DILEMMAS (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 00:32 (3467 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Perhaps it would help if you explained precisely what you mean by the word “information”. As I understand it, there are two sorts involved here: 1) the information already inherent in the organism itself: i.e. all those processes that enable an organism to live and to “think”; 2) the information which comes from outside the organism and which it has to process through its “thinking”.-Information is what is imparted from DNA to make organisms operate. DNA is a code. Codes contain information. We only understand a part of the code in that we know how DNA codes for proteins. We do not know how DNA designs a body form through embryology to adult, but it must be from information. We know that there are master genes that cover parts of a body. Inserting an extra gene for wings and the fruit fly ends up with extra ones. So we know which genes control what form by addition or deletion. It is just like my example of a pile of wood that can become a house. It has to follow plans. Those plans are information and DNA contains the plans that build the animal or plant.-But it is more than just form. Original DNA in the fertilized egg has all the information for function andintegrationof the various organ systems. The DNA is modified so each organ cell has its own instructions for form and function. All parts of the organisms follow plans.-> dhw: 1) has to be present from the start, but has undergone continual complexification throughout evolution, with the result that single sentient, “thinking” cells have combined into the hugely complex “thinking” organisms we know today.-I agree about initial information. Your nebulous 'combination' is planned how? Cells respond to stimuli in the simplest of ways. There are big gaps in development to consider: start of life is one. The second is the development of the complex compartmentalized type of cell in multicellular organisms. (See the entry 10/28 15:20). Third may be the same as second, as the Cambrian animals seem to usher in this type of cell. And fourth is the human brain. All require the intervention of complex informational planning. For me they require God. Otherwise we are back to chance. -> dhw: The “thinking” part of the cell/cell community, its brain or genome, has created the vast range of variations that arise from interaction with the needs or opportunities arising out of a changing environment (info type 2)). -In my view the most important information is internal and concerned with form and function (patterns). External information provides stimuli for planned responses. If an IM is present, it is at this level that the giraffe grew its big neck with seven vertebrae, just like us (patterns), with semiautonomous patterns and guidelines. The gaps require complex informational planning for the advances to work.-> David: For Darwin evolution was a chance naturalistic mechanism. Theistic means God-guided evolution, under His total control. 
> 
> dhw: If it was under his total control, he must have preprogrammed or specifically created every single form of life....., even though apparently his purpose was to produce humans! Previously you have conceded that the inventive mechanism could produce minor variations, but now God is guiding those too, since you “totally reject chance” and evolution is under “His total control”. -What I conceded was semi-autonomous, under guidelines. God obviously still controls.-> dhw: The word “theistic” does not mean under God's total control. Nor does it mean with the purpose of producing humans. It is perfectly possible for God to have deliberately created a process that runs independently of his control. As someone who believes in free will, you can hardly argue with that. -My 'theistic evolution' means just that. An independent evolutionary process without the needed information takes us back to Darwin. God has to have inserted the needed information. -
> dhw: if on Sunday you concede that my hypothesis is certainly possible, why do you then refuse to accept the same “maybe” on Monday?-Your hypotheses are only possible with the restrictions I add. The sense I keep getting from you is the rabbit/hat trick, no sense of the method necessary for advancement. Cells just think their way to the subsequent goal.