An inventive mechanism (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, September 10, 2014, 11:21 (3725 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by dhw, Wednesday, September 10, 2014, 11:59

Six hypotheses concerning evolution: 1) Evolution happened through innovations caused by random mutations; 2) Evolution didn't happen: God made every species independently at the same time; 3) Evolution didn't happen: but God made every species separately at different times; 4) Evolution happened: God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on every stage of it; 5) Evolution happened: God directed it through innovations, as he inserted sequences of new computer programmes into different existing cell communities; 6) Evolution happened through innovations created by intelligent cell communities, whose intelligence may or may not have been created by a God.-Dhw: If we had first-hand observation of new species (broad sense - not different types of dog) being created, then there'd be no discussion. Nobody knows how it happened, and that's why we have to speculate, so non-observation can hardly be regarded as a reason for rejecting any of the hypotheses.
TONY: 3 Could not have been observed by humans, because we were among the last created (which ironically is also backed up by scientific observations). 5 however, has been observed many times in the DNA of living creatures.-Um, yes...all the innovations that led to humans preceded humans and could not have been observed by humans! Changes in DNA may have been observed, but has anyone seen God directing evolution through innovations caused by his inserting new computer programmes etc.? My question seems absurd to me, but my point is that those of us who believe evolution happened through innovations can only speculate on HOW it happened. One should therefore not reject any hypothesis simply on the grounds that no-one has observed it happening.-DHW If life depends on other life in order to exist, and this requires communication and planning between cells etc., then cells must be able to communicate and plan. In that case, 6 remains extremely relevant. If you are saying, as David does, that cells are not capable of communicating and planning, how does separate creation (3) explain the interdependence and ability to cooperate and plan? And how does a change of computer programme in one organism (5) explain the ability of other organisms to cooperate and plan with the newcomer? 
TONY: Life depends on life. True. 
Life depends on cellular communication. True.
Cellular communication does NOT mean cellular planning, however, and that communication is very, very limited.-That is David's argument too. But it is limited to programmes already devised. There is no innovating going on at present - this is an unpunctuated period of equilibrium - and so there is no evidence now that cells can create something totally new. However, there is plenty of evidence that they can adapt, which might suggest an autonomous mechanism that can work out different ways of coping with different environments. There is likewise no evidence of your God separately creating new species, or devising new programmes. All three hypotheses remain speculation.-TONY: Special creation/pre-planning solves this problem neatly because the intelligence behind the creation can plan. I can write programs that depend on each other very easily. [...] Concept 3 does not require cells to plan... -In that case, your God would also have to change the programmes in the other organisms, to ensure compatibility. Why is an autonomous inventive mechanism a problem? In the name of Occam, wouldn't it be simpler for God to create a mechanism that can devise its own programmes as and when they're needed throughout 3.7.billion years so far of changing environments (see below)? Concept 3, of course, excludes evolution. I do hope David will explain to you why he is so against it.
 
TONY: When I said that there was a limited version of 5 in play, it means that there aren't any "new comers" in terms of new types of creatures popping up out of no where.
 
That is why we cannot reject hypotheses on the grounds that no-one has observed the arrival of new species (general definition, as opposed to different dogs).-TONY: The few points in history where life got the reset button, it reset. There was not really a lot of left overs for the new creatures to have to interact with. The old guard dies when the new arrives. -So interaction isn't much of a problem anyway. If I were a 4 or 5 theist, I'd be more bothered about why God programmed the obliteration of so many of his programmes. But let's return to innovation. If 90% of species are killed off by a new environment, maybe those that survive do so because their inventive mechanism is able not only to adapt to it but also to exploit it. After all, a dabbling God (3) would also exploit the new possibilities. I'd be interested to know if you believe your God a) deliberately changed the environments as he went along, b) preplanned each change from the beginning, or c) adapted his programmes and/or separately created his new species to fit in with each unplanned change.