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

by David Turell , Friday, April 17, 2015, 19:11 (3506 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: "Invent" = create something that never existed before. ... Perhaps you could give us an example of a genuine innovation you think organisms have invented without God's direct instructions or intervention.-I think it should be apparent, I think God guided evolution, and therefore had a hand in the complex developments, i.e., inventions, that led to humans. I have held this position all along. Epigenetics shows us rather modest alterations that can be inherited. It does not seem there is time enough for such small changes to make giant complex advances, just as random mutation which has the same problem. 
> 
> dhw: Nobody knows how complex changes took place. ... (In any case, you dismiss other articles which argue that bacteria are cognitive and take their own decisions.)-I dismiss those conclusions. I view cells as receiving stimuli, interpreting them by chains of molecular reactions and choose their appropriate responses from a given list. I and others think it is automatic. You have admitted one cannot tell the difference.-> dhw: What I object to is your categorical rejection of even the possibility of an autonomous IM.-I will continue to reject it throughout further discussion. Again, God guided evolution
> 
> dhw: 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. 
I use the time 'life' to refer to the emergent property that we call 'living' matter. That property has the ability to self-modify to a degree.-> dhw: “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.-Of the nest, that is my view. Somehow God has offered means of adaptation (epigenetics), but major modifications are definitely guided by His instructions. Why you have to insert free will, I find unreasonable. Our brain is a living computer. We can't control each individual cell as it performs its biochemistry, but we can modify the brain by thought process. It has plasticity built in from its beginning. My childhood piano playing modified an area that controlled my fingers and my understanding of the music sheet. My answer to you is freely my own answer, not God driving me to argue with you. And so a meaningful 'semi-autonomous' is all I can give you.
> 
> 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.
> 
> dhw: 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.-I am still in my same position. Full directions or dabbling, I don't know which or whether both. You want me to choose and I can't. Why do I have to choose. I am content with this statement: God guided evolution. Period.->dhw: 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.-That is my position.-> dhw: 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!)-You don't know God exists or not. My position is that He certainly does. Remember 'faith'? I've answered the free will issue above. Our biologic computer suits me just fine. I use it independently all the time, and so do you, and I do have the capability to alter it, so it functions better for my purposes.
> 
> dhw: To sum up, the problem is innovation. Nobody has observed it..-My mind is decided. God guided evolution. For me the only reasonable conclusion. You are absolutely correct. No one has observed speciation since the time of Darwin. Variation, yes, surprisingly different new organisms from old, no.-Now questions for you. I have presented a video showing the complexity of the single cell in a multicellular animal, to which you have made no response. I will tell you that single-celled animals are as complex in their own way. Would you care to comment on how you think that complexity developed? Think of how complex multicellular single-cell cooperation must be. Automatically developed or guided? I saw the cooperation of cells and organs in my med school studies. Overwhelmingly complex. Automatically developed or guided? I know your answer. 'No-one knows'. True, but chance cannot take inorganic material, and then create life to this level of complexity without purpose and planning. It requires mentation. There is no other conclusion. You are striving for an 'automatic' solution as did Darwin. The knowledge of the complexity will keep on growing from his simple concepts. How much complexity do you need before you recognize teleology is at work?