Trilobite eyes (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, March 29, 2013, 09:11 (4049 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: I've covered this above, in the sentence about interbreeding, but in any case there is no reason why the "intelligent genome" in multiple organisms exposed to the same environment should not produce the same innovation. The process of "convergence" has frequently been observed, for instance in desert plants even on different continents that come up with the same solutions. Similarly several Maelestes gobienses, suddenly finding themselves in changed conditions, might well simultaneously provide themselves with a doggy innovation. Has anyone ever observed God creating a breeding pair?-Convergence is even harder to explain in common evolution or your intelligent genome theory. Two independent intelligences arriving to the same precise solution to a given problem without contact between them is extremely unlikely, verging on impossible. There was a theory about that at one point, but I can not remember the name of it. -> 
> dhw: Finally, back to (quoting Tony): [See, the problem with your intelligent genome is that it presupposes evolution from a common ancestor is true.] There simply is no evidence of that beyond speculation based on observations that could mean something else entirely." 
> 
> dhw: You have applied this argument to the "intelligent genome" hypothesis, and I understand your point of view. But when I apply it to your God hypothesis, you seem to find it difficult to grasp (even labelling it "willful disbelief"). I wonder why.-
I don't. As I keep stating repeatedly, every one of these theories, including mine, requires faith. However, there is no reason that your faith should not be based on sound reason and logic. I labeled it willful disbelief because that is what it is. You have untold complexity all around you working in exquisite harmony, complexity of the type that we have NEVER seen appearing spontaneously without the intervention of an intelligence, and yet you insist that it happened. Whether you apply that random chance at the start of the universe or the start of life is irrelevant because you are starting at the basis of random chance instead of purposeful intelligence. Humanity continues to invent new theories that completely ignore the reality of what they see because the thought of something that immense, that powerful scares them stupid and makes them feel weak and ineffectual. - 
>DHW: Although the "panpsychist" alternative I have offered naturally demands a similar leap of faith, at least it has the merit (in my eyes) of NOT depending on chance or on an unknowable God. I'm not sure what your final comments signify, other than the fact what without life, any theory about life can have no explanatory power. Without a universe any theory about the universe can have no explanatory power either. Clearly I've missed something here.-Life can not come from non-life without the not insignificant requirement of initial information and energy.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.