More Denton: Reply to David (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, August 04, 2015, 13:44 (3399 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Of course 'once a pattern is successful it is passed on', but that fudges the issue. I've seen all sorts of birds nests that are successful for all sorts of birds. Why is each nest specific for each type of bird? It all makes evolution look patterned and planned or designed. Tony's point holds.
dhw: My proposal: each type of bird has its own type of intelligence, and each originally designed its own nest to fit in with its own requirements. Once it had proved efficacious for the particular type of bird, the “blueprint” was passed on. Evolution is patterned and planned and designed by organisms as and when new patterns/plans/designs are needed or made possible.-DAVID: If you simply recognize that God gives each bird its intelligence, then the plans and patterns and designs make perfect sense. You seem to prefer a scattershot view of evolution reminiscent of Darwin's approach with trials going forth in every direction until the survivors are sorted out. lots of wasted effort. The Cambrian explosion belies this. No scattershot fossils in the gap.-So now you agree that my proposal makes perfect sense, on condition that God gave each bird its intelligence - a possibility I have acknowledged from the very first time I presented this hypothesis. Thank you. -I have never proposed a scattershot evolution: the whole point of the inventive mechanism is that intelligent beings (from bacteria to humans) target their activities. They are not preprogrammed or directed, but do their own thing - and that is the cause of evolution's diversity. This may appear scattershot to you, because the diversity clearly contradicts your reiterated belief that humans were the goal. It is also an explanation for the Cambrian: there are no gaps, because each innovation would have been produced (it is a hypothesis) by the intelligent inventiveness of the organisms themselves. Please do not twist my proposal, and please do not pretend that I have excluded God when all along I have emphasized that it is meant to explain the course of evolution, whether initiated by God or not. -DAVID: And this removes any sense of my agreement about your continuous use of the word 'autonomous' in regard to an onboard IM. In this scenario only 'semi-autonomous' works. 
dhw: Firstly, then, can you think of any form of guidance or direction that does not involve preprogramming or direct intervention?
DAVID: Frankly, no. Guidelines limit invention to certain pathways, but considering the wonders of Nature, those guidelines are broad, although I continue to believe that humans were the goal.-What guidelines, apart from “the limitations imposed by their own nature and their environment”? I pointed out that “This does not mean they cannot do their own planning/inventing autonomously within those limitations,” and I asked: “How can an organism be said to “plan” or “invent”...if it is preprogrammed or directed to act in a certain way?" The fact that these limitations (which are not guidelines, because they do not guide the organism - they only impose restrictions) are broad and you believe humans were the goal does not answer my question.