Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw? (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, April 17, 2015, 16:37 (3506 days ago) @ David Turell

I'll quote some of your responses, which will suffice to illustrate the point I am trying to make.-DAVID: That is your version which does not fit the articles describing the reactions.-DAVID: 'Brainless' is all we know. Nothing else has been demonstrated. DNA (implying all the known parts of the genome) is the only known functioning control system. If there is anything else there is no overt evidence of it.-DAVID: I've never said organisms can't invent. We see epigenetics. There is evidence they do, but invention of complex changes involving, for example, making a leg from a fin is beyond the epigenetic responses we've seen so far. So is arranging for a larynx, a tongue and a palate that can speak. Therefore, looking at epigenetics as a possibility for inventiveness is a matter of what degree of complexity it can produce.-"Invent" = create something that never existed before. You have told us that the weaverbird, the monarch and the spider are not capable of inventing their nest, lifestyle or silk. Perhaps you could give us an example of a genuine innovation you think organisms have invented without God's direct instructions or intervention.-Nobody knows how complex changes took place. It is pointless quoting articles and saying they do not indicate an autonomous IM. Of course they don't. (In any case, you dismiss other articles which argue that bacteria are cognitive and take their own decisions.) If we knew there was an autonomous inventive mechanism, there wouldn't be a problem. And if we knew that God existed and had preprogrammed the weaverbird's nest, there wouldn't be a problem either. All we can do is offer hypothetical explanations. I'm not disputing that the control system would be within the genome, and maybe epigenetics will provide an answer. What I object to is your categorical rejection of even the possibility of an autonomous IM.-Under “Origin of Language” you write: "I have also said that life is very inventive and I have allowed for a semi-autonomous IM." Life is not inventive. Life does not exist independently of living organisms. Each invention must take place within an organism. Either the organism creates its own inventions or God does, by preprogramming or dabbling. “Semi-autonomy” is meaningless, unless you reject any kind of autonomy on the grounds that all actions and decisions are subject to restrictions beyond the control of the organism (which includes ourselves and our free will). If the weaverbird's nest is beyond the capability of the organism itself, that leaves God to organize it.-DHW: I have offered you God as the possible inventor of the mechanism. You mean you'll stick with your hugely hopeful, awfully iffy 3.7-billion-year computer programme and an occasional dabble.-David: No, I've accepted the possibility of a semi-autonomous IM. Based on our current knowledge of epigenetics, I don't think we can know how much complexity can be developed by an IM.-By “no” do you mean you have now finally recognized the unreasonableness of the first cells passing on a 3.7-billion-year programme for all innovations? That is encouraging. And yet even though we don't or can't know how much complexity can be developed by an IM, you refuse to accept the possibility of autonomy. We don't or can't know whether God exists or not, or whether we have free will or not, and yet you wrote: “I know I have free will.” Autonomous or semi-autonomous? (Your answer to this could be quite revealing!)-To sum up, the problem is innovation. Nobody has observed it, but it has to take place within existing organisms unless you believe in separate creation. It is as pointless to say that current research has not revealed an autonomous inventive mechanism as it would be to say current research has not revealed the presence of a universal intelligence that turned fins into legs. Until the mystery is solved, we can only speculate and should therefore keep an open mind.