Natures wonders: Crocodile tools (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, December 14, 2013, 14:08 (3784 days ago) @ David Turell

DHW: The rest of the post follows the same line of argument, as does David's latest. So let us focus solely on ants. What exactly is the theistic theory on offer here? 1) God preprogrammed the very first living cells to pass on the programme that would produce ants (along with umpteen billion other species) plus every single response that ants could make to a changing environment, including the building of underground cities, farming, military strategies, teaching the young etc. 2) God specially created ants, and inserted a programme for every single response, as in 1). 3) God preprogrammed the very first living cells to pass on the programme that would produce ants, but every so often, when ants face new problems, he dabbles with the programme to provide them with a solution (e.g. rafting). Or 4) God provided the very first living cells with a mechanism enabling them to cooperate freely (i.e. not preprogrammed) in producing any number of species, including ants which would also cooperate freely (i.e. not preprogrammed) in working out their own solutions to new problems.-Tony: Fractals
AI -There is a point behind these two links that relates indirectly to your ant. The first is that, in the case of fractals, very tiny mathematical differences can lead to major changes at scale. The second is that 'machine learning' is not all that complicated(relatively), particularly when you have a biological fast access memory(brains), a method for passing/receiving data(communication and the senses), and a method for preserving data across generations(genetic coding). 
There was no need for tampering after the fact.-So which of the four hypotheses do you subscribe to, Tony? 
I'm afraid I couldn't read the fractals article (too dazzling for the eye and confusing for the mind), but the AI one was clear enough, and I'm delighted to hear that "machine learning" is not all that complicated. You and David are happy to describe computerized learning as Artificial Intelligence, but when the procedures are carried out by a living organism with a live memory, ability to perceive, process and communicate data, make decisions, pass data across generations, suddenly these attributes no longer signify intelligence! -Meanwhile, David has come up with two wonderful "ifs":
1) "Stated another way, if the genome is complex enough as a computer setup with a comprehensive enough program, it can all work from the beginning until now without intervention."
2) (under "Plant Defense"): If I could accept that God is as omniscient as religions describe, then I wouldn't wonder about the issue of dabbling. Tony's answer of five hours ago covers the problem.-So IF your God could preprogramme the first cells comprehensively enough to produce all the changes necessary to create every single adaptation, innovation, species, lifestyle, strategy, then he wouldn't have needed to dabble. That's it. Our knowledge of fractals and of AI shows he could have done it IF he could have done it! -IFs are fun. Here's another for you: IF your God could put together a "not all that complicated (relatively)" simple intelligent cell with the potential to link up with other relatively simple intelligent cells to form more complex intelligent cell communities, and IF those more complex intelligent cell communities learned from their experiences that just a few minor tweaks here and there could lead to major changes (such as adaptations and new organs and new lifestyles and new strategies), evolution could all work from the beginning until now without preprogramming and without dabbling. Tony's answer covers the problem.