Revisiting convergence (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, June 23, 2015, 12:42 (3222 days ago) @ David Turell

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jul/09/how-you-consist-trillions-tiny-mac... This book makes the point I make. Our cells autonomously run the machines of our body automatically. Please explain how complexity appeared 3.5 billion years ago to give bacteria the appearance of 'minds'. It requires a planning mind if you believe in cause and effect.
dhw: I wonder what evidence he has that important innovations such as sexual organs, brains, eyes, hearts, livers, lungs etc. were already present 3.5 billion years ago.-DAVID: The only point he made concerned single cells being very complex from the beginning. why do you bring up much more modern organs?-I was referring to the quote: “It is a work full of surprises, arguing for example that all of life's most important innovations were in existence by around 3.5 billion years ago.” Or do you not consider sexual organs, brains etc. to be among life's most important innovations?-DAVID: Once multicellularity appears (we don't know how) the genome mechanisms with epigenetics allow adaptation, but so far the speciation process is still unknown, just assumed to automatically occur.-The fact that the cause of innovations leading to speciation is unknown is the reason for so much speculation. Darwin attributed it to random mutations worked on by natural selection. You have suggested that your God preprogrammed innovations or deliberately intervened, and I have suggested that organisms have an autonomous inventive intelligence which enables some of them to adapt (= remain the same) or respond innovatively (= speciation) to changing conditions, while others fail to do either, and become extinct.-dhw: Only if Falkowski goes on to argue that the complexity requires your God's planning can you claim that he makes the same point as you. Even if he does, it remains a matter of speculative interpretation.
DAVID: I am happy with my interpretation.-Of course, and I am happy that you are happy. However, you claimed that Falkowski supported your interpretation, which is perhaps an unwarranted assumption on your part. We'd need to read the book to find out.