An inventive mechanism; Read this essay (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 07, 2014, 16:09 (3698 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by dhw, Tuesday, October 07, 2014, 16:21

dhw: Once again, thank you for recommending an illuminating article, especially since it supports so many ideas you disagree with.
DAVID: You have missed the point,as always, as to why I present this material. It is not magnanimously to help you. ;>)) I find it by following ID folks who interpret it as I do, not as the author does. He is committed to a materialistic and naturalistic interpretation. We are not. His is an atheist or agnostic view of these findings. -You wrote: “It is long, but clearly thought out. The supplemental box at the end is also long but an exact description of the inventive mechanism that is beginning to appear in our research of the genetic mechanisms of organisms.” The points relating to the inventive mechanism, which is the subject of this thread, are (a) its autonomy, and (b) Talbott's claim that subsequent research endorses McClintock's references to “the knowledge the cell has of itself, and how it utilizes this knowledge in a ‘thoughtful' manner when challenged.” In the past, you have been resolutely opposed to both concepts. You think his “findings can be interpreted as supporting” yours. In this context, his findings run explicitly contrary to yours.
 
I shan't repeat your next paragraph, which relates (a) to chance (Talbott agrees with both of us that this is a non-starter), and (b) to interplay between genome and cells. I still dislike this separation - as if the genome were not part of the cell - but it doesn't make any difference to the hypothesis that the cells contain an inventive mechanism.
 
DAVID: Note that I have given cells lots of credit in consideration of a speciation mechanism. But I will not give up the knowledge that they are tighly controlled by the genome. [...] After all it is changes in the genome that produces the modified organism. The genome modifies how the cells are newly employed in the new structures. The genome is the final arbiter. Simply, the cells supply information and the genome creates.-I note it well, and am quite happy with it. You are now talking in terms of the inventive mechanism creating as opposed to being preprogrammed. This is very much in line with Talbott's argument as well as my own. -DAVID: What is the 'logos', the 'mental or inner aspects', the elan vital of organisms? If the chemicals I've mentioned are under a central direction then the 'logos' appears. The central directing conductor of the living orchestra is the genome, reading all the feedback loops from the cell communities.-Again, I am happy with this. Cells/cell communities are under the central direction of an intelligent, inventive mechanism. All you need to do now is choose between the genome as an automaton obeying instructions implanted 3.7 billion years ago, or as an autonomous mechanism formulating and issuing its own instructions.
 
DAVID: I view Talbott like I view Nagel and his problem with consciousness. They are struggling because they cannot let a divine foot in the door, a la Lewonton. [...] They can't get from inorganic 'no life' forms to living forms. They can only start their analysis after life has started.-Our concern here has been how evolution might work, and we have discussed it only from a theistic angle (i.e. how your God might have set things up). But First Cause itself is a different subject. I don't think you urged me to read the essay in order to emphasize Talbott's refusal to tackle the issue of a divine foot in the door. -DAVID: Your intellectual battle with me has been of great help to me. I've come to a concept of an inventive mechanism I can live with. It has to be nebulous at this stage, because we don't know enough to go further. I'm still betting on something like an IM is present and will be found as part of the genome.-This is very important for me. Thank you. Our discussions often go round in circles, but you provide a wealth of information, and I think the exchanges gradually broaden and/or deepen our views. It was, after all, you who in the first place put me onto Margulis and others who believe the cell to be a cognitive being, and onto the role of cooperation in evolution. Our battle is far from over, since autonomy remains the key issue, but I'm delighted that you now take this hypothesis seriously as a possible explanation for how evolution might work.