioned. [334]
Shoichi Yoshikawa (1935- 2010), Professor of Astrophysics at
Princeton: "I think that God originated the universe and life. Homo >>>sapiens was created by God using a process which does not violate any
of the physical laws of the Universe in any significant way." [366]
Max Planck (1858- 1947), one of the founders of quantum mechanics,
1918 Nobel Laureate in Physics, and discoverer of the quantum
structure of radiation: "Metaphysical reality does not stand spatially >>>behind what is given in experience, but lies fully within it." [373] >>>Again: "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of
any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of >>>science are written the words: You must have faith. It is a quality
which the scientists cannot dispense with." [374] Also: "All matter >>>originates and exists only by virtue of a force [. . .]. We must
assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent >>>spirit." [375]
Stephen Hawking (1942- 2018), Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge
(who, despite the following words, was an atheist all the same): " rCa >>>The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like
the Big Bang are enormous... I think clearly there are religious >>>implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the
universe. But I think that most scientists prefer to shy away from the >>>religious side of it."[393]
John Eccles (1903- 1997), neurologist, electrophysiologist, winner of
the 1963 Nobel Prize in Medicine: "I maintain that the human mystery
is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in >>>promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual >>>world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be >>>classed as a superstition."[408] Again: "I am constrained to attribute >>>the uniqueness of the Self or Soul to a supernatural spiritual
creation." [409]
The upshot of all these quotes seems to be that it's possible to be >>religious and be a scientist at the same time.
I think, however, the significant thing in the quotes in this book is
that many of them come from scientists who were not driven by
religious beliefs, in some cases vehemently opposed to religious
belief, but arrived at belief in "something" beyond materialism as a
result of the scientific work. Whether that "something" equates, for
example to the Judeo-Christian God is. of course, a separate argument.
There's nothing wrong
with that, as long as the religion doesn't begin to creep into the
science. For example, we don't consider a "spiritual world" to be >>something that's addressable by science. Or at least that's something >>theists can tell themselves if they want to keep up with atheists >>intellectually.
There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are >Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict
with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas
just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent
opposition to the Big Bang was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science.
John Polkinghorne uses the lovely analogy of kettle boiling on a stove
and someone asks "Why is that kettle boiling?" The scientific answer
is that the burning gas is creating heat which is conducted through
the metal to the water inside the kettle and causes it also to heat.
The non-scientific answer is that he is expecting a good friend to
arrive shortly and wants to have a nice cup of tea ready for him.
Both answers relate to the same kettle and are both equally valid
answers. In a similar way, I believe that religion and science are
both seeking answers about the same things and one ruling out the
other loses out.
--References for above as cited by authors >>>=================================
333. The Autobiography of Robert A. Millikan (New York: Arno Press, >>>1980). As cited in the Observance of Rural Life Sunday by 4-H Clubs, >>>1952: Theme, Serving as Loyal Citizens Through 4-H (United States >>>Department of Agriculture Extension Service, 1952), 10.
334. Sir George Paget Thomson, "Continuous Creation and the Edge of >>>Space," New Republic 124 (1951): 21- 22.
366. Shoichi Yoshikawa, "The Hidden Variables of Quantum Mechanics Are >>>Under God's Power," in Cosmos, Bios, Theos, ed. Henry Margenau and Roy >>>Abraham Varghese
373. Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography (New York: Philosophical >>>Library, 1949), 98. 374. Max Planck, Where Is Science Going? (London: >>>Allen & Unwin, 1913), 214.
375. Max Planck, "Das Wesen der Materie" [" The Nature of Matter"], >>>speech at Florence, Italy (1944), in Archiv zur Geschichte der >>>Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Boltzmannstra|fe 14, D-14195 Berlin-Dahlem).
393. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam,
1988), 174; see also David Filkin, Stephen Hawking's Universe: The
Cosmos Explained (New York: Basic Books, 1998), 109.
408. Jojn C. Eccles, Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self >>>(London: Routledge, 1991), 241.
409. Ibid., 322
[...]
On Tue, 06 Jan 2026 14:35:02 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 15:37:42 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 14:11:04 +0000, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
They also do quote their 100 scientists which you suspected of being >>>>quote-mining. I don't think they are quote-mined as they are all fully >>>>referenced; here are a few that I have checked out and seem valid - >>>>YMMV.
Robert Millikan (1868- 1953), the physicist who calculated the charge >>>>of the electron and the Planck constant, winner of the 1923 Nobel
Prize in Physics: "A lifetime of scientific research has convinced
[me] that there is a divinity who is shaping the destiny of man."[333]
George Thomson (1892- 1975), British physicist, Nobel co-laureate
1937: "Probably every physicist would believe in a creation [of the >>>>Universe] if the Bible had not unfortunately said something about it >>>>many years ago and made it seem old-fashioned. [334]
Shoichi Yoshikawa (1935- 2010), Professor of Astrophysics at
Princeton: "I think that God originated the universe and life. Homo >>>>sapiens was created by God using a process which does not violate any >>>>of the physical laws of the Universe in any significant way." [366]
Max Planck (1858- 1947), one of the founders of quantum mechanics,
1918 Nobel Laureate in Physics, and discoverer of the quantum
structure of radiation: "Metaphysical reality does not stand spatially >>>>behind what is given in experience, but lies fully within it." [373] >>>>Again: "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of >>>>any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of >>>>science are written the words: You must have faith. It is a quality >>>>which the scientists cannot dispense with." [374] Also: "All matter >>>>originates and exists only by virtue of a force [. . .]. We must
assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent >>>>spirit." [375]
Stephen Hawking (1942- 2018), Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge >>>>(who, despite the following words, was an atheist all the same): " rCa >>>>The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like >>>>the Big Bang are enormous... I think clearly there are religious >>>>implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the
universe. But I think that most scientists prefer to shy away from the >>>>religious side of it."[393]
John Eccles (1903- 1997), neurologist, electrophysiologist, winner of >>>>the 1963 Nobel Prize in Medicine: "I maintain that the human mystery
is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in >>>>promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual >>>>world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be >>>>classed as a superstition."[408] Again: "I am constrained to attribute >>>>the uniqueness of the Self or Soul to a supernatural spiritual >>>>creation." [409]
The upshot of all these quotes seems to be that it's possible to be >>>religious and be a scientist at the same time.
I think, however, the significant thing in the quotes in this book is
that many of them come from scientists who were not driven by
religious beliefs, in some cases vehemently opposed to religious
belief, but arrived at belief in "something" beyond materialism
Do you believe that spiritual entities can be detected in a manner
similar to the way physical ones are? ("Materialism" seems to have
been surpassed by physicalism, reductionism, naturalism,
verificationism, or positivism in modern philosophy.)
as a result of the scientific work. Whether that "something" equates, for >>example to the Judeo-Christian God is. of course, a separate argument.
Why be so coy about the God under consideration?
There's nothing wrong
with that, as long as the religion doesn't begin to creep into the >>>science. For example, we don't consider a "spiritual world" to be >>>something that's addressable by science. Or at least that's something >>>theists can tell themselves if they want to keep up with atheists >>>intellectually.
There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are >>Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict
with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas
just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
And with good reason. Religion does not belong in science, through
any sort of door or another.
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent >>opposition to the Big Bang
Cite?
was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science.
John Polkinghorne uses the lovely analogy of kettle boiling on a stove
and someone asks "Why is that kettle boiling?" The scientific answer
is that the burning gas is creating heat which is conducted through
the metal to the water inside the kettle and causes it also to heat.
The non-scientific answer is that he is expecting a good friend to
arrive shortly and wants to have a nice cup of tea ready for him.
Both answers relate to the same kettle and are both equally valid
answers. In a similar way, I believe that religion and science are
both seeking answers about the same things and one ruling out the
other loses out.
How are "pot boiling because of heat" and "pot boiling for a friend"
the same thing?
And how do scientists "lose out"
when they don't
include religion in their theories?
[...]
And of course Y-Adam and mt-Eve were not a couple. There are only so
many round holes into which you can fit a square peg before the strain >shows.
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 06:53:35 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
I said that I saw no value in continuing this discussion, but I do
want to address this specific point as I don't like what I said being misrepresented, intentionally or not.
And of course Y-Adam and mt-Eve were not a couple. There are only so
many round holes into which you can fit a square peg before the strain
shows.
Neither I nor the authors of the book suggested that they were a
couple.
We are all descended from mt-Eve's parents - they are a couple. We are
also descended from her grandparents so that's another two couples.
Her great-grandparents give us another 4 couples, and so on. The same
applies to Y-Adam.
There are a multitude of couples we are descended from; that is why I specifically said that "it is only an issue if someone argues that
they were the *only* common ancestor."
On 1/7/26 5:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 06:53:35 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
I said that I saw no value in continuing this discussion, but I do
want to address this specific point as I don't like what I said being
misrepresented, intentionally or not.
And of course Y-Adam and mt-Eve were not a couple. There are only so
many round holes into which you can fit a square peg before the strain
shows.
Neither I nor the authors of the book suggested that they were a
couple.
But you called them a couple. Perhaps you didn't mean to say that, but
here: "They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a
single couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and >Y-chromosomal Adam." Further, the Hebrew belief, which you say was >confirmed, was that they were a couple.
We are all descended from mt-Eve's parents - they are a couple. We are
also descended from her grandparents so that's another two couples.
Her great-grandparents give us another 4 couples, and so on. The same
applies to Y-Adam.
Note that neither was likely to have been an anatomically modern human, >though probably in the H. sapiens lineage as distinct from H. >neandertalensis. And, though you don't say it and isn't completely clear >that you know it, we are also descended from a great many couples who
aren't in either of those lineages. There's >little-bit-in-the-middle-of-chromosome-14-Bob and his wife, >left-us-no-genetic-material-whatsoever-Stanley and his wife, etc.
There are a multitude of couples we are descended from; that is why IWhere does that say that
specifically said that "it is only an issue if someone argues that
they were the *only* common ancestor."
And yet you did call them a couple. More importantly, how is this in any
way a biblical prediction that science has been forced to accept? The
only connection to the myth is the unfortunate choice of names. Perhaps
they should have been called Y-chromosome-Ask and mt-Embla, thus
confirming the Norse belief. Of course all that it really confirms is
that humans come in two sexes, both necessary for reproduction. This is
a ridiculous example of what you were asked for, and you should admit it.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 06:34:20 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 5:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 06:53:35 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
I said that I saw no value in continuing this discussion, but I do
want to address this specific point as I don't like what I said being
misrepresented, intentionally or not.
And of course Y-Adam and mt-Eve were not a couple. There are only so
many round holes into which you can fit a square peg before the strain >>>> shows.
Neither I nor the authors of the book suggested that they were a
couple.
But you called them a couple. Perhaps you didn't mean to say that, but
here: "They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a
single couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and
Y-chromosomal Adam." Further, the Hebrew belief, which you say was
confirmed, was that they were a couple.
I did *not* say or suggest that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal
Adam were that single couple. It would have been an entirely stupid
thing to say and you know that so why don't you just have the good
grace to admit that you read it wrong.
Your several attempts to move the goalposts below here aren't even
worth responding to.
We are all descended from mt-Eve's parents - they are a couple. We are
also descended from her grandparents so that's another two couples.
Her great-grandparents give us another 4 couples, and so on. The same
applies to Y-Adam.
Note that neither was likely to have been an anatomically modern human,
though probably in the H. sapiens lineage as distinct from H.
neandertalensis. And, though you don't say it and isn't completely clear
that you know it, we are also descended from a great many couples who
aren't in either of those lineages. There's
little-bit-in-the-middle-of-chromosome-14-Bob and his wife,
left-us-no-genetic-material-whatsoever-Stanley and his wife, etc.
There are a multitude of couples we are descended from; that is why IWhere does that say that
specifically said that "it is only an issue if someone argues that
they were the *only* common ancestor."
And yet you did call them a couple. More importantly, how is this in any
way a biblical prediction that science has been forced to accept? The
only connection to the myth is the unfortunate choice of names. Perhaps
they should have been called Y-chromosome-Ask and mt-Embla, thus
confirming the Norse belief. Of course all that it really confirms is
that humans come in two sexes, both necessary for reproduction. This is
a ridiculous example of what you were asked for, and you should admit it.
On 1/7/26 8:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 06:34:20 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 5:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 06:53:35 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
I said that I saw no value in continuing this discussion, but I do
want to address this specific point as I don't like what I said being
misrepresented, intentionally or not.
And of course Y-Adam and mt-Eve were not a couple. There are only so >>>>> many round holes into which you can fit a square peg before the strain >>>>> shows.
Neither I nor the authors of the book suggested that they were a
couple.
But you called them a couple. Perhaps you didn't mean to say that, but
here: "They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a
single couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and
Y-chromosomal Adam." Further, the Hebrew belief, which you say was
confirmed, was that they were a couple.
I did *not* say or suggest that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal
Adam were that single couple. It would have been an entirely stupid
thing to say and you know that so why don't you just have the good
grace to admit that you read it wrong.
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that >what you said encourages my interpretation.
Stripped of that
interpretation, all you have is that people descend from couples, i.e.
that we are a obligate sexually reproducing species. Not much of a
biblical prediction, is it? I'm assuming you didn't obfuscate on
purpose, but if you remove the obfuscation there's nothing of interest >remaining, and nothing that Y or mt coalescence confirms.
Your several attempts to move the goalposts below here aren't even
worth responding to.
You should have at least a little shame for this display. Can you now
agree that this is a really bad example of a biblical prediction that >science was forced to accept? The only biblical thing here would be the >names that scientists have unfortunately attached to a couple of >coalescents.
We are all descended from mt-Eve's parents - they are a couple. We are >>>> also descended from her grandparents so that's another two couples.
Her great-grandparents give us another 4 couples, and so on. The same
applies to Y-Adam.
Note that neither was likely to have been an anatomically modern human,
though probably in the H. sapiens lineage as distinct from H.
neandertalensis. And, though you don't say it and isn't completely clear >>> that you know it, we are also descended from a great many couples who
aren't in either of those lineages. There's
little-bit-in-the-middle-of-chromosome-14-Bob and his wife,
left-us-no-genetic-material-whatsoever-Stanley and his wife, etc.
There are a multitude of couples we are descended from; that is why IWhere does that say that
specifically said that "it is only an issue if someone argues that
they were the *only* common ancestor."
And yet you did call them a couple. More importantly, how is this in any >>> way a biblical prediction that science has been forced to accept? The
only connection to the myth is the unfortunate choice of names. Perhaps
they should have been called Y-chromosome-Ask and mt-Embla, thus
confirming the Norse belief. Of course all that it really confirms is
that humans come in two sexes, both necessary for reproduction. This is
a ridiculous example of what you were asked for, and you should admit it. >>
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that >>what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 8:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 06:34:20 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 5:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 06:53:35 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
I said that I saw no value in continuing this discussion, but I do
want to address this specific point as I don't like what I said being >>>>> misrepresented, intentionally or not.
And of course Y-Adam and mt-Eve were not a couple. There are only so >>>>>> many round holes into which you can fit a square peg before the strain >>>>>> shows.
Neither I nor the authors of the book suggested that they were a
couple.
But you called them a couple. Perhaps you didn't mean to say that, but >>>> here: "They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a
single couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and
Y-chromosomal Adam." Further, the Hebrew belief, which you say was
confirmed, was that they were a couple.
I did *not* say or suggest that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal
Adam were that single couple. It would have been an entirely stupid
thing to say and you know that so why don't you just have the good
grace to admit that you read it wrong.
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that
what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
Stripped of that
interpretation, all you have is that people descend from couples, i.e.
that we are a obligate sexually reproducing species. Not much of a
biblical prediction, is it? I'm assuming you didn't obfuscate on
purpose, but if you remove the obfuscation there's nothing of interest
remaining, and nothing that Y or mt coalescence confirms.
Your several attempts to move the goalposts below here aren't even
worth responding to.
You should have at least a little shame for this display. Can you now
agree that this is a really bad example of a biblical prediction that
science was forced to accept? The only biblical thing here would be the
names that scientists have unfortunately attached to a couple of
coalescents.
We are all descended from mt-Eve's parents - they are a couple. We are >>>>> also descended from her grandparents so that's another two couples.
Her great-grandparents give us another 4 couples, and so on. The same >>>>> applies to Y-Adam.
Note that neither was likely to have been an anatomically modern human, >>>> though probably in the H. sapiens lineage as distinct from H.
neandertalensis. And, though you don't say it and isn't completely clear >>>> that you know it, we are also descended from a great many couples who
aren't in either of those lineages. There's
little-bit-in-the-middle-of-chromosome-14-Bob and his wife,
left-us-no-genetic-material-whatsoever-Stanley and his wife, etc.
There are a multitude of couples we are descended from; that is why I >>>>> specifically said that "it is only an issue if someone argues thatWhere does that say that
they were the *only* common ancestor."
And yet you did call them a couple. More importantly, how is this in any >>>> way a biblical prediction that science has been forced to accept? The
only connection to the myth is the unfortunate choice of names. Perhaps >>>> they should have been called Y-chromosome-Ask and mt-Embla, thus
confirming the Norse belief. Of course all that it really confirms is
that humans come in two sexes, both necessary for reproduction. This is >>>> a ridiculous example of what you were asked for, and you should admit it. >>>
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that >>> what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid.
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
On Tue, 06 Jan 2026 09:44:56 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2026 14:35:02 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 15:37:42 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 14:11:04 +0000, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
They also do quote their 100 scientists which you suspected of being >>>>>quote-mining. I don't think they are quote-mined as they are all fully >>>>>referenced; here are a few that I have checked out and seem valid - >>>>>YMMV.
Robert Millikan (1868- 1953), the physicist who calculated the charge >>>>>of the electron and the Planck constant, winner of the 1923 Nobel >>>>>Prize in Physics: "A lifetime of scientific research has convinced >>>>>[me] that there is a divinity who is shaping the destiny of man."[333] >>>>>
George Thomson (1892- 1975), British physicist, Nobel co-laureate >>>>>1937: "Probably every physicist would believe in a creation [of the >>>>>Universe] if the Bible had not unfortunately said something about it >>>>>many years ago and made it seem old-fashioned. [334]
Shoichi Yoshikawa (1935- 2010), Professor of Astrophysics at >>>>>Princeton: "I think that God originated the universe and life. Homo >>>>>sapiens was created by God using a process which does not violate any >>>>>of the physical laws of the Universe in any significant way." [366]
Max Planck (1858- 1947), one of the founders of quantum mechanics, >>>>>1918 Nobel Laureate in Physics, and discoverer of the quantum >>>>>structure of radiation: "Metaphysical reality does not stand spatially >>>>>behind what is given in experience, but lies fully within it." [373] >>>>>Again: "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of >>>>>any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of >>>>>science are written the words: You must have faith. It is a quality >>>>>which the scientists cannot dispense with." [374] Also: "All matter >>>>>originates and exists only by virtue of a force [. . .]. We must >>>>>assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent >>>>>spirit." [375]
Stephen Hawking (1942- 2018), Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge >>>>>(who, despite the following words, was an atheist all the same): " a >>>>>The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like >>>>>the Big Bang are enormous... I think clearly there are religious >>>>>implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the >>>>>universe. But I think that most scientists prefer to shy away from the >>>>>religious side of it."[393]
John Eccles (1903- 1997), neurologist, electrophysiologist, winner of >>>>>the 1963 Nobel Prize in Medicine: "I maintain that the human mystery >>>>>is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in >>>>>promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual >>>>>world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be >>>>>classed as a superstition."[408] Again: "I am constrained to attribute >>>>>the uniqueness of the Self or Soul to a supernatural spiritual >>>>>creation." [409]
The upshot of all these quotes seems to be that it's possible to be >>>>religious and be a scientist at the same time.
I think, however, the significant thing in the quotes in this book is >>>that many of them come from scientists who were not driven by
religious beliefs, in some cases vehemently opposed to religious
belief, but arrived at belief in "something" beyond materialism
Do you believe that spiritual entities can be detected in a manner
similar to the way physical ones are? ("Materialism" seems to have
been surpassed by physicalism, reductionism, naturalism,
verificationism, or positivism in modern philosophy.)
No, I don't think they can be detected in a manner similar to the way >physical ones are; but that does not mean they cannot be detected in
other ways.
Is there someone in your life who you are absolutely
convinced loves you? If so, how do you "detect" that love in any
scientific way?
I detect God's love for me in the same way that I
detect that my wife still loves me after nearly 54 years of putting up
with my foibles - I can't explain it in scientific ways but that does
not mean it doesn't exist.
as a result of the scientific work. Whether that "something" equates, for >>>example to the Judeo-Christian God is. of course, a separate argument.
Why be so coy about the God under consideration?
Not being coy at all. I have made no secret of my Catholicicm but I
recognize that there are many different viewpoints about what God is
or might be.
There's nothing wrong
with that, as long as the religion doesn't begin to creep into the >>>>science. For example, we don't consider a "spiritual world" to be >>>>something that's addressable by science. Or at least that's something >>>>theists can tell themselves if they want to keep up with atheists >>>>intellectually.
There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are >>>Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict >>>with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas
just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
And with good reason. Religion does not belong in science, through
any sort of door or another.
Do you think the door should be shut against things just because they
*might* let God in accidentally?
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent >>>opposition to the Big Bang
Cite?
<quote>
David Bohm went so far as to claim that the partisans of the Big Bang >"effectively turn traitor to science, and distort scientific facts to
reach conclusions that are convenient to the Catholic Church." [173]
The British physicist William Bonnor did not mince words: "The
underlying motive is, of course, to bring in God as creator. It seems
like the opportunity Christian theology has been waiting for ever
since science began to depose religion from the minds of rational men
in the seventeenth century." [174]
As we have already seen, Sir Arthur Eddington, one of the greatest >astronomers of the first half of the twentieth century, was equally
insistent and seemed to come unhinged when he heard the term Big Bang: >"Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of
Nature is repugnant to me." [175]
Authors' References
=================
173. Letter 60 to Miriam Yevick (Folder C116), November 30, 1951, in
David Bohm: Causality and Chance, Letters to Three Women, ed. Chris
Talbot (Heildelburg, Germany: Springer
174. W. B. Bonnor, The Mystery of the Expanding Universe (New York: >Macmillan, 1964), 117.
175. See J. Stachel, "Eddington and Einstein," in The Prism of
Science, ed. E. Ullmann-Margalit (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1986), 2: 189. >Eddington made this comment in 1931.
<quote>
Earlier in the book, they refer to Einstein's reaction anytime someone >mentioned LemaEtre's primeval atom: "No, not that, it too much of
creation!"
In fairness to Einstein, after meeting Lemaitre and looking at his
ideas in more detail, Einstein apologised for his earlier response
that ""Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable"
and became one of LemaEtre's earliest and most ardent supporters.
was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science.
John Polkinghorne uses the lovely analogy of kettle boiling on a stove >>>and someone asks "Why is that kettle boiling?" The scientific answer
is that the burning gas is creating heat which is conducted through
the metal to the water inside the kettle and causes it also to heat.
The non-scientific answer is that he is expecting a good friend to
arrive shortly and wants to have a nice cup of tea ready for him.
Both answers relate to the same kettle and are both equally valid >>>answers. In a similar way, I believe that religion and science are
both seeking answers about the same things and one ruling out the
other loses out.
How are "pot boiling because of heat" and "pot boiling for a friend"
the same thing?
They are both looking at the same kettle.
And how do scientists "lose out"
They lose out in learning who placed the kettle on the stove and why
they did so. That may not be of direct impact on their work but it is
part of human nature to know everything about everything which is what
drives a lot of science. Even to be just mercenary about it, they
also need the support and encouragement of the people making the tea
for funding and other resources to facilitate their work.
when they don't
include religion in their theories?
I did not say that scientists should *include* religion in their
theories. I said they should not shut doors just because of a fear
that religion might sneak in through them
[...]
[...]
Earlier in the book, they refer to Einstein's reaction anytime someone >mentioned LemaEtre's primeval atom: "No, not that, it too much of
creation!"
In fairness to Einstein, after meeting Lemaitre and looking at his
ideas in more detail, Einstein apologised for his earlier response
that ""Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable"
and became one of LemaEtre's earliest and most ardent supporters.
was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science.
John Polkinghorne uses the lovely analogy of kettle boiling on a stove >>>and someone asks "Why is that kettle boiling?" The scientific answer
is that the burning gas is creating heat which is conducted through
the metal to the water inside the kettle and causes it also to heat.
The non-scientific answer is that he is expecting a good friend to
arrive shortly and wants to have a nice cup of tea ready for him.
Both answers relate to the same kettle and are both equally valid >>>answers. In a similar way, I believe that religion and science are
both seeking answers about the same things and one ruling out the
other loses out.
How are "pot boiling because of heat" and "pot boiling for a friend"
the same thing?
They are both looking at the same kettle.
And how do scientists "lose out"
They lose out in learning who placed the kettle on the stove and why
they did so. That may not be of direct impact on their work but it is
part of human nature to know everything about everything which is what
drives a lot of science. Even to be just mercenary about it, they
also need the support and encouragement of the people making the tea
for funding and other resources to facilitate their work.
when they don't
include religion in their theories?
I did not say that scientists should *include* religion in their
theories. I said they should not shut doors just because of a fear
that religion might sneak in through them
On 1/7/26 5:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:The above is true if and only if mt-Eve's parents had no other
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 06:53:35 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
I said that I saw no value in continuing this discussion, but I do
want to address this specific point as I don't like what I said being
misrepresented, intentionally or not.
And of course Y-Adam and mt-Eve were not a couple. There are only so
many round holes into which you can fit a square peg before the strain
shows.
Neither I nor the authors of the book suggested that they were a
couple.
But you called them a couple. Perhaps you didn't mean to say that, but
here: "They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a
single couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and >Y-chromosomal Adam." Further, the Hebrew belief, which you say was >confirmed, was that they were a couple.
We are all descended from mt-Eve's parents -
Yes, he did, as proved by your quoted text above, despite histhey are a couple. We are
also descended from her grandparents so that's another two couples.
Her great-grandparents give us another 4 couples, and so on. The same
applies to Y-Adam.
Note that neither was likely to have been an anatomically modern human, >though probably in the H. sapiens lineage as distinct from H. >neandertalensis. And, though you don't say it and isn't completely clear >that you know it, we are also descended from a great many couples who
aren't in either of those lineages. There's >little-bit-in-the-middle-of-chromosome-14-Bob and his wife, >left-us-no-genetic-material-whatsoever-Stanley and his wife, etc.
There are a multitude of couples we are descended from; that is why I
specifically said that "it is only an issue if someone argues that
they were the *only* common ancestor."
And yet you did call them a couple.
More importantly, how is this in anyBe careful, or he might KF you too.
way a biblical prediction that science has been forced to accept? The
only connection to the myth is the unfortunate choice of names. Perhaps
they should have been called Y-chromosome-Ask and mt-Embla, thus
confirming the Norse belief. Of course all that it really confirms is
that humans come in two sexes, both necessary for reproduction. This is
a ridiculous example of what you were asked for, and you should admit it.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 06:34:20 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 5:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 06:53:35 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
I said that I saw no value in continuing this discussion, but I do
want to address this specific point as I don't like what I said being
misrepresented, intentionally or not.
And of course Y-Adam and mt-Eve were not a couple. There are only so
many round holes into which you can fit a square peg before the strain >>>> shows.
Neither I nor the authors of the book suggested that they were a
couple.
But you called them a couple. Perhaps you didn't mean to say that, but
here: "They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a
single couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and
Y-chromosomal Adam." Further, the Hebrew belief, which you say was
confirmed, was that they were a couple.
We are all descended from mt-Eve's parents -
The above is true if and only if mt-Eve's parents had no other
descendants. For Harran to say the above supports your claim that he
doesn't understand the reasoning behind mt-Eve and y-chromosome Adam.
they are a couple. We are
also descended from her grandparents so that's another two couples.
Her great-grandparents give us another 4 couples, and so on. The same
applies to Y-Adam.
Note that neither was likely to have been an anatomically modern human,
though probably in the H. sapiens lineage as distinct from H.
neandertalensis. And, though you don't say it and isn't completely clear
that you know it, we are also descended from a great many couples who
aren't in either of those lineages. There's
little-bit-in-the-middle-of-chromosome-14-Bob and his wife,
left-us-no-genetic-material-whatsoever-Stanley and his wife, etc.
There are a multitude of couples we are descended from; that is why I
specifically said that "it is only an issue if someone argues that
they were the *only* common ancestor."
And yet you did call them a couple.
Yes, he did, as proved by your quoted text above, despite his
protestations to the contrary.
More importantly, how is this in any
way a biblical prediction that science has been forced to accept? The
only connection to the myth is the unfortunate choice of names. Perhaps
they should have been called Y-chromosome-Ask and mt-Embla, thus
confirming the Norse belief. Of course all that it really confirms is
that humans come in two sexes, both necessary for reproduction. This is
a ridiculous example of what you were asked for, and you should admit it.
Be careful, or he might KF you too.
On 7/01/2026 6:08 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:28:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/01/2026 3:28 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 23:06:02 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted scientific >>>>> research over that time, there is a large majority scientific consensus >>>>> that all postulated naturalistic explanations for each of the following >>>>> had been excluded or shown be excessively improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
r
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
Borrowing from an old thread, back in the fifth century BCE,
Democritus proposed that matter consists of indestructible,
indivisible units called atoms. It took nearly two and a half
millennia before Dalton showed that it was a valid proposition. Why do >>>> you think that 1000 years of what you see as failure is enough to
abandon the search?
My thought experiment is intended to demonstrate your point:
"There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are
Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict
with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas
just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent
opposition to the Big Bang was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science."
How does suggesting we give up looking for naturalistic explanations
address that problem?
Not sure if you overlooked response options c and d below?
In listing options a-d I'm not endorsing any in particular, just laying
out the range of response possible.
Is that clear?
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
There are plenty of people doing that. Only a few of them are
scientists because science is not a particularly useful way of trying
to figure God out.
[...]
On 7/01/2026 6:08 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:28:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/01/2026 3:28 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 23:06:02 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted scientific >>>>> research over that time, there is a large majority scientific consensus >>>>> that all postulated naturalistic explanations for each of the following >>>>> had been excluded or shown be excessively improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
Borrowing from an old thread, back in the fifth century BCE,
Democritus proposed that matter consists of indestructible,
indivisible units called atoms. It took nearly two and a half
millennia before Dalton showed that it was a valid proposition. Why do >>>> you think that 1000 years of what you see as failure is enough to
abandon the search?
My thought experiment is intended to demonstrate your point:
"There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are
Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict
with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas
just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent
opposition to the Big Bang was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science."
How does suggesting we give up looking for naturalistic explanations
address that problem?
Not sure if you overlooked response options c and d below?
In listing options a-d I'm not endorsing any in particular, just laying
out the range of response possible.
Is that clear?
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
There are plenty of people doing that. Only a few of them are
scientists because science is not a particularly useful way of trying
to figure God out.
[...]
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that >>>> what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid.
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The
question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were >attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of coalescents >with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now
refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate
whether going off in a huff is tactical.
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you.
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of
science being forced to agree with the bible?
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:20:57 +0000, Martin Harran
Do you believe that spiritual entities can be detected in a manner >>>similar to the way physical ones are? ("Materialism" seems to have
been surpassed by physicalism, reductionism, naturalism,
verificationism, or positivism in modern philosophy.)
No, I don't think they can be detected in a manner similar to the way >>physical ones are; but that does not mean they cannot be detected in
other ways.
I deliberately phrased it as "similar to" rather than "in the same
way" to account for this possibility.
Is there someone in your life who you are absolutely
convinced loves you? If so, how do you "detect" that love in any
scientific way?
Not a significant other now, but my immediate family members appear to
love me because they seem to like to hang out with me, and some say as
much as well.
I detect God's love for me in the same way that I
detect that my wife still loves me after nearly 54 years of putting up
with my foibles - I can't explain it in scientific ways but that does
not mean it doesn't exist.
I would imagine there's no reason to doubt her if she says she loves
you, and I suppose you could go into gaze length and touches per
second if you really want to be "scientific" about it, but scientific
logic is just regular logic writ large,
and there should be no area of
life where that kind of critical thinking shouldn't be involved.
as a result of the scientific work. Whether that "something" equates, for >>>>example to the Judeo-Christian God is. of course, a separate argument.
Why be so coy about the God under consideration?
Not being coy at all. I have made no secret of my Catholicicm but I >>recognize that there are many different viewpoints about what God is
or might be.
Do you believe that the Judeo-Christian god is preferable to other
gods?
There's nothing wrong
with that, as long as the religion doesn't begin to creep into the >>>>>science. For example, we don't consider a "spiritual world" to be >>>>>something that's addressable by science. Or at least that's something >>>>>theists can tell themselves if they want to keep up with atheists >>>>>intellectually.
There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are >>>>Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict >>>>with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas >>>>just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
And with good reason. Religion does not belong in science, through
any sort of door or another.
Do you think the door should be shut against things just because they >>*might* let God in accidentally?
Provide an example of one of these ideas.
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent >>>>opposition to the Big Bang
Cite?
<quote>
David Bohm went so far as to claim that the partisans of the Big Bang >>"effectively turn traitor to science, and distort scientific facts to
reach conclusions that are convenient to the Catholic Church." [173]
As I understand it, his "implicate order" is rather theist-friendly.
The British physicist William Bonnor did not mince words: "The
underlying motive is, of course, to bring in God as creator. It seems
like the opportunity Christian theology has been waiting for ever
since science began to depose religion from the minds of rational men
in the seventeenth century." [174]
We don't know that much about William Bonnor, but that seems to
represent his beliefs, yes.
As we have already seen, Sir Arthur Eddington, one of the greatest >>astronomers of the first half of the twentieth century, was equally >>insistent and seemed to come unhinged when he heard the term Big Bang: >>"Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of
Nature is repugnant to me." [175]
These quotes seem to contradict your other quotes about scientists
believing in God.
Along those lines, from
https://journal.iscast.org/articles/a-brief-critique-of-arthur-eddingtons-approach-to-science-and-religion-in-light-of-evidentialism
"Eddington didn't believe that science tells us much about God, or
that science provides evidence to bolster the claims of Christianity,
despite the revolutionary period during which he worked.[15] God's
existence was clear on the basis of experience[16] and what it meant
to be human as a spiritual being[17]-a conscious, free, truth-seeking
person. Eddington's reasons to believe are not original. They are
typically Victorian, Quaker, and influenced by the liberal theology of
the early twentieth century. However, he took the path of defending
and upholding only a minimal, mystical form of religion, determined to
leave the more nuanced details to qualified theologians."
Also, from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
"From around 1950 to 1965, the support for these theories was evenly
divided, with a slight imbalance arising from the fact that the Big
Bang theory could explain both the formation and the observed
abundances of hydrogen and helium, whereas the steady-state model
could explain how they were formed, but not why they should have the
observed abundances."
I would also question why you believe people were trying to keep
religion out of science. What's your explanation for the animosity
between science and religion?
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:20:57 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Forgot to include this in my last reply:
Earlier in the book, they refer to Einstein's reaction anytime someone >>mentioned Lema|<tre's primeval atom: "No, not that, it too much of >>creation!"
In fairness to Einstein, after meeting Lemaitre and looking at his
ideas in more detail, Einstein apologised for his earlier response
that ""Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable"
and became one of Lema|<tre's earliest and most ardent supporters.
Cites for this?
was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science.
John Polkinghorne uses the lovely analogy of kettle boiling on a stove >>>>and someone asks "Why is that kettle boiling?" The scientific answer
is that the burning gas is creating heat which is conducted through
the metal to the water inside the kettle and causes it also to heat. >>>>The non-scientific answer is that he is expecting a good friend to >>>>arrive shortly and wants to have a nice cup of tea ready for him.
Both answers relate to the same kettle and are both equally valid >>>>answers. In a similar way, I believe that religion and science are
both seeking answers about the same things and one ruling out the
other loses out.
How are "pot boiling because of heat" and "pot boiling for a friend"
the same thing?
They are both looking at the same kettle.
And how do scientists "lose out"
They lose out in learning who placed the kettle on the stove and why
they did so. That may not be of direct impact on their work but it is
part of human nature to know everything about everything which is what >>drives a lot of science. Even to be just mercenary about it, they
also need the support and encouragement of the people making the tea
for funding and other resources to facilitate their work.
And how is religion a valid method of knowing? And why can't science
tell us about what you claim only religion can tell us?
when they don't
include religion in their theories?
I did not say that scientists should *include* religion in their
theories. I said they should not shut doors just because of a fear
that religion might sneak in through them
How does "not shutting doors" not equivalent to "not including them"?
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 21:55:51 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/01/2026 6:08 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:28:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/01/2026 3:28 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 23:06:02 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
[...]
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted scientific >>>>>> research over that time, there is a large majority scientific consensus >>>>>> that all postulated naturalistic explanations for each of the following >>>>>> had been excluded or shown be excessively improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
Borrowing from an old thread, back in the fifth century BCE,
Democritus proposed that matter consists of indestructible,
indivisible units called atoms. It took nearly two and a half
millennia before Dalton showed that it was a valid proposition. Why do >>>>> you think that 1000 years of what you see as failure is enough to
abandon the search?
My thought experiment is intended to demonstrate your point:
"There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are
Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict
with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas
just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent
opposition to the Big Bang was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science."
How does suggesting we give up looking for naturalistic explanations
address that problem?
Not sure if you overlooked response options c and d below?
In listing options a-d I'm not endorsing any in particular, just laying
out the range of response possible.
Is that clear?
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
There are plenty of people doing that. Only a few of them are
scientists because science is not a particularly useful way of trying >>>>> to figure God out.
[...]
Having finished "God, the Science, the Evidence", I've gone back to re-reading "Theology and Sanity" by Frank Sheed [1]. I've always liked
what he had to say about Mystery:
"Thus a Mystery is not to be thought of as simply darkness: it is a
tiny circle of light surrounded by darkness. It is for us so to use
our own powers and God's grace that the light will grow. It means
using the mind upon what reality may be made to tell us about God, and
upon what God, through His Church, has told us about Himself; it means praying for more knowledge, and using the knowledge one gains to
enrich one's prayer. Thus the circle of light grows; but it is always
ringed round with darkness: for however our capacity may increase, it
remains finite, and God remains Infinite. Indeed the more the light
grows, the more we see what His Infinity means, what His Immensity
is."
I think that whilst the surrounding darkness will always remain due to
the constraints we have as humans, science and philosophy and theology
all have a role to play in growing that circle of light. Discarding
any of them sells us short.
==============
[1] Sheed, F. J. Theology and Sanity. London: Sheed & Ward, 1947.
Possibly not to your taste as Sheed was raised as a Protestant but
became an unashamed Catholic apologist though most of what he covers
in this book applies to all mainstream Christian denominations.
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 12:40:10 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:20:57 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Forgot to include this in my last reply:
Earlier in the book, they refer to Einstein's reaction anytime someone >>>mentioned LemaEtre's primeval atom: "No, not that, it too much of >>>creation!"
In fairness to Einstein, after meeting Lemaitre and looking at his
ideas in more detail, Einstein apologised for his earlier response
that ""Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable"
and became one of LemaEtre's earliest and most ardent supporters.
Cites for this?
I'm a bit surprised that you even ask this as it is covered in almost
every article about LemaEtre and Einstein. Here's just one example:
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html
Also covered in the more detailed Wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Einstein went from describing LemaEtre's physics as "abominable" in
1927 to co-sponsoring him for the highest Belgian scientific
distinction, the Francqui Prize, in 1934. Einstein and LemaEtre
remained close friends for the rest of their lives.
If you have doubts about such articles, you could look for Andro
Deprit's epitomal work "Monsignor Georges LemaEtre" but you might find
that or its English translation hard to track down.
[a]
was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science.
John Polkinghorne uses the lovely analogy of kettle boiling on a stove >>>>>and someone asks "Why is that kettle boiling?" The scientific answer >>>>>is that the burning gas is creating heat which is conducted through >>>>>the metal to the water inside the kettle and causes it also to heat. >>>>>The non-scientific answer is that he is expecting a good friend to >>>>>arrive shortly and wants to have a nice cup of tea ready for him.
Both answers relate to the same kettle and are both equally valid >>>>>answers. In a similar way, I believe that religion and science are >>>>>both seeking answers about the same things and one ruling out the >>>>>other loses out.
How are "pot boiling because of heat" and "pot boiling for a friend" >>>>the same thing?
They are both looking at the same kettle.
And how do scientists "lose out"
They lose out in learning who placed the kettle on the stove and why
they did so. That may not be of direct impact on their work but it is >>>part of human nature to know everything about everything which is what >>>drives a lot of science. Even to be just mercenary about it, they
also need the support and encouragement of the people making the tea
for funding and other resources to facilitate their work.
And how is religion a valid method of knowing? And why can't science
tell us about what you claim only religion can tell us?
Are you disagreeing that what can loosely be labelled as the
'supernatural' is beyond the capability of science? Better tell that
to the supporters of science here who insist that it is beyond
science.
when they don't
include religion in their theories?
I did not say that scientists should *include* religion in their >>>theories. I said they should not shut doors just because of a fear
that religion might sneak in through them
How does "not shutting doors" not equivalent to "not including them"?
Because shutting doors can close down or at least delay scientific
progress. Do you disagree that initially trying to shut the door on
the 'Big Bang' discouraged further work for some time?
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 12:28:07 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:20:57 +0000, Martin Harran
[mercy snip]
Do you believe that spiritual entities can be detected in a manner >>>>similar to the way physical ones are? ("Materialism" seems to have
been surpassed by physicalism, reductionism, naturalism, >>>>verificationism, or positivism in modern philosophy.)
No, I don't think they can be detected in a manner similar to the way >>>physical ones are; but that does not mean they cannot be detected in >>>other ways.
I deliberately phrased it as "similar to" rather than "in the same
way" to account for this possibility.
Sorry, I don't grasp what point you are making there.
Is there someone in your life who you are absolutely
convinced loves you? If so, how do you "detect" that love in any >>>scientific way?
Not a significant other now, but my immediate family members appear to
love me because they seem to like to hang out with me, and some say as
much as well.
I detect God's love for me in the same way that I
detect that my wife still loves me after nearly 54 years of putting up >>>with my foibles - I can't explain it in scientific ways but that does
not mean it doesn't exist.
I would imagine there's no reason to doubt her if she says she loves
you, and I suppose you could go into gaze length and touches per
second if you really want to be "scientific" about it, but scientific
logic is just regular logic writ large,
Now you're stretching!
and there should be no area of
life where that kind of critical thinking shouldn't be involved.
as a result of the scientific work. Whether that "something" equates, for >>>>>example to the Judeo-Christian God is. of course, a separate argument. >>>>Why be so coy about the God under consideration?
Not being coy at all. I have made no secret of my Catholicicm but I >>>recognize that there are many different viewpoints about what God is
or might be.
Do you believe that the Judeo-Christian god is preferable to other
gods?
I honestly can't say as I haven't made an exhaustive study of other >religions; all I can say is that I am happy with the Judeo-Christian
god, it gives me all I need.
I do think that the Catholic Church has
some things going for it; one of the biggest in relation to this
discussion group is that all its conclusions and teachings have been >thoroughly documented over the last 2000 years so when someone makes a
claim about its teachings vs science, it is always possible to get its
exact teaching, not some mishmashed perception.
There's nothing wrong
with that, as long as the religion doesn't begin to creep into the >>>>>>science. For example, we don't consider a "spiritual world" to be >>>>>>something that's addressable by science. Or at least that's something >>>>>>theists can tell themselves if they want to keep up with atheists >>>>>>intellectually.
There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are >>>>>Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict >>>>>with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas >>>>>just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
And with good reason. Religion does not belong in science, through
any sort of door or another.
Do you think the door should be shut against things just because they >>>*might* let God in accidentally?
Provide an example of one of these ideas.
Err a the Big Bang that we have been discussing.
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent >>>>>opposition to the Big Bang
Cite?
<quote>
David Bohm went so far as to claim that the partisans of the Big Bang >>>"effectively turn traitor to science, and distort scientific facts to >>>reach conclusions that are convenient to the Catholic Church." [173]
As I understand it, his "implicate order" is rather theist-friendly.
I wouldn't regard it as particularly friendly to call people
"traitors" who "distort scientific facts".
The British physicist William Bonnor did not mince words: "The
underlying motive is, of course, to bring in God as creator. It seems >>>like the opportunity Christian theology has been waiting for ever
since science began to depose religion from the minds of rational men
in the seventeenth century." [174]
We don't know that much about William Bonnor, but that seems to
represent his beliefs, yes.
As we have already seen, Sir Arthur Eddington, one of the greatest >>>astronomers of the first half of the twentieth century, was equally >>>insistent and seemed to come unhinged when he heard the term Big Bang: >>>"Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of >>>Nature is repugnant to me." [175]
These quotes seem to contradict your other quotes about scientists >>believing in God.
I said at the start of this discussion that I wasn't saying *all*
scientists are anti-religion.
Also, the scientists who opposed the Big
Bang on ideological ground had to accept the evidence when it became >overwhelming. Evidence will always win out in the end whether it is
ID'ers or scientists who refuse to accept it.
Along those lines, from
https://journal.iscast.org/articles/a-brief-critique-of-arthur-eddingtons-approach-to-science-and-religion-in-light-of-evidentialism
"Eddington didn't believe that science tells us much about God, or
that science provides evidence to bolster the claims of Christianity, >>despite the revolutionary period during which he worked.[15] God's >>existence was clear on the basis of experience[16] and what it meant
to be human as a spiritual being[17]-a conscious, free, truth-seeking >>person. Eddington's reasons to believe are not original. They are
typically Victorian, Quaker, and influenced by the liberal theology of
the early twentieth century. However, he took the path of defending
and upholding only a minimal, mystical form of religion, determined to >>leave the more nuanced details to qualified theologians."
Also, from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
"From around 1950 to 1965, the support for these theories was evenly >>divided, with a slight imbalance arising from the fact that the Big
Bang theory could explain both the formation and the observed
abundances of hydrogen and helium, whereas the steady-state model
could explain how they were formed, but not why they should have the >>observed abundances."
I would also question why you believe people were trying to keep
religion out of science. What's your explanation for the animosity >>between science and religion?
I don't think its down to any one thing but the Conflict Thesis is
probably a major contributor.
"The conflict thesis is a historiographical approach in the history of >science that originated in the 19th century with John William Draper
and Andrew Dickson White. It maintains that there is an intrinsic >intellectual conflict between religion and science, and that it
inevitably leads to hostility. The consensus among historians of
science is that the thesis has long been discredited, which explains
the rejection of the thesis by contemporary scholars.
[a]
Historians of science today have moved away from a conflict model,
which is based mainly on two historical episodes (those involving
Galileo and Darwin) in favor of a "complexity" model, because
religious figures took positions on both sides of each dispute and
there was no overall aim by any party involved in discrediting
religion"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
Although Draper and White have been thoroughly discredited, the impact
of their ideas lives on. I did a review a while back of "Faith vs
Fact" by Jerry Coyne in which he draws heavily on Draper and White.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/sHb33H-Yucw/m/gSZR-KO7CAAJ
[more mercy snip]
Let me ask you something. Modern science really started about the
middle of the 16th century; how did people get their knowledge is the >thousands of years before that?
To take one example; selective breeding goes back thousands of years
before Darwin identified Natural Selection, it was indeed one of the
things that inspired Darwin. So how did ancient man come to figure out >selective breeding?
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that >>>>> what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid.
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The
question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were
attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of coalescents
with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now
refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate
whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a
total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I said
and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you.
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of
science being forced to agree with the bible?
On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that >>>>>> what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid. >>>>
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The
question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were
attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of coalescents >>> with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now
refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate
whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a
total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I said
and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in your >heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said
was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but there is
no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say. Still, >your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not >helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you.
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of
science being forced to agree with the bible?
True, isn't it?
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:12:49 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that
what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid. >>>>>
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The
question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were
attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of coalescents >>>> with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now
refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate
whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a
total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I said
and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in your
heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said
was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but there is
no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say. Still,
your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not
helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.
QED
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you.
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of
science being forced to agree with the bible?
True, isn't it?
On 1/9/26 2:47 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:12:49 -0800, John HarshmanNow you're just trying to be annoying. Well played, if so.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that
what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid. >>>>>>
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The
question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were
attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of coalescents >>>>> with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now
refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate
whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a
total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I said >>>> and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in your
heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said
was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but there is
no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say. Still, >>> your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not
helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.
QED
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you.
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of
science being forced to agree with the bible?
True, isn't it?
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 21:55:51 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/01/2026 6:08 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:28:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/01/2026 3:28 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 23:06:02 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
[...]
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted scientific >>>>>> research over that time, there is a large majority scientific consensus >>>>>> that all postulated naturalistic explanations for each of the following >>>>>> had been excluded or shown be excessively improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
Borrowing from an old thread, back in the fifth century BCE,
Democritus proposed that matter consists of indestructible,
indivisible units called atoms. It took nearly two and a half
millennia before Dalton showed that it was a valid proposition. Why do >>>>> you think that 1000 years of what you see as failure is enough to
abandon the search?
My thought experiment is intended to demonstrate your point:
"There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are
Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict
with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas
just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent
opposition to the Big Bang was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science."
How does suggesting we give up looking for naturalistic explanations
address that problem?
Not sure if you overlooked response options c and d below?
In listing options a-d I'm not endorsing any in particular, just laying
out the range of response possible.
Is that clear?
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
There are plenty of people doing that. Only a few of them are
scientists because science is not a particularly useful way of trying >>>>> to figure God out.
[...]
Having finished "God, the Science, the Evidence", I've gone back to re-reading "Theology and Sanity" by Frank Sheed [1]. I've always liked
what he had to say about Mystery:
"Thus a Mystery is not to be thought of as simply darkness: it is a
tiny circle of light surrounded by darkness. It is for us so to use
our own powers and God's grace that the light will grow. It means
using the mind upon what reality may be made to tell us about God, and
upon what God, through His Church, has told us about Himself; it means praying for more knowledge, and using the knowledge one gains to
enrich one's prayer. Thus the circle of light grows; but it is always
ringed round with darkness: for however our capacity may increase, it
remains finite, and God remains Infinite. Indeed the more the light
grows, the more we see what His Infinity means, what His Immensity
is."
I think that whilst the surrounding darkness will always remain due to
the constraints we have as humans, science and philosophy and theology
all have a role to play in growing that circle of light. Discarding
any of them sells us short.
==============
[1] Sheed, F. J. Theology and Sanity. London: Sheed & Ward, 1947.
Possibly not to your taste as Sheed was raised as a Protestant but
became an unashamed Catholic apologist though most of what he covers
in this book applies to all mainstream Christian denominations.
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:53:22 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 2:47 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:12:49 -0800, John HarshmanNow you're just trying to be annoying. Well played, if so.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that
what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid. >>>>>>>
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The
question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were
attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of coalescents >>>>>> with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now >>>>>> refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate >>>>>> whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a >>>>> total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone >>>>> who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I said >>>>> and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in your >>>> heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said
was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but there is >>>> no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say. Still, >>>> your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not
helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.
QED
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you. >>>>>>
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of
science being forced to agree with the bible?
True, isn't it?
Anyone can make a mistake although it is a bit less understandable
when the mistake has been corrected previously. I have explained my
point about Y-Adam and mt-Eve to you numerous times in various
discussions over the years. Here is just one example from 2023 in a
response to you and Lawyer Daggett:
"There are many candidates for Adam and Eve as a couple from whom we
are all descended. Mitochondrial Eve's parents are one such couple.
Her grandparents are another two such couples, her great-grandparents
4 such couples and so on. The same logic applies to Y-Chromosomal
Adam."
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/bN8VJCrupcg/m/5GwJXSwZAAAJ
Problems arise when the mistake is clearly pointed out but the person
making it refuses to admit it as you have tried to do here as shown
even in your weasel words to Jillery, where you make out that
"apparently" it was not what I meant.
*That* is what is annoying - your refusal to accept your mistake and
move on. Rather badly played.
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:53:22 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 2:47 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:12:49 -0800, John HarshmanNow you're just trying to be annoying. Well played, if so.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that
what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid. >>>>>>>
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The
question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were
attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of coalescents >>>>>> with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now >>>>>> refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate >>>>>> whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a >>>>> total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone >>>>> who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I said >>>>> and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in your >>>> heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said
was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but there is >>>> no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say. Still, >>>> your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not
helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.
QED
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you. >>>>>>
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of
science being forced to agree with the bible?
True, isn't it?
Anyone can make a mistake although it is a bit less understandable
when the mistake has been corrected previously. I have explained my
point about Y-Adam and mt-Eve to you numerous times in various
discussions over the years. Here is just one example from 2023 in a
response to you and Lawyer Daggett:
"There are many candidates for Adam and Eve as a couple from whom we
are all descended. Mitochondrial Eve's parents are one such couple.
Her grandparents are another two such couples, her great-grandparents
4 such couples and so on. The same logic applies to Y-Chromosomal
Adam."
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/bN8VJCrupcg/m/5GwJXSwZAAAJ
Problems arise when the mistake is clearly pointed out but the person
making it refuses to admit it as you have tried to do here as shown
even in your weasel words to Jillery, where you make out that
"apparently" it was not what I meant.
*That* is what is annoying - your refusal to accept your mistake and
move on. Rather badly played.
On 2026-01-10 3:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:53:22 -0800, John HarshmanYou do realize that the couples you are referring to are candidates for
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 2:47 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:12:49 -0800, John HarshmanNow you're just trying to be annoying. Well played, if so.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to >>>>>>>>>> agree that
what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am-a really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is. >>>>>>>>
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look >>>>>>>> stupid.
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The >>>>>>> question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were >>>>>>> attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of
coalescents
with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now >>>>>>> refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate >>>>>>> whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a >>>>>> total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone >>>>>> who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I >>>>>> said
and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in
your
heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said >>>>> was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but there is >>>>> no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say.
Still,
your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not >>>>> helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.
QED
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you. >>>>>>>
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of >>>>>>> science being forced to agree with the bible?
True, isn't it?
Anyone can make a mistake although it is a bit less understandable
when the mistake has been corrected previously. I have explained my
point about Y-Adam and mt-Eve to you numerous times in various
discussions over the years. Here is just one example from 2023 in a
response to you and Lawyer Daggett:
"There are many candidates for Adam and Eve as a couple from whom we
are all descended. Mitochondrial Eve's parents are one such couple.
Her grandparents are another two such couples, her great-grandparents
4 such couples and so on. The same logic applies to Y-Chromosomal
Adam."
the common ancestor of all extant humans , not for all humans throughout time. There likely is no *human* couple who are a common ancestor for
*all* humans. So no biblical 'Adam and Eve'.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/bN8VJCrupcg/m/5GwJXSwZAAAJ
Problems arise when the mistake is clearly pointed out but the person
making it refuses to admit it as you have tried to do here as shown
even in your weasel words to Jillery, where you make out that
"apparently" it was not what I meant.
*That* is what is annoying - your refusal to accept your mistake and
move on. Rather badly played.
On 1/10/26 9:07 AM, DB Cates wrote:
On 2026-01-10 3:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:53:22 -0800, John HarshmanYou do realize that the couples you are referring to are candidates
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 2:47 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:12:49 -0800, John HarshmanNow you're just trying to be annoying. Well played, if so.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin HarranIf I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The >>>>>>>> question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were >>>>>>>> attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to >>>>>>>>>>> agree that
what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am-a really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is. >>>>>>>>>
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look >>>>>>>>> stupid.
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer. >>>>>>>>
coalescents
with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now >>>>>>>> refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate >>>>>>>> whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that
it's a
total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with
someone
who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I >>>>>>> said
and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in >>>>>> your
heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said >>>>>> was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but
there is
no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say. >>>>>> Still,
your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not >>>>>> helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.
QED
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you. >>>>>>>>
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of >>>>>>>> science being forced to agree with the bible?
True, isn't it?
Anyone can make a mistake although it is a bit less understandable
when the mistake has been corrected previously. I have explained my
point about Y-Adam and mt-Eve to you numerous times in various
discussions over the years. Here is just one example from 2023 in a
response to you and Lawyer Daggett:
"There are many candidates for Adam and Eve as a couple from whom we
are all descended. Mitochondrial Eve's parents are one such couple.
Her grandparents are another two such couples, her great-grandparents
4 such couples and so on. The same logic applies to Y-Chromosomal
Adam."
for the common ancestor of all extant humans , not for all humans
throughout time. There likely is no *human* couple who are a common
ancestor for *all* humans. So no biblical 'Adam and Eve'.
I would suggest that there are thousands of human couples who are a
common ancestor for all living humans. But I guess you mean all humans
ever, i.e. a created, founding pair.
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative Adam
and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have to
do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/bN8VJCrupcg/m/5GwJXSwZAAAJ
Problems arise when the mistake is clearly pointed out but the person
making it refuses to admit it as you have tried to do here as shown
even in your weasel words to Jillery, where you make out that
"apparently" it was not what I meant.
*That* is what is annoying - your refusal to accept your mistake and
move on. Rather badly played.
On 1/10/26 1:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:Instead of acknowledging his error and accepting your kid-gloves
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:53:22 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 2:47 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:12:49 -0800, John HarshmanNow you're just trying to be annoying. Well played, if so.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that
what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is. >>>>>>>>
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid. >>>>>>>>
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The >>>>>>> question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were >>>>>>> attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of coalescents
with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now >>>>>>> refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate >>>>>>> whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a >>>>>> total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone >>>>>> who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I said >>>>>> and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in your >>>>> heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said >>>>> was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but there is >>>>> no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say. Still, >>>>> your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not >>>>> helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.
QED
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you. >>>>>>>
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of >>>>>>> science being forced to agree with the bible?
True, isn't it?
Anyone can make a mistake although it is a bit less understandable
when the mistake has been corrected previously. I have explained my
point about Y-Adam and mt-Eve to you numerous times in various
discussions over the years. Here is just one example from 2023 in a
response to you and Lawyer Daggett:
"There are many candidates for Adam and Eve as a couple from whom we
are all descended. Mitochondrial Eve's parents are one such couple.
Her grandparents are another two such couples, her great-grandparents
4 such couples and so on. The same logic applies to Y-Chromosomal
Adam."
This seems to be an exceedingly silly point, and I don't understand why
you would make it. And that's why I'm confused. What does this have to
do with Adam and Eve? We're all descended from a host of couples of
various times and places, most of whom have left us no genetic legacy at >all. So?
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/bN8VJCrupcg/m/5GwJXSwZAAAJ
Problems arise when the mistake is clearly pointed out but the person
making it refuses to admit it as you have tried to do here as shown
even in your weasel words to Jillery, where you make out that
"apparently" it was not what I meant.
I just couldn't believe you could have meant anything so trivial and >unconnected to what we were supposedly talking about, which is science >resisting but ultimately being forced to accept some biblical orIf there's any factual basis for his rants, it is whether Hebrews
religious claim.
*That* is what is annoying - your refusal to accept your mistake and
move on. Rather badly played.
OK, I accept my mistake. But what point were you trying to make? Still
don't get that.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 13:22:06 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
[...]
I would suggest you get the book "God, the Science, the Evidence" by
Michel-Yves Bollore, Olivier Bonnassies. The first half of it he does
exactly what you would like to do with the same points. Very well done
and it is not a difficult read. For me, this book steeled the issues.
He uses research from atheists and agnostics often and then builds upon
it. I wish I could provide some quotes and more details, but I had a
full knee replacement two days ago and I'm suffering right now, sorry.
They also have a chapter with 100 quotes from some of the giants in the
fields saying the exact opposite of what Vincent Maycock does. They get
into a little bit of how materialists stop debate with tactics like
Maycock uses, and why that crap don't fly anymore.
In a funny coincidence, I am reading that book right now - I'm about
three quarters of the way through it. You say it's an easy read but I disagree; there is a lot of interesting stuff in the book but I am
actually finding parts of it quite tedious - too much repetition of
the same stuff, reminds me of a certainposter here:)
The book is divided roughly into two halves with the first half
focusing on science and what the authors see as the shortfalls there
are. They give a very detailed history of development of cosmology
over the centuries. I was not aware of how much opposition there was
from the scientific community in recent times towards the Big Bang as scientists totally opposed to any possibility of the universe having a
finite beginning. Thery similarly opposed the idea of an eventual "big crunch" as that too, in the opinion of the authors, meant a finite
universe with a beginning though I'm not entirely sure that that is a
valid argument. I was not aware how much both the Soviets under Lenin
and the Nazis went to such extreme lengths to eliminate any suggestion
of a finite universe, or that eliminating the concept played such a
major role in the Nazi oppression of scientists.
The authors draw out another good point from this; we hear much about
the rejection of science by religious believers but we rarely hear the
other side of that coin, just how much opposition there is among
scientists towards anything that might in the slightest way support
religious belief not on any scientific grounds but just in their
ideological belief that *everything* must have a materialist
explanation. Neither I nor the authors are suggesting that is the case
with *all* scientists but there is a lot more of it than I actually
realised.
The authors offer as a counterbalance to this a long list of
scientists (including a number of Nobel Laureates) who believe that
many of the things we have found in science do point towards some sort
of something beyond materialism though they are honest that most of
those scientists are reluctant to identify that 'something' as God.
They examine Einstein and Godel in detail and conclude that both of
them were inclined towards something that could be described as
religious but both rejected any form of organised religion.
The authors summarise the main arguments presented in this part of the
book as:
<quote P222>
A single valid proof is enough to disprove the hypothesis of a purely material Universe But cosmology allows us to establish two separate
proofs:
o The Universe had a beginning.
This we know, most notably from thermodynamics and the
Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which is based on Hawking and Penrose's
work on initial singularity.
o The laws of the Universe are very favorable to human life, and the
complex, minute fine-tuning of these physical laws is extremely
improbable, as demonstrated by the anthropic principle.
The two proofs are even stronger because they are totally independent
of one another. Firstly and fundamentally, the fact that the Universe
had a beginning and that its structure and laws are improbable are two distinct facts with no relation between them. Furthermore, their
results are not correlated because they were determined by independent methods. This double independence reinforces their value as proof,
because the falsity of one has no impact on the truth or falsity of
the other. This significantly lowers the probability that the two are simultaneously false.
</quote>
I don't have any issue with the logic regarding their first claim, it
is essentially the 'First Cause' argument that goes back to at least Aristotle and was taken up by Thomas Aquinas. I don't think
materialists have been able to put up any substantive argument against
this; all they seem to have to offer is that of infinite regression
which I do not regard as a valid argument - not least when scientists
accept an end to regression other areas. For example, keeping dividing
any piece of material into two is a form of potentially infinite
regression but scientists recognise that you get to a point where the
piece of material gets to the smallest possible size - the Planck
constant - and can be divided no further; i.e. the regression is not
infinite and has a starting point. I don't see dividing a piece of
material should be excluded from infinite regression but First Cause
should not.
Where I do have an issue is getting from that First Cause to the God I
and other Christians believe in - a personal God with whom we can
interact.
I also have serious issues with the second 'proof' which is
essentially the 'fine tuning' argument that has been hammered to death
so many times. To summarise yet again my own objections to it, firstly
the authors make the fundamental error of assuming that proving
materialism wrong proves theism right. No theory can be proved by
simply disproving an opposing theory, a theory can only be proved in
his own right, with its own supporting evidence.
The second thing I found wrong with it is that there is a big element
of the 'Texas Sharpshooter' fallacy in this - it makes the a priori assumption that life *as we know it* somehow had to come into
existence; they make no provision whatsoever for any other form of
life or any other set of physical laws coming into existence. Here
again, I also have trouble getting from a God fiddling about with
these fine constants to the personal God that I believe in. The
initial conditions that existed immediately after the Big Bang were
actually totally inhospitable to the development of life; no lifeform
we know today could have existed then. So why did God go about
creating human life in his image by starting with an environment where
there was absolutely no possibility of human life existing and leaving
those conditions continue for billions of years? Every creationist for
idea I have asked this question to has simply walked away from it; the
best they have to offer is that God works in mysterious ways and I
just don't find that an acceptable argument for the dismissal of
science.
I've just halfway through the second part of the book which is focused
on what we can learn from other sources, not just science. Perhaps it
will address the issues that I have just described but I'm not overly hopeful. Having said that, I glad to see someone putting work into
showing how religious belief in general and the Bible in particular
had many explanation that science initially disputed but ended up
having to agree with. The first of those is the universe having a
discrete beginning. Genesis may be wrong in the detail (more about
that in a moment) but nevertheless it does identify that discrete
beginning which science almost universally vehemently opposed well
into the 20th century.
The authors do a very good job of tackling those "errors" in Genesis;
they explain how claims about the errors are based on a false
representation of the Bible as a historical record. I knew that as far
back as the fifth century, Augustine was dismissing using the Bible as
an historical source but I didn't realise how much further back that actually went. To repeat one quote from the book:
"Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the
second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed
without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may
so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to
believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted a paradise
eastward in Eden,' and set in it a visible and palpable 'tree of
life,' of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily
teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of 'good and
evil' by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And
when God is said to 'walk in the paradise in the cool of the day' and
Adam to hide himself behind a tree I do not think anyone will doubt
that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history and not through actual events."
That was not written by some modern-day writer scoffing Genesis, it
was written around 230 AD by Origen, the most important theologian and biblical scholar of the early Greek church and identified as a Father
of the Christian Church. When he pointed out these things 1800 years
ago, it beats me how anyone can try to make an argument that it took
modern science to prove them wrong.
There is a lot more than that in the book but I am already at over
1500 words which is more than long enough! I'll simply sum up that I
don't think the book is convincing in all its arguments but, although
it is overly long in my opinion, it is an immense piece of work and definitely a worthwhile read.
Similar to what
Miller does in "Return of the God Hypothesis."
Similai in some ways but, despite the issues I have, it is a much
better book than Meyer's. (Correcting your typo about the name).
"God, the Science, the Evidence" I am certain you will find a worthwhile
read.
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 09:56:37 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 12:40:10 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:20:57 +0000, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Forgot to include this in my last reply:
Earlier in the book, they refer to Einstein's reaction anytime someone >>>>mentioned Lema|<tre's primeval atom: "No, not that, it too much of >>>>creation!"
In fairness to Einstein, after meeting Lemaitre and looking at his >>>>ideas in more detail, Einstein apologised for his earlier response
that ""Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable" >>>>and became one of Lema|<tre's earliest and most ardent supporters.
Cites for this?
I'm a bit surprised that you even ask this as it is covered in almost
every article about Lema|<tre and Einstein. Here's just one example:
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html
From the link:
"However, Lema|<tre's model of the universe received little notice
until it was publicized by the prominent English astronomer Arthur
Eddington, who described it as a "brilliant solution" to the
outstanding problems of cosmology, and arranged for Lema|<tre's theory
to be translated and reprinted in the "Monthly Notices of the Royal >Astronomical Society" in 1931."
That doesn't sound anti-God to me.
Also covered in the more detailed Wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Einstein went from describing Lema|<tre's physics as "abominable" in
1927 to co-sponsoring him for the highest Belgian scientific
distinction, the Francqui Prize, in 1934. Einstein and Lema|<tre
remained close friends for the rest of their lives.
So Einstein got rid of his fear of gods in only a few years? You
would have thought he would've dug his heels in deeper if he was that >anti-religion.
If you have doubts about such articles, you could look for Andr|-
Deprit's epitomal work "Monsignor Georges Lema|<tre" but you might find >>that or its English translation hard to track down.
[rCa]
was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science. >>>>>
John Polkinghorne uses the lovely analogy of kettle boiling on a stove >>>>>>and someone asks "Why is that kettle boiling?" The scientific answer >>>>>>is that the burning gas is creating heat which is conducted through >>>>>>the metal to the water inside the kettle and causes it also to heat. >>>>>>The non-scientific answer is that he is expecting a good friend to >>>>>>arrive shortly and wants to have a nice cup of tea ready for him.
Both answers relate to the same kettle and are both equally valid >>>>>>answers. In a similar way, I believe that religion and science are >>>>>>both seeking answers about the same things and one ruling out the >>>>>>other loses out.
How are "pot boiling because of heat" and "pot boiling for a friend" >>>>>the same thing?
They are both looking at the same kettle.
And how do scientists "lose out"
They lose out in learning who placed the kettle on the stove and why >>>>they did so. That may not be of direct impact on their work but it is >>>>part of human nature to know everything about everything which is what >>>>drives a lot of science. Even to be just mercenary about it, they
also need the support and encouragement of the people making the tea >>>>for funding and other resources to facilitate their work.
And how is religion a valid method of knowing? And why can't science >>>tell us about what you claim only religion can tell us?
Are you disagreeing that what can loosely be labelled as the
'supernatural' is beyond the capability of science? Better tell that
to the supporters of science here who insist that it is beyond
science.
I actually told you that a couple days ago. However, I also said that
this was only true if you wanted to keep up with the atheists
intellectually, not because supernaturalism is actually a part of
reality.
when they don't
include religion in their theories?
I did not say that scientists should *include* religion in their >>>>theories. I said they should not shut doors just because of a fear
that religion might sneak in through them
How does "not shutting doors" not equivalent to "not including them"?
Because shutting doors can close down or at least delay scientific >>progress. Do you disagree that initially trying to shut the door on
the 'Big Bang' discouraged further work for some time?
No, Hubble accumulated his data without fear of what theists might say
about it.
On 2026-01-10 3:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
"There are many candidates for Adam and Eve as a couple from whom weYou do realize that the couples you are referring to are candidates for
are all descended. Mitochondrial Eve's parents are one such couple.
Her grandparents are another two such couples, her great-grandparents
4 such couples and so on. The same logic applies to Y-Chromosomal
Adam."
the common ancestor of all extant humans , not for all humans throughout >time. There likely is no *human* couple who are a common ancestor for
*all* humans. So no biblical 'Adam and Eve'.
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative AdamBeats me.
and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have to
do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 13:18:53 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 09:56:37 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 12:40:10 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:20:57 +0000, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Forgot to include this in my last reply:
Earlier in the book, they refer to Einstein's reaction anytime someone >>>>>mentioned LemaEtre's primeval atom: "No, not that, it too much of >>>>>creation!"
In fairness to Einstein, after meeting Lemaitre and looking at his >>>>>ideas in more detail, Einstein apologised for his earlier response >>>>>that ""Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable" >>>>>and became one of LemaEtre's earliest and most ardent supporters.
Cites for this?
I'm a bit surprised that you even ask this as it is covered in almost >>>every article about LemaEtre and Einstein. Here's just one example:
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html
From the link:
"However, LemaEtre's model of the universe received little notice
until it was publicized by the prominent English astronomer Arthur >>Eddington, who described it as a "brilliant solution" to the
outstanding problems of cosmology, and arranged for LemaEtre's theory
to be translated and reprinted in the "Monthly Notices of the Royal >>Astronomical Society" in 1931."
That doesn't sound anti-God to me.
It doesn't sound like Einstein to me :)
Leaving that aside, Eddington describing LemaEtre's model as
brilliant and arranging it to be published related to LemaEtre's
*first* theory, that of an expanding universe; LemaEtre had published
that in 1927 but Eddington ignored it for 3 years until LemaEtre wrote
and reminded him of it in 1930.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/91/5/490/985169
Eddington's remark that "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of
the present order of Nature is repugnant to me", is from an article in
Nature in March 1931 and is about the nature of time and the
possibility of a beginning to the universe; two months later, LemaEtre >published his *second* theory, that of the 'primeval atom' in Nature, >referring directly to Eddington's "repugnant" comment.
What is not clear (at least to me) is whether Eddington was aware of >LemaEtre's latest ideas when he made those remarks and was referring
directly to them or whether he just coincidentally dismissed the idea
of a beginning to the universe.
The articles are paywalled and not available to me; perhaps they are
to you:
Eddington (March 1931):
https://www.nature.com/articles/127447a0
LemaEtre (may 1931)
https://www.nature.com/articles/127706b0
Also covered in the more detailed Wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Einstein went from describing LemaEtre's physics as "abominable" in
1927 to co-sponsoring him for the highest Belgian scientific
distinction, the Francqui Prize, in 1934. Einstein and LemaEtre
remained close friends for the rest of their lives.
So Einstein got rid of his fear of gods in only a few years? You
would have thought he would've dug his heels in deeper if he was that >>anti-religion.
Well he was a rather smart guy, probably smart enough to realise that
he couldn't ignore the evidence once he saw it was irrefutable. As I
sad earlier, evidence ultimately wins out; I guess some people take
less time than others.
If you have doubts about such articles, you could look for Andro
Deprit's epitomal work "Monsignor Georges LemaEtre" but you might find >>>that or its English translation hard to track down.
[a]
was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science. >>>>>>
John Polkinghorne uses the lovely analogy of kettle boiling on a stove >>>>>>>and someone asks "Why is that kettle boiling?" The scientific answer >>>>>>>is that the burning gas is creating heat which is conducted through >>>>>>>the metal to the water inside the kettle and causes it also to heat. >>>>>>>The non-scientific answer is that he is expecting a good friend to >>>>>>>arrive shortly and wants to have a nice cup of tea ready for him. >>>>>>>
Both answers relate to the same kettle and are both equally valid >>>>>>>answers. In a similar way, I believe that religion and science are >>>>>>>both seeking answers about the same things and one ruling out the >>>>>>>other loses out.
How are "pot boiling because of heat" and "pot boiling for a friend" >>>>>>the same thing?
They are both looking at the same kettle.
And how do scientists "lose out"
They lose out in learning who placed the kettle on the stove and why >>>>>they did so. That may not be of direct impact on their work but it is >>>>>part of human nature to know everything about everything which is what >>>>>drives a lot of science. Even to be just mercenary about it, they >>>>>also need the support and encouragement of the people making the tea >>>>>for funding and other resources to facilitate their work.
And how is religion a valid method of knowing? And why can't science >>>>tell us about what you claim only religion can tell us?
Are you disagreeing that what can loosely be labelled as the >>>'supernatural' is beyond the capability of science? Better tell that
to the supporters of science here who insist that it is beyond
science.
I actually told you that a couple days ago. However, I also said that
this was only true if you wanted to keep up with the atheists >>intellectually, not because supernaturalism is actually a part of
reality.
I disagree. Supernaturalism is either a part of reality or it's not;
that does not hang on whether or not it is accessible to science.
when they don't
include religion in their theories?
I did not say that scientists should *include* religion in their >>>>>theories. I said they should not shut doors just because of a fear >>>>>that religion might sneak in through them
How does "not shutting doors" not equivalent to "not including them"?
Because shutting doors can close down or at least delay scientific >>>progress. Do you disagree that initially trying to shut the door on
the 'Big Bang' discouraged further work for some time?
No, Hubble accumulated his data without fear of what theists might say >>about it.
I didn't say that *all* scientists abandoned the work but there was a
lot of opposition. Do I really ned to mention Fred Hoyle and the fact
that he scornfully created the term 'Big Bang' as late as 1949?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:07:19 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 3:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
"There are many candidates for Adam and Eve as a couple from whom weYou do realize that the couples you are referring to are candidates for
are all descended. Mitochondrial Eve's parents are one such couple.
Her grandparents are another two such couples, her great-grandparents
4 such couples and so on. The same logic applies to Y-Chromosomal
Adam."
the common ancestor of all extant humans , not for all humans throughout
time. There likely is no *human* couple who are a common ancestor for
*all* humans. So no biblical 'Adam and Eve'.
Yes, I do realise that. Now, do *you* realise that Y-Adam and mt-Eve
are moving targets and that if you go back in time, you come up with a different, earlier Y-Adam and mt-Eve relevant to the extant population
at that time?
If we go back roughly 3500 years to when Genesis is believed to have
been written, there would have been an Y-Adam and a mt-Eve for that
extant population. Or go back 10,000 years to cover the time when the
stories in Genesis were likely handed down orally and the same thing
applies.
[...]
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
[...]
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative Adam >>> and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have toBeats me.
do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?
There are two points.
The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was
claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was
not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down
to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out
of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying,
the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
On 2026-01-11 11:29 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
[...]
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative Adam >>>> and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have to >>>> do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?Beats me.
There are two points.
The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was
claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was
not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down
to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out
of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying,
the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.
The context of this particular sub-thread was your claim that the >statistical existence of a 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam'
is an example of science being forced to agree with a Biblical claim.
You used the term 'couple' in your argument and the Biblical Eve and
Adam are unquestionably a 'couple, so one might think it was you who had
a 'memory lapse'.
Science never had a problem with there being innumerable common ancestor >couples for any extant population but never thought that there was a
unique couple; that would be the biblical view.
Is there a biblical interpretation that agrees that if you go back far >enough that the 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam' would not be >Homo sapiens sapiens?
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the
Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
--
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 20:38:55 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-11 11:29 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
[...]
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative Adam >>>>> and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have to >>>>> do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?Beats me.
There are two points.
The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was
claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was
not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down
to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out
of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying,
the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.
The context of this particular sub-thread was your claim that the
statistical existence of a 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam'
is an example of science being forced to agree with a Biblical claim.
I never said science was *forced* to do anything. Here is exactly what
I said:
"They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a single
couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal
Adam."
It was Harshman who introduced "forced" as part of his silly game
playing.
You used the term 'couple' in your argument and the Biblical Eve and
Adam are unquestionably a 'couple, so one might think it was you who had
a 'memory lapse'.
Science never had a problem with there being innumerable common ancestor
couples for any extant population but never thought that there was a
unique couple; that would be the biblical view.
Is there a biblical interpretation that agrees that if you go back far
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the
Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
enough that the 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam' would not be
Homo sapiens sapiens?
--
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
[...]
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative Adam >>> and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have toBeats me.
do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?
There are two points.
The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was
claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was
not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down
to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out
of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying,
the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 20:38:55 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-11 11:29 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
[...]
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative Adam >>>>> and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have to >>>>> do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?Beats me.
There are two points.
The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was
claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was
not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down
to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out
of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying,
the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.
The context of this particular sub-thread was your claim that the
statistical existence of a 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam'
is an example of science being forced to agree with a Biblical claim.
I never said science was *forced* to do anything. Here is exactly what
I said:
"They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a single
couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal
Adam."
It was Harshman who introduced "forced" as part of his silly game
playing.
You used the term 'couple' in your argument and the Biblical Eve and
Adam are unquestionably a 'couple, so one might think it was you who had
a 'memory lapse'.
Science never had a problem with there being innumerable common ancestor
couples for any extant population but never thought that there was a
unique couple; that would be the biblical view.
Is there a biblical interpretation that agrees that if you go back far
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the
Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
enough that the 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam' would not be
Homo sapiens sapiens?
--
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 17:05:30 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 13:18:53 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 09:56:37 +0000, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 12:40:10 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:20:57 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Forgot to include this in my last reply:
Earlier in the book, they refer to Einstein's reaction anytime someone >>>>>>mentioned Lema|<tre's primeval atom: "No, not that, it too much of >>>>>>creation!"
In fairness to Einstein, after meeting Lemaitre and looking at his >>>>>>ideas in more detail, Einstein apologised for his earlier response >>>>>>that ""Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable" >>>>>>and became one of Lema|<tre's earliest and most ardent supporters.
Cites for this?
I'm a bit surprised that you even ask this as it is covered in almost >>>>every article about Lema|<tre and Einstein. Here's just one example:
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html
From the link:
"However, Lema|<tre's model of the universe received little notice
until it was publicized by the prominent English astronomer Arthur >>>Eddington, who described it as a "brilliant solution" to the
outstanding problems of cosmology, and arranged for Lema|<tre's theory
to be translated and reprinted in the "Monthly Notices of the Royal >>>Astronomical Society" in 1931."
That doesn't sound anti-God to me.
It doesn't sound like Einstein to me :)
It shouldn't, considering that Einstein never said it.
Leaving that aside, Eddington describing Lema|<tre's model as
brilliant and arranging it to be published related to Lema|<tre's
*first* theory, that of an expanding universe; Lema|<tre had published
that in 1927 but Eddington ignored it for 3 years until Lema|<tre wrote
and reminded him of it in 1930.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/91/5/490/985169
Are there any other disciplines that you believe irreligiosity has
held science back in? And be careful about doing pseudo-history,
where your notions about religion play a larger role than they
actually did.
Eddington's remark that "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of
the present order of Nature is repugnant to me", is from an article in >>Nature in March 1931 and is about the nature of time and the
possibility of a beginning to the universe; two months later, Lema|<tre >>published his *second* theory, that of the 'primeval atom' in Nature, >>referring directly to Eddington's "repugnant" comment.
Trying to tease all that out is probably pseudo-history. Maybe
Eddington later loved Lema|<tre's model so much simply because the
latter had studied under the former, and Eddington took some of the
credit based on that.
What is not clear (at least to me) is whether Eddington was aware of >>Lema|<tre's latest ideas when he made those remarks and was referring >>directly to them or whether he just coincidentally dismissed the idea
of a beginning to the universe.
The articles are paywalled and not available to me; perhaps they are
to you:
Eddington (March 1931):
https://www.nature.com/articles/127447a0
Lema|<tre (may 1931)
https://www.nature.com/articles/127706b0
They're paywalled for me as well. In any case, what do you suppose
Eddington and Einstein were referring to when they described the
expansion of the universe and/or its beginning were "repugnant" or >"abominable"? What conclusions did they expect their readers were
supposed to draw from them when they used those terms?
Also covered in the more detailed Wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Einstein went from describing Lema|<tre's physics as "abominable" in >>>>1927 to co-sponsoring him for the highest Belgian scientific >>>>distinction, the Francqui Prize, in 1934. Einstein and Lema|<tre >>>>remained close friends for the rest of their lives.
So Einstein got rid of his fear of gods in only a few years? You
would have thought he would've dug his heels in deeper if he was that >>>anti-religion.
Well he was a rather smart guy, probably smart enough to realise that
he couldn't ignore the evidence once he saw it was irrefutable. As I
sad earlier, evidence ultimately wins out; I guess some people take
less time than others.
"Irrefutable" is something that happened later, perhaps as late as the >discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Don't you
think it's kind of odd that scientists like Einstein and Eddington
seemed kind of pleased when they accepted the idea of the expanding
universe, though? One would think they would've been upset when that
was confirmed, if they were on the run from God, as you seem to
believe they were?
If you have doubts about such articles, you could look for Andr|- >>>>Deprit's epitomal work "Monsignor Georges Lema|<tre" but you might find >>>>that or its English translation hard to track down.
[rCa]
was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science. >>>>>>>
John Polkinghorne uses the lovely analogy of kettle boiling on a stove >>>>>>>>and someone asks "Why is that kettle boiling?" The scientific answer >>>>>>>>is that the burning gas is creating heat which is conducted through >>>>>>>>the metal to the water inside the kettle and causes it also to heat. >>>>>>>>The non-scientific answer is that he is expecting a good friend to >>>>>>>>arrive shortly and wants to have a nice cup of tea ready for him. >>>>>>>>
Both answers relate to the same kettle and are both equally valid >>>>>>>>answers. In a similar way, I believe that religion and science are >>>>>>>>both seeking answers about the same things and one ruling out the >>>>>>>>other loses out.
How are "pot boiling because of heat" and "pot boiling for a friend" >>>>>>>the same thing?
They are both looking at the same kettle.
And how do scientists "lose out"
They lose out in learning who placed the kettle on the stove and why >>>>>>they did so. That may not be of direct impact on their work but it is >>>>>>part of human nature to know everything about everything which is what >>>>>>drives a lot of science. Even to be just mercenary about it, they >>>>>>also need the support and encouragement of the people making the tea >>>>>>for funding and other resources to facilitate their work.
And how is religion a valid method of knowing? And why can't science >>>>>tell us about what you claim only religion can tell us?
Are you disagreeing that what can loosely be labelled as the >>>>'supernatural' is beyond the capability of science? Better tell that
to the supporters of science here who insist that it is beyond
science.
I actually told you that a couple days ago. However, I also said that >>>this was only true if you wanted to keep up with the atheists >>>intellectually, not because supernaturalism is actually a part of >>>reality.
I disagree. Supernaturalism is either a part of reality or it's not;
that does not hang on whether or not it is accessible to science.
I would choose not. How do you defend your belief that it is?
when they don't
include religion in their theories?
I did not say that scientists should *include* religion in their >>>>>>theories. I said they should not shut doors just because of a fear >>>>>>that religion might sneak in through them
How does "not shutting doors" not equivalent to "not including them"?
Because shutting doors can close down or at least delay scientific >>>>progress. Do you disagree that initially trying to shut the door on
the 'Big Bang' discouraged further work for some time?
No, Hubble accumulated his data without fear of what theists might say >>>about it.
I didn't say that *all* scientists abandoned the work but there was a
lot of opposition. Do I really ned to mention Fred Hoyle and the fact
that he scornfully created the term 'Big Bang' as late as 1949?
You were claiming that ignoring religion held science back regarding
the origin of the universe; I was saying that Hubble's work on
receding galaxies was done unfettered by a disbelief in the
theological implications, as it were, of his research.
On 1/11/26 9:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
[...]
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative Adam >>>> and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have to >>>> do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?Beats me.
There are two points.
The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was
claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was
not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down
to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out
of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying,
the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
You understand that "one couple" is quite different from "many such >couples", right? I would never scornfully dismiss the latter, and I
suspect we would both scornfully dismiss the former.
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first >place. Are you unwilling to say?
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the
Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
Yes, and an argument I have never attempted with you. Incidentally, are
you familiar with the genealogical Adam and Eve hypothesis?
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 17:34:38 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/11/26 9:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
[...]
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative Adam >>>>> and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have to >>>>> do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?Beats me.
There are two points.
The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was
claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was
not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down
to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out
of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying,
the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
You understand that "one couple" is quite different from "many such
couples", right? I would never scornfully dismiss the latter, and I
suspect we would both scornfully dismiss the former.
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first
place. Are you unwilling to say?
Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and
that was just one of them.
Senior moment?
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the
Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
Yes, and an argument I have never attempted with you. Incidentally, are
you familiar with the genealogical Adam and Eve hypothesis?
On 1/13/26 6:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 17:34:38 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/11/26 9:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
[...]
-a-a But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would aBeats me.
putative Adam
and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time,
have to
do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?
There are two points.
The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was
claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was
not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down
to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out >>>> of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying,
the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
You understand that "one couple" is quite different from "many such
couples", right? I would never scornfully dismiss the latter, and I
suspect we would both scornfully dismiss the former.
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first
place. Are you unwilling to say?
Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and
that was just one of them.
Senior moment?
I didn't ask for examples from the book. I asked for examples. But I see
how you could have construed it that way. Can we agree that that example from the book is bogus? Are there in fact any true examples, from the
book or otherwise, of scientists first resisting and then coming to
accept a biblical or religious claim? Arguably the big bang is one, but
are there any others. I suppose that if archaeologists are scientists,
the existence of the Hittite Empire might be another. But are there more?
And does the book have any more invalid claims of such cases, other than Adam and Eve?
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the >>>> Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
Yes, and an argument I have never attempted with you. Incidentally, are
you familiar with the genealogical Adam and Eve hypothesis?
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 12:56:11 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 17:05:30 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 13:18:53 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 09:56:37 +0000, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 12:40:10 -0800, Vincent Maycock >>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:20:57 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Forgot to include this in my last reply:
Earlier in the book, they refer to Einstein's reaction anytime someone >>>>>>>mentioned LemaEtre's primeval atom: "No, not that, it too much of >>>>>>>creation!"Cites for this?
In fairness to Einstein, after meeting Lemaitre and looking at his >>>>>>>ideas in more detail, Einstein apologised for his earlier response >>>>>>>that ""Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable" >>>>>>>and became one of LemaEtre's earliest and most ardent supporters. >>>>>>
I'm a bit surprised that you even ask this as it is covered in almost >>>>>every article about LemaEtre and Einstein. Here's just one example:
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html
From the link:
"However, LemaEtre's model of the universe received little notice
until it was publicized by the prominent English astronomer Arthur >>>>Eddington, who described it as a "brilliant solution" to the >>>>outstanding problems of cosmology, and arranged for LemaEtre's theory >>>>to be translated and reprinted in the "Monthly Notices of the Royal >>>>Astronomical Society" in 1931."
That doesn't sound anti-God to me.
It doesn't sound like Einstein to me :)
It shouldn't, considering that Einstein never said it.
Did you not notice the smilie? I was just yanking your chain a bit
because you quoted Eddington in a response about Einstein.
As for the rest below, I think we will keep going around in circles
once we start talking about "pseudo-history" and speculating about
what individual scientists might and might not have thought.
To pull out one point that I think maybe hits the heart of it, you ask me how >I defend my belief that the supernatural is a reality but the fact
that it is a *belief* means that it cannot be defended with any hard >evidence,
it is really just the result of my life experience, what I
have read, the people who I have found most persuasive in their
arguments, the conclusions I have come to.
That of course, cuts both
ways - your dismissal of the supernatural is also a *belief* based
largely on your own experience.
The same principle applies, for example, to debating how strong
anti-religion is among scientists; I can keep pulling out examples one
way, you can pull them out another way but it is never going to be
really conclusive either way.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:58:39 |
| Calls: | 743 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| Messages: | 187,760 |