Intelligence & Evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, October 17, 2013, 15:21 (4054 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: I have never claimed that cells or dogs have the self-awareness of humans. My proposal is that cells have a degree of consciousness/intelligence which when they combine in their billions over billions of years has enabled them to come up with innovations. The innovations are a fact. Nobody knows how they occurred. You think God preplanned every innovation and species and behavioural mode (including your Venus flytrap) into the first few forms of life. I am suggesting that, if he exists, he only created the mechanism that would enable cells to devise their own combinations which led to higgledy-piggledy evolution.-Good on you. That statement reflects my thesis. In the past I have stated that God created life to be very inventive, so your conclusion about me is off a bit. The higgledy piggledy is part of that inventiveness, but the overall direction was always toward humans. We've covered this in the past'-> dhw: And yet you claim that biochemistry supports your God hypothesis. Doesn't the 90% figure suggest to you that biochemistry allows for other explanations?-No, it simply points out that there are many ways to analyze scientific data. Most scientists egotistically feel they can explain everything without God.-> 
> dhw: Nor is there any reason why dinosaurs should have appeared, or the Venus flytrap, or city-building ants. According to you, God also preprogrammed them, and every other innovation you can think of.-Answered above 
 
> 
> DAVID: We should have stayed as happy apes, but we didn't. What forced the development? No force is apparent, if we accept the Darwin idea that evolution is a response to challenges. If that statement is not true, we are back to God in control. Or your weasel way of cell invention which is really a far out concoction if you look at actual biochemistry.
> 
> dhw: Yes, Darwin saw evolution as a response to a series of challenges, but his theory depends on random mutations followed by Nature selecting those lucky strikes that were beneficial. The "intelligent cell" hypothesis takes randomness out of the equation, and as Margulis argues so potently, puts cooperation at the heart of evolution. This cooperation may not be solely as a result of challenges, because changes in the environment might also lead to new possibilities that are not NEEDED for survival, but enable organisms to find new niches for themselves through innovation. Hence dinosaurs, Venus flytraps, ants, and humans. If challenge was the only motivation, evolution could have stuck at the level of bacteria. This puts cells back in control of evolution, whether God gave them their intelligence or not.-This takes us back to Gould and his observation that evolution, starting with the simplest, could only evolve in the direction of complexity. But bacteria are the most successful group on Earth. They have been here 3.6 billion years and have the biggest biomass. Why bother with complexity when it is not needed? There must be a driving force toward complexity, which implies the installation of a cooperative drive toward complexity. God at work.