Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw? (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, April 02, 2015, 19:12 (3311 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: The autonomous inventive mechanism hypothesis attempts to explain how evolution works, starting with single cells which cooperate intelligently to invent increasingly complex cell communities with increasingly complex biochemistry. No chance involved..... On the other hand, I CAN imagine an IM working on its own, because I can imagine all organisms having their own individual form of inventive intelligence, just as humans do.-I am delighted that you can use your imagination, because I view the above verbiage as simply a flight of fancy. To review seriously what we know as fact, we know that bacteria are the most successful as a group of all organisms, in that they started 3.6-3.8 billion years ago and are still around as the largest biomass extant. There is no obvious reason for complexification by them, but multicellularity happened. We don't know why, but we do know that epigenetic mechanisms can be inherited to alter life forms to fit new natural requirements. I view built-in response/epigenetic mechanisms as automatic molecular reactions. You don't. You want your imagined pan-psychism to rear its ugly head everywhere, in this case especially in bacteria but you reject outright the idea that consciousness might be at the basis of the universe (relates to the recent book mentioned edited by Davies).-Your whole approach is very inconsistent. We know that evolution and also the universe proceed from simple to complex. We really don't know why the universe became so complex, but we do seem to know how it did. So complexity here contains an unknown driving force In evolution, please tell me what drives the path to complexity. You want mindful cells cooperating, when we have no evidence they have minds, only the 50/50 proposition they 'look' sentient. I keep mentioning chance, even though you want to leave it out, because chance takes a long time to achieve the complexity we see, and it is my view that there hasn't been enough time for chance to have accomplished what we see. -As a result you imagine an IM based on what we know about epigenetics. Mindless and will only be responsive if there are environmental changes. That is chance itself! Appropriate responses are also chance, which is why we use the concept of natural selection as a final arbiter. That takes time and is somewhat chancy itself considering some of the weird lifestyles and forms that make up our favorite bush of life.-Next we do see rapid progression of evolution, seemingly out of thin air: I recently produced here an article that demonstrated 15 major advances in human form over 6 million years to achieve "us" today. Time for chance to work? No way! You seriously need to leave your armchair approach of relying on commentator's opinions and actually read as I have done, forcing me to leave agnosticism. I suggest you start with 'Not By Chance, by Lee Spetner, 1999. I'll even send you a new copy of the book.-What have I imagined, I know that you know. I concluded that chance doesn't have the time to work, based on the complexity of genetics, just to start with. Without a mind everything is chancy! I can imagine (to use your method) a very thoughtful Darwin returning to life now, reviewing current science, and throwing out most of his conjectures and joining me in my approach. Something drives the complexity we find in life. It has to be planned. Therefore a universal consciousness.
 
> 
> dhw: What “can be” interpreted as hyperbole can also be interpreted as accurate. My non-scientific background leaves me dependent on experts.-That is your problem. You have picked out folks I found for you that fit, what I feel, are your preconceived wishes that it is impossible for you to ever conceive of a consciousness in control. There is no consensus and I follow a whole group of folks who are scientists an think like I do. 40% of doctors are believers!
 
> dhw:I find as difficult to believe as eternal, infinite energy being a single conscious mind. That is one reason why I am an agnostic.-Fully understood.-> 
> dhw: Of course there has to be a conscious mind or conscious minds if chance is not an active player - but an active player in what, and to what extent, and when? In the above scenario, given a mindless first cause of energy and matter interacting forever, a life-supporting system may have been inevitable, and the one chance element is life itself with its mechanism for evolution - but not evolution itself.-Another strange imagined scenario. We have no evidence of energy/matter interacting except as we see the progression of the universe, which sets the stage for life. We don't even know if the energy/matter of the universe would have advanced beyond the BB unless pushed somehow. It's organization requires mind.