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

by dhw, Monday, April 06, 2015, 11:57 (3308 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Well, evolution ended up, seemingly miraculously, with completely mindful humans.
dhw: 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: No disagreement, the earliest cells acted as sentient. We will still disagree as to whether they were given mechanisms that acted as giving an appearance of sentience, or whether they wondrously somehow survived from their beginning while developing the necessary ability to understand their surroundings. For the latter scenario I feel that has to be magical.-I think all organisms “understand” their surroundings, or they would not be able to survive. Why would that not apply to the earliest cells? As for magic, do you not think the concept of eternally conscious energy is magical? I would, however, say that if YOUR form of magic (God) exists, he would have used science to create the earliest cells. But if he doesn't, the magic begins and ends with the first cells and the inventive mechanism, since everything that follows is a product of autonomous intelligence in an ever changing environment.-dhw: I dislike this use of the word [information] 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.
DAVID: I don't mean to gloss over the various types of information that are involved, as you have listed them. They all exist and all are of great importance. The most central information is in the genome, and not just in DNA but the entire complex that handles DNA and RNA, the histones, telomeres, translatomes, etc, etc.

Yes, there are different kinds of information everywhere, which is why I find it such a messy and confusing concept. My “favourite” scientists talk of the sentient, cognitive, communicative, decision-making cell. Clear distinctions, but you lump them all together, which I suppose makes it easier for you to assume automatism. -Dhw: 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.
DAVID: Can you describe the 'cell equivalent' of our brain, and recognize the cells must use onboard 'information' to make the appropriate choices as you seem to have admitted?-What am I “admitting”? On board ‘information' IS the mechanism which processes the information that comes from the outside world. That's why I complain about this woolly use of the word. If I could describe the cell equivalent of the brain, i.e. the intelligent, inventive mechanism that does the processing and coordinates the communication, enabling adaptation and quite possibly also innovation, I would stand alongside Crick and Watson in the Nobel pantheon. But I am glad you have used the expression “make appropriate choices”. Perhaps now you are “admitting” that cells make choices, as opposed to unfeelingly, unthinkingly, automatically following your God's preprogrammed instructions.