Evidence for pattern development; mulling (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, December 05, 2014, 21:00 (3641 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: I believe in God-guided evolution.
> 
> dhw: Here are three alternative scenarios for a God-guided evolution: an unpredictable spectacle (perhaps to relieve boredom), a scientific experiment to see where it might lead (dabbling allowed), a project to create a self-aware being like himself, requiring experimentation (dabbling) as he didn't know how to do it. They all explain the higgledy-piggledy bush.-This is your version of a possible God-influenced evolution. It is not mine. I accept that God started life with a very programmed DNA. No boredom, it is a human frailty. No experimentation, He knew where it was going, humans. My only problem was fully front-end loaded or some midway adjustments. The IM allows for the adjustments on a semiautomatic guideline basis. The bush provides balance in nature to provide a hierarchy of food sources.
> 
> DAVID: And to me a God-guided semi-independent inventive mechanism can explain the evolutionary pattern we see.
> 
> dhw: If God preprogrammed evolution to produce humans, why did he preprogramme the monarch butterfly's itinerary, the spider's silk, and all the species that went extinct?-Explained by balance.-> dhw: If you can't think why, then maybe you should consider the above alternative explanations of the bush. “Semi-independent”, “semi-autonomous” are weasel words. An inventive mechanism invents. It doesn't merely obey instructions.-It invents by following instructional guidelines. Guidelines allow latitude to a degree. I don't know how much degree, but you seem positive an IM can invent anything it wants. How do you know that?
 
> dhw:It is very difficult to understand why your God would start off with a plan to produce humans, but would preprogramme the first cells with millions of different life forms and lifestyles, 99% of which would perish along the way.-Getting to complex organisms that now exist on Earth requires going through many intermediate forms if one starts with single cells. The intermediates were simply discarded as they were surpassed by later more complex forms. I presume what is now present represents the goal.
> 
>dhw: once again maybe you should be prepared at least to consider other interpretations of your God's intentions.-He is my God. I interpret Him as I see fit.
 
> DAVID: With both admit we are discussing from ignorance of underlying mechanisms. I don't reject a semiautonomous IM, just a totally independent one.
> 
> dhw: You believe there is an autonomous mechanism that can do its own inventing: the human brain. Do you not think your God could produce other forms of brain that could do their own inventing?-You are once again mixing apples and oranges, or in this case brains and genomes. Brains plan and invent, but it takes hands and manufacturing to complete the process to a finished product. The genome must produce a new differing code which then can put together a different phenotype or a different biologic process. Not in the same league as brain-work. But then again, you want your committee of cells to mimic Einstein, extrapolating from scientific hyperbole!