AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

The eyes have it. Genetic traces of opsin production show the descent pattern.First opsin without function, then functional. then all sorts of eyes:-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204840504578086700901693588.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RightRailColumns

1141 views

DAVID: The eyes have it. Genetic traces of opsin production show the descent pattern. First opsin without function, then functional, then all sorts of eyes:-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204840504578086700901693588.html?mod=WSJ_...-Thank you for this article and your useful summary. Let's assume this is indeed what happened, i.e. "that vision was a single evolutionary innovation", and that all sorts of eyes then developed from the original prototype. Two questions: why, and how?-First why. If the initial mechanism was useful, what need was there for it to improve, let alone to vary? (Of course the same question can be asked about bacteria.)-"The common ancestor of ourselves and the placozoa duplicated a gene and changed one of the copies into a recognizable opsin." 
"The common ancestor of ourselves, insects and jellyfish made the change to light detection, then experienced two more duplications...to give the three kinds of light-sending opsins we still possess today."-How? "Duplicated and changed", "made the change", "experienced...". We're not talking of the same eye gradually improving because short-sighted oojahs were soon wiped out and only the best-sighted oojahs survived (= improvement by natural selection). We're talking about DIFFERENT eyes.
 
Here's a suggestion (you are allowed to yawn): that innovation is caused by experimentation between cells/cell communities, and once a combination turns out to be functional and advantageous, further experimentation follows ... not by random mutation but by intercellular cooperation.
 
The single innovation "is a discovery that would have surprised an earlier generation of evolutionary biologists, who contrasted the compound eye of the insect with the camera-like eye of human beings and imagined several parallel inventions."-I would suggest that both theories are correct: first the single invention, then later, parallel inventions ... all engineered in exactly the same way as A first invented the wheel, then B, C, D invented different combinations of wheels. Once we accept the innate intelligence of the mechanism (regardless of the ultimately all-important question of how it got there originally), everything else fits into place.

1132 views


> Here's a suggestion (you are allowed to yawn): that innovation is caused by experimentation between cells/cell communities, and once a combination turns out to be functional and advantageous, further experimentation follows ... not by random mutation but by intercellular cooperation.-You cannot compartmentilize living organisms. Cells do not experiment among themselves. Change must be initiated in the genome perhaps using epigenetic signals from the somatic cells. Don't imagine eye cells telling each other what to do.

1149 views

Dhw: Here's a suggestion (you are allowed to yawn): that innovation is caused by experimentation between cells/cell communities, and once a combination turns out to be functional and advantageous, further experimentation follows ... not by random mutation but by intercellular cooperation.-DAVID: You cannot compartmentilize living organisms. Cells do not experiment among themselves. Change must be initiated in the genome perhaps using epigenetic signals from the somatic cells. Don't imagine eye cells telling each other what to do.-Thank you. As always, I rely on you to guide me in matters scientific. It would therefore be extremely helpful if you could clarify your own views on how the mechanism for INNOVATION works, but it would also be helpful if you would pinpoint the errors in my own thinking. I'll number each point to make it easier for you to respond.-1) Evolution as we know it could not have happened without the change from unicellularity to multicellularity (= cells combining, one way or another).
2) This set the pattern for all the combinations/communities of cells that make up all the different organs that make up all the different organisms. 
3) Every new organ must cooperate with existing organs within a single organism, which must involve communication.
4) Since all forms of life descended from earlier forms, every innovation must take place through an EXISTING organism, and so intelligence/inventiveness must lie within organisms themselves. 
5) The only alternatives to 4) are a) God designing each innovation separately and (b) Darwin's random mutations (instead of intelligence/inventiveness).-If you accept 4) and if it is not the cells within the living organism that experiment and innovate, what does?
 
NB The more we discuss this topic, the more convinced I become that the explanation for all the flaws you and I see in Darwin's theory (reliance on chance, gradualism, gaps in the fossil record, the Cambrian Explosion) lies in an inventive intelligence within the organisms themselves. That is why I am so eager to find out the terms YOU would use to describe how the mechanism works and where the intelligence lies.

1129 views

NB The more we discuss this topic, the more convinced I become that the explanation for all the flaws you and I see in Darwin's theory (reliance on chance, gradualism, gaps in the fossil record, the Cambrian Explosion) lies in an inventive intelligence within the organisms themselves. That is why I am so eager to find out the terms YOU would use to describe how the mechanism works and where the intelligence lies.-You are asking the $64K question. So we know that bacteria are very adaptable, according to Shapiro, using epigenetics. We know that multicellular organisms can adapt and that epgenetics plays a role. But as I indicated we do not know how somatic cells signal genetic cells to change DNA and how that is then inheritated by making the genome changes stable, and not transient. Again using the guppies: if small guppies are put in a stream where predators prefer small sizes, them obviously the larger will survive, but the entire population changes in a two year period, faster than mutation rates, indicating a rapid response within the guppies. The certainly smells like an intelligent response. In higher forms there are alarm responses in the brain, and perhaps this is how it the changes are initiated. I really don't know of a theory as to how this is done.

1131 views

Dhw: The more we discuss this topic, the more convinced I become that the explanation for all the flaws you and I see in Darwin's theory (reliance on chance, gradualism, gaps in the fossil record, the Cambrian Explosion) lies in an inventive intelligence within the organisms themselves. That is why I am so eager to find out the terms YOU would use to describe how the mechanism works and where the intelligence lies.-DAVID: You are asking the $64K question. So we know that bacteria are very adaptable, according to Shapiro, using epigenetics. We know that multicellular organisms can adapt and that epigenetics plays a role. But as I indicated we do not know how somatic cells signal genetic cells to change DNA and how that is then inherited by making the genome changes stable, and not transient. -You have almost answered the $64K question, though nowadays perhaps it should be the $1m question. If somatic cells signal genetic cells to change DNA, and this is done permanently, then we can attribute evolution as we know it to interaction between intelligent cells (somatic and genetic). The original eye, for instance, sprang from one such interaction, and was then followed by a wide variety of eyes, because eye cells (somatic) signalled to genetic cells to try something different. The alternative to this explanation is that God created each innovation separately (Creationist), or each innovation was the result of a random mutation (Darwinist). How the cells "think" and communicate and stabilize themselves is another question, which will indeed need to be answered, and on receipt of your multi-million pound donation (I don't trust the dollar) to the DHW Research Foundation, I will start my experiments at once.-Meanwhile, consider the enormous explanatory powers of this hypothesis:
1) Evolution does NOT depend on random mutations, although it does depend to a degree on the randomness of changes in the environment. 
2) Gradualism goes out of the window, because any innovation must take place within an existing creature and must function straight away if it is to survive. However, once the innovation functions, there may well be many more versions of it over any period of time as different communities of cells do their own thing with it (parallel to the original wheel, and subsequent inventions that use the wheel).
3) The fossil record does not show intermediate forms because there are none. There are only varieties. (Failed experiments, of course, will not survive.)
4) The Cambrian explosion was the result of cell communities (organisms) responding to new environmental conditions (perhaps an increase in oxygen) which permitted a whole range of inventions that would not have been possible in the old environment.-This one hypothesis answers all four major objections to Darwin's theory. And theists and atheists can still argue to their hearts' content over whether the intelligent cell could or could not have assembled itself by chance.-Give me a nice positive response, and I may consider sharing my Nobel Prize with you.

1115 views

dhw: 4) The Cambrian explosion was the result of cell communities (organisms) responding to new environmental conditions (perhaps an increase in oxygen) which permitted a whole range of inventions that would not have been possible in the old environment.-This is a key problem. There is a huge jump in the Cambrian. These animals have legs, jaws, brains(!) and for all the world look like animals today, because some of our existing species came directly from 520 mya, and are little changed today. In the preceding pre-Cambrain, nothing like this is found. Simple worms, sheet of cells, some hollow sack-like characters. This whole period looks like a second creation of life. We have no idea why. Yes, more oxygen, but remember oxygen is dangerous stuff. Things burn because of oxygen. Using oxygen as fuel has to be done very carefully by biologic organisms. Why are humans told to use antioxident foods, etc? The two miracles are the origin of life and then the two explosions, the Cambrian and later the 'plant bloom', just as dramatic as the animal bloom which preceded. Deus ex machina?

1142 views

dhw: 4) The Cambrian explosion was the result of cell communities (organisms) responding to new environmental conditions (perhaps an increase in oxygen) which permitted a whole range of inventions that would not have been possible in the old environment.-DAVID: This is a key problem. There is a huge jump in the Cambrian. These animals have legs, jaws, brains(!) and for all the world look like animals today, because some of our existing species came directly from 520 mya, and are little changed today. In the preceding pre-Cambrian, nothing like this is found. Simple worms, sheet of cells, some hollow sack-like characters. This whole period looks like a second creation of life. We have no idea why. Yes, more oxygen, but remember oxygen is dangerous stuff. Things burn because of oxygen. Using oxygen as fuel has to be done very carefully by biologic organisms. Why are humans told to use antioxidant foods, etc? The two miracles are the origin of life and then the two explosions, the Cambrian and later the 'plant bloom', just as dramatic as the animal bloom which preceded. Deus ex machina?-My hypothesis is a suggestion that might solve this key problem along with others thrown up by conventional Darwinism. There has to be a reason, and no doubt a Creationist would say, "Yes, deus ex machina". But if a deus created a mechanism capable of inventing new ways of exploiting different environments, he wouldn't need to jump in, would he? The mechanism would work of its own accord. I gave oxygen as one possible cause, but there are plenty of other theories. Meanwhile, which sounds more feasible to you: 1) chance mutations creating legs, jaws, brains; 2) God going through a purple patch in his hands-on creativity; 3) existing organisms (communities of cells) responding intelligently and inventively to new environments through adjustments to the genome?

1126 views


> dhw: My hypothesis is a suggestion that might solve this key problem along with others thrown up by conventional Darwinism. ......Meanwhile, which sounds more feasible to you: 1) chance mutations creating legs, jaws, brains; 2) God going through a purple patch in his hands-on creativity; 3) existing organisms (communities of cells) responding intelligently and inventively to new environments through adjustments to the genome?-No chance for one being correct. Both two and three are possibilities. I view evolution as programmed by God to create humans so either one, or both, would work

1120 views

dhw: My hypothesis is a suggestion that might solve this key problem along with others thrown up by conventional Darwinism. ......Meanwhile, which sounds more feasible to you: 1) chance mutations creating legs, jaws, brains; 2) God going through a purple patch in his hands-on creativity; 3) existing organisms (communities of cells) responding intelligently and inventively to new environments through adjustments to the genome?-DAVID: No chance for one being correct. Both two and three are possibilities. I view evolution as programmed by God to create humans so either one, or both, would work.-Acceptance of 2) aligns you with the Creationists in so far as you think God created all these new organs and organisms separately. That makes me wonder why, if humans were what he really wanted, he didn't create them at the time, instead of poncing about with all those other species.

1127 views

dhw: My hypothesis is a suggestion that might solve this key problem along with others thrown up by conventional Darwinism. ......Meanwhile, which sounds more feasible to you: 1) chance mutations creating legs, jaws, brains; 2) God going through a purple patch in his hands-on creativity; 3) existing organisms (communities of cells) responding intelligently and inventively to new environments through adjustments to the genome?
> 
> DAVID: No chance for one being correct. Both two and three are possibilities. I view evolution as programmed by God to create humans so either one, or both, would work.
> 
> dhw: Acceptance of 2) aligns you with the Creationists in so far as you think God created all these new organs and organisms separately. That makes me wonder why, if humans were what he really wanted, he didn't create them at the time, instead of poncing about with all those other species.-Remember my proposal: God created/used evolution as his method, and DNA is coded (we haven't found it as yet) to create complex organisms with various complex coodinating organs. We are still uncovering the functions of DNA as in the ENCODE research. Evolution at the universe level and at the living level is what we observe.

1129 views

David and I have been discussing how the Cambrian Explosion fits in with evolutionary theory.-dhw: Meanwhile, which sounds more feasible to you: 1) chance mutations creating legs, jaws, brains; 2) God going through a purple patch in his hands-on creativity; 3) existing organisms (communities of cells) responding intelligently and inventively to new environments through adjustments to the genome?-DAVID: No chance for one being correct. Both two and three are possibilities. I view evolution as programmed by God to create humans so either one, or both, would work.-dhw: Acceptance of 2) aligns you with the Creationists in so far as you think God created all these new organs and organisms separately. That makes me wonder why, if humans were what he really wanted, he didn't create them at the time, instead of poncing about with all those other species.-DAVID: Remember my proposal: God created/used evolution as his method, and DNA is coded (we haven't found it as yet) to create complex organisms with various complex coodinating organs. We are still uncovering the functions of DNA as in the ENCODE research. Evolution at the universe level and at the living level is what we observe.-What you have described comes under 3), with the proviso that God designed the mechanism. It is emphatically not 2), which = God intervening. But you are always hampered in your responses by your belief that you can read God's mind ... i.e. that it was his purpose to create humans. 3) leaves open the possibility that God programmed evolution, or that he started it off and sat back to see what would happen, or that it simply proceeded in accordance with what the environment demanded/allowed, irrespective of how it started. These options all fit in with the idea that the Cambrian Explosion was the result of new potential being made available to existing communities of intelligent cells.

1127 views

What you have described comes under 3), with the proviso that God designed the mechanism. It is emphatically not 2), which = God intervening. But you are always hampered in your responses by your belief that you can read God's mind ... i.e. that it was his purpose to create humans. 3) leaves open the possibility that God programmed evolution, or that he started it off and sat back to see what would happen, or that it simply proceeded in accordance with what the environment demanded/allowed, irrespective of how it started. These options all fit in with the idea that the Cambrian Explosion was the result of new potential being made available to existing communities of intelligent cells.-I'm a God-mind reader in the sense that I look at what we see in evolution, and acknowledging that chance doesn't work, logically consider other possibilities. The Cambrian was the result of what? More oxygen? Dangerous to work with. Epigenetics? Doesn't fit. Epgenetics is a response to specific environmental changes. We are back to oxygen. Therefore,either pre-programmed or a push by God. Now we are at the preferrence level of human thought. Since evolution of the universe and of life runs smoothly 99% of the time, I still favor pre-programming.

1146 views

DAVID: I'm a God-mind reader in the sense that I look at what we see in evolution, and acknowledging that chance doesn't work, logically consider other possibilities. The Cambrian was the result of what? More oxygen? Dangerous to work with. Epigenetics? Doesn't fit. Epgenetics is a response to specific environmental changes. We are back to oxygen. Therefore,either pre-programmed or a push by God. Now we are at the preferrence level of human thought. Since evolution of the universe and of life runs smoothly 99% of the time, I still favor pre-programming.-Sorry, but I can't quite follow this. I would have thought an increase in the amount of oxygen was a very specific environmental change, so why wouldn't epigenetics "fit"? However, I'm not plugging oxygen as the change. Nobody knows what the change was, but that doesn't limit the choice to pre-programming or Creationism! What I am plugging is the hypothesis that the explosion of innovations came through the activities of my beloved "intelligent", inventive, experimenting cells/cell communities and not through Darwin's random mutations or a god separately creating new organs and organisms. That leaves the way open for pre-programming or higgledy-piggledy. Your preference for pre-programming is probably itself pre-programmed by your telepathic insight into God's mind and purpose. Regardless of how the cell first came into being, when "I look at what we see in evolution", the apparent randomness of environmental changes and the associated, apparently random comings and goings of species make me favour higgledy-piggledy.

1135 views

DAVID: I'm a God-mind reader in the sense that I look at what we see in evolution, and acknowledging that chance doesn't work, logically consider other possibilities. The Cambrian was the result of what? More oxygen? Dangerous to work with. Epigenetics? Doesn't fit. Epgenetics is a response to specific environmental changes. We are back to oxygen. Therefore,either pre-programmed or a push by God. Now we are at the preferrence level of human thought. Since evolution of the universe and of life runs smoothly 99% of the time, I still favor pre-programming.
> 
> Sorry, but I can't quite follow this. I would have thought an increase in the amount of oxygen was a very specific environmental change, so why wouldn't epigenetics "fit"? However, I'm not plugging oxygen as the change. Nobody knows what the change was, but that doesn't limit the choice to pre-programming or Creationism! -The reason epigenetics doesn't fit is that epipgenetics, in the examples we see,is a response to a threat or danger, or to an environmental change. The effects on the animal body may be small but never as dramatic as inventing new forms of animals. The Cambrian is NOT epigenetic, is a super-genetic!

1119 views

DAVID: The reason epigenetics doesn't fit is that epigenetics, in the examples we see,is a response to a threat or danger, or to an environmental change. The effects on the animal body may be small but never as dramatic as inventing new forms of animals. The Cambrian is NOT epigenetic, is a super-genetic!-We do not know how new forms of animals came into being. We can only speculate, 
and that is what I am doing. The examples of epigenetics that we have seen may only be small because the environmental changes are not major. If it can be proved that such small "effects" can be permanent, maybe large ones could also have been permanent. The explanations we have been offered for these massive Cambrian innovations have so far been:
1) random mutations
2) God deliberately creating each new organ and organism separately
3) Organisms responding to new environmental conditions by inventing new forms-You have consistently argued in favour of God pre-programming evolution, so let me see if I can pin you down. Since you believe in evolution, you believe that every living form is descended from earlier living forms (so exit (2)). If you reject the idea that the cell communities that make up every organism exploited new conditions by inventing new forms, exactly which part of these organisms do you think God pre-programmed to create the innovations that would eventually turn them into humans ... via those essential but now dead diddywocks, dumblebucks and dinosaurs? (You say elsewhere "the species that came and went were preparation for the next step.")

1115 views

dhw: 1) random mutations
> 2) God deliberately creating each new organ and organism separately
> 3) Organisms responding to new environmental conditions by inventing new forms
> 
> You have consistently argued in favour of God pre-programming evolution, so let me see if I can pin you down. Since you believe in evolution, you believe that every living form is descended from earlier living forms (so exit (2)). If you reject the idea that the cell communities that make up every organism exploited new conditions by inventing new forms, exactly which part of these organisms do you think God pre-programmed to turn eventually into humans ... via those essential but now dead diddywocks, dumblebucks and dinosaurs, since you say elsewhere "the species that came and went were preparation for the next step"?-I believe there is a yet-to-be-found complexity program in DNA that drives evolution to more complex forms.

1124 views


> > dhw: You have consistently argued in favour of God pre-programming evolution, so let me see if I can pin you down. Since you believe in evolution, you believe that every living form is descended from earlier living forms (so exit (2)). -> 
> Me: I believe there is a yet-to-be-found complexity program in DNA that drives evolution to more complex forms.-Look at this finding! A gene from junk DNA pops up to be active in the brain!-http://phys.org/news/2012-11-brain-gene-edge-apes.html

1153 views

Dhw: If you reject the idea that the cell communities that make up every organism exploited new conditions by inventing new forms, exactly which part of these organisms do you think God pre-programmed to turn eventually into humans?-DAVID: I believe there is a yet-to-be-found complexity program in DNA that drives evolution to more complex forms.-Thank you. As far as it goes, that seems to me to fit in perfectly well with the "intelligent cell" idea. However, you believe that God preprogrammed evolution to culminate in us humans. In my effort to pin you down, let me now repeat the background belief we share: namely, that every living form is descended from earlier living forms. No innovation can take place from scratch, because every one must take place within an existing organism. You also believe that "the species that came and went were preparation for the next step." Do you then believe that God preprogrammed every single evolutionary innovation, leading to every single species, into the first creatures with DNA?

1114 views

dhw: Do you then believe that God preprogrammed every single evolutionary innovation, leading to every single species, into the first creatures with DNA?-God guided the creation of life. It is a miracle, and in so doing, set up DNA to ensure evolution arrived at us. Either that or the pattern of evolutionary development is the most extraordinary set of contingent coincidences ever conceived, the odds against which are infinitesimal.

1108 views

DAVID: God guided the creation of life. It is a miracle, and in so doing, set up DNA to ensure evolution arrived at us. Either that or the pattern of evolutionary development is the most extraordinary set of contingent coincidences ever conceived, the odds against which are infinitesimal.-I don't see why the only alternatives are chance versus God setting up DNA "to ensure evolution arrived at us". For the sake of this discussion, let's accept the hypothesis that an intelligent power (call it God if you like) invented DNA. If it was all preprogrammed to arrive at us, the first DNA must have contained the programme for lung, legs, liver, heart, hips, head...and of course brain. But this programme also had to ensure that evolution passed through billions of totally different species because "the species that came and went were preparation for the next step".-Here are three alternative scenarios for you, beginning with the premise that God created DNA in such a way that it was capable of a vast variety of adaptations and innovations:-1) He then left it to evolve randomly in whatever directions. This flexibility resulted in billions of different species, some of which died out, some of which have survived. Eventually we evolved from one particular line of these randomly evolved species.
2) He occasionally interfered in order to push evolution in the particular direction he wanted it to go, i.e. towards humanity.
3) He did not have any particular plan in mind, but occasionally interfered in order to experiment.-These scenarios all fit in with the course of evolution as we (think we) know it, but only (2) involves a particular goal, and even that entails failures in the initial programme. Your "guided the creation of life" is too vague for me. Do you stand by preprogramming for humans from the very beginning, or are you prepared to consider any of these three alternatives?

1132 views

dhw: 1) He then left it to evolve randomly in whatever directions. This flexibility resulted in billions of different species, some of which died out, some of which have survived. Eventually we evolved from one particular line of these randomly evolved species.
> 2) He occasionally interfered in order to push evolution in the particular direction he wanted it to go, i.e. towards humanity.
> 3) He did not have any particular plan in mind, but occasionally interfered in order to experiment.
> 
> These scenarios all fit in with the course of evolution as we (think we) know it, but only (2) involves a particular goal, and even that entails failures in the initial programme. Your "guided the creation of life" is too vague for me. Do you stand by preprogramming for humans from the very beginning, or are you prepared to consider any of these three alternatives?-Certainly not (3). Perhaps (1) or (2), but I think evolution had initial guidelines to carry it along. The Cambrian might be a point where God stepped in. Again origin of life is a miracle, Cambrian may well be, and humans with consciousness are a miracle, as I view it.

1113 views

Dhw (re God and evolution): 
1) He then left it to evolve randomly in whatever directions. This flexibility resulted in billions of different species, some of which died out, some of which have survived. Eventually we evolved from one particular line of these randomly evolved species.
2) He occasionally interfered in order to push evolution in the particular direction he wanted it to go, i.e. towards humanity.
3) He did not have any particular plan in mind, but occasionally interfered in order to experiment.
These scenarios all fit in with the course of evolution as we (think we) know it, but only (2) involves a particular goal, and even that entails failures in the initial programme. Your "guided the creation of life" is too vague for me. Do you stand by preprogramming for humans from the very beginning, or are you prepared to consider any of these three alternatives?-DAVID: Certainly not (3). Perhaps (1) or (2), but I think evolution had initial guidelines to carry it along. The Cambrian might be a point where God stepped in. Again origin of life is a miracle, Cambrian may well be, and humans with consciousness are a miracle, as I view it.-I'll go along with life and consciousness being miracles, so long as the word is not restricted to its supernatural associations. (I used it myself in the brief guide, and was reprimanded for doing so.) I'm glad you've allowed possible alternatives to the pre-programming option, but actually (1) and (3) both preclude God having a plan to start with, which is the exact opposite of your original preplanning theory. It seems to me inevitable that once we accept common descent, it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore the vast diversification of species and the illogicality of believing that every single variation and innovation was geared to the production of humans.
 
If I believed in God, I would have no difficulty subscribing to any one of these three options. For the record, my fourth option would be intelligent but unself-conscious energy creating the mechanism for intelligent but unself-conscious life and evolution, culminating in an ever more complex intelligence that eventually becomes aware of itself.

1133 views

dhw: For the record, my fourth option would be intelligent but unself-conscious energy creating the mechanism for intelligent but unself-conscious life and evolution, culminating in an ever more complex intelligence that eventually becomes aware of itself.-Where does intelligence come from? Only an intelligent first cause. I don't know why that IFC isn't self-aware. You are splitting conscious and consciousness, and it seems to me only consciousness has the planning ability necessary to create the universe, life, us, etc., as reality today appears to make that point. Compare our productivity compared to apes.

1105 views

dhw: For the record, my fourth option would be intelligent but unself-conscious energy creating the mechanism for intelligent but unself-conscious life and evolution, culminating in an ever more complex intelligence that eventually becomes aware of itself.-DAVID: Where does intelligence come from? Only an intelligent first cause. I don't know why that IFC isn't self-aware. You are splitting conscious and consciousness, and it seems to me only consciousness has the planning ability necessary to create the universe, life, us, etc., as reality today appears to make that point. Compare our productivity compared to apes.-I am splitting intelligence, consciousness and self-consciousness. If we accept common descent, we must accept that there was a direct line between our ape ancestors and us. The ancestors, in order to survive (just like apes now) needed to have intelligence and a degree of consciousness (e.g. of their surroundings and of what to do in order to survive in those surroundings), but you and I believe they did NOT have the self-consciousness we have. Therefore my "intelligent (but unself-conscious) cell" or your unknown (unself-conscious) mechanism within DNA enabled the intelligence and consciousness of existing creatures to intensify to self-consciousness. That is the analogy I am drawing: first-cause energy may have been intelligent (as Nature is), and through aeons of its intelligent material combinations has gradually increased intelligence to consciousness and then to self-consciousness. -What would this mean if it was true? It would remove the myths of religion, and yet at the same time obviate the necessity for faith in chance. It would also explain the apparent randomness of evolution, and the apparent impersonality of Nature. And here is another possibility, raised by NDEs: that once our material self reverts to the energy from which it originally sprang, perhaps our human attributes will bring new dimensions to that original energy. Who knows?

1094 views


> dhw: That is the analogy I am drawing: first-cause energy may have been intelligent (as Nature is), and through aeons of its intelligent material combinations has gradually increased intelligence to consciousness and then to self-consciousness. -That statement is pure materialism through and through. Nature is not intelligent ipso facto. Inorganic material has no intelligence. Intelligence comes only with life.
> 
> dhw: And here is another possibility, raised by NDEs: that once our material self reverts to the energy from which it originally sprang, perhaps our human attributes will bring new dimensions to that original energy. Who knows?-NDE's are a form of proof that consciousness is universal. That is how the brain can formulate NDE stories while totally non-functional.

1113 views

dhw: That is the analogy I am drawing: first-cause energy may have been intelligent (as Nature is), and through aeons of its intelligent material combinations has gradually increased intelligence to consciousness and then to self-consciousness. 
DAVID: That statement is pure materialism through and through. Nature is not intelligent ipso facto. Inorganic material has no intelligence. Intelligence comes only with life.-Earlier you asked where intelligence came from, and your answer was "only an intelligent first cause. I don't know why that IFC isn't self-aware." That is the question I am asking. I keep talking about the "intelligent cell" and the intelligence of Nature in the sense that both create functioning organs and systems without necessarily being conscious of what they are doing or being aware of themselves. That is my (purely hypothetical) analogy for first cause energy ... an energy which naturally creates orderly systems without being self-aware.
 
dhw: And here is another possibility, raised by NDEs: that once our material self reverts to the energy from which it originally sprang, perhaps our human attributes will bring new dimensions to that original energy. Who knows?-DAVID: NDE's are a form of proof that consciousness is universal. That is how the brain can formulate NDE stories while totally non-functional.-Or perhaps they are proof that energy as processed by the brain survives the death of the brain and brings human consciousness into the energy that first gave rise to life on Earth. Otherwise, how would the ND-experiencer preserve his/her identity? It's interesting that ND-ers see certain people from their own world. That = individual and intersubjective consciousness, but NOT universal consciousness.

1104 views


> DAVID: NDE's are a form of proof that consciousness is universal. That is how the brain can formulate NDE stories while totally non-functional.
> 
> dhw: Or perhaps they are proof that energy as processed by the brain survives the death of the brain and brings human consciousness into the energy that first gave rise to life on Earth. Otherwise, how would the ND-experiencer preserve his/her identity? It's interesting that ND-ers see certain people from their own world. That = individual and intersubjective consciousness, but NOT universal consciousness.-I don't think we have to go as far back as the energy of first cause unless you will agree that the UI is the same thing as first cause. The NDE'rs keep an intact module of their own consciousness during the episode, that is obvious, but they might very well be using a portion of the energy of the UI in doing that. All quantum activity is interconnected. The only proble with all this theorizing is we do not know what consciousness is. Wwe only know what we experience, not its foundation.

1097 views


> dhw: Acceptance of 2) aligns you with the Creationists in so far as you think God created all these new organs and organisms separately. That makes me wonder why, if humans were what he really wanted, he didn't create them at the time, instead of poncing about with all those other species.
> -Could humans have survived without food to eat, water to drink, or air to breathe? You have to view creation as a whole, every piece of it was necessary to some extent or another. We need plants to eat and breathe, plants need animals to spread their seeds and continue on their lineage. Was God just 'poncing about' when he created, or allowed for the evolution of, the lowly honey bee, without which life as we know it would run face first into a brick wall? Or perhaps he was 'poncing about' with the earth worm, that aerates the soil so that plants can grow. Perhaps he was 'poncing about' with fish and the plant life in the oceans which purify our air so that we do not become toxic to ourselves. Of all of the questions I have seen you ask, to me this has the most obvious of answers. Why? Because it had to be done. What good is making a light bulb if you do not first have electricity? What would be the point of creating humans if there was not a means for their survival in place?-
As for the Cambrian explosion, I am not so certain why it is so difficult to grasp. Humans use bacteria to clean and purify toxins as in this article This isn't new technology, this is rediscovering original purpose. Similarly, in order to make the earth ready for habitation, other changes had to be made. While it may seem that it would have been easier to *snap his fingers* and make it happen, that would have amplified the amount of work that needed to be done. Earth's early inhabitants needed to be hardier, heavier, and stronger in order to survive the rough climatic conditions. After that point, the need changed to a different order of creatures. -It is like a craftsman creating a fine piece of furniture. After the framework is built, he doesn't skip straight to the finest grain sand paper. Doing that would ruin the wood. Instead, you start with a low, course, heavy grit paper and gradually move to higher and higher grits until your wood has a polished glow. -
Oh.. HI!!! :P

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

1136 views

Dhw (to David): Acceptance of 2) aligns you with the Creationists in so far as you think God created all these new organs and organisms separately. That makes me wonder why, if humans were what he really wanted, he didn't create them at the time, instead of poncing about with all those other species.-TONY: Could humans have survived without food to eat, water to drink, or air to breathe? You have to view creation as a whole, every piece of it was necessary to some extent or another. We need plants to eat and breathe, plants need animals to spread their seeds and continue on their lineage. Was God just 'poncing about' when he created, or allowed for the evolution of, the lowly honey bee, without which life as we know it would run face first into a brick wall? Or perhaps he was 'poncing about' with the earth worm, that aerates the soil so that plants can grow. Perhaps he was 'poncing about' with fish and the plant life in the oceans which purify our air so that we do not become toxic to ourselves. Of all of the questions I have seen you ask, to me this has the most obvious of answers. Why? Because it had to be done. What good is making a light bulb if you do not first have electricity? What would be the point of creating humans if there was not a means for their survival in place?-There is a slight misunderstanding here. The context of the discussion is the Cambrian Explosion, which you get onto in your next paragraph, and the question David and I are fighting over is how to explain the sudden surge in new organs and organisms. David appeared to be aligning himself with the Creationists in accepting the idea of what I called God's "hands-on creation", and the focus of my final remark ... which I should have made clear ... was on the fact that vast numbers of the species "created" then and also afterwards went extinct. It's therefore hard to see how they could have been essential to what David and you see as God's purpose (to create humans). I accept the rest of your argument.-TONY: As for the Cambrian explosion, I am not so certain why it is so difficult to grasp. Humans use bacteria to clean and purify toxins as in this article This isn't new technology, this is rediscovering original purpose. Similarly, in order to make the earth ready for habitation, other changes had to be made. While it may seem that it would have been easier to *snap his fingers* and make it happen, that would have amplified the amount of work that needed to be done. Earth's early inhabitants needed to be hardier, heavier, and stronger in order to survive the rough climatic conditions. After that point, the need changed to a different order of creatures.-And this is where the whole idea of purposeful Creation becomes too involved for me to find credible. If God was capable of building and fine-tuning a whole universe to sustain life, and if his purpose was to create humans, then was he NOT capable of controlling the climate? Why did billions of species have to come AND GO before he finally got to what he wanted? It's the same question I asked on the dodo thread long ago. If I did believe (but please remember that I don't disbelieve) in a creator, I would still suggest that the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of evolution fit in more easily with a god who is experimenting than with one who is planning. You have focused on what has survived, as evidence of planning. I am focusing on what has not survived, as evidence of randomness. -TONY: It is like a craftsman creating a fine piece of furniture. After the framework is built, he doesn't skip straight to the finest grain sand paper. Doing that would ruin the wood. Instead, you start with a low, course, heavy grit paper and gradually move to higher and higher grits until your wood has a polished glow. -A nice image. But if your furniture-maker wants to make a sideboard, does he have to make a perfect chair and a perfect table and a perfect cupboard first, and then chuck them out?

1107 views

dhw: And this is where the whole idea of purposeful Creation becomes too involved for me to find credible. If God was capable of building and fine-tuning a whole universe to sustain life, and if his purpose was to create humans, then was he NOT capable of controlling the climate? Why did billions of species have to come AND GO before he finally got to what he wanted? -Tony's answer is perfectly reasonable. In regard to climate, since we like sunny days perhaps it should never rain. The species that came and went were preparation for the next step, as Tony explains. The universe was created by an explosion with the imposition of a group of physical laws to guide it from there. The universe in those terms was easy. Life is much more complex. Biochemistry requires an encyclopedia of information, the universe a primer. Not surprising God chose His approach.

1107 views

[DHW] There is a slight misunderstanding here. The context of the discussion is the Cambrian Explosion, which you get onto in your next paragraph, and the question David and I are fighting over is how to explain the sudden surge in new organs and organisms. David appeared to be aligning himself with the Creationists in accepting the idea of what I called God's "hands-on creation", and the focus of my final remark ... which I should have made clear ... was on the fact that vast numbers of the species "created" then and also afterwards went extinct. It's therefore hard to see how they could have been essential to what David and you see as God's purpose (to create humans). I accept the rest of your argument.
> 
 
> And this is where the whole idea of purposeful Creation becomes too involved for me to find credible. If God was capable of building and fine-tuning a whole universe to sustain life, and if his purpose was to create humans, then was he NOT capable of controlling the climate? Why did billions of species have to come AND GO before he finally got to what he wanted? It's the same question I asked on the dodo thread long ago. If I did believe (but please remember that I don't disbelieve) in a creator, I would still suggest that the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of evolution fit in more easily with a god who is experimenting than with one who is planning. You have focused on what has survived, as evidence of planning. I am focusing on what has not survived, as evidence of randomness. 
> -Ok, I have a slightly unique perspective from my studies in game design. As a game designer, generally speaking I don't create objects, creatures, or anything else for that matter. What I create is the rules that govern their behavior and the programmer creates the mechanisms that govern their existence in such away that it implements the rules that I have laid out. This is an important distinction because, as a designer, in most cases I do not create each and every individual. I create templates, rules, and mechanics that often play out in different and unique ways every single time the game is played. The fact that the game changes is not randomness, it is 100% designed and happens according to rules that are written in stone. -In a game, a million creatures can be created and destroyed without me having done anything to 'cause' it provided that their interactions are written in the rules. I believe God made the rules, designed the mechanics and started the game and handed the controller off to his creatures to play for themselves. -Not a great analogy, but I hope the point gets across

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

1121 views

TONY: Ok, I have a slightly unique perspective from my studies in game design. As a game designer, generally speaking I don't create objects, creatures, or anything else for that matter. What I create is the rules that govern their behavior and the programmer creates the mechanisms that govern their existence in such away that it implements the rules that I have laid out. This is an important distinction because, as a designer, in most cases I do not create each and every individual. I create templates, rules, and mechanics that often play out in different and unique ways every single time the game is played. The fact that the game changes is not randomness, it is 100% designed and happens according to rules that are written in stone. 
 
In a game, a million creatures can be created and destroyed without me having done anything to 'cause' it provided that their interactions are written in the rules. I believe God made the rules, designed the mechanics and started the game and handed the controller off to his creatures to play for themselves. -As a highly experienced technophobe who only has to touch a machine to make it break down, I'm not sure that I've understood this analogy correctly, but if I haven't, I'm sure you'll put me right!-As I see it, your image fits in perfectly with my own concept of how the system works. If there is a god, he made the rules and the mechanisms, started the game, and then left the rest to sort itself out. By "the rest", I mean the whole process of evolution. And this game, although it's played within strict rules, offers an infinite variety of moves plus a variety of random conditions that do not depend on the rules but do require responses from the mechanisms. Soccer, for example, has its marked-out pitch, its apparatus, its strict rules, and the restrictions of Nature (no known player has the ability to balance the ball on his foot and jump 100 yards into the opponents' goal). But there are other outside, random factors such as the weather ... hot, cold, rain, wind ... and the condition of the ground ... smooth, bumpy, wet, dry ... which will require adaptation on the part of the players. And occasionally, you get a genius who will invent a new move. However, and above all, it is the very essence of the game that its result is not known in advance.
 
The whole process of evolution seems to me to run parallel to this: rules, the pitch, the apparatus, natural restrictions etc. are all provided, and then it goes its own way. "A million creatures can be created and destroyed without [God] having done anything to cause it." Exactly. There is no pre-programming (David's pet theory), and no purpose beyond the game itself. Humans happen to be the result of countless generations of creatures who have "played for themselves". If there is no God (i.e. no self-aware creator figure), we have intelligent but unselfconscious Nature making the rules etc. as above, and the same game played in the same way. It's all set up, the framework is given, the moves are deliberate (by the "intelligent cell"), but the progress and the result are neither known nor planned in advance. That is the higgledy-piggledy game of evolution.

1127 views

The eyes have it. Genetic traces of opsin production show the descent pattern.First opsin without function, then functional. then all sorts of eyes:
> 
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204840504578086700901693588.html?mod=WSJ_... descent is also proven by convergence, which shows the inventiveness of DNA. Here a common insect and mammels have very similar hearing mechanisms. Our eeys are very like squid eyes.:-http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6109/968.abstract

1117 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum