Does evolution have a purpose? (Evolution)

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.