An inventive mechanism; Read this essay (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, October 07, 2014, 18:31 (3698 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: 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.-That is because you stretch the concept of cellular 'thoughtful'-ness beyond the actual case when cells are studied. Cells receive stimuli and respond and tell their genomes, but the genome is still in charge. Cells are not thoughtful. They are automatic reporters. Talbott is making a point to overcome the Darwinian mantras. He must get rid of the chance mutation theory. It just doesn't work that way as he points out. You don't see that ID folks and I have a totally different analysis. It is not just me. The genome, as part of the cell, gets the message and methylates or or transposes or whatever to make changes in gene expression. Remember in embryology one DNA becomes many DNA's. The genome is very plastic like the brain. -> dhw: 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.-Yes, that is what i've tried to find.
 
> dhw: 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.-I've explained above my 'third way'.
> 
> dhw: 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 continue to recognize that evolution starts with the appearnce of first life, and that start is part of a continuum. Current life is based on whatever first life looked like.-> dhw: 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.-The cell recognizes stimuli and simply reports them to the genome. Just how 'cognitive' is that? I still view the genome as the brains of the cell. And the genomic solutions are semi-autonomous, as I have proposed. Remember I look at teleology not chance. Do you have a third alternative? Design of living things has the purpose of surviving. Since the time of Darwin and Wallace, only two choices have existed. Darwin chose chance and Wallace chose design.