Does evolution have a purpose? (Evolution)
DAVID (under “An inventive mechanism: Reviewing Talbott”): It occurred to me today that your review of Talbott mysteriously left out a comment on his huge section discussing fitness, and the inability to define it.... I skipped it because it was irrelevant to our discussion on an inventive mechanism, and I skipped his equally long section on randomness, because you and I have long since agreed that chance is not a convincing basis for an understanding of evolution. I like to focus on one subject at a time, which is why you and I sometimes talk at cross purposes! DAVID: I am not sure that the basis of evolution is survivability. And that is why the Darwinian attempts to quantify fitness may be so important to them but not to me. -I'm inclined to agree, but you wrote: “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.” I pointed out that you were actually echoing Darwin, who also chose survival as the purpose. However, I found your whole paragraph rather disjointed, so let's move to a much clearer and far more productive line of argument: DAVID: I look at the obvious drive for complexity, the appearance of advances in complexity without a driving necessity, and with a possible IM producing a bush of living weirdness with some of the strange lifestyles I've shown in natures wonders, and Darwin's theory may not be on the mark. Is life in competition with itself and the environment the only reason for evolution? I strongly doubt it.-This is a rich subject. I agree with you, although survival still has to be a fundamental element. As the two of us have repeatedly told each other, if survival was the sole aim, evolution need not have progressed beyond bacteria. And as Margulis emphasized, cooperation is at least as important as competition. None of us would be here if billions of cells/cell communities hadn't decided to work together! An autonomous IM will go on inventing, and each invention will lead to further inventions, and each one will have its own “agenda”, as it either copes with or exploits new conditions. But this may be where you and I have to part company. Let's see.-Under “An inventive mechanism” we had the following exchange concerning the purpose of evolution
hw: Previously you have always insisted that its purpose was the production of humans, which ran counter to the higgledy-piggledy nature of the evolutionary bush. DAVID: It is not counter to a bush, if the IM is somewhat on its own in originating changes.-I shall ignore “somewhat” as an unnecessary qualification! From the very start of this discussion, I have emphasized that the concept of an inventive mechanism explains the higgledy-piggledy bush, so it's gratifying to see you now using the same argument. However,let me repeat, the hypothesis that you had offered prior to your “conversion” was that evolution had been preprogrammed 3.7 billion years ago to fulfil the purpose of producing humans, and that does not fit into the higgledy-piggledy bush, unless you genuinely believe that rafting ants, silk-spinning spiders, myrmecophylous (I love that word!) beetles, trilobites and a billion other extinct organisms were essential for the production of you and me. Dabbling was your other option, but that conflicted with your belief that evolution happened. The theistic version of the inventive mechanism, i.e. that your God created it, raises the question of his motives for the bush, whereas your anthropocentric 3.7-year-preprogramming - while failing to explain the higgledy-piggledy bush - gives you a tangible purpose to cling to. It also ties in neatly with religion, since many religious people believe that God is interested in them, and loves them, and wants them to behave properly and be happy. Maybe they're right. Who knows? The theistic version alone may lead to some enlightening ideas (we need Tony for this too, but he disappeared at the very moment when we were about to discuss these matters), and of course I hold in reserve an agnostic/atheistic approach. Your anthropocentrism may well be enough, though, to get things going!
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell 
, Friday, October 10, 2014, 01:56 (3696 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID (under “An inventive mechanism: Reviewing Talbott”): It occurred to me today that your review of Talbott mysteriously left out a comment on his huge section discussing fitness, and the inability to define it.... > > dhw:I skipped it because it was irrelevant to our discussion on an inventive mechanism, .....I like to focus on one subject at a time, which is why you and I sometimes talk at cross purposes!-I didn't know you were so blinkered in discussion! And fitness is not beside the point of deciding how an IM goes about its business. The fitness discussion relates directly to competition and survival, and as we delve into this subject, note that my idea of eventual humans as the goal is another way of looking at a mechanism for evolution, just as my proposal of a driving mechanism to complexity can be another mechanism for evolution. We are stuck with Darwin's approach because it is the dominant current theory, but I can offer substantial arguments, as I have in the past for a different padttern of factors and mechanisms.-> > dhw: This is a rich subject. I agree with you, although survival still has to be a fundamental element. As the two of us have repeatedly told each other, if survival was the sole aim, evolution need not have progressed beyond bacteria.-Here we are in agreement. -> dhw:And as Margulis emphasized, cooperation is at least as important as competition. None of us would be here if billions of cells/cell communities hadn't decided to work together! -We do not know whether cells agreed to cooperate or advancing abilities of DNA made them cooperate. I favor this approach. The genome must run the cells.-> dhw: An autonomous IM will go on inventing, and each invention will lead to further inventions, and each one will have its own “agenda”, as it either copes with or exploits new conditions. But this may be where you and I have to part company. Let's see.-We are not together. I still view an inventive mechanism as following guidelines and semi-autonomously inventing > > dhw: Under “An inventive mechanism” we had the following exchange concerning the purpose of evolution: > > Dhw: Previously you have always insisted that its purpose was the production of humans, which ran counter to the higgledy-piggledy nature of the evolutionary bush. > DAVID: It is not counter to a bush, if the IM is somewhat on its own in originating changes > > I shall ignore “somewhat” as an unnecessary qualification! From the very start of this discussion, I have emphasized that the concept of an inventive mechanism explains the higgledy-piggledy bush, so it's gratifying to see you now using the same argument. However,let me repeat, the hypothesis that you had offered prior to your “conversion” was that evolution had been preprogrammed 3.7 billion years ago to fulfil the purpose of producing humans, and that does not fit into the higgledy-piggledy bush, unless you genuinely believe that rafting ants, silk-spinning spiders, myrmecophylous (I love that word!) beetles, trilobites and a billion other extinct organisms were essential for the production of you and me.-By semi-autonomous I mean I can see the IM branching off into all sorts of sidelines of live inventions-> dhw: Dabbling was your other option, but that conflicted with your belief that evolution happened. -No it doesn't. Dabbling simply meant guiding some of the evolutionary changes.-> dhw:The theistic version of the inventive mechanism, i.e. that your God created it, raises the question of his motives for the bush, whereas your anthropocentric 3.7-year-preprogramming - while failing to explain the higgledy-piggledy bush - gives you a tangible purpose to cling to. -Once again, you are making religion's mistake, awarding God with human thinking. He may have had no motives for a bush.-> dhw: It also ties in neatly with religion, since many religious people believe that God is interested in them, and loves them, and wants them to behave properly and be happy. Maybe they're right. Who knows?-That is just my point. Who knows God at all?
Does evolution have a purpose?
DAVID: The fitness discussion relates directly to competition and survival, and as we delve into this subject, note that my idea of eventual humans as the goal is another way of looking at a mechanism for evolution, just as my proposal of a driving mechanism to complexity can be another mechanism for evolution. We are stuck with Darwin's approach because it is the dominant current theory, but I can offer substantial arguments, as I have in the past for a different padttern of factors and mechanisms.-Previously, your drive to complexity was powered by a 3.7-billion-year-old computer programme. Apart from that alternative, I really can't see any difference between the inventive mechanism and a “driving mechanism to complexity”. We have agreed that survival does not explain progression beyond bacteria, and the merging of single cellular organisms into multicellular, followed by an ever increasing number of cellular combinations = invention and complexity. But you are right that innovations must still tie in with fitness, since there would not be much point in increased complexity if the new organism couldn't survive! -dhw: An autonomous IM will go on inventing, and each invention will lead to further inventions, and each one will have its own “agenda”, as it either copes with or exploits new conditions. But this may be where you and I have to part company. Let's see.-DAVID: We are not together. I still view an inventive mechanism as following guidelines and semi-autonomously inventing.-We have agreed that the inventive mechanism follows guidelines in the same way as the bridge-builder does: knowledge of what it can and can't do, plus knowledge of current conditions. If the bridge-builder is autonomous, so is the IM. You go on to say: “By semi-autonomous I mean I can see the IM branching off into all sorts of sidelines of live inventions.” We clearly speak a different language, but even my American dictionary offers the definition ”self-governing” . What is half self-governing? “Autonomous” in our context means the mechanism is in control of itself, is not preprogrammed, takes its own decisions. It branches off into many different forms BECAUSE it is autonomous, with the different organisms coming up with different solutions to different problems in different environments. dhw: Dabbling was your other option, but that conflicted with your belief that evolution happened. DAVID: No it doesn't. Dabbling simply meant guiding some of the evolutionary changes.-My apologies. You are quite right, and this may become an important factor in our discussion. dhw: The theistic version of the inventive mechanism, i.e. that your God created it, raises the question of his motives for the bush, whereas your anthropocentric 3.7-year-preprogramming - while failing to explain the higgledy-piggledy bush - gives you a tangible purpose to cling to. DAVID: Once again, you are making religion's mistake, awarding God with human thinking. He may have had no motives for a bush.-You can hardly complain about such thinking when you have consistently argued that God's evolutionary purpose was to create humans. dhw: It also ties in neatly with religion, since many religious people believe that God is interested in them, and loves them, and wants them to behave properly and be happy. Maybe they're right. Who knows? DAVID: That is just my point. Who knows God at all?-Indeed. He may not even exist. But you think he does, so do you still believe his purpose in starting evolution was to create humans?
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Friday, October 10, 2014, 18:11 (3695 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: But you are right that innovations must still tie in with fitness, since there would not be much point in increased complexity if the new organism couldn't survive! -Agreed. But it is interesting that Darwin folks cannot define fitness except to work backwards and say what survives is fit! > > DAVID: We are not together. I still view an inventive mechanism as following guidelines and semi-autonomously inventing. > > dhw: We have agreed that the inventive mechanism follows guidelines in the same way as the bridge-builder does: knowledge of what it can and can't do, plus knowledge of current conditions. .... It branches off into many different forms BECAUSE it is autonomous, with the different organisms coming up with different solutions to different problems in different environments.-I wont quibble. It is constrained by knowledge of what it 'can and cannot do'.- > DAVID: That is just my point. Who knows God at all? > > dhw:Indeed. He may not even exist. But you think he does, so do you still believe his purpose in starting evolution was to create humans?-I always ask the question of myself. Why are we here? The apes, whose lifestyle we left, did fine until the last 100 years when we become too numerous for them and began to encroach on their habitat. Nothing drove our brain size. It just happened. Upright posture began to develop 22 million years ago in a monkey. Why? It appears to me evolution was directed toward humans. Our bodies and brains have exceeded all requirements of nature at the time we began to appear. It is still recognizing purpose or appeallng to chance to do these things. Darwin bet on chance. I don't.
Does evolution have a purpose?
DAVID: That is just my point. Who knows God at all?-dhw: Indeed. He may not even exist. But you think he does, so do you still believe his purpose in starting evolution was to create humans?-DAVID: I always ask the question of myself. Why are we here? The apes, whose lifestyle we left, did fine until the last 100 years when we become too numerous for them and began to encroach on their habitat. Nothing drove our brain size. It just happened. Upright posture began to develop 22 million years ago in a monkey. Why? It appears to me evolution was directed toward humans. Our bodies and brains have exceeded all requirements of nature at the time we began to appear. It is still recognizing purpose or appeallng to chance to do these things. Darwin bet on chance. I don't.-You might ask the same question of every single species. Bacteria did fine almost from the word go, so what “drove” multicellularity? Why is our friend the myrmecophilous beetle here, and why was the tyrannosaurus rex here, though he isn't here any more? Your sometimes breathtaking list of Nature's Wonders raises the same question over and over again, and it's possible that the hypothesis of an autonomous inventive mechanism provides us with the answer. All of these wonders, including the human body and brain, “exceed all requirements of nature”, since nature “requires” nothing beyond bacteria. Perhaps the power of invention has led to this vast variety, and we are a kind of culmination. Other species have their own degrees of intelligence and consciousness and even ratiocination, and at some time the inventive mechanism within a few monkeys hit on a new idea (maybe descending from the trees) - possibly triggered by a change in the environment - which in turn led to a whole succession of new ideas. Of course it's all maybe and possibly, but as you have repeatedly pointed out, the brain develops with use. New experiences create new links. I am suggesting that there is no overriding purpose, but that once set in motion, the inventive mechanisms within individual organisms or groups of organisms pursued their own “agendas”, thus giving rise to the great higgledy-piggledy bush of species that eventually led to our own. There is no chance involved here, other than the randomness of environmental change. Each branch of the bush is the result of deliberate design - not separately by a god but separately by succeeding generations of organisms whose inventive mechanisms adjust to or exploit environmental change. You are right to say Darwin bet on chance, but only in the sense of random mutations. As far as the origin of life was concerned, he hedged his bets. If he had known what we now know about genetics, he might also have come up with the hypothesis of an inventive mechanism, and would no doubt have hedged his bets on the origin of that too.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Saturday, October 11, 2014, 21:40 (3694 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Bacteria did fine almost from the word go, so what “drove” multicellularity? ..... and it's possible that the hypothesis of an autonomous inventive mechanism provides us with the answer. All of these wonders, including the human body and brain, “exceed all requirements of nature”, since nature “requires” nothing beyond bacteria. Perhaps the power of invention has led to this vast variety, and we are a kind of culmination-Exactly the type of point I am raising. We really don't know what drives evolution. Darwin chose survival, but his group cannot define fitness. It could well not be survival but constant invention with the non-fit dropping along the wayside. There is no question from the examples I've given in Natures wonders. that just not bring us to purpose. What I have just described is a shotgun approach. There could be a program to push toward humans. That is purpose, or the shotgun could imply the purpose of seeing just how inventive life can be if given free rein.-> dhw: I am suggesting that there is no overriding purpose, but that once set in motion, the inventive mechanisms within individual organisms or groups of organisms pursued their own “agendas”, thus giving rise to the great higgledy-piggledy bush of species that eventually led to our own.-That is my free rein description. In this case humans are here by accident, and the odds against this result are enormous. This is Gould's 'series of contingencies' and we are the lucky accident of fate, the Glorious Accident of the book title. But accidents against enormous odds occur all the time the math folks tell us.-Against this thinking is the series of events leading to us. A universe that is fine-tuned for life, 20 major and 100 minor physical parameters, often exact to thousands of decimal places to allow a life-giving universe. The appearance of life from organic chemistry that arises from a totally inorganic chemistry universe. > > dhw:There is no chance involved here, other than the randomness of environmental change.-We can't prove environmental challenges drive evolution. They tend to remove the unfit, but why should new animals appear as complex advancements. The bacteria are still here, no more complex than in the beginning.-> dhw: Each branch of the bush is the result of deliberate design - not separately by a god but separately by succeeding generations of organisms whose inventive mechanisms adjust to or exploit environmental change. -Planning new organisms is a complex problem, coordinating new organs, as in the Cambrian. A posible inventive mechanism went wild then. How? That gap seem too great to expect the simple multicellular two-tissue layered Ediacarans to conjure up such a jump. I use the word conjure in its magical sense. Magic or purpose?-> dhw: You are right to say Darwin bet on chance, but only in the sense of random mutations. As far as the origin of life was concerned, he hedged his bets. If he had known what we now know about genetics, he might also have come up with the hypothesis of an inventive mechanism, and would no doubt have hedged his bets on the origin of that too.-So, did the IM invent itself? Or again, no purpose? For me the evidence is strongly suggestive of purpose.
Does evolution have a purpose?
dhw: All of these wonders, including the human body and brain, “exceed all requirements of nature”, since nature “requires” nothing beyond bacteria. Perhaps the power of invention has led to this vast variety, and we are a kind of culmination. DAVID: Exactly the type of point I am raising. We really don't know what drives evolution. Darwin chose survival, but his group cannot define fitness. It could well not be survival but constant invention with the non-fit dropping along the wayside. -We are in agreement.-dhw: I am suggesting that there is no overriding purpose, but that once set in motion, the inventive mechanisms within individual organisms or groups of organisms pursued their own “agendas”, thus giving rise to the great higgledy-piggledy bush of species that eventually led to our own.-DAVID: That is my free rein description. In this case humans are here by accident, and the odds against this result are enormous. This is Gould's 'series of contingencies' and we are the lucky accident of fate, the Glorious Accident of the book title. But accidents against enormous odds occur all the time the math folks tell us. Against this thinking is the series of events leading to us. A universe that is fine-tuned for life, 20 major and 100 minor physical parameters, often exact to thousands of decimal places to allow a life-giving universe. The appearance of life from organic chemistry that arises from a totally inorganic chemistry universe.-The fine-tuning of the universe for life may be an argument against chance and in favour of a conscious creator, but it is not an argument against the “accidental” appearance of humans any more than it's an argument against the "accidental" appearance of myrmecophilous beetles or dinosaurs. Once the autonomous inventive mechanism (another argument against chance) set evolution in motion, all species would have created themselves out of earlier species, and in that respect humans, for all their special qualities, are no more and no less “accidental” than any other species. dhw: There is no chance involved here, other than the randomness of environmental change. DAVID: We can't prove environmental challenges drive evolution. They tend to remove the unfit, but why should new animals appear as complex advancements. The bacteria are still here, no more complex than in the beginning.-Agreed. We can't prove anything, including evolution. If we could, there would be no controversy. The inventive mechanism is a hypothesis, but it explains why new animals appear as complex advancements. These may well be linked to environmental challenges and/or opportunities.-dhw: Each branch of the bush is the result of deliberate design - not separately by a god but separately by succeeding generations of organisms whose inventive mechanisms adjust to or exploit environmental change. DAVID: Planning new organisms is a complex problem, coordinating new organs, as in the Cambrian. A posible inventive mechanism went wild then. How? That gap seem too great to expect the simple multicellular two-tissue layered Ediacarans to conjure up such a jump. I use the word conjure in its magical sense. Magic or purpose?-You are trotting out the same arguments that we have been over a thousand times. There is no magic involved. You were uncomfortable with your 3.7-billion-year, all-inclusive computer programme and with your God dabbling. I have proposed the alternative hypothesis of an autonomous, unpreprogrammed inventive mechanism, which you have accepted as a possibility (bearing in mind certain given constraints) and have even suggested must be within the genome. We don't know how it would work. It's a hypothesis. But if you believe in the continuum of evolution, you believe that existing organisms produced innovations leading to new species. A change in the environment during the Cambrian (e.g. an increase in oxygen levels) may have presented vast new opportunities for the inventive mechanism to branch out. See below on the subject of purpose.-dhw: You are right to say Darwin bet on chance, but only in the sense of random mutations. As far as the origin of life was concerned, he hedged his bets. If he had known what we now know about genetics, he might also have come up with the hypothesis of an inventive mechanism, and would no doubt have hedged his bets on the origin of that too. DAVID: So, did the IM invent itself? Or again, no purpose? For me the evidence is strongly suggestive of purpose.-Your question is not a true alternative. The alternatives would be: did it invent itself, or was it invented by a designer (your God)? No purpose? That is the subject of this thread. If God invented it, you will have to read his mind, which you have previously attempted to do by insisting that his purpose was to create humans. Another possible purpose might be your God setting things in motion just to see what would happen (= divine experimentation/curiosity/relief of boredom). Or on a different level, both theistic and atheistic, there is purpose in the actions of all living things: a) to survive, and b) to see what they can make of their lives. (The inventive mechanism seeking improvement for the organisms it controls.) The latter is particularly attractive, as it mirrors the purpose that drives most humans in their daily strivings.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Sunday, October 12, 2014, 15:52 (3693 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: The fine-tuning of the universe for life may be an argument against chance and in favour of a conscious creator, but it is not an argument against the “accidental” appearance of humans any more than it's an argument against the "accidental" appearance of myrmecophilous beetles or dinosaurs. Once the autonomous inventive mechanism (another argument against chance) set evolution in motion, all species would have created themselves out of earlier species, and in that respect humans, for all their special qualities, are no more and no less “accidental” than any other species.-I can find purpose in your description. Both fine-tuning and the IM tend to deny chance. I suggest that humans are different in kind not degree,per Adler, both in the mechanical ability of their bodies but also in the enormous mental ability. It does not look accidental to me. Again it brings me back to a semi-autonomous IM which follows some constraints and guidelines. I want my cake and to eat it also. This is just as possible a scenario as yours. It is not pre-programming. An inventor takes what exists to work with and his invention is something new. We have agreed to this. And he has purpose. To create semething useful.-> dhw: We can't prove anything, including evolution. If we could, there would be no controversy. The inventive mechanism is a hypothesis, but it explains why new animals appear as complex advancements. These may well be linked to environmental challenges and/or opportunities.-One problem I have is the Cambrian explosion. The gap is huge from Edicaran to fully functional animals with several interocking organ systems. A totally unfettered IM just inventing along, cannot have made taht jump without experimenting with intermediate forms. And so far, over the last 100 years of fossil hunting they are painfully absent for Darwin folks.-> > dhw: You are trotting out the same arguments that we have been over a thousand times. You were uncomfortable with your 3.7-billion-year, all-inclusive computer programme and with your God dabbling. I have proposed the alternative hypothesis of an autonomous, unpreprogrammed inventive mechanism, which you have accepted as a possibility (bearing in mind certain given constraints) and have even suggested must be within the genome. We don't know how it would work. It's a hypothesis. But if you believe in the continuum of evolution, you believe that existing organisms produced innovations leading to new species. A change in the environment during the Cambrian (e.g. an increase in oxygen levels) may have presented vast new opportunities for the inventive mechanism to branch out. See below on the subject of purpose.-Just because oxygen increased in volume, does not mean innovation advanced to the extent it did. And the only place an IM would exist is as a part of the genome which is the controller of body form and function.-> DAVID: So, did the IM invent itself? Or again, no purpose? For me the evidence is strongly suggestive of purpose. > > dhw: Your question is not a true alternative. The alternatives would be: did it invent itself, or was it invented by a designer (your God)?-Exactly my point. The IM must have exquisite planning ability to create the Cambrian animals. A major point for considering it invented by God.-> dhw: No purpose? That is the subject of this thread. If God invented it, you will have to read his mind, which you have previously attempted to do by insisting that his purpose was to create humans. Another possible purpose might be your God setting things in motion just to see what would happen (= divine experimentation/curiosity/relief of boredom). Or on a different level, both theistic and atheistic, there is purpose in the actions of all living things: a) to survive, and b) to see what they can make of their lives. (The inventive mechanism seeking improvement for the organisms it controls.) The latter is particularly attractive, as it mirrors the purpose that drives most humans in their daily strivings.-Your explorations of God's mind are amusing. I still don't know what was on his mind when he created evolution to create us eventually. Why not just do it, instead of evolving a universe and humans over time? But as religions tell us, God is timeless and can take as long as He wants. I am just working backward from what we know. I see nothing but purpose, and you seem to struggle to champion accidental, balancing on your fence.
Does evolution have a purpose?
DAVID: I can find purpose in your description. Both fine-tuning and the IM tend to deny chance. I suggest that humans are different in kind not degree,per Adler, both in the mechanical ability of their bodies but also in the enormous mental ability. It does not look accidental to me. -Nor do the enormous complexities of myrmecophilous beetles and dinosaurs. Nor does an eye or a kidney or a liver. That is the whole point of the inventive mechanism: once set in motion, it designs all forms of life, innovating, accumulating, expanding, all the way through to humans. (But see below for a get-out, if you need it.) -DAVID: Again it brings me back to a semi-autonomous IM which follows some constraints and guidelines. I want my cake and to eat it also. This is just as possible a scenario as yours. It is not pre-programming. An inventor takes what exists to work with and his invention is something new. We have agreed to this. And he has purpose. To create semething useful.-Your motive for all these little quibbles is transparent, and disarmingly and charmingly honest. You want to have your cake and eat it, so if you can slip in “semi” and “guidelines” and an “inventor”, it sort of vaguely keeps God actively involved. But you don't need to be slippery. Your God can still be involved through his invention of the inventive mechanism. Autonomous invention within the constraints and guidelines applicable to all inventions and activities, including our own (what can and can't be done, what conditions are laid down by the environment) is not your scenario, it's mine, as is clear from your reference above to humans and below to the Cambrian problem. And my inventive mechanism takes what exists to work with and its invention is something new, and its purpose is to create something useful. But you can modify my scenario if you think your God's mechanism is incapable of turning apes into humans. You quite rightly reprimanded me for saying that “dabbling” conflicted with your belief in evolution. You wrote: “No it doesn't. Dabbling simply meant guiding some of the evolutionary changes.” That is your scenario. “Dabbling” may be a sign of things going wrong, or a sign of your God making it up as he goes along, and it's not preprogramming. However, this is where you have the problem of where to draw the line, as seen in your next comment: DAVID: One problem I have is the Cambrian explosion. The gap is huge from Edicaran to fully functional animals with several interocking organ systems. A totally unfettered IM just inventing along, cannot have made taht jump without experimenting with intermediate forms. And so far, over the last 100 years of fossil hunting they are painfully absent for Darwin folks.-So what are you suggesting? That God separately created all those new organs? Or that he took existing organisms and manipulated their genomes (= dabbled)? If it's the latter, it suggests your God was not capable of creating an IM that could invent anything so complicated, whereas he himself could pop in and do it just like that. Well, if he could do it, why couldn't he invent a mechanism that could do it? And why would he dabble 500 million years ago, creating a vast array of species - many of which would go extinct - if his real purpose was to create humans? It doesn't make sense, does it? But an autonomous IM explains it all. Organisms go their own higgledy-piggledy way. DAVID: So, did the IM invent itself? Or again, no purpose? For me the evidence is strongly suggestive of purpose. dhw: Your question is not a true alternative. The alternatives would be: did it invent itself, or was it invented by a designer (your God)? DAVID: Exactly my point. The IM must have exquisite planning ability to create the Cambrian animals. A major point for considering it invented by God.-Good. So now you are agreeing that the IM could have done it, whereas a moment ago you were using the absence of fossils to cast doubt on it. That wasn't your point, though. You were telescoping two issues: 1) Was the mechanism designed by your God? 2) Did/does it have a purpose? -DAVID: Your explorations of God's mind are amusing. I still don't know what was on his mind when he created evolution to create us eventually. Why not just do it, instead of evolving a universe and humans over time?-“To create us” is the anthropocentric view I am questioning. Why is that to be taken seriously and the alternatives I offer are amusing? Why assume that human nature is alien to anything your God might experience? Do you think he would have created something capable of love, empathy, joy without knowing anything about such emotions? If your answer is no, then it must also be possible that he's capable of curiosity, boredom etc. Of course we can't read his mind (if he exists at all), but when you claim that his aim was to produce humans, you open the gate to alternative interpretations. DAVID: I see nothing but purpose, and you seem to struggle to champion accidental, balancing on your fence.-But what is that purpose? I'm currently struggling to understand how evolution might work, and I'm offering an inventive alternative to random mutations, to divine preprogramming, and to divine dabbling, and suggesting the purposes of survival and improvement.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 14, 2014, 02:03 (3692 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: That is the whole point of the inventive mechanism: once set in motion, it designs all forms of life, innovating, accumulating, expanding, all the way through to humans.-Given the gaps in the fossil tree of evolution, the concept of an IM must account for the leaps in complexity. So far in our discussion, it doesn't do that. If by 'accumulating' you mean gaining experience by experimenting, once again, no itty-bitty steps are seen. That is why I call it semi-autonomous. Its instructional manual may provide guidelines for advancement, and I am not saying specific instructions.- > dhw: Your God can still be involved through his invention of the inventive mechanism. Autonomous invention within the constraints and guidelines applicable to all inventions and activities, including our own (what can and can't be done, what conditions are laid down by the environment) is not your scenario, it's mine, as is clear from your reference above to humans and below to the Cambrian problem. -But this comment of yours avoids purpose, and I can't do that, because I see the purpose in everything. My guidelines offer some directionality to evolution. yes, we get the nerer-ending bushiness, but for me it esplains humans, when none were ever necessary under Darwin guidelines. -> dhw: And my inventive mechanism takes what exists to work with and its invention is something new, and its purpose is to create something useful. But you can modify my scenario if you think your God's mechanism is incapable of turning apes into humans. -> > DAVID: One problem I have is the Cambrian explosion. -> dhw: So what are you suggesting? That God separately created all those new organs? Or that he took existing organisms and manipulated their genomes (= dabbled)? If it's the latter, it suggests your God was not capable of creating an IM that could invent anything so complicated, whereas he himself could pop in and do it just like that. Well, if he could do it, why couldn't he invent a mechanism that could do it? ..... It doesn't make sense, does it? But an autonomous IM explains it all. Organisms go their own higgledy-piggledy way.- I still insist 'semi-autonomous', but I could assume that God invented an inventing mechanism, so He could just sit back and watch. Not pre-programming and not dabbling, just evolving in semi-controlled directions, toward humans. > > DAVID: So, did the IM invent itself? Or again, no purpose? For me the evidence is strongly suggestive of purpose.-> dhw: Your question is not a true alternative. The alternatives would be: did it invent itself, or was it invented by a designer (your God)? > DAVID: Exactly my point. The IM must have exquisite planning ability to create the Cambrian animals. A major point for considering it invented by God. > > dhw: Good. So now you are agreeing that the IM could have done it, whereas a moment ago you were using the absence of fossils to cast doubt on it. That wasn't your point, though. You were telescoping two issues: 1) Was the mechanism designed by your God? 2) Did/does it have a purpose? -The point is clear to me. The IM must be invented by God in order to do the planning for Cambrian animals that can live. The complexity of the Cambrian requires exquisite planning, just as a semi-independent IM literally cannot invent itself, the complexity of its required advance planning ability is far too great > > DAVID: Your explorations of God's mind are amusing. I still don't know what was on his mind when he created evolution to create us eventually. Why not just do it, instead of evolving a universe and humans over time? > > dhw: “To create us” is the anthropocentric view I am questioning. Why is that to be taken seriously and the alternatives I offer are amusing? Why assume that human nature is alien to anything your God might experience? Of course we can't read his mind (if he exists at all), but when you claim that his aim was to produce humans, you open the gate to alternative interpretations.-If we can't read His mind why try? In regard to humans arriving on the scene, they did and they are a most unusual result for evolution, way beyond anything necessary for Darwin's survival approach. Therefore, survival is not a key evolutionary condition. If there is purpose, we are the purposeful intent. > > DAVID: I see nothing but purpose, and you seem to struggle to champion accidental, balancing on your fence. > > dhw:But what is that purpose? I'm currently struggling to understand how evolution might work, and I'm offering an inventive alternative to random mutations, to divine preprogramming, and to divine dabbling, and suggesting the purposes of survival and improvement.-Random mutation doesn't really work. we have concluded that.
Does evolution have a purpose?
dhw: That is the whole point of the inventive mechanism: once set in motion, it designs all forms of life, innovating, accumulating, expanding, all the way through to humans. DAVID: Given the gaps in the fossil tree of evolution, the concept of an IM must account for the leaps in complexity. So far in our discussion, it doesn't do that. If by 'accumulating' you mean gaining experience by experimenting, once again, no itty-bitty steps are seen. That is why I call it semi-autonomous. Its instructional manual may provide guidelines for advancement, and I am not saying specific instructions.-By ‘accumulating' I mean that organisms carry with them the advancements made by previous generations. Once the eye has been invented, different organisms find different ways of using it, and they in turn come up with further innovations, and so evolution advances from single cell through multicellularity to the accumulated innovations that have led to ourselves. I'm afraid “guidelines for advancement” mean nothing to me. Guidelines provided by the limitations of the organisms themselves and their environment are clear enough, but you seem to be talking about guidelines on how to make eyes, ears, kidneys etc. in an instruction manual that does not give instructions. This, as you have said, is trying to have your cake and eat it. As regards the lack of fossils, maybe 1) they are there but haven't been found; 2) there are none because failed experiments leave no recognizable trace; 3) there were no transitional forms and each innovation worked: in theistic terms, this would mean God preprogrammed them 3.7 billion years ago, dabbled, or was clever enough to invent a mechanism that could create innovations that worked. If the problem of complexity can be solved by your God's preprogramming or dabbling, it can be solved by his IM.-dhw: Autonomous invention [...] is not your scenario, it's mine, as is clear from your reference above to humans and below to the Cambrian problem. DAVID: But this comment of yours avoids purpose, and I can't do that, because I see the purpose in everything. My guidelines offer some directionality to evolution. yes, we get the nerer-ending bushiness, but for me it esplains humans, when none were ever necessary under Darwin guidelines.-Same answer as usual: no multicellular organisms - from dinosaurs to dodos, from trilobites to trout, from hyenas to humans - were ever necessary, since bacteria have been so successful. I too see purpose in everything: survival and improvement. That explains the bush. What purpose do you see in dinosaurs and dodos if the purpose was directionality towards humans? dhw: ...an autonomous IM explains it all. Organisms go their own higgledy-piggledy way. DAVID: I still insist 'semi-autonomous', but I could assume that God invented an inventing mechanism, so He could just sit back and watch. Not pre-programming and not dabbling, just evolving in semi-controlled directions, toward humans.-Please explain how the mechanism can be “semi-autonomous” and “semi-controlled” if there is neither preprogramming nor dabbling and God is simply sitting back watching. Your cake is rapidly disappearing. dhw: You were telescoping two issues: 1) Was the mechanism designed by your God? 2) Did/does it have a purpose? DAVID: The point is clear to me. The IM must be invented by God in order to do the planning for Cambrian animals that can live. The complexity of the Cambrian requires exquisite planning, just as a semi-independent IM literally cannot invent itself, the complexity of its required advance planning ability is far too great.-As the discussion is now about the IM's autonomy and a possible purpose for evolution, I am for the moment taking the theistic line that the IM was invented by your God. If you concede that an autonomous IM can explain the Cambrian, your own problem with the Cambrian is solved. If you don't, you are back with your 3.7 billion-year programme or your dabbling. dhw: Of course we can't read his mind (if he exists at all), but when you claim that his aim was to produce humans, you open the gate to alternative interpretations. DAVID: If we can't read His mind why try? In regard to humans arriving on the scene, they did and they are a most unusual result for evolution, way beyond anything necessary for Darwin's survival approach. Therefore, survival is not a key evolutionary condition. If there is purpose, we are the purposeful intent.-See above for the non-necessity of all species, including humans. It is you who insist on trying to read God's mind, by claiming that humans are his purpose for evolution. If he created an inventive mechanism and sat back and watched, that mechanism was left to do its own thing. As above, I am suggesting it would have had two purposes: to survive, and if possible to improve. Changes in the environment would demand changes in the organism (survival through adaptation) but would also provide opportunities for new organs and new forms of behaviour (innovation). Hence evolution. Hence the bush. And despite our advanced intelligence and inventiveness, I would suggest we humans pursue the same two purposes. Why does this mean that the great higgledy-piggledy process was set in motion in order to create us?
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 14, 2014, 20:41 (3691 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, October 14, 2014, 21:14
dhw: I'm afraid “guidelines for advancement” mean nothing to me. Guidelines provided by the limitations of the organisms themselves and their environment are clear enough, but you seem to be talking about guidelines on how to make eyes, ears, kidneys etc. in an instruction manual that does not give instructions.-Lets review what we are trying to do, establishing an inventive mechanism to create new species, not just minor adaptations. If God placed such a mechanism in the genome somehow and somewhere, He is going to have it do what He intends. If He was so interested in making a universe that allows life, and creates life, He is not going to give up full control over advances in evolution through speciation. Consider that the IM is his alter ego. This does not give us a reason for His evolutionary method, but it gets around pre-programming and dabbling. Threfore, His IM is semi-autonomous and has suggestive guidelines for advancement. -> dhw: As regards the lack of fossils, maybe 1) they are there but haven't been found; 2) there are none because failed experiments leave no recognizable trace; 3) there were no transitional forms and each innovation worked: in theistic terms, this would mean God preprogrammed them 3.7 billion years ago, dabbled, or was clever enough to invent a mechanism that could create innovations that worked. If the problem of complexity can be solved by your God's preprogramming or dabbling, it can be solved by his IM.-Your suggestion about fossil gaps (1) is Darwin's 170-year-old hopeful wish. It hasn't come true and with all the fossil digging done by so many more paleontologists, it is not a likely answer. (2) There are lots of traces of expired species, and we are still finding many of them. Where do the estimates that 99% of all species invented since life began come from except fossil data? (3) is reasoned exactly on the mark. Good thinking. > > dhw: I too see purpose in everything: survival and improvement. That explains the bush. What purpose do you see in dinosaurs and dodos if the purpose was directionality towards humans?-Because a semi-autonomous IM makes bushiness. It is not fully directional like a laser beam. But it guides in that direction. > > dhw: Please explain how the mechanism can be “semi-autonomous” and “semi-controlled” if there is neither preprogramming nor dabbling and God is simply sitting back watching. Your cake is rapidly disappearing.-No it isn't. See above explanation. > > dhw: See above for the non-necessity of all species, including humans. It is you who insist on trying to read God's mind, by claiming that humans are his purpose for evolution. If he created an inventive mechanism and sat back and watched, that mechanism was left to do its own thing. -As I've explained, God knows what He is doing and what is intended to happen.-> dhw:As above, I am suggesting it would have had two purposes: to survive, and if possible to improve. .....Hence evolution. Hence the bush. And despite our advanced intelligence and inventiveness, I would suggest we humans pursue the same two purposes. Why does this mean that the great higgledy-piggledy process was set in motion in order to create us?-I've covered all of your objections in my above explanation. He used evolution. He set controls in the IM. It created a bush. So what, we are here to discuss it. You seem to persist in asking for explanations for God's thinking, as in that last sentence above. As I have said, I don't try to unravel his reasoning process. He did it and since life and the universe look designed, and that chance cannot have done it, I conclude He, the greater power, exists and did it. I would like to assume He is love, and He has intense concern for each individual, but those are human assumptions, and like everything else about God, we just don't know. If one assumes that the Bible really contains His intentions, then we do know. But humans wrote both Bibles and later committees selected which chapters to include. So the bible is biased.
Does evolution have a purpose?
dhw: I'm afraid “guidelines for advancement” mean nothing to me. Guidelines provided by the limitations of the organisms themselves and their environment are clear enough, but you seem to be talking about guidelines on how to make eyes, ears, kidneys etc. in an instruction manual that does not give instructions.-DAVID: Lets review what we are trying to do, establishing an inventive mechanism to create new species, not just minor adaptations. If God placed such a mechanism in the genome somehow and somewhere, He is going to have it do what He intends. If He was so interested in making a universe that allows life, and creates life, He is not going to give up full control over advances in evolution through speciation. -Why not? Maybe “what He intends” is a total free-for-all. You are working backwards from your assumption that his aim was to produce humans! Now consider your earlier statement: “I could assume that God invented an inventing mechanism, so He could just sit back and watch.” Stop there, and you have an explanation for the higgledy-piggledy bush, the seemingly random comings and goings, the vast variety of life forms and behaviours. By giving the mechanism complete autonomy, he provides himself with an endlessly changing spectacle. Why is this reading of his mind less permissible than your insistence that the spectacle is “Not preprogramming and not dabbling, just evolving in semi-controlled directions towards humans.” If it had to end in humans, there did have to be control, but a) that intention is what I am questioning, and b) what control could there possibly be other than preprogramming or dabbling? What is an instruction manual that doesn't give instructions?-dhw: I too see purpose in everything: survival and improvement. That explains the bush. What purpose do you see in dinosaurs and dodos if the purpose was directionality towards humans? DAVID: Because a semi-autonomous IM makes bushiness. It is not fully directional like a laser beam. But it guides in that direction.-An autonomous IM makes bushiness. Why should it guide in that one direction? The IM has “guided” in a billion different directions, because every innovation was specifically targeted to enable organisms to see, hear, digest, swim, walk, fly... If your God did not preprogramme or dabble, but sat back and watched, he must have given the IM autonomy.-DAVID: As I've explained, God knows what He is doing and what is intended to happen.-How do you know what God knows and intends? As I've explained, since what happened was a higgledy-piggledy bush of endlessly varied life forms and modes of behaviour, why should we not assume that this free-for-all was his intention - instead of claiming that he was targeting just one species out of billions? -dhw: As above, I am suggesting it would have had two purposes: to survive, and if possible to improve. .....Hence evolution. Hence the bush. And despite our advanced intelligence and inventiveness, I would suggest we humans pursue the same two purposes. Why does this mean that the great higgledy-piggledy process was set in motion in order to create us?-DAVID: I've covered all of your objections in my above explanation. He used evolution. He set controls in the IM. It created a bush. So what, we are here to discuss it. You seem to persist in asking for explanations for God's thinking, as in that last sentence above. As I have said, I don't try to unravel his reasoning process. He did it and since life and the universe look designed, and that chance cannot have done it, I conclude He, the greater power, exists and did it. -I've covered all of your objections to my objections in the above explanation. The issue in this discussion is not whether God exists and did it, because for the sake of this particular argument I have adopted the theistic position that he does and did. I have objected only to your insistence that he set controls in the IM to guide it towards humans. Now you complain because I am offering an alternative to your anthropocentric reading of his intention which you know yourself does not explain the higgledy-piggledy bush and which has created your preprogramming/dabbling dilemma. There is no dilemma of any kind if you accept the autonomy of the IM and the idea that God invented it and then sat back and watched.-DAVID: I would like to assume He is love, and He has intense concern for each individual, but those are human assumptions, and like everything else about God, we just don't know. If one assumes that the Bible really contains His intentions, then we do know. But humans wrote both Bibles and later committees selected which chapters to include. So the bible is biased.-Is it possible that what you “would like to assume” has influenced all your thinking about evolution? This is very much a topic for the thread on “Religion: pros & cons”, which sadly fizzled out just as it was getting interesting. We need input from Tony and/or others, since you and I are sceptical about the texts and the assumptions.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Thursday, October 16, 2014, 01:49 (3690 days ago) @ dhw
David. If He was so interested in making a universe that allows life, and creates life, He is not going to give up full control over advances in evolution through speciation. [/i] > > dhw: Why not? Maybe “what He intends” is a total free-for-all. You are working backwards from your assumption that his aim was to produce humans! Now consider your earlier statement: “I could assume that God invented an inventing mechanism, so He could just sit back and watch.” Stop there, and you have an explanation for the higgledy-piggledy bush, the seemingly random comings and goings, the vast variety of life forms and behaviours. -You are perfectly right that if we assume God has infinite powers, as stated by the Bible, He should be able to invent an IM that can run totally on its own. I am looking for a method that gives us bushiness and humans without pre-programming or dabbling. But that is the reason I use the modifier, semi-autonomous. Both my statements you quoted make sense if we assume that God is jealous of His intent for humans to appear. With a semiautonomous IM which might not necessarily follow a fully pre-programmed path to humans, it allows for bushiness, but with built-in instructions given an ultimate direction, it can wander around to some degree, but still wind up producing humans. > dhw: How do you know what God knows and intends? As I've explained, since what happened was a higgledy-piggledy bush of endlessly varied life forms and modes of behaviour, why should we not assume that this free-for-all was his intention - instead of claiming that he was targeting just one species out of billions? -Because humans are here and like no other life form in the entire bushiness. I'm simply asking a 'why' question. We have animal bodies produced by evolution and enormous brains for no good reason I can see, except a purpose that is Adler's point in his most influential book. I accept that we are different in kind, not degree. Evolution produces changes by degree. We are a different kind. Why would an unorganized chance mechanism like Darwin's theory of evolution do that? With Darwin only chance is available. So you would have to propose humans by chance. The gradual change in the human brain size and complexity happened but in no other line of descent. When we know there are many, many examples of life's inventiveness and convergences, why no convergence in brains? In eyes, yes, and they are extremely complex, so complexity is not much of an issue to thwart brain development. 6-8 million years and stupendous human mental capacities, and the chimps still have their peanut brains.- > dhw: There is no dilemma of any kind if you accept the autonomy of the IM and the idea that God invented it and then sat back and watched.-I've explained my approach above. It would be nice if the evidence supported the creationist approach of God creating everything directly in six eons, but what we know does not fit. Six eons, yes, very direct evolution, no. And the evidence looks like an evolutionary process. God fooling us, no. God working according to His own way? Yes. > > dhw: Is it possible that what you “would like to assume” has influenced all your thinking about evolution? This is very much a topic for the thread on “Religion: pros & cons”, which sadly fizzled out just as it was getting interesting. We need input from Tony and/or others, since you and I are sceptical about the texts and the assumptions.-You are right to the point. I was raised on OT Bible stories as a kid, ended up an agnostic, and changed my mind when I studied the science evolving in the 20th Century. Science and theology complement each other, if one steps back and removes the human wishes from theology. Lots of the theology comes from an age of miracles and superstition. We know more now, most natural wonders are explained. We don't need a god of thunder, rainbows are not miracles, etc. But when I see humans as a result of evolution, I see purpose. Purpose and design are soulmates. I see purpose and design everywhere. Everything looks very directed, in my eyes.
Does evolution have a purpose?
DAVID: You are perfectly right that if we assume God has infinite powers, as stated by the Bible, He should be able to invent an IM that can run totally on its own. I am looking for a method that gives us bushiness and humans without pre-programming or dabbling. -I have suggested one already, but I think you're looking for a method that will remove the contradiction between bushiness and your interpretation of God's intentions (i.e. the production of humans). -DAVID: But that is the reason I use the modifier, semi-autonomous. Both my statements you quoted make sense if we assume that God is jealous of His intent for humans to appear. With a semiautonomous IM which might not necessarily follow a fully pre-programmed path to humans, it allows for bushiness, but with built-in instructions given an ultimate direction, it can wander around to some degree, but still wind up producing humans-Your assumption about God's intentions has left you in an even worse dilemma than before: you want the IM to be free, so you can explain the bush, and you don't want it to be free because you want humans to be the goal. And so you say the IM is not preprogrammed (free) and yet contains an instruction manual (not free) that does not contain “specific instructions” (October 14) (slightly free) though it has “built-in instructions given an ultimate direction” (not free at all) (October 15). How can the built-in instructions to produce humans leave the IM free to invent the billions of innovations without which humans could not exist? You are in danger of choking on your cake!-dhw: ...why should we not assume that this free-for-all was his intention - instead of claiming that he was targeting just one species out of billions? -DAVID: Because humans are here and like no other life form in the entire bushiness. I'm simply asking a 'why' question. We have animal bodies produced by evolution and enormous brains for no good reason I can see, except a purpose that is Adler's point in his most influential book. -Our enormous brains help us to survive and to improve (the two purposes I have suggested underlie the whole evolutionary process). Every Nature's Wonder with which you have enriched this website has done the same thing in its own unique way. Why do dogs have a sense of smell a thousand times more powerful than our own? Did the first cells contain “built-in instructions” for doggy noses? My hypothesis suggests that the doggy nose in an animal body and the human brain in an animal body both evolved through the intelligent cooperation of a few million IMs. But you think God must have preprogrammed (built-in instructions) the human brain, and not the doggy nose. DAVID: We are a different kind. Why would an unorganized chance mechanism like Darwin's theory of evolution do that? With Darwin only chance is available. So you would have to propose humans by chance.-You always scurry back to Darwin's random mutations, which the two of us have long since agreed to jettison. The only chance element here is environmental change. The IM designs. It does not rely on chance.-DAVID: The gradual change in the human brain size and complexity happened but in no other line of descent. When we know there are many, many examples of life's inventiveness and convergences, why no convergence in brains? -Why don't all organisms have doggy noses? Every species has to find its niche in the given environment, and to develop a behavioural pattern that will enable it to survive. Then there's probably stasis until a change in the environment causes some to perish, some to adapt, and some to innovate. That, I suggest, is how new species (in the broad sense - not different species of dog) formed, every one with a speciality that makes it different from others. Our speciality is the brain. Other species may have survived without needing to change, but somewhere along the line, the IM in one group of chimps (or whatever) came up with something as new as the doggy nose once was. DAVID: We don't need a god of thunder, rainbows are not miracles, etc. But when I see humans as a result of evolution, I see purpose. Purpose and design are soulmates. I see purpose and design everywhere. Everything looks very directed, in my eyes.-And to mine, but if my hypothesis of an IM is true, the direction comes from within: every species, including humans, has designed its own unique properties to serve the purpose of survival and/or improvement. But you are using the word “purpose” to denote a divine plan that culminates in humans, because despite constantly enjoining us not to try and read God's mind, you insist on doing so yourself and then you try to adapt life's history to your reading, even though you can see that it just doesn't fit. Eat the cake, dear David!
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Friday, October 17, 2014, 02:07 (3689 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Your assumption about God's intentions has left you in an even worse dilemma than before: you want the IM to be free, so you can explain the bush, and you don't want it to be free because you want humans to be the goal......How can the built-in instructions to produce humans leave the IM free to invent the billions of innovations without which humans could not exist? You are in danger of choking on your cake!-I love my cake. You keep skipping the fact that I describe the IM as 'semi-autonomous. Not free, but working under guidelines, like the auto factory that made your Volkswagen with robots. Only my IM is not robotic but has degrees of freedom to invent as necessary, based on perceived necessities.- > dhw: My hypothesis suggests that the doggy nose in an animal body and the human brain in an animal body both evolved through the intelligent cooperation of a few million IMs. But you think God must have preprogrammed (built-in instructions) the human brain, and not the doggy nose.-Very likely. The IM knew the doggie nose needed a powerful sniffer for survival, but followed guidelines to produce the human brain. > > DAVID: We are a different kind. Why would an unorganized chance mechanism like Darwin's theory of evolution do that? With Darwin only chance is available. So you would have to propose humans by chance. > > dhw: The only chance element here is environmental change. The IM designs. It does not rely on chance.-True. > > dhw: Why don't all organisms have doggy noses? Every species has to find its niche in the given environment, and to develop a behavioural pattern that will enable it to survive. Then there's probably stasis until a change in the environment causes some to perish, some to adapt, and some to innovate.-By environment you must include climate, asteroids, volcanic eruptions, competition from other species, etc.? Wolves have the same 'nosi'ness since doggies are wolves in breeder's clothing.-> > DAVID: I see purpose and design everywhere. Everything looks very directed, in my eyes.[/i] > > dhw: And to mine, but if my hypothesis of an IM is true, the direction comes from within: every species, including humans, has designed its own unique properties to serve the purpose of survival and/or improvement. ..... you insist on doing so yourself and then you try to adapt life's history to your reading, even though you can see that it just doesn't fit. Eat the cake, dear David!-I can hypothesize my IM any way I wish and enjoy the cake. A semi-autonomous IM with guidelines works just fine for me. You see purpose and design and then just ignore the obvious. We humans shouldn't be here by all odds but we are. Everything screams purpose, just not loud enough for you.
Does evolution have a purpose?
dhw: Your assumption about God's intentions has left you in an even worse dilemma than before: you want the IM to be free, so you can explain the bush, and you don't want it to be free because you want humans to be the goal......How can the built-in instructions to produce humans leave the IM free to invent the billions of innovations without which humans could not exist? You are in danger of choking on your cake!-DAVID: I love my cake. You keep skipping the fact that I describe the IM as 'semi-autonomous. Not free, but working under guidelines, like the auto factory that made your Volkswagen with robots. Only my IM is not robotic but has degrees of freedom to invent as necessary, based on perceived necessities.-Skipping? My whole post is an attempt to show the contradictions your “semi-autonomous” imposes on your scenario. You have not answered my question, so let me explain and rephrase it. If, as you acknowledge later, the IM was "very likely" free to invent the doggy's nose, presumably it was also free to invent the eyes, ears, kidneys, legs, brain that are equally essential to the doggy's dogginess. But nose, eyes, ears etc. are also essential to human-ness. So the IM was free to invent all these organs for dogs, but it was preprogrammed to produce ours. You compare your IM to robots, which are preprogrammed, but then you say it's not robotic, so that comparison doesn't help us much. Nor does “degrees of freedom”, since either the IM did or did not autonomously produce the innovations leading from bacteria to us. Two questions, then: do you think the IM freely(i.e. not preprogrammed) invented the doggy nose, eyes, ears, kidneys, legs, brain, or were they preprogrammed in the first cells? Do you think the IM freely (i.e. not preprogrammed) invented the human nose, eyes, ears, kidneys, legs, brain, or were they preprogrammed in the first cells? (I have deliberately put “brain” last.) -dhw: Why don't all organisms have doggy noses? Every species has to find its niche in the given environment, and to develop a behavioural pattern that will enable it to survive. Then there's probably stasis until a change in the environment causes some to perish, some to adapt, and some to innovate. DAVID: By environment you must include climate, asteroids, volcanic eruptions, competition from other species, etc.? Wolves have the same 'nosi'ness since doggies are wolves in breeder's clothing.-Yes of course environment includes all those factors. The IM has to respond to any change. Organisms that are not destroyed will adapt or innovate. I am aware that the canis lupus is a species of dog. -DAVID: I see purpose and design everywhere. Everything looks very directed, in my eyes. dhw: And to mine, but if my hypothesis of an IM is true, the direction comes from within: every species, including humans, has designed its own unique properties to serve the purpose of survival and/or improvement. ..... you insist on doing so yourself and then you try to adapt life's history to your reading, even though you can see that it just doesn't fit. Eat the cake, dear David!-DAVID: I can hypothesize my IM any way I wish and enjoy the cake. A semi-autonomous IM with guidelines works just fine for me. You see purpose and design and then just ignore the obvious. We humans shouldn't be here by all odds but we are. Everything screams purpose, just not loud enough for you.-And Dawkins can hypothesize whatever he wishes too, but surely we can probe a bit deeper than that. What is the obvious that I am ignoring? That God planned humans from the start? By all odds, no form of life should be here, but there are zillions of forms. Why must the zillions of forms scream that they are or were all here for the sake of humans? Can't they have a life and purpose of their own?
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Friday, October 17, 2014, 18:35 (3688 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: So the IM was free to invent all these organs for dogs, but it was preprogrammed to produce ours. .... Two questions, then: do you think the IM freely(i.e. not preprogrammed) invented the doggy nose, eyes, ears, kidneys, legs, brain, or were they preprogrammed in the first cells? Do you think the IM freely (i.e. not preprogrammed) invented the human nose, eyes, ears, kidneys, legs, brain, or were they preprogrammed in the first cells? -I am trying to propose a slightly different IM than you imagine. It is pre-programmed to eventually produce humans. It is semiautonomous. It has specific pre-programmed guidelines as to how to respond to changes in environment with changes in phenotype, and it has the freedom of choice in following those guidelines, but cannot exceed those guidelines. Thus bushiness. -> > dhw: By all odds, no form of life should be here, but there are zillions of forms. Why must the zillions of forms scream that they are or were all here for the sake of humans? Can't they have a life and purpose of their own?-The balance of nature requires all parts we see. In animals, something eats something. Ask the Australians how their balance has been so mixed up by improper animal importations. If the odds against life are so great, how do you explain it, or do you just skip over that point?
Does evolution have a purpose?
dhw: (under “Origin of Life”): Still with my theist hat on, if God was clever enough to preprogramme the Cambrian jump into the first cells of 3.7 billion years ago, why do you insist that he can't have been clever enough to invent a mechanism that would work out its own way to cope with or exploit the new conditions? DAVID: We have been over this before. A totally autonomous IM cannot possibly have the planning capacity for the Cambrian gap, unless given guidelines to follow. Of course God's capacity for planning can do it, or if He invented an IM, He gave it planning guidelines to follow, making it semi-autonomous.-Previously we agreed that the “guidelines” consisted of the constraints imposed on all organisms by the limitations as to what they can and can't do, and the demands of the environment. Now you are extending these guidelines to plans, which can only relate to the construction of the innovations that led to new species: i.e. new cell communities in the form of new organs, bones etc. We have used the kidney before as an example. What sort of “guideline” are you imagining? Did God insert into the first cells a programme that said: make an organ that will separate waste products from blood and turn them into urine, but it's up to you how you do it? If God was not capable of giving the IM the capacity to invent such complex organs, “planning guidelines” are a euphemism for precise plans, and back you go to your 3.7-billion-year-old preprogramming of all innovations, or your God jumping in with a dabble. “Semi-autonomous” fudges the whole issue. N.B. we are talking here about macroevolution - innovations, as opposed to adaptations and minor variations. This brings us to the next crucial area of your scenario. dhw: So the IM was free to invent all these organs for dogs, but it was preprogrammed to produce ours. .... Two questions, then: do you think the IM freely(i.e. not preprogrammed) invented the doggy nose, eyes, ears, kidneys, legs, brain, or were they preprogrammed in the first cells? Do you think the IM freely (i.e. not preprogrammed) invented the human nose, eyes, ears, kidneys, legs, brain, or were they preprogrammed in the first cells? DAVID: I am trying to propose a slightly different IM than you imagine. It is pre-programmed to eventually produce humans. It is semiautonomous. It has specific pre-programmed guidelines as to how to respond to changes in environment with changes in phenotype, and it has the freedom of choice in following those guidelines, but cannot exceed those guidelines. Thus bushiness.-I have understood what you are proposing, and my response is as above, but we now have the IM preprogrammed to produce humans, and “specific pre-programmed guidelines” for changes in phenotype, which above were called “planning guidelines”. The autonomy consists of “freedom of choice in following those guidelines”. What does that mean? The IM is free to say it won't follow the planning guidelines?-If the IM is preprogrammed to produce humans, it must be preprogrammed to produce all the innovations that have led from bacteria to humans. You have reproduced my two questions, just as you reproduced the earlier question: “How can the built-in instructions to produce humans leave the IM free to invent the billions of innovations without which humans could not exist?” And you have not answered. I can only assume this is because you have now realized that in the context of macroevolution, your version of the IM has no autonomy at all.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, October 18, 2014, 21:41 (3687 days ago) @ dhw
A challenge for the 'pre-programming' and intelligent cell theory-If either of these theories is correct, why did they STOP producing humans? Theoretically, this pre-programming would have had to be in every cell, and inheritance means that it would have continued to be passed down through each generation. If that were true, then we would still be seeing these types of transformative events happening today, and in fact would have been seeing them throughout recorded history. We do not, and have not. How do you account for this?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Sunday, October 19, 2014, 01:18 (3687 days ago) @ dhw
> Previously we agreed that the “guidelines” consisted of the constraints imposed on all organisms by the limitations as to what they can and can't do, and the demands of the environment. Now you are extending these guidelines to plans, which can only relate to the construction of the innovations that led to new species: i.e. new cell communities in the form of new organs, bones etc. We have used the kidney before as an example. What sort of “guideline” are you imagining?-Lets try a different approach: the hundreds of types of mammals all give milk. They all have kidneys, livers, lungs and hearts. They all have 5 fingers and toes, or a modification thereof. All kidneys, livers and mammary glands, lungs and hearts are the same, in that they look the same under the microscope and function in the same way. What this pattern tells us is that the instructional manual for new species of mammals has certain set requirements. Whales don't look like elephants,camals don't look like giraffes, but all the functionality is about the same, alhtoug i must say the whale's mdifications in funtion are unbelievable to accomplish the seagoing feat. This is why I insist upon 'semi-autonomousness' if there is an IM instead of God stepping in each time there is speciation. You can't have these patterns without guidelines. Where there is freedom is the neck of the giraffe vs. the neck of the camel, or the blowhole of the whale while we have nostrils. -> > dhw: The autonomy consists of “freedom of choice in following those guidelines”. What does that mean? The IM is free to say it won't follow the planning guidelines?-I've shown the patterns. Those must be followed, because that is what we see in nature. It is body form (phenotype), habitat choice, that apears to me to be freer of constraint. God, if He gives such a mechanism to animals (or plants) is not going to let them run rampant in function. But bats and whales are related. The comparative anatomy of ther skeletons is just that: they can be compared and are modifications of the basic pattern. Wildly different habitats. > > dhw: And you have not answered. I can only assume this is because you have now realized that in the context of macroevolution, your version of the IM has no autonomy at all.-Well yes it does as I am showing you. Our back and forth debate is my fault because I have not expressed the above observation of patterns before. Sometimes the recesses of my brain have to be dredged! The only area I know of where the pattern scheme is broken is in the consideration of brain development. Only humans have this enormous difference in function. As mammals we've got all the other organs and in the right patterns of function. But as Adler has right emphasized, there is nothing like the human brain. It broke the patterns. And for that reason I see only the hand of God at work, no IM here. And that is why I insist humans were God's goal.-Now lets take a quick look at the Cambrian: again all the same reqired organs and functionality, the patterns, but as ancestors of 37 existing phyla (famililes), the Cambrian era actually produced around 80 phyla, an exhuberance of animal form invention and obvious many animal form failures. Again, if there is an IM, it is in some degree free to create form but not function. Function has guidelines because successful life requires it. And it cannot be formed bottom up, but top down. It must have information and plans.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, October 19, 2014, 03:43 (3687 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Previously we agreed that the “guidelines” consisted of the constraints imposed on all organisms by the limitations as to what they can and can't do, and the demands of the environment. Now you are extending these guidelines to plans, which can only relate to the construction of the innovations that led to new species: i.e. new cell communities in the form of new organs, bones etc. We have used the kidney before as an example. What sort of “guideline” are you imagining? > > Lets try a different approach: the hundreds of types of mammals all give milk. They all have kidneys, livers, lungs and hearts. They all have 5 fingers and toes, or a modification thereof. All kidneys, livers and mammary glands, lungs and hearts are the same, in that they look the same under the microscope and function in the same way. What this pattern tells us is that the instructional manual for new species of mammals has certain set requirements. Whales don't look like elephants,camals don't look like giraffes, but all the functionality is about the same, alhtoug i must say the whale's mdifications in funtion are unbelievable to accomplish the seagoing feat. This is why I insist upon 'semi-autonomousness' if there is an IM instead of God stepping in each time there is speciation. You can't have these patterns without guidelines. Where there is freedom is the neck of the giraffe vs. the neck of the camel, or the blowhole of the whale while we have nostrils. > > > -See, now I see all of this in programming terms. It sounds like a mix between basic object oriented programming and component based programming. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component-based_software_engineering----> Now lets take a quick look at the Cambrian: again all the same reqired organs and functionality, the patterns, but as ancestors of 37 existing phyla (famililes), the Cambrian era actually produced around 80 phyla, an exhuberance of animal form invention and obvious many animal form failures. Again, if there is an IM, it is in some degree free to create form but not function. Function has guidelines because successful life requires it. And it cannot be formed bottom up, but top down. It must have information and plans.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Sunday, October 19, 2014, 16:10 (3686 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony; See, now I see all of this in programming terms. It sounds like a mix between basic object oriented programming and component based programming. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component-based_software_engineering-I do not know anyting about programming. I'm pleased my computer is so user-friendly. I believe in theistic evolution, that there was an evolutionary process guided by God. Because dhw came up with his cooperative cell community invention theory of evolution I entered into a discussion with his to show how that idea cannot work. Speciation needs to use basic 'how' information to proceed. Where did that information come from, I asked, and never got an answer. Those cells simply cooperated. Well, of course cells cooperate. There would be no life if they didn't.-Tony, I assume you also accept theistic evolution. The two Jewish authors' books on the subject of science and the Bible are interesting and confirmatory reading. Primarily I've followed Gerald Schroeder's four books. He is PhD in particle physics and Hebrew scholar. But I am aware of Daniel Friedmann's best-seller, The Genesis One Code, of which I have read an extensive review. Both are Orthodox.-In your opinion, is evolution an illusion or was it used as a process by God?
Does evolution have a purpose?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, October 19, 2014, 19:51 (3686 days ago) @ David Turell
David: Tony, I assume you also accept theistic evolution. The two Jewish authors' books on the subject of science and the Bible are interesting and confirmatory reading. Primarily I've followed Gerald Schroeder's four books. He is PhD in particle physics and Hebrew scholar. But I am aware of Daniel Friedmann's best-seller, The Genesis One Code, of which I have read an extensive review. Both are Orthodox. > > In your opinion, is evolution an illusion or was it used as a process by God?-Both and Neither. I think Jehovah used micro-evolution, all the changes that we do see, but I do not think that he used macro-evolution(Allowed for small variation and adaptation, but no speciation). I also don't think that he intentionally created the illusion of macro-evolution, but rather that the appearance of it is the natural result of the step-wise creative process that he went through to create the universe and the earth. Instead of the illusion of evolution, I prefer to consider it as the assumption of evolution; a self-delusion fueled by an desire to defame/eliminate the knowledge of God and bypass the influence that religion has/had on the political sphere. -And no, I am not saying that people are thinking to themselves "I'm going to go defame God and destroy religion today." I think it is more subtle than that, and it comes on sideways. We want to be able to explain everything without God. We want to be the head honchos of our own fate. We don't want to be answerable for the shitty things we do in this life. We want to be able to relax, enjoy the 'good life', get what you can while you can, etc etc etc. It is hard to think like that when you are confronted with God. So, 'kill God'. Wipe him out from the public consciousness so that they don't think about him, don't worry about him, and often times not even believe in him. -People are a funny bunch, though, in that their hind brain demands answers to questions that have always been the purview of God. I.E. How did we get here? What is our purpose? etc. If science can't answer these, then there has to be a God. So, Science needed a good cover story. Something they could get away with not proving while still claiming to be true because they can claim that one day they will have all the answers. Ta Da, evolution. The resultant bastard offspring of several modes of thought colluding to create something for the masses to have faith in that doesn't require God.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Sunday, October 19, 2014, 23:04 (3686 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > Tony: Both and Neither. I think Jehovah used micro-evolution, all the changes that we do see, but I do not think that he used macro-evolution(Allowed for small variation and adaptation, but no speciation). I also don't think that he intentionally created the illusion of macro-evolution, but rather that the appearance of it is the natural result of the step-wise creative process that he went through to create the universe and the earth. Instead of the illusion of evolution, I prefer to consider it as the assumption of evolution; a self-delusion fueled by an desire to defame/eliminate the knowledge of God and bypass the influence that religion has/had on the political sphere. -I think that is quite clear and thank you. You believe in a form of direct action by God, as the Bible indicates. That is what I thought you were expressing. You may well be correct.
Does evolution have a purpose?
TONY: A challenge for the 'pre-programming' and intelligent cell theory If either of these theories is correct, why did they STOP producing humans? Theoretically, this pre-programming would have had to be in every cell, and inheritance means that it would have continued to be passed down through each generation. If that were true, then we would still be seeing these types of transformative events happening today, and in fact would have been seeing them throughout recorded history. We do not, and have not. How do you account for this? -I can see why this is a massive challenge to the preprogramming theory, but it provides equally massive support for the intelligent cell theory! If the first living cells were preprogrammed to produce humans, why did they produce billions of species that were/are not humans? However, if God implanted an inventive mechanism in the first living cells that would do its own autonomous inventing (no preprogramming at all), it makes perfect sense that as cell communities multiplied, so inventions multiplied, and one branch led to humans. When an organism finds its niche in the vast community of living things, it may well stay as it is, and cell communities will fulfil their functions automatically. No need to change. But with a change in the environment, organisms may perish, adapt, or even innovate if conditions allow for new forms. Humans are latecomers and the beneficiaries of some particularly bright inventive mechanisms which came up with a brain capable of far greater advancement than any other pre-existing brain. It's all one long process of variation and expansion.-Why isn't it happening today? I would suggest that we are going through a period of stasis. The earth has stabilised. What we now regard as environmental upheavals are nothing compared to those undergone earlier in the earth's history (which need not necessarily have been catastrophic). The greatest threat to the natural world today is probably mankind, but the threat we pose can't be countered by the inventive mechanism because apart from the tiniest of organisms, existing species can't come up with anything to resist the devastating results of our superior intelligence.-TONY: We want to be able to explain everything without God. We want to be the head honchos of our own fate. We don't want to be answerable for the shitty things we do in this life. We want to be able to relax, enjoy the 'good life', get what you can while you can, etc...-Who are you talking about? Millions of God-fearing, God-loving Christians believe in theistic evolution, and I very much doubt whether every agnostic and atheistic evolutionist goes round denying personal responsibility, getting what he can etc. Much as I dislike his approach to religion, even Dawkins approvingly quotes from an atheist website such precepts as: “Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.” Though perhaps like many a religious believer he doesn't always live up to those principles!
Does evolution have a purpose?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, October 20, 2014, 22:26 (3685 days ago) @ dhw
When an organism finds its niche in the vast community of living things, it may well stay as it > TONY: We want to be able to explain everything without God. We want to be the head honchos of our own fate. We don't want to be answerable for the shitty things we do in this life. We want to be able to relax, enjoy the 'good life', get what you can while you can, etc... > > Who are you talking about? Millions of God-fearing, God-loving Christians believe in theistic evolution, and I very much doubt whether every agnostic and atheistic evolutionist goes round denying personal responsibility, getting what he can etc. Much as I dislike his approach to religion, even Dawkins approvingly quotes from an atheist website such precepts as: “Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.” Though perhaps like many a religious believer he doesn't always live up to those principles!-So, are you honestly trying to tell me that the majority of people in this world put others first? That people don't destroy the environment either by intention or apathy? That people don't support, either through silent consent or voting choices, wars that slaughter thousands? That they denigrate peoples, such as the aborigines, who try to live in harmony with the earth? That they don't profit on misery and death? Westerners haven't slaughtered hundreds of thousands for profit? -What about knowingly giving HIV infected drugs to children for profit? http://www.realfarmacy.com/bayer-and-us-government-knowingly-gave-hiv-to-thousands-of-c...-I'd be willing to bet Bayer has a statement somewhere that says they “Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.”-I'm sure Dr's that take an oath to that regards are blameless as well. Surely they wouldn't harm a person just for money.-http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/crhsurgery.html-Just because people say something, doesn't mean they do it. Just because they can, doesn't mean they will. This is the difference that you are failing to recognize. Even the Bible admits that some people will live lives according to God's law without ever knowing it. However, you can't live a good life without living God's laws, whether you recognize it as such or not.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Does evolution have a purpose?
dhw: Millions of God-fearing, God-loving Christians believe in theistic evolution, and I very much doubt whether every agnostic and atheistic evolutionist goes round denying personal responsibility, getting what he can etc. Much as I dislike his approach to religion, even Dawkins approvingly quotes from an atheist website such precepts as: “Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.” Though perhaps like many a religious believer he doesn't always live up to those principles!-TONY: So, are you honestly trying to tell me that the majority of people in this world put others first? That people don't destroy the environment either by intention or apathy? That people don't support, either through silent consent or voting choices, wars that slaughter thousands? That they denigrate peoples, such as the aborigines, who try to live in harmony with the earth? That they don't profit on misery and death? Westerners haven't slaughtered hundreds of thousands for profit? -Of course not. I am as aware as you are of the evil in the world, but you used the theory of evolution as a basis for your attack on evil-doers! Your understandable diatribe against them was preceded by the comment that the “assumption of evolution” is “a self-delusion fuelled by a desire to defame/eliminate the knowledge of God and bypass the influence that religion has/had on the political sphere.” I was merely pointing out that, as Darwin himself repeatedly emphasized and as the Church has confirmed, belief in evolution is not incompatible with religion or with decent behaviour. I don't think the Pope would take kindly to your view of his motives! Just like your biblical texts, people extrapolate what they want to from the theory of evolution, and frankly, I doubt if the folk you have described care two hoots about it!
Does evolution have a purpose?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 22:15 (3684 days ago) @ dhw
DHW Of course not. I am as aware as you are of the evil in the world, but you used the theory of evolution as a basis for your attack on evil-doers! Your understandable diatribe against them was preceded by the comment that the “assumption of evolution” is “a self-delusion fuelled by a desire to defame/eliminate the knowledge of God and bypass the influence that religion has/had on the political sphere.” I was merely pointing out that, as Darwin himself repeatedly emphasized and as the Church has confirmed, belief in evolution is not incompatible with religion or with decent behaviour. I don't think the Pope would take kindly to your view of his motives! Just like your biblical texts, people extrapolate what they want to from the theory of evolution, and frankly, I doubt if the folk you have described care two hoots about it!-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I'm sorry, but I could care less what the Pope thinks. They just reversed their position on gay marriage. They worship idols. They have been the broker of numerous wars and more bloodshed than most countries. The Pope and the Catholic Church, as an institution, are about as immoral, depraved, and heretical as they come. The Catholic Church is no different in type than the Pharisees of Christ's time.-(For the record: I do not hate gay people, but I strongly condemn the 'practice' of homosexuality. Love the person, hate the sin.)
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 23:04 (3684 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I'm sorry, but I could care less what the Pope thinks. They just reversed their position on gay marriage.-Not really, but seem to be trying. The new Pope is trying to liberalize his church against lots of opposition.- They worship idols. They have been the broker of numerous wars and more bloodshed than most countries. The Pope and the Catholic Church, as an institution, are about as immoral, depraved, and heretical as they come. The Catholic Church is no different in type than the Pharisees of Christ's time. > > (For the record: I do not hate gay people, but I strongly condemn the 'practice' of homosexuality. Love the person, hate the sin.)-Interesting that you juxtaposed the last two sentences. They still have a tremendous problem with gay priests. But I insist the new Pope is really trying to change things.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 23:53 (3684 days ago) @ David Turell
They worship idols. They have been the broker of numerous wars and more bloodshed than most countries. The Pope and the Catholic Church, as an institution, are about as immoral, depraved, and heretical as they come. The Catholic Church is no different in type than the Pharisees of Christ's time. > > > > (For the record: I do not hate gay people, but I strongly condemn the 'practice' of homosexuality. Love the person, hate the sin.) > > Interesting that you juxtaposed the last two sentences. They still have a tremendous problem with gay priests. But I insist the new Pope is really trying to change things.-Hating sin is biblical, hating a man(or woman) is not. I hate the act of homosexuality. I find no good in it whatsoever. Yet, there are people that I care a great deal for that are openly gay. I wish they weren't gay, but I love them in spite of it. They will have to deal with the consequences of their actions in their own time. It is not my place to judge them. Similarly with the Pope. While I have absolutely no respect for the office, or for the politics and actions of the institution, I do not hate the man on a personal level. He is doing the same the thing the Olsteens are, trying to turn it in to a "do what makes you feel good" church instead of a "do what brings honor and glory to God" church.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 22, 2014, 01:32 (3684 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: Hating sin is biblical, hating a man(or woman) is not. I hate the act of homosexuality. I find no good in it whatsoever. Yet, there are people that I care a great deal for that are openly gay. I wish they weren't gay, but I love them in spite of it. They will have to deal with the consequences of their actions in their own time. It is not my place to judge them. Similarly with the Pope. While I have absolutely no respect for the office, or for the politics and actions of the institution, I do not hate the man on a personal level. He is doing the same the thing the Olsteens are, trying to turn it in to a "do what makes you feel good" church instead of a "do what brings honor and glory to God" church.-Joel and Victoria are certainly feel-good folks. By the way the name is Osteen. Joel's father was a traditional pastor with a nice church on the North side of Houston. Joel's megachurch is a money-making machine, and she has acted like a bitch in one recent airline incident. What they present is a superficial farcial substitute. But I always listen to his opening joke (they are great) on Sunday before the service really starts, and I return to weekend news reviews.
Does evolution have a purpose?
DHW I am as aware as you are of the evil in the world, but you used the theory of evolution as a basis for your attack on evil-doers! Your understandable diatribe against them was preceded by the comment that the “assumption of evolution” is “a self-delusion fuelled by a desire to defame/eliminate the knowledge of God and bypass the influence that religion has/had on the political sphere.” I was merely pointing out that, as Darwin himself repeatedly emphasized and as the Church has confirmed, belief in evolution is not incompatible with religion or with decent behaviour. I don't think the Pope would take kindly to your view of his motives! Just like your biblical texts, people extrapolate what they want to from the theory of evolution, and frankly, I doubt if the folk you have described care two hoots about it!-TONY: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I'm sorry, but I could care less what the Pope thinks. They just reversed their position on gay marriage. They worship idols. They have been the broker of numerous wars and more bloodshed than most countries. The Pope and the Catholic Church, as an institution, are about as immoral, depraved, and heretical as they come. The Catholic Church is no different in type than the Pharisees of Christ's time. (For the record: I do not hate gay people, but I strongly condemn the 'practice' of homosexuality. Love the person, hate the sin.)- While I have no sympathy for the Catholic Church, I am beginning to feel a little sorry for myself. You asked why evolution had stopped transforming species, and you accused people who defended evolution of doing so in order to “defame/eliminate the knowledge of God”, and to disclaim personal responsibility, get what they can etc. I offered you a possible explanation of evolutionary stasis, and pointed out that many God-fearing, God-loving people genuinely believe in theistic evolution. You have responded with tirades against evil-doers and now against the Catholic Church and, in particular, homosexuality. Your writing is always immensely engaging, and of course we could start another discussion about the Catholics in general, or about the Pope in particular, or about homosexuality, but you had challenged the concepts of preprogramming and of the intelligent cell, and you ignored my response. You then blamed the theory of evolution for evil-doing, which seems as unfair to me as atheists blaming the bible or the Koran for the crimes committed in God's name. Do you really think there are no honest, God-fearing, human-loving, good-deed-doing, truth-seeking believers in evolution?
Does evolution have a purpose?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, October 22, 2014, 21:21 (3683 days ago) @ dhw
Some of your challenges I have answered repeatedly. --Yes, there ARE people out there that do good without being Christian. (Not sure how many times I have to say this)--Yes, evolution IS used as an attack against religion, and by extension God. -Let's look a a basic question of accountability then. Should scientist be accountable for their discoveries?-http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-scientists-be-held-accountable-for-the-consequenc...-http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-future-of-blame-A distinguished American lawyer once remarked that "man is in no sense the maker of himself and has no more power than any other machine to escape the law of cause and effect." The speaker was Clarence Darrow, who, 80 years ago, was trying to help Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb escape the death penalty for having murdered Bobby Franks in cold blood. "Each act, criminal or otherwise, follows a cause," Darrow continued, and "given the same conditions the same result will follow forever and ever."- So you are telling me, that this is not a clear cut case of people trying to use science and evolution as a means of escaping the accountability for their actions? You think this is an isolated event?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 22, 2014, 22:05 (3683 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: -Yes, evolution IS used as an attack against religion, and by extension God.-Of course, Purposeless Darwinian theory is a major basis for atheism. > > Let's look a a basic question of accountability then. Should scientist be accountable for their discoveries?-No. Science should advance. It is the philosophic/theologic interpretation of science which is at issue. > > http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-scientists-be-held-accountable-for-the-consequenc... > > http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-future-of-blame- I don't buy the approach of the second link at all. I have free will. I am not a machine. > Tony:So you are telling me, that this is not a clear cut case of people trying to use science and evolution as a means of escaping the accountability for their actions? You think this is an isolated event?-No. Many people are like that. But many of us are not.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, October 22, 2014, 22:48 (3683 days ago) @ David Turell
>David: I don't buy the approach of the second link at all. I have free will. I am not a machine.-> No. Many people are like that. But many of us are not.-My original statement was not, and has never been, that ALL people are bad, or that ALL people try to avoid accountability. I've repeatedly said otherwise. My point was that the materialistic reductionist evolutionary perception of reality forms the basis of the rejection of accountability for the actions of a great many people. Not everyone, but many. We talk in stereotypes, often, I just mistakenly assumed that it was understood that for every stereotype there are a large number of outliers.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Thursday, October 23, 2014, 01:55 (3683 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: My original statement was not, and has never been, that ALL people are bad, or that ALL people try to avoid accountability. I've repeatedly said otherwise. My point was that the materialistic reductionist evolutionary perception of reality forms the basis of the rejection of accountability for the actions of a great many people. Not everyone, but many. We talk in stereotypes, often, I just mistakenly assumed that it was understood that for every stereotype there are a large number of outliers.-You are right on.
Does evolution have a purpose?
TONY: Some of your challenges I have answered repeatedly. -Yes, there ARE people out there that do good without being Christian. (Not sure how many times I have to say this)-But that was not my point. You specifically attacked evolutionists on the grounds that their belief was a “self-delusion fuelled by a desire to defame/eliminate the knowledge of God” etc. Such generalizations do not help your case one iota. TONY: Yes, evolution IS used as an attack against religion, and by extension God. -Of course it is, and my point was that blaming evolution for this is as unjustified as “atheists blaming the bible or the Koran for the crimes committed in God's name.” The theory itself is perfectly compatible with religion. TONY: Let's look at a basic question of accountability then. Should scientist be accountable for their discoveries?-http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-scientists-be-held-accountable-for-the-consequenc... http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-future-of-blame-A distinguished American lawyer once remarked that "man is in no sense the maker of himself and has no more power than any other machine to escape the law of cause and effect." The speaker was Clarence Darrow, who, 80 years ago, was trying to help Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb escape the death penalty for having murdered Bobby Franks in cold blood. "Each act, criminal or otherwise, follows a cause," Darrow continued, and "given the same conditions the same result will follow forever and ever." So you are telling me, that this is not a clear cut case of people trying to use science and evolution as a means of escaping the accountability for their actions? You think this is an isolated event?-Of course it isn't. You frequently complain about cherry-picking, but that is what you are doing here. You have picked on one area of science that links up with the highly contentious issue of free will (concerning which we have had long discussions on this forum). Throughout history some people have used the bible as an excuse to rob, enslave, murder their fellow humans. Does that mean the bible is to blame? Some people use science as a means of escaping accountability. Other scientists will oppose their view. So do you blame science or the scientists for their subjective conclusions? There's no consistency here. If science and the bible are used to justify human actions, it is the humans that are responsible, not the science or the bible.-**************-I'll answer your other important post tomorrow, as well as Casey's. Lovely to see you back, Casey.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, October 23, 2014, 21:34 (3682 days ago) @ dhw
edited by Balance_Maintained, Thursday, October 23, 2014, 21:41
TONY: Some of your challenges I have answered repeatedly. > -Yes, there ARE people out there that do good without being Christian. (Not sure how many times I have to say this) > > But that was not my point. You specifically attacked evolutionists on the grounds that their belief was a “self-delusion fuelled by a desire to defame/eliminate the knowledge of God” etc. Such generalizations do not help your case one iota. - No, I did not 'specifically attack evolutionist. You took that entirely out of context and drew a conclusion that did not exist.-"Instead of the illusion of evolution, I prefer to consider it (the illusion) as the assumption of evolution; a self-delusion fueled by an desire to defame/eliminate the knowledge of God and bypass the influence that religion has/had on the political sphere.-(And completely ignored the next paragraph.)-And no, I am not saying that people are thinking to themselves "I'm going to go defame God and destroy religion today." .. We want to be able to explain everything without God. We want to be the head honchos of our own fate. We don't want to be answerable for the shitty things we do in this life."-Now, where is the word 'evolutionist' used in these paragraphs? Science, by definition "want(s) to be able to explain everything without God." That is, they want a 'naturalistic' explanation for everything. It is 'naturalistic' in nature. That is not me telling tales, that is their own definition. -Now that being said, no, science and religion are not incompatible, neither are parts of evolution and religion. If taken in its entirety then yes, evolution is anti-religious. The bible actually encourages the use of science, but not with the goal of removing God. -- > TonySo you are telling me, that this is not a clear cut case of people trying to use science and evolution as a means of escaping the accountability for their actions? You think this is an isolated event? > > DHW: Of course it isn't. You frequently complain about cherry-picking, but that is what you are doing here. You have picked on one area of science that links up with the highly contentious issue of free will (concerning which we have had long discussions on this forum). Throughout history some people have used the bible as an excuse to rob, enslave, murder their fellow humans. Does that mean the bible is to blame? Some people use science as a means of escaping accountability. Other scientists will oppose their view. So do you blame science or the scientists for their subjective conclusions? There's no consistency here. If science and the bible are used to justify human actions, it is the humans that are responsible, not the science or the bible. > -So do you blame science or the scientists for their subjective conclusions?-When they are presented as objective facts, yes, yes I do. That is kind of the rules of science, right. Facts are facts and everything else isn't. You can't present opinions as fact in the scientific sphere. "Evolution is a fact" is an opinion, not a fact. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. The lack of free will is an opinion, not a fact. So do I blame scientist, and more critically writers of scientific literature at all levels, for their subjective opinions? Certainly, when they are presented as fact. How can we hold scientist to such a standard? Because that is their damn job. They signed up for it, they were trained for it, they knew and agreed to the consequences.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Friday, October 24, 2014, 05:50 (3682 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: Now that being said, no, science and religion are not incompatible, neither are parts of evolution and religion. If taken in its entirety then yes, evolution is anti-religious. The bible actually encourages the use of science, but not with the goal of removing God. -I agree that science an religion are not incompatable. But your comment about evolution needs modification. Evolution is the apparent process by which life descended from single cell to us. Only IF evolution is said to be a purposeless, chance process is it then being used in an anti-religion way. Theistic evolution does not do that at all, and is certainly one of the very possible ways evolution occurred. You are obviously referring to Darwin's version of theory. It ain't the only way.-> > > > dhw: So do you blame science or the scientists for their subjective conclusions?-Science should not be subjective, but scientists are human and fallible, so their inerpretation of their findings is not a final interpretation. I take their findings and come up with different conclusions. That is why there is a field of the philosophy of science. > > Tony: When they are presented as objective facts, yes, yes I do. That is kind of the rules of science, right. Facts are facts and everything else isn't. You can't present opinions as fact in the scientific sphere. "Evolution is a fact" is an opinion, not a fact. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. The lack of free will is an opinion, not a fact.-Agreed.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, October 24, 2014, 05:58 (3682 days ago) @ David Turell
David: I agree that science an religion are not incompatable. But your comment about evolution needs modification. Evolution is the apparent process by which life descended from single cell to us. Only IF evolution is said to be a purposeless, chance process is it then being used in an anti-religion way. Theistic evolution does not do that at all, and is certainly one of the very possible ways evolution occurred. You are obviously referring to Darwin's version of theory. It ain't the only way.-There are a lot more IF's than that. Common decent from a single ancestor is actually rather anti-biblical, because it specifically says things were created according to their kind. - >David: Science should not be subjective, but scientists are human and fallible, so their inerpretation of their findings is not a final interpretation. I take their findings and come up with different conclusions. That is why there is a field of the philosophy of science.-They are indeed entitled to their opinions and conclusions and even their mistakes, provided that they are stated as opinions and conclusions and not fact, as agreed below, and that their mistakes are acknowledged, not covered up.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Friday, October 24, 2014, 18:27 (3681 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony; There are a lot more IF's than that. Common decent from a single ancestor is actually rather anti-biblical, because it specifically says things were created according to their kind. -You are obviusly using your translation of Genesis. Translations vary and I follow a Hebrew scholar with a new translation of the Masoretic text, Judah Landa in his book, 'In the Beginning Of; A new look at old words', 2004. His translation, he feels, is completely consistent with the idea that evolution occurred. -The ancient text is open to a variety of interpretations. I'm sure you know that basic ancient Hebew is composed of 2-3,000 base words and with prefixes and suffixes there are about 10,000 word meanings. Much translation must be based on context surrounding a word. His explanation has to do in part with the gender of the Hebrew word 'limeenu' which is feminine and should be translated 'after her kind', not 'after his kind'. There follows a long interpretation I won't get into. My point is simple. What you think about science (evolution) and Genesis depends in part on whose interpretation you read. Landa's reading of 'yom' is eon, not 'day', and so forth. This is a small part of the reason I think theistic evolution is a probable scenario.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, October 24, 2014, 20:54 (3681 days ago) @ David Turell
David: The ancient text is open to a variety of interpretations. I'm sure you know that basic ancient Hebew is composed of 2-3,000 base words and with prefixes and suffixes there are about 10,000 word meanings. Much translation must be based on context surrounding a word. His explanation has to do in part with the gender of the Hebrew word 'limeenu' which is feminine and should be translated 'after her kind', not 'after his kind'. There follows a long interpretation I won't get into. My point is simple. What you think about science (evolution) and Genesis depends in part on whose interpretation you read. Landa's reading of 'yom' is eon, not 'day', and so forth. This is a small part of the reason I think theistic evolution is a probable scenario.- I think you misunderstand my criticism there. It has nothing to do with time, or gender usage, but rather that there are clearly distinct segments of creation happening.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Friday, October 24, 2014, 22:32 (3681 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: I think you misunderstand my criticism there. It has nothing to do with time, or gender usage, but rather that there are clearly distinct segments of creation happening.-Yes, I understand that. But evolution is a sequience of events, segments or stages
Does evolution have a purpose?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, October 24, 2014, 23:14 (3681 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Tony: I think you misunderstand my criticism there. It has nothing to do with time, or gender usage, but rather that there are clearly distinct segments of creation happening. > > David: Yes, I understand that. But evolution is a sequience of events, segments or stages-The difference is that in evolution, the steps are not discreet. They transition across the lines of 'according to their kind'. Now, as a challenge for you, if God created things in stages, as the Bible says he did, wouldn't that actually give the 'illusion' of evolution while simultaneously explaining the gaps in the fossil record AND the fact that we do not see any further crossing of species boundaries continuing today?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Saturday, October 25, 2014, 01:12 (3681 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > David: Yes, I understand that. But evolution is a sequience of events, segments or stages > > Tony: The difference is that in evolution, the steps are not discreet. They transition across the lines of 'according to their kind'. Now, as a challenge for you, if God created things in stages, as the Bible says he did, wouldn't that actually give the 'illusion' of evolution while simultaneously explaining the gaps in the fossil record AND the fact that we do not see any further crossing of species boundaries continuing today?-You are absolutely correct. In my view, we are looking at the same thing: how life changed from simple, although the first cells were anything but simple, to highly complex humans. But each of us is approaching it slightlty differently from our individual viewpoints. I don't mind the word evolution to describe it. Any process that takes something that is relatively simple and by fits and starts, with gaps or smoothly, and develops it to a more complex arrangement, as has happened with living forms, is by definition a form of an evolutionary process. -The huge gap at the Cambrian juncture demands the recognition that intellectual planning had to have happened. The whale series I like to refer to is another example of extreme changes with each step in the process requiring new information and new planning.-I know the word 'evolution' conjures up Darwin and chance process. My term 'theistic evolution' is simply saying that God planned it all and guided it all thoughout 3.6 or so billion years. I'm not a deist. I can't imagine God set this up and left, or sits back and simply watches. My debate with dhw is simply a way of my working out the role for epigenetic mechanisms, which are certainly present in organisms, and allow for necessary adaptation without huge unexplained gaps. God's actions explain the gaps. He has given organisms the way to work out necessary modifications on their own.-I don't think there has been enough time in the past 200 years to see new species, but as I suspect, you believe the process is over. We humans are here and I doubt we will change to any important degree.
Does evolution have a purpose?
dhw: You specifically attacked evolutionists on the grounds that their belief was a “self-delusion fuelled by a desire to defame/eliminate the knowledge of God” etc. Such generalizations do not help your case one iota. -TONY: No, I did not 'specifically attack evolutionist. You took that entirely out of context and drew a conclusion that did not exist.-These posts are now so dense that it's easy to forget what has been written. You wrote this on Sunday 19 October at 19.51, and I replied to it on Monday 20 October at 15.17 quoting the paragraph you say I ignored. Yes, I took it to include all evolutionists, since in your next paragraph you wrote: “Science needed a good cover story. Something they could get away with not proving while still claiming to be true because they can claim that one day they will have all the answers. Ta Da, evolution. The resultant bastard offspring of several modes of thought colluding to create something for the masses to have faith in that doesn't require God.” I stand by my claim that there are lots and lots of good folk, including many Christians, who believe in the theory of evolution and are not fuelled by a desire to defame/eliminate the knowledge of God, and that the theory itself is a genuine attempt to understand how life has developed on this planet, perfectly compatible with belief in God, and not the result of collusion to persuade the masses that there is no God. I repeat, such generalizations do not help your case. TONY: Now that being said, no, science and religion are not incompatible, neither are parts of evolution and religion. If taken in its entirety then yes, evolution is anti-religious. The bible actually encourages the use of science, but not with the goal of removing God.-I don't know what you mean by “in its entirety”. There are theistic and atheistic interpretations, but the basis of the whole theory is common descent, which you rightly point out contradicts the biblical version of life's development. However, not every religious person believes that every word of the bible is meant to be taken literally, and religion is not confined to creationists. So what part of the theory is anti-religious? -TONY: Science, by definition "want(s) to be able to explain everything without God." That is, they want a 'naturalistic' explanation for everything. It is 'naturalistic' in nature. That is not me telling tales, that is their own definition.-I have never seen such a godless definition in any dictionary. I presume the quote is from an atheist scientist, which hardly makes it a valid definition. It is this equation of science with scientists, evolution with evolutionists that I am campaigning against. You are right that science is confined to studying the ‘natural' or material world, and many scientists are atheists who believe there is nothing outside the material world, but that is no reason for attacking science. I wrote: Dhw: Some people use science as a means of escaping accountability. Other scientists will oppose their view. So do you blame science or the scientists for their subjective conclusions? -TONY: When they are presented as objective facts, yes, yes I do. That is kind of the rules of science, right. Facts are facts and everything else isn't. You can't present opinions as fact in the scientific sphere. "Evolution is a fact" is an opinion, not a fact. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. The lack of free will is an opinion, not a fact. So do I blame scientist, and more critically writers of scientific literature at all levels, for their subjective opinions? Certainly, when they are presented as fact...-My question presented a choice, but again you equate the two when you say: “That is kind of the rules of science.” Presenting opinion as fact is not one of the rules of science. The rest of your paragraph is spot on. Criticize the scientists, not the science. In precisely the same way, the responsibility for using the theory of evolution to dispense with God lies with the scientists and not the theory (which let me repeat is perfectly compatible with religion), and the responsibility for bigotry, persecution, oppression etc. lies with the interpreters of the bible and not with the bible.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, October 26, 2014, 00:16 (3680 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: Now that being said, no, science and religion are not incompatible, neither are parts of evolution and religion. If taken in its entirety then yes, evolution is anti-religious. The bible actually encourages the use of science, but not with the goal of removing God. > >DHW: I don't know what you mean by “in its entirety”. There are theistic and atheistic interpretations, but the basis of the whole theory is common descent, which you rightly point out contradicts the biblical version of life's development. However, not every religious person believes that every word of the bible is meant to be taken literally, and religion is not confined to creationists. So what part of the theory is anti-religious? -Since my own words have failed to express the concept, I will rely on the words of others.-“Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.” (“Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought” E. Mayr [evolutionist scientist], Scientific American, pg. 82-83, (July 2000), emphasis added) -“[F]or many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion ... [A]t some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things come what may.” ("Nonliteralist Antievolution," Ruse, Michael [evolutionist philosopher of science], AAAS Symposium: "The New Antievolutionism," February, 1993, Boston, MA., emphasis added) -"[W]e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Lewontin, Richard [evolutionist scientist], "Billions and Billions of Demons", New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28., emphasis added) -In short, theories, including evolution, are created and perpetuated by scientist, and their own words mark them as doing so in order to shut out even the possibility of God. " ..materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."-Science, as a process, is neutral. Theories are developed by scientist, are not. Evolution is a non-neutral theory. It is not a fact (as we have repeatedly discussed here), it is an opinion, an interpretation of facts and opinions, that survives even when the facts disagree with it by ignoring those facts.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Does evolution have a purpose?
DHW (re evolution): I don't know what you mean by “in its entirety”. There are theistic and atheistic interpretations, but the basis of the whole theory is common descent, which you rightly point out contradicts the biblical version of life's development. However, not every religious person believes that every word of the bible is meant to be taken literally, and religion is not confined to creationists. So what part of the theory is anti-religious? -TONY: Since my own words have failed to express the concept, I will rely on the words of others.-You have not told me which part of the theory is anti-religious, but have quoted a number of scientists who adopt an atheistic stance. As I said above, there are theistic and atheistic interpretations, and you have cherry-picked atheistic ones. I'll reproduce one, and your summary, just for the flavour:-“Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.” (“Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought” E. Mayr [evolutionist scientist], Scientific American, pg. 82-83, (July 2000), emphasis added) -In short, theories, including evolution, are created and perpetuated by scientist, and their own words mark them as doing so in order to shut out even the possibility of God. " ..materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."-Here are some more cherry-picked quotes for you:-“I certainly think that it's an over-statement of our scientific knowledge and understanding to argue that science in general or evolutionary biology in particular, proves in any way that there is no God.” Kenneth R. Miller, cell biologist and Prof. of Biology at Brown University, Today, BBC 29 April 2009-“I am a Christian biologist, as well as a passionate Darwinian. So what puzzles me is the assumption that teaching evolution should undermine religion anyway.” Denis Alexander. The Guardian, 12 September 2008-“Of course our brains are a product of evolution, but does anybody seriously believe consciousness itself is material? Well, yes, some argue just as much, but their explanations seem to have made no headway. We are indeed dealing with unfinished business. God's funeral? I don't think so. Please join me beside the coffin marked Atheism. I fear, however, there will be very few mourners.” Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology, Cambridge Univ., The Guardian , 12 Sept. 2008-The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (2006) - a book by Francis Collins, physician and geneticist, leader of the Human Genome Project-“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.” Charles Darwin, Origin of Species-“I see no good reason why the views given in this book should shock the religious feelings of anyone.” Charles Darwin, Origin of Species-TONY: Science, as a process, is neutral. Theories are developed by scientist, are not. Evolution is a non-neutral theory. It is not a fact (as we have repeatedly discussed here), it is an opinion, an interpretation of facts and opinions, that survives even when the facts disagree with it by ignoring those facts.-Yes, science is neutral. Many scientists are not neutral. Many are atheists. Some are theists. Evolution is neither theistic nor atheistic. Yes, it is a theory not a fact. It is still known as the theory of evolution, but some scientists express their opinions as if they were facts. That does not mean that “Science by definition wants to be able to explain everything without God.” Some scientists do. Some scientists don't. Perhaps you should read a book called THE ATHEIST DELUSION - Science IS Finding God. The author is one David J. Turell, M.D.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Sunday, October 26, 2014, 22:00 (3679 days ago) @ dhw
> TONY: Science, as a process, is neutral.-> > dhw: Yes, science is neutral. Many scientists are not neutral. Many are atheists. Some are theists. Evolution is neither theistic nor atheistic. ...Some scientists do. Some scientists don't. Perhaps you should read a book called THE ATHEIST DELUSION - Science IS Finding God. The author is one David J. Turell, M.D.-Thanks for the plug.
Does evolution have a purpose?
DAVID: Because dhw came up with his cooperative cell community invention theory of evolution I entered into a discussion with his to show how that idea cannot work. Speciation needs to use basic 'how' information to proceed. Where did that information come from, I asked, and never got an answer. Those cells simply cooperated. Well, of course cells cooperate. There would be no life if they didn't.-This is a travesty of our discussion. From the very start the whole point of my hypothesis has been that cellular cooperation is directed by the equivalent of a “brain” within the cells. For over a year you insisted that cells had no “brain” but were automatons guided by a 3.7-billion-year-old programme God had inserted into the first living cells - your only alternative being that God dabbled. You finally agreed that the cell may have a “brain” located in the genome. Since my focus is solely on an alternative to random mutations, preprogramming and dabbling as the means of driving evolution forward, I have over and over again answered your question as to the source of this intelligence by saying it may be God. Your distortion of our discussion is unworthy of you.-Now that you've accepted the possible existence of this inventive mechanism, we have moved on to the interrelated questions of its autonomy and what purpose, if any, evolution may have. I have challenged vague terms such as semi-autonomy, guidelines, planning guidelines, non-specific instructions etc., and with a welcome return to the fair-minded David I know and love, you kindly acknowledged that “Our back and forth debate is my fault because I have not expressed the above observation of patterns before. Sometimes the recesses of my brain have to be dredged!” Thank you for your honesty. The patterns are as followsAVID: [Mammals] all have kidneys, livers, lungs and hearts. [...] All kidneys, livers and mammary glands, lungs and hearts are the same, in that they look the same under the microscope and function in the same way. What this pattern tells us is that the instructional manual for new species of mammals has certain set requirements. [...] You can't have these patterns without guidelines. Where there is freedom is the neck of the giraffe vs. the neck of the camel, or the blowhole of the whale while we have nostrils.-This more concrete approach is helpful. However, if we believe evolution happened, the fact that all mammals have features in common merely tells us that they have descended from common ancestors. Once these organs have been invented by a particular organism (cell community)and are found to bring benefits, they are passed on to create a new line which itself will then branch out into more new lines as further innovations and variations come into being. The fact that you can't be a mammal without a heart does not mean that the heart was preprogrammed into the first heartless cells. This takes us back to complexity, but please see my final paragraph before you respond. DAVID: The only area I know of where the pattern scheme is broken is in the consideration of brain development. Only humans have this enormous difference in function. -In all mammals the brain is a control centre, registering and processing information, taking decisions etc. I agree that ours has additional layers of self-awareness, thereby expanding our range of knowledge and activity far beyond that of any other organism, but it still performs the same functions as all other brains. Might it not, like the dog's nose, be the product of your God's inventive mechanism working to improve existing mechanisms? -DAVID: Now lets take a quick look at the Cambrian: again all the same reqired organs and functionality, the patterns, but as ancestors of 37 existing phyla (famililes), the Cambrian era actually produced around 80 phyla, an exhuberance of animal form invention and obvious many animal form failures. Again, if there is an IM, it is in some degree free to create form but not function. Function has guidelines because successful life requires it. And it cannot be formed bottom up, but top down. It must have information and plans.-I still don't understand why you think God is clever enough to devise plans for all these different organs to be passed down through billions of years, organisms and generations, surviving all the environmental upheavals (probably random), eventually to produce the necessary kidneys etc., but you don't think he's clever enough to have devised a mechanism to invent them, even though you do think he's clever enough to have devised a mechanism (the human brain) to invent our computers, Beethoven's 9th, and Hoyle's Boeing 747!
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Monday, October 20, 2014, 21:13 (3685 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: This is a travesty of our discussion. From the very start the whole point of my hypothesis has been that cellular cooperation is directed by the equivalent of a “brain” within the cells. ... You finally agreed that the cell may have a “brain” located in the genome..... I have over and over again answered your question as to the source of this intelligence by saying it may be God. Your distortion of our discussion is unworthy of you.-It is no distortion, but represents my true feelings from the beginning. You have hunted for an 'out' from the dicotomy of chance or design. And as I have reminded you, these giant leaps of evolution require information and planning. I believe in theistic evolution, but I don't see a clear path to understanding God's methodology. This discussion has lead to a third way.-I have worked along with you on the IM idea as a way God could implant enough information and planning in advance, that the evolutionary jumps would then be taken care of on their own. I have called it 'semi-autonomous' all along and resisted your 'autonomous' insistence for very good reason. God is in total control of the patterns I have described for the necessary functional organ systems. Odd ball developmwents like the elephant trunk, the whale blowholes, horses' nostrils, or our notrils are the type of variation that God might allow, as side issues. > > dhw: Now that you've accepted the possible existence of this inventive mechanism, we have moved on to the interrelated questions of its autonomy and what purpose, if any, evolution may have. I have challenged vague terms such as semi-autonomy, guidelines, planning guidelines, non-specific instructions etc.-Semi-autonomy is not vague and is the bedrock of my approach to the possibility of an IM, a third way for God to work his will through evolution. I have appreciated this discussion as it has stimulated my thinking as a way out of my original dilemma. but I have never accepted your basic premise that if cells are sentient, they are capable of planning the gaps. Only God can give them that help. That is why I am a theist and left agnosticism. And I feel that is why you have had to suggest that God 'may be' the active agent.- > DAVID: [Mammals] all have kidneys, livers, lungs and hearts. [...] All kidneys, livers and mammary glands, lungs and hearts are the same, in that they look the same under the microscope and function in the same way. What this pattern tells us is that the instructional manual for new species of mammals has certain set requirements. [...] You can't have these patterns without guidelines. Where there is freedom is the neck of the giraffe vs. the neck of the camel, or the blowhole of the whale while we have nostrils. > > dhw: This more concrete approach is helpful. However, if we believe evolution happened, the fact that all mammals have features in common merely tells us that they have descended from common ancestors. Once these organs have been invented by a particular organism (cell community)and are found to bring benefits, they are passed on to create a new line which itself will then branch out into more new lines as further innovations and variations come into being.-I accept evolution because it does look like common patterns and ancestors existed. And is is true that elementary circulatory systems, had no hearts, then beating areas, then had two chambers and then developed to three and finally four chambers. howedver, each of those jumps is enormous and requires much planning from information to jump the gaps.-> > DAVID: The only area I know of where the pattern scheme is broken is in the consideration of brain development. Only humans have this enormous difference in function. > > dhw: In all mammals the brain is a control centre, registering and processing information, taking decisions etc. I agree that ours has additional layers of self-awareness, thereby expanding our range of knowledge and activity far beyond that of any other organism, but it still performs the same functions as all other brains. -You casually mention 'additional layers' as if our brain is a four-layer cake instead of three. Compared to the animals' three, it is a 12-layer cake or more! "Same functions", yes, and then many, many more.-> > dhw: I still don't understand why you think God is clever enough to devise plans for all these different organs to be passed down through billions of years, organisms and generations, surviving all the environmental upheavals (probably random), eventually to produce the necessary kidneys etc., but you don't think he's clever enough to have devised a mechanism to invent them...-I do think He is clever enough. That is why I have followed this path with you in discussing an IM. You have helped me find a third way out of my dilemma. I am appreciative, but I won't back down from denying your proposed hypothesis of sentinet cell communities, by themelves, have any chance of doing the job. I have to remind you, it is my considered and constant opinion you have blown the interpretation of "sentient cells" all out of proportion.
Does evolution have a purpose?
dhw: Your distortion of our discussion is unworthy of you. DAVID: It is no distortion, but represents my true feelings from the beginning. You have hunted for an 'out' from the dicotomy of chance or design. -From the beginning I made it clear that I was trying to understand how evolution works, and in defence of my hypothesis of an intelligent, inventive mechanism within the cell (against your vehement opposition), I put on my theist's hat to allow for God as the maker of the mechanism. Chance has played no role in this discussion. We are now discussing two points: the degree of the inventive mechanism's autonomy, and your anthropocentric view of evolution's purpose. Please let us continue the quest for clarification of these issues. I'll start at the end of your last post.-dhw: I still don't understand why you think God is clever enough to devise plans for all these different organs to be passed down through billions of years, organisms and generations, surviving all the environmental upheavals (probably random), eventually to produce the necessary kidneys etc., but you don't think he's clever enough to have devised a mechanism to invent them...-DAVID: I do think He is clever enough. That is why I have followed this path with you in discussing an IM. You have helped me find a third way out of my dilemma. I am appreciative, but I won't back down from denying your proposed hypothesis of sentinet cell communities, by themelves, have any chance of doing the job. I have to remind you, it is my considered and constant opinion you have blown the interpretation of "sentient cells" all out of proportion.-Hardly out of all proportion, since you now acknowledge that sentient cell communities, with their built-in “brain” (the genome), are capable of inventing an organ as complex as the elephant's trunk. But your argument is still puzzling: God is clever enough to devise a mechanism that can autonomously invent kidneys etc., but you won't back down from your contention that he did not do so. Instead, then, you have to revert to the preprogramming/dabbling that caused your dilemma in the first place. However, we have come this far, so perhaps we can delve a little deeper. DAVID: I have worked along with you on the IM idea as a way God could implant enough information and planning in advance, that the evolutionary jumps would then be taken care of on their own. I have called it 'semi-autonomous' all along and resisted your 'autonomous' insistence for very good reason. God is in total control of the patterns I have described for the necessary functional organ systems. Odd ball developmwents like the elephant trunk, the whale blowholes, horses' nostrils, or our notrils are the type of variation that God might allow, as side issues.-So the organs you identify with “patterns” (heart, lungs, kidneys, brains etc.) are too complex for God's inventive mechanism to have invented autonomously. Therefore he preprogrammed them all into the first cells 3.7 billion years ago. Is that correct? DAVID: ...And it is true that elementary circulatory systems had no hearts, then beating areas, then had two chambers and then developed to three and finally four chambers. However, each of those jumps is enormous and requires much planning from information to jump the gaps.-So do you think each consecutive stage from beating areas to four chambers was preprogrammed into the first cells 3.7 billion years ago, or did God dabble, or could the inventive mechanism have progressively developed that elementary system? -dhw: In all mammals the brain is a control centre, registering and processing information, taking decisions etc. I agree that ours has additional layers of self-awareness, thereby expanding our range of knowledge and activity far beyond that of any other organism, but it still performs the same functions as all other brains -DAVID: You casually mention 'additional layers' as if our brain is a four-layer cake instead of three. Compared to the animals' three, it is a 12-layer cake or more! "Same functions", yes, and then many, many more. The dog's nose is said to have about 220 million olfactory receptors compared to our approx. 5 million. Its sense of smell may be 1000 or even 10,000 times more acute than ours. Is this gap the result of preprogramming or of the IM's work? The gap between the human brain and the dog's brain may be of similar proportions. You obviously don't think the IM worked on existing brains, so do you think the human brain was preprogrammed separately from other brains 3.7 billion years ago, or did God dabble?
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 21:12 (3684 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Hardly out of all proportion, since you now acknowledge that sentient cell communities, with their built-in “brain” (the genome), are capable of inventing an organ as complex as the elephant's trunk.-Extending my patterns argument, that the basic required organs must be planned in advance, and their coordinated function planned out also, I suggested that ancillary issues like the shape of noses might be able to be formed by an inventive mechanism with guidelines from God. I have never accepted sentient cell communities as capable of much except immediate minor adaptations, unless they contained a semi-automatic IM in the genome with guidelines from God.-> dhw: But your argument is still puzzling: God is clever enough to devise a mechanism that can autonomously invent kidneys etc., but you won't back down from your contention that he did not do so. Instead, then, you have to revert to the preprogramming/dabbling that caused your dilemma in the first place. However, we have come this far, so perhaps we can delve a little deeper. -Not puzzling at all. God is in control of evolution. All outcomes are within his guidelines. Major issues to make advanced life possible are planned by Him. > > dhw: So the organs you identify with “patterns” (heart, lungs, kidneys, brains etc.) are too complex for God's inventive mechanism to have invented autonomously. Therefore he preprogrammed them all into the first cells 3.7 billion years ago. Is that correct? -Either pre-programmed or by later direct intervention (dabbling). > > DAVID: ...And it is true that elementary circulatory systems had no hearts, then beating areas, then had two chambers and then developed to three and finally four chambers. However, each of those jumps is enormous and requires much planning from information to jump the gaps. > > dhw: So do you think each consecutive stage from beating areas to four chambers was preprogrammed into the first cells 3.7 billion years ago, or did God dabble, or could the inventive mechanism have progressively developed that elementary system?-The heart is so complex at several levels that an IM could not have tried to deal with it. -> dhw: You obviously don't think the IM worked on existing brains, so do you think the human brain was preprogrammed separately from other brains 3.7 billion years ago, or did God dabble?-I think it was direct intervention by God, either pre-pro or dabble, it dones't matter which. The development of the human brain with all of its magificent plasticity, changing itself based on what its human is trying to think or learn, is a marvel of inventiveness. An IM is no match for this. Nor will any computer ever be.
Does evolution have a purpose?
I asked David a number of questions concerning what amounts to macroevolution: all the major developments that have led to speciation. I'll quote just one as it stands for the rest: dhw: So the organs you identify with “patterns” (heart, lungs, kidneys, brains etc.) are too complex for God's inventive mechanism to have invented autonomously. Therefore he preprogrammed them all into the first cells 3.7 billion years ago. Is that correct? DAVID: Either pre-programmed or by later direct intervention (dabbling).-Thank you for answering these questions so directly. You go on to suggest that the inventive mechanism is only capable of minor adjustments, and even these must follow guidelines laid down by God. May I ask if Nature's Wonders (like the marvellous myrmecophilous beetle's antics), which you often describe as examples of God's intricate planning, were also preprogrammed in the first cells or part of a dabble? If not, does the IM do its own planning? -You write: “God is in control of evolution. All outcomes are within his guidelines. Major issues to make advanced life possible are planned by Him.” And you have made it clear that the plans are geared to the ultimate arrival of the human brain, which may have been preprogrammed or may be the result of a dabble. I fear that all this brings us right back to where we started, but I will try your patience just once more with two further questions. First, though, let me yet again summarize the unimaginable scope of what you are proposing: you believe that God preprogrammed the earliest cells to pass plans for the billions of innovations that led from bacteria to humans down through billions of years, billions of different organisms, billions of generations, and innumerable, possibly unplanned environmental changes, though he may sometimes have dabbled as well. You have said that this scenario creates a dilemma for you. Question 1) What exactly is this dilemma? Question 2) How does the concept of a semi-autonomous inventive mechanism in the genome resolve your dilemma?
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 22, 2014, 22:23 (3683 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You go on to suggest that the inventive mechanism is only capable of minor adjustments, and even these must follow guidelines laid down by God. May I ask if Nature's Wonders (like the marvellous myrmecophilous beetle's antics), which you often describe as examples of God's intricate planning, were also preprogrammed in the first cells or part of a dabble? If not, does the IM do its own planning?-Once the basic group of organs is in place and functioning to provide an efficient living organism, I can image that modified lifestyles could be developed by an IM invented by God and given God's guidelines. It is important that you understand the first step for a basically functional organism with all of its coordinating and cooperating organ systems is a giant step, when, using the Cambrian gap as the major example of super-speciation. No IM could do this on its own. It must be limited to modification without without major advances. Thus, in my favorite whale series, God works at directly making mammal whales in the ocean in eight or nine stages from land-based forms. Then an IM could make minor species modifications similar to the different types of dogs from wolves, creating a variety of whale types. > > dhw: You write: “God is in control of evolution. All outcomes are within his guidelines. Major issues to make advanced life possible are planned by Him.” And you have made it clear that the plans are geared to the ultimate arrival of the human brain, which may have been preprogrammed or may be the result of a dabble...... You have said that this scenario creates a dilemma for you. Question 1) What exactly is this dilemma? Question 2) How does the concept of a semi-autonomous inventive mechanism in the genome resolve your dilemma?-The dilemma has simply been an indecision on my part as to whether God could program it all of evolution from the very beginning, or had to step in and dabble when evolution wasn't following exactly the path He wanted. In other words, just how powerful is God and did He have to second-guess Himself because His powers are not perfect. The IM, as a third way, allows Him to set it up from the beginning and run on its own, with the IM substituted for the necessity of the dabble. Thus God is all powerful from the beginning with the IM scenario.
Does evolution have a purpose?
DAVID: Once the basic group of organs is in place and functioning to provide an efficient living organism, I can image that modified lifestyles could be developed by an IM invented by God and given God's guidelines. -In the hope that this discussion may clarify both your thoughts and mine, what sort of guidelines do you have in mind, apart from those we agreed on earlier, namely the natural limitations to what any organism can do, and the constraints imposed by the environment? In order to keep things as concrete as possible, do you believe that the complex changes in the myrmecophilous beetle's body were planned 3.7 billion years ago, were the result of a dabble, or were designed entirely by itself? If not “entirely”, what "guidelines" would God have provided? -dhw: You write: “God is in control of evolution. All outcomes are within his guidelines. Major issues to make advanced life possible are planned by Him.” And you have made it clear that the plans are geared to the ultimate arrival of the human brain, which may have been preprogrammed or may be the result of a dabble...... You have said that this scenario creates a dilemma for you. Question 1) What exactly is this dilemma? Question 2) How does the concept of a semi-autonomous inventive mechanism in the genome resolve your dilemma?-DAVID: The dilemma has simply been an indecision on my part as to whether God could program it all of evolution from the very beginning, or had to step in and dabble when evolution wasn't following exactly the path He wanted. In other words, just how powerful is God and did He have to second-guess Himself because His powers are not perfect. The IM, as a third way, allows Him to set it up from the beginning and run on its own, with the IM substituted for the necessity of the dabble. Thus God is all powerful from the beginning with the IM scenario.-I don't think so, judging by the limitations you have imposed on the IM. If all the major innovations/patterns were preprogrammed 3.7 billion years ago, a dabble would only be “necessary” if things went wrong (i.e. didn't follow the path he wanted). This means the IM has the capability to correct errors in God's programme for major changes, which hardly squares with your contention that it can only make minor adjustments. A dabble would not be “necessary” just to change one species of dog or whale to another, and that seems to be the limit of your IM's capacities.
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Thursday, October 23, 2014, 20:47 (3682 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:In the hope that this discussion may clarify both your thoughts and mine, what sort of guidelines do you have in mind, apart from those we agreed on earlier, namely the natural limitations to what any organism can do, and the constraints imposed by the environment? -I wish I know how to define the guidelines. I know God is in charge, so He defines the furthest limits an organism can go with the IM to make changes.-> dhw:In order to keep things as concrete as possible, do you believe that the complex changes in the myrmecophilous beetle's body were planned 3.7 billion years ago, were the result of a dabble, or were designed entirely by itself? If not “entirely”, what "guidelines" would God have provided?-I repeat, the beetle had to have the basic pattern of organ systems defined from 3.7 billion years ago, but modifications of body type and activities may have been altered by an IM again within limits, so as not to go too far afield. > David: The IM, as a third way, allows Him to set it up from the beginning and run on its own, with the IM substituted for the necessity of the dabble. Thus God is all powerful from the beginning with the IM scenario.[/i] > > dhw: I don't think so, judging by the limitations you have imposed on the IM. If all the major innovations/patterns were preprogrammed 3.7 billion years ago, a dabble would only be “necessary” if things went wrong (i.e. didn't follow the path he wanted). This means the IM has the capability to correct errors in God's programme for major changes, which hardly squares with your contention that it can only make minor adjustments. -I don't follow your reasoning at all. The IM does not have the power to correct errors. I don't know that God can design an error-filled program. 'Dabbling' is to add an extention of what evolution has invented so far. Dabbling to me is additional programming. Something the IM ca ndo to a minor degree.-> dhw: A dabble would not be “necessary” just to change one species of dog or whale to another, and that seems to be the limit of your IM's capacities.-That seems to fit my concept.
Does evolution have a purpose?
dhw: ...what sort of guidelines do you have in mind, apart from those we agreed on earlier, namely the natural limitations to what any organism can do, and the constraints imposed by the environment? DAVID: I wish I know how to define the guidelines. I know God is in charge, so He defines the furthest limits an organism can go with the IM to make changes.-In other words, the organism can only do what it can do. I too wish you knew what other guidelines you were talking about, since the term is so crucial to your hypothesis! David: The IM, as a third way, allows Him to set it up from the beginning and run on its own, with the IM substituted for the necessity of the dabble. Thus God is all powerful from the beginning with the IM scenario.-dhw: I don't think so, judging by the limitations you have imposed on the IM. If all the major innovations/patterns were preprogrammed 3.7 billion years ago, a dabble would only be “necessary” if things went wrong (i.e. didn't follow the path he wanted). This means the IM has the capability to correct errors in God's programme for major changes, which hardly squares with your contention that it can only make minor adjustments.-DAVID: I don't follow your reasoning at all. The IM does not have the power to correct errors. I don't know that God can design an error-filled program. -You left out the part of your post I was commenting on. You wrote: “The dilemma has simply been an indecision on my part as to whether God could program all of evolution from the very beginning, or had to step in and dabble when evolution wasn't following exactly the path he wanted.” This can only mean the programme wasn't working as he wanted, and so if the IM is “substituted for the necessity of the dabble”, clearly the IM is capable of far more than extensions or “additional programming”. Or are you saying that God wanted evolution to follow the path of the myrmecophilous beetle, the rafting ant, the silk-weaving spider, but the programme failed to come up with them, and so you thought he would have had to dabble, but instead you now realize that the IM was able to steer evolution onto God's intended ant-raft-silky path after all? (My question is serious. I fear that your dilemma is deepening.)
Does evolution have a purpose?
by David Turell , Friday, October 24, 2014, 22:29 (3681 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:In other words, the organism can only do what it can do. I too wish you knew what other guidelines you were talking about, since the term is so crucial to your hypothesis!-I think the guidelines would define the limits to adaptive changes. Thus the organisms adapt to the challenges of nature, but don't alter the general progression of evolution that God intends. > > dhw" You left out the part of your post I was commenting on. You wrote: “The dilemma has simply been an indecision on my part as to whether God could program all of evolution from the very beginning, or had to step in and dabble when evolution wasn't following exactly the path he wanted.” This can only mean the programme wasn't working as he wanted, and so if the IM is “substituted for the necessity of the dabble”, clearly the IM is capable of far more than extensions or “additional programming”. -I think I have explained this above. The IM would be limited to modest alterations in response to environmetal pressures. It might grow the giraffe's neck without altering the thrust of evolution, but it cannot make the whale series, because of the massive pattern changes between each step in the development of whales.-> dhw:Or are you saying that God wanted evolution to follow the path of the myrmecophilous beetle, the rafting ant, the silk-weaving spider, but the programme failed to come up with them, and so you thought he would have had to dabble, but instead you now realize that the IM was able to steer evolution onto God's intended ant-raft-silky path after all? -I think the issues above are open to interpretation. Ant rafting is a definite adaptation that I envision the IM doing. Spider silk is part of the pattern issue; God did it, as it is complex chemistry. The myrmecophilous/ant symbiosis can probably also be an IM learned arrangement. Note I consider the IM adaptive, but I think my idea that dabbling can be limited to great degree is the concept of God having to do all the complex patterns at the beginning. Is dabbling then totally excluded? Not necessarily. I just can't answer the issue of God's total infallibility in programming evolution. I admit I still have some dilemma, which I doubt I can remove, unless I accept God as religions define Him. And so far I don't, although here with evolution I am inclined to.-My thinking is still open and progressing under your questioning.
Does evolution have a purpose?Addendum
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 15, 2014, 15:23 (3690 days ago) @ David Turell
Does species cooperation have a role in the IM, inadvertent or otherwise?:-"Furthermore, when ancient Cyanobacteria were domesticated by the ancestors of plants, the bacteria deleted most of their genes or transferred them to the host nucleus, becoming chloroplasts, and, along with mitochondria, are considered “the ultimate realization of bacterial reductive evolution,” Koonin says. The association “dramatically increased the habitat of these photosynthetic bacteria from the sea to terrestrial ecosystems” and enabled plants to colonize the Earth, according to Ton Bisseling, at King Saud University, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, writing in Science (doi:10.1126/science.1256542). "-http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/64/10/956.full-This is a version of symbiosis, coopertion not competition