An inventive mechanism (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 07, 2014, 15:53 (3698 days ago) @ David Turell

For the sake of brevity, I am editing quotes in order to highlight the salient points of the discussion.-dhw: The qualifications that you now add to your acceptance of “a sort of” autonomy apply to all inventions. You might as well say that no invention/innovation can achieve the impossible: Nature provides constraints and guidelines.
DAVID: Yes, Nature provides constraints, but not guidelines. The guidelines must be in innovation instructions in the genome, just as in my example of building a new house (different than all others), with the new owner describing his desires and the architect, using his knowledge and experience forms the new set of plans, and they must include design of structure (partially new morphology) and plan of construction (embryology). -One expression stands between us: “innovation instructions”. The question is whether the genome-architect itself designs the new house, or your God drew up all the plans 3.7 billion years ago and the genome automatically switches onto that particular programme. You cannot get round this alternative.-dhw: You have always criticized my hypothesis for being nebulous, because I can't explain how it works. I find your objections nebulous.
DAVID: Your original hypothesis stretches celluler abilities beyond what is shown they can possibility create. Once you agreed with me to place the IM in the genome, we have come much closer together in our thinking.-The genome is part of the cell. The inventive mechanism is a hypothesis to explain the course of evolution, and the all-important question is not location but autonomy. (See also our discussion on Talbott).
 
dhw: What constraints and guidelines are you referring to, other than the obvious ones I've mentioned?
DAVID: I have explained my constraints as part of genomic guidelines and also environmental challenges.-Genomic guidelines would be the plans drawn up by the inventive mechanism, in response to environmental challenges. No need for a 3.7-billion-year programme or for God to dabble.
 
dhw: And finally, back to our beetles: since you now firmly reject the very idea that God preprogrammed or separately invented their myrmecophily, do you agree that they autonomously worked it out for themselves?
DAVID: I have never fully rejected 'pre-pro' or 'dabb'. -I asked: “So do you think your God preplanned these drastic morphological changes 3.7 billion years ago? Did he dabble personally in order to change the beetles' morphology?” And you answered: “No and no. Invention under provided guidelines.” As an old-fashioned English gentleman, when I hear a no, I understand it as a no. The guidelines, you have now explained, are provided by the inventive mechanism in the genome. In your heart of hearts you don't really believe your God preprogrammed myrmecophily into the first living cells, do you?-DAVID: These [divine preprogramming and dabbling] are reasonable possibilities, if one accepts theistic evolution. I just don't like them as stand-alone concepts of God's abilities. An IM is a strong possibility to get around my uneasiness, but I am content with it, only if it follows my architect analogy, as the genome guides the new production of a species.-Let me repeat: If your architect is the genome, you are acknowledging the autonomy of the inventive mechanism. If the genome is merely implementing plans drawn up by an architect 3.7 billion years ago, you are back in the uneasy position you started with.