More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, August 11, 2015, 14:13 (3392 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Dhw: As regards mainstream evolution requiring an origin that contains all possibilities, you are absolutely right, and this is why I am so sceptical of David's view that all possibilities were programmed into the first cells, and am interested in finding out how many possibilities you think were programmed into each of your prototypes (as opposed to their working things out for themselves). -TONY: To answer DHW's question about possibilities is likely impossible, due to my own ignorance. How many behaviors does a dog have? How many behaviors does a bird have? I would guess, that they have something similar to a finite state machine built in, though one that is far, far more complex than anything that we use today. I also suspect that the state machine is wired to read inputs from other parts of the prototype. I.E. Migration patters in birds, turtles, salmon, etc. being tuned to some sensory organ that detects magnetism, gravity, temperature, or some other event. 
In this case, you can have some simple set and get functions tied to a basic mechanic, and leave the grunt work up to other parts of the program, much like we do with AI pathfinding. What I mean is, when the creature is born or reaches their migration target for the first time, that place is imprinted on them. After that, some natural trigger, kickstarts the migration behavior, which really only says go from point a to point b, and allows other natural programs (swim, fly, etc) to handle the actual grunt work of getting there.-
Most behavioural patterns must be linked to some sensory organ and to other physical attributes of the organism, because that is how organisms function: the message has to be implemented physically. This is a constant source of disagreement between David and myself, because science can only examine the material processes that precede or follow the decision. It can't examine the decision-making process itself. David acknowledges this in his discussions on human consciousness and free will, but insists that in organisms such as bacteria, ants, weaverbirds etc. there is no decision-making process - and he focuses solely on the material actions as if they explained the decisions.
 
In cases such as migration, nest-building, strange lifestyle, I agree with most of what you say, but you have begun with Chapter 2, and my focus is on Chapter 1: namely, how these patterns originated. -You have summed up the problem very aptly: “To answer DHW's question about possibilities is likely impossible, due to my own ignorance. How many behaviors does a dog have? How many behaviors does a bird have?” Within the limits of what each organism can do and what the environment will allow each organism to do (a fish can't swim if there is no water), the possibilities would seem to be almost endless. However, in David's scenario, all possibilities have been preprogrammed in the first cells, to be passed down through billions of years and organisms until each descendant organism somehow automatically turns on its own special programme (or God “steps in” to write a new programme for it). You are rather more cagey in your musings about how much is preprogrammed, and this can only mean that you are prepared to accept the possibility that (theistic version) God gave cells/cell communities the wherewithal to work out their own “behaviours” which, if successful, will then be handed down.