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

by dhw, Sunday, April 05, 2015, 14:37 (3308 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: In all honesty, it is your indefatigable research into all the latest findings and opinions that keeps this website going.
DAVID: Perhaps enough has been presented and this website should end when the current term paid for expires. In 2008 I was hired on to represent my form of theism. I'm happy to continue as long as desired.-Your Nature's Wonders posts have attracted literally thousands of hits, and they are a constant source of delight and education. Our own discussions tend to go round in the same circles, but there is always the possibility of a breakthrough, or of new and interesting angles being offered by contributors like BBella and Tony. I'm therefore also happy to continue at least for the time being. -DAVID: I come from the position that living cells are highly complex, beyond what chance can produce, and yet are relatively mindless.
dhw: Your wording is interesting. How mindless is “relatively” mindless? To what extent is “relative” mindlessness able to evolve into complete mindfulness?-DAVID: Well, evolution ended up, seemingly miraculously, with completely mindful humans.-That is my point: evolution may have begun with relatively less mind (as opposed to mindlessness) and proceeded to full consciousness and self-consciousness. In other words, the first living cells were NOT mindless. -DAVID: Mind is required for complexity planning, and the cells can only use epigenetic automatic response mechanisms to various stimuli and stresses. 
dhw: Your “only” is an opinion, not a fact.
DAVID: Yes, my opinion based on the facts I see. -A process shared by those specialists who have reached different conclusions from yours.-DAVID: Mind and information are absolute requirements for life to exist. And therefore there must be a mind with information behind it all. 
dhw: I know information is the current “in” word, and I dislike it.
DAVID: I know you dislike it, but what do codes give us but information? How would you define how DNA works?
 
I dislike this use of the word because it is confusing. Cells run on information (the codes) which enables them to absorb information (from the outside world) which enables them to provide new information (adaptation/innovation) so that they can adjust to any changes in the information they absorb from the outside world. By bracketing everything under “information”, you constantly gloss over the different types of information and the difference between what is processed and the mechanism that does the processing. I would prefer to say that cells/cell communities, just like humans, have the ability to absorb information (OK here for me) from the outside world through their equivalent of our five senses, to process it through the equivalent of our brains, and if possible to alter their structure in response to any changes in the environment.