An inventive mechanism (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, September 02, 2014, 21:28 (3521 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: ...according to you every innovation, whether of organs or of modes of behaviour, had to be programmed into the first cells, allowing for every environmental change that was to trigger those innovations...all to be passed down through billions of organisms and generations and years and environments. Of course we shall never find those first “computers”, so what do you expect to find in, say, the spider's genome? ..-When we see a multitude of examples that are virtually unchanged since the Cambrian, just exactly which part of this is fanciful? It is only fanciful if you believe in species divergence via evolution, which we have absolutely no evidence for, only speculation.-
>DHW: The dabble theory is just as fanciful. Your infinite God of pure energy somehow contriving - perhaps through psychokinesis - to manipulate the microscopic globules of material in such a way that they will form kidneys in, say, half a dozen kidneyless organisms to make sure at least two of them survive to promulgate kidneydom. And personally planting chemicals and instructions into the spider to make sure it spins its silk. You called this “intricate planning”, so how else could God have planned it, if not by dabbling or popping a heritable silk-spinning chip into the computer section of the first living cells?
> -Well, it is less fanciful than saying that a cluster of cells first conceived the concept of a string/web, then the concept of shooting said web out their rears, then invented the concept of silk that is stronger than steel, then performed the chemical engineering to figure out how to make it, and then the biological engineering to figure out how to upgrade the spider, and at the very least reprogramed the genetic material so that the NEXT generation has that ability, all within the lifespan of a single spider...Because that is exactly what would be required by your cellular intelligence. The process of silk is a very poor choice to argue cellular intelligence on due to it's sheer complexity.- ->DHW: My theory does not require itty-bitty. Intelligent men tried to fly, and a lot of them got killed when their contraptions didn't work. But other intelligent men put various bits and pieces together, using the knowledge acquired from their predecessors, and were able to fly. Either the invention succeeds or it fails. That is the process I envisage with intelligent cell communities cooperating. Many of the organisms will die. But some will get the formula right (innovations can only take place within existing organisms), and then you will have speciation. It's only a hypothesis. And it does depend on us finding that cells/cell communities can “think” intelligently and inventively, to a degree beyond what is now known. Your two theories (preprogramming and dabbling) seem to me to depend on our finding something a few million degrees beyond what is now known. Remember, I started as a theist, and then an atheist. There are reasons why I am an agnostic, and this is a major one.-
I see a critical flaw here, and I am curious how you envision it being overcome. Those men that tried to fly shared their knowledge. They experimented repeatedly, and failed, leaving evidence of their experiments for others to learn from. Through the accumulation of knowledge over centuries, they eventually figured it out. That could not happen without some means to transmit that knowledge and experiment. Where is the mechanism for transmitting knowledge of failed experiments, and where is the evidence of the failed experiments?

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