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

by dhw, Friday, April 03, 2015, 12:20 (3311 days ago) @ David Turell

In order to fit my response to David's diatribe into the allotted space, I can only reproduce its salient points.-dhw:..... 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.
DAVID: There is no obvious reason for complexification by them [bacteria], 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.-The intelligent, inventive mechanism is a hypothesis to explain how multicellularity and complexity happened. You have accepted the possibility of an IM, though only semi-autonomous. Even semi-autonomy allows for some responses NOT to be automatic, so it is a matter of degree. Consciousness at the basis of the universe is exactly the same as panpsychism raising its ugly head everywhere (most panpsychist theories go back to God), but my alternative version involves countless evolving consciousnesses as opposed to a single, eternal, universal mind. I do not reject any of these theories outright. I am an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve.-DAVID: 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.-As regards the universe, we have vast amounts of interacting matter and energy, 95% of which we are told is unknown. Whether the driving force is mindless or mindful is pure conjecture, but plenty of physicists and cosmologists think it is mindless. The 50/50 proposition is not that they ‘look' sentient. Even you agree they ‘look' sentient. The proposition is that they ARE sentient, and just like humans, the driving force is the quest for survival and improvement. Such a mechanism may have been designed by your God (whose existence is problematical), and he may also have dabbled. Your alternative is divine preprogramming of every innovation (including items like the weaverbird's nest), or continuous - as opposed to occasional - dabbling, which would mean separate creation.-DAVID: ...it is my view that there hasn't been enough time for chance to have accomplished what we see.-I agree. Hence the inventive mechanism hypothesis. -DAVID: 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.-I agree that environmental changes are chance. Like extinctions and the weird lifestyles and forms, that is a major problem for your anthropocentric, God-knows-it-all theory, and you have never come to grips with it. Appropriate responses are not chance: some organisms can cope through their IM, and some can't, so they are wiped out. That is natural selection. An analogy would be that some humans are better at solving problems than others.
 
DAVID: Next we do see rapid progression of evolution, seemingly out of thin air.

The IM (whether designed by God or not) would explain the rapid progression. -dhw: What “can be” interpreted as hyperbole can also be interpreted as accurate. My non-scientific background leaves me dependent on experts.
DAVID: 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!

So what does that tell you about the other 60%? I am greatly in your debt for generously alerting me to the work of renowned experts who disagree with you. The concept of cooperation between intelligent cells is not my invention, but it seems to me to offer an alternative at least as credible as your divine preprogramming and dabbling. I have made it clear, however, that I remain uncommitted with regard to the source of an IM. I wrote that such an act of chance “I find as difficult to believe as eternal, infinite energy being a single conscious mind. That is one reason why I am an agnostic.” And you responded: “Fully understood.” If you understand it, why do you persist in telling me I reject theories which I neither accept nor reject, and why do you not understand that ALL the alternatives entail acts of irrational faith if one is to pass from neutrality to commitment?