An inventive mechanism (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, August 30, 2014, 21:27 (3736 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: Limited adaptation. That is the keyword that seems to be missing from most statements when we discuss this. See the analogy above.
> 
>DHW: Thank you for the dog example, which is beautifully organized and expressed. However, it does only deal with limited adaptation, and the point that I am making is that if the cell communities contain a mechanism that can organize such minor changes, it may be possible that the same mechanism can organize major changes when the environment demands or allows it. That is why I suggested that perhaps (it's always “perhaps”) there have been no major environmental changes since the Cambrian to allow for further inventions (as opposed to adaptations).
> -Except that the historical/fossil record is against your argument. When there are drastic environmental changes such that they override the blueprints ability to cope, creatures go extinct, they do not adapt and overcome. If they did, the only cause for extinction would be over hunting by humans.--> TONY: I give you Polymorphism....
> 
> DHW: QUOTE: "In effect, polymorphism trims down the work of the developer because he can now create a sort of general class with all the attributes and behaviors that he envisions for it. When the time comes for the developer to create more specific subclasses with certain unique attributes and behaviors, the developer can simply alter code in the specific portions where the behaviors will differ. All other portions of the code can be left as is."
> 
> If I've understood this correctly, it means God separately creating different “species” (in the sense of totally different organisms, as opposed to different “species of dog”which are all dogs). In that case, David's enthusiasm suggests a return to creationism.***
> -Creationism with limited adaptation, yes. --
>DHW: My alternative is evolution driven by interaction between organism and environment. The theistic version of my hypothesis is your God (the developer) has created a mechanism which from within can of its own accord (i.e. without preprogramming) alter specific portions of an organism in order to change its attributes or behaviour, while all other portions of the organism remain as they were, other than adapting themselves to the new cell combinations. (The process would apply as much to innovation as to adaptation.) Same story, but different approach by the developer. This obviates the need for your God specifically to create the spider and the dragonfly, the alligator and the eagle one by one (or two by two), even if in your hypothesis he might only have to fiddle here and there rather than start de novo.-
Unfortunately, it does not. To use your examples of the spider and the dragonfly, the differences between the two are too great to be covered by polymorphism in the code. If you had said between two members of the arachnid family, I likely would have agreed, though. Let's put it this way, I would agree that the mechanism for change is there, but I disagree on the scope that the mechanism allows. This is born out by our observations where, despite all of our watching, waiting, and even our attempts to tamper, "a dog is still a dog is still a dog". No matter what, we will never see a dog become a cat, or a mouse, or a turtle. In fact, we will never see a canine be anything other than a canine, regardless of which variety of canine it polymorphs into. Polymorphism allows the change within kinds, not invention.

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