EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE (Evolution)
Various threads are overlapping, so I am combining them on this new thread.-dhw: The disagreement between us is not over chance v. design, but over how jumps may have happened. The jumps in the whale series are "a prime example of my viewpoint": that existing organisms invent new ways of exploiting their environment. Each innovation results in a new “species”, but that species may also innovate. Hence eight “jumps” from land animal to whale.-DAVID: You are assuming that large physiologic and phenotypic changes in each jump can occur without advanced planning and understanding of the problems involved in making such jumps. Even Darwin knew that logically it should occur by itty-bitty steps.-And it appears that Darwin's logic was faulty. Logically, if an innovation doesn't work straight away, there is no reason why it should survive. I would not expect advance planning at all. When organisms adapt I believe they respond to (not predict) environmental change, and the adjustments must be rapid or the organisms will not survive. For innovation, I suggest the same mechanism goes one step further, and USES the environmental change to its own advantage. Of course it will have to understand all the problems involved, and that requires intelligence: your God's preprogramming or dabbling of every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, or the cell communities possessing the same sort of autonomous collective intelligence described in the wonderful article on ant bridges (for which many thanks).-dhw: Which of these two scenarios [I have telescoped different posts here] seems to fit in more logically with the history of life on Earth? DAVID: You are the one who wants to question each scenario. I've admitted I have no idea if each or both are correct.-That is progress. You now appear to be giving my hypothesis an equal chance of being correct. Thank you.-dhw: Restrictions do not offer guidance on how to create something new... -DAVID: Once again, we see an inventive approach in epigenetic adaptations, which are responses to stress. We have suggested that for simple innovation, an IM might exist in the genome with guidelines, that may well be restrictive and limiting in the extent of the innovation. Again, all guesswork, awaiting more research.-We agree that no organism can invent an innovation that exceeds its own natural limitations or will set it in conflict with its environment. If the guidelines are the 3.8-billion-year computer programme or God's personal intervention, what “degree of initial freedom” (“Cambrian Explosion", 22 Nov.) can organisms have? All our hypotheses are guesswork, awaiting more research, but I asked if, instead of your 3.8-billion-year programme, you might consider the hypothesis “that God gives what I call an autonomous inventive mechanism free rein, but dabbles when he doesn't like what's going on, or when he wants evolution to take a particular direction?” Wouldn't that offer a way out of the dilemma posed by the problem raised below?-DAVID: Is God logical or purposeful? This universe is fine tuned for life. We are here. We are discussing. You are questioning how God did it, and I'm content with seeing why God did it. We come from two completely different viewpoints in the discussion.-How can the whole universe be fine tuned for life, but the zillions of solar systems that make up the rest of the universe are not fine tuned for life? Yes, we are here. And you say that's why God did it. So I ask why your God made zillions of solar systems not fine tuned for life, and why he made the duckbilled platypus and the other billions of species, lifestyles and wonders, 99% of which are extinct, when all he wanted was to make humans. That is not “how”; that is “why”. (You've told me how: preprogramming and/or dabbling.) And if you can't think why, then might it perhaps, maybe, possibly be because your reading of his purpose is...um...not quite right?
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, November 25, 2015, 22:16 (3284 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: And it appears that Darwin's logic was faulty. Logically, if an innovation doesn't work straight away, there is no reason why it should survive. I would not expect advance planning at all. When organisms adapt I believe they respond to (not predict) environmental change, and the adjustments must be rapid or the organisms will not survive. For innovation, I suggest the same mechanism goes one step further, and USES the environmental change to its own advantage. Of course it will have to understand all the problems involved, and that requires intelligence:-You should just stop here and recognize that it takes a sophisticated intelligence to foresee problems in a new body plan. Evolution jumps with new plans. No one just adds lumber to build a house. There is an overall plan first which tells the constructor just where everything is supposed to go.-> dhw: your God's preprogramming or dabbling of every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, or the cell communities possessing the same sort of autonomous collective intelligence described in the wonderful article on ant bridges (for which many thanks).-Don't you think the ant instinct developed slowly, possibly by trial and error? Ants planning a bridge mechanism in advance? Beyond ridiculous. And you are welcome. > > dhw: That is progress. You now appear to be giving my hypothesis an equal chance of being correct. Thank you.-Not a 50/50 chance, a smidgeon of one. > > dhw: How can the whole universe be fine tuned for life, but the zillions of solar systems that make up the rest of the universe are not fine tuned for life? Yes, we are here. And you say that's why God did it. So I ask why your God made zillions of solar systems not fine tuned for life, and why he made the duckbilled platypus and the other billions of species, lifestyles and wonders, 99% of which are extinct, when all he wanted was to make humans. That is not “how”; that is “why”. (You've told me how: preprogramming and/or dabbling.) And if you can't think why, then might it perhaps, maybe, possibly be because your reading of his purpose is...um...not quite right?-Why do I have to cover every one of the possibilities to reach a conclusion? I've found enough reasons for me to reach my conclusions. You want an 100% answer to every observation and nuance. What is wrong with reasoning to the best solution, a standard philosophic technique.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
dhw: And it appears that Darwin's logic was faulty. Logically, if an innovation doesn't work straight away, there is no reason why it should survive. I would not expect advance planning at all. When organisms adapt I believe they respond to (not predict) environmental change, and the adjustments must be rapid or the organisms will not survive. For innovation, I suggest the same mechanism goes one step further, and USES the environmental change to its own advantage. Of course it will have to understand all the problems involved, and that requires intelligence...-DAVID: You should just stop here and recognize that it takes a sophisticated intelligence to foresee problems in a new body plan. Evolution jumps with new plans. No one just adds lumber to build a house. There is an overall plan first which tells the constructor just where everything is supposed to go.-How do you distinguish between intelligence and sophisticated intelligence? I am not comparing the intelligence of cells or ants with that of humans. The constructor needs to have plans before he builds his house, but when cell communities adapt to changed environments, they do so without advance planning (unless you think they predict the changes), and have to do so with great rapidity. Indeed, many of them fail - hence extinctions. I am suggesting that the same mechanism is at work for innovation, and I do not think the ant analogy is inapposite. “The amazing thing is that a very elegant solution to a colony-level problem arises from the individual interactions of a swarm of simple worker ants, each with only local information.” The bridge involves what you might call “sophisticated” engineering, with extraordinarily complex calculations. You call it “group instinctive intelligence”, and ask how it was developed. I'm happy with “instinctive” if it means aware but not self-aware. And if we acknowledge the possibility that cell communities are also endowed with such group intelligence, we have our analogy: the cell communities do not plan their innovations in advance. They work together, pooling their information to come up with their elegant solutions. We don't know how they do it because their form of intelligence is different from ours, and we don't know how it developed because we don't know how ANY form of intelligence developed. DAVID: Ants planning a bridge mechanism in advance? Beyond ridiculous. And you are welcome.-Agreed. As above, ant intelligence, like cell intelligence, works out solutions on the spot, because if it didn't, the organism would die (adaptive solutions), or in my hypothesis the innovation wouldn't work (innovative solutions). You actually agree that there have to be such “jumps”, but because you cannot countenance the possibility of autonomous cellular intelligence, you argue that every single solution has already been preprogrammed into and passed on by the first living cells 3.8 billion years ago, or God personally intervened to provide the solutions - though his purpose was to create humans. But you don't like me to probe too deeply into the implications of this hypothesis. (See below.)-dhw: You now appear to be giving my hypothesis an equal chance of being correct. Thank you. DAVID: Not a 50/50 chance, a smidgeon of one.-You wrote: “I have no idea if each or both are correct.” I'll settle for that!-dhw: How can the whole universe be fine tuned for life, but the zillions of solar systems that make up the rest of the universe are not fine tuned for life? Yes, we are here. And you say that's why God did it. So I ask why your God made zillions of solar systems not fine tuned for life, and why he made the duckbilled platypus and the other billions of species, lifestyles and wonders, 99% of which are extinct, when all he wanted was to make humans. That is not “how”; that is “why”. (You've told me how: preprogramming and/or dabbling.) And if you can't think why, then might it perhaps, maybe, possibly be because your reading of his purpose is...um...not quite right?-DAVID: Why do I have to cover every one of the possibilities to reach a conclusion? I've found enough reasons for me to reach my conclusions. You want an 100% answer to every observation and nuance. What is wrong with reasoning to the best solution, a standard philosophic technique.-But that is the whole point of discussion. We test one another's hypotheses. And I am trying with you to “reason to the best solution”. When I put alternatives to you, I think it is right and proper that you apply your standard philosophical technique of reasoning to look for loopholes. I am simply doing the same.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
by David Turell , Thursday, November 26, 2015, 14:53 (3283 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: How do you distinguish between intelligence and sophisticated intelligence?-Border collies then poodles in the ranking of dogs are one and two. How about IQ?-> dhw: but when cell communities adapt to changed environments, they do so without advance planning (unless you think they predict the changes), and have to do so with great rapidity. Indeed, many of them fail - hence extinctions.-Your cell communities are now stated as fact? Extinctions are not instantaneous, but take millions of years. There is time for adaptation if possible.-> dhw: we don't know how ANY form of intelligence developed.-Exactly. I view it as a miracle. > dhw: We test one another's hypotheses. And I am trying with you to “reason to the best solution”. When I put alternatives to you, I think it is right and proper that you apply your standard philosophical technique of reasoning to look for loopholes. I am simply doing the same.-Fair enough. I will continue to poke loopholes into your invented cell community committee intelligence.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
dhw: ...but when cell communities adapt to changed environments, they do so without advance planning (unless you think they predict the changes), and have to do so with great rapidity. Indeed, many of them fail - hence extinctions.-DAVID: Your cell communities are now stated as fact? Extinctions are not instantaneous, but take millions of years. There is time for adaptation if possible. -I would describe every organ as a community of cooperating cells, and every organism as a community of cooperating cell communities. This would apply whether the cooperating cells were intelligent (me) or automatons (you). What is your objection?-Thank you for the correction re extinctions. Very badly argued by me! Of course it all depends on the nature of the environmental change. If the threat is accumulative, as with increasing shortage of food or human encroachment, the process of extinction or adaptation will be gradual. Innovations are jumps, and I should have confined my parallel process to when organisms do need to adapt quickly, for instance in polluted waters. I'm pretty sure you gave us an example yourself. Anyway, I've googled, and here are two more examples, the second of which relates to crustaceans in Lake Constance - a region where I lived for many years! CHS APES Blog: Trout Adapt to Pollution - blogspot.com-1.	how do animals adapt to water pollution? | GreenAnswers greenanswers.com/question/how-do-animals-adapt-water-pollution-(I can never get the hang of establishing these links directly. Sorry!)-Once again, my point is that the adaptive mechanism does not plan in advance but responds to the environment, and I am suggesting that the same mechanism may be responsible for innovation: no planning involved, but responding inventively as opposed to adaptively. You clearly agree that this is what happens, but you insist that it had to be preprogrammed or personally organized by your God.-dhw: We test one another's hypotheses. And I am trying with you to “reason to the best solution”. When I put alternatives to you, I think it is right and proper that you apply your standard philosophical technique of reasoning to look for loopholes. I am simply doing the same.-DAVID: Fair enough. I will continue to poke loopholes into your invented cell community committee intelligence.-And the loopholes are very real. Nobody has an explanation for evolutionary innovation, but we do not have evidence that cell communities possess the intelligence necessary to produce it. You are absolutely right. At the same time, we do not have evidence that 3.8 billion years ago your God planted a computer programme in the first cells to cover every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution, or that he intervened personally to create them, or that he created them all (extinct and extant) for the purpose of producing humans. Am I right, or am I right?
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
by David Turell , Friday, November 27, 2015, 14:45 (3282 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Innovations are jumps, and I should have confined my parallel process to when organisms do need to adapt quickly, for instance in polluted waters. -> Once again, my point is that the adaptive mechanism does not plan in advance but responds to the environment, and I am suggesting that the same mechanism may be responsible for innovation: no planning involved, but responding inventively as opposed to adaptively. You clearly agree that this is what happens, but you insist that it had to be preprogrammed or personally organized by your God.-My point is that these adaptations do not change the animals into different species, We don't now how new species happen, and I have concluded there must be an onboard 'drive to complexity' placed there by God with either full or partial control over final results. > > DAVID: I will continue to poke loopholes into your invented cell community committee intelligence. > > dhw: And the loopholes are very real. Nobody has an explanation for evolutionary innovation, but we do not have evidence that cell communities possess the intelligence necessary to produce it. You are absolutely right. At the same time, we do not have evidence that 3.8 billion years ago your God planted a computer programme in the first cells to cover every single innovation,....Am I right, or am I right?-At some point one develops faith or not.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
dhw: Innovations are jumps, and I should have confined my parallel process to when organisms do need to adapt quickly, for instance in polluted waters. [...] Once again, my point is that the adaptive mechanism does not plan in advance but responds to the environment, and I am suggesting that the same mechanism may be responsible for innovation: no planning involved, but responding inventively as opposed to adaptively. You clearly agree that this is what happens, but you insist that it had to be preprogrammed or personally organized by your God.-DAVID: My point is that these adaptations do not change the animals into different species, We don't now how new species happen, and I have concluded there must be an onboard 'drive to complexity' placed there by God with either full or partial control over final results. -You have repeated my own point about adaptations and innovations, and your ‘onboard drive to complexity' is no different from the ‘inventive mechanism' we have agreed must be present. I have also agreed that it may have been placed there by your God. If control is full, inventions can only have been preprogrammed or directly organized by your God. I have never understood what you mean by “partial” or “semi” other than as a reference to the restrictions imposed by the environment and the organism's own nature, which do not explain inventiveness. I have proposed an alternative to preprogramming and dabbling which would cover your “partial” - namely that your God has given organisms free rein, but intervenes if he doesn't like what is going on, or wants to guide evolution in a different direction. This would cover the anomaly of all the species, lifestyles and natural wonders that do not seem to fit in with your anthropocentrism. Since you are happy to offer the hypotheses of preprogramming and dabbling, why not at least pass a comment on this one?
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
by David Turell , Saturday, November 28, 2015, 15:21 (3281 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You have repeated my own point about adaptations and innovations, and your ‘onboard drive to complexity' is no different from the ‘inventive mechanism' we have agreed must be present. -I agree. But I see a degree of difference. In 'drive to complexity' I see a specific intent to make organisms more progressively complex arriving at humans and their brain. An arrow of purpose. To me the IM doesn't seem to imply that purpose. The invention need not be more complex, but just a useful adaptation for an immediate purpose.-> dhw:I have never understood what you mean by “partial” or “semi” other than as a reference to the restrictions imposed by the environment and the organism's own nature, which do not explain inventiveness.-In my guesses as to how it works, I can't give you any exactitude about God's limits to inventiveness. I am not even thinking about environment or the organism's nature, but construction of new useful parts. Obviously two heads are not allowed. This is where pattern planning fits into my thinking, Pentadactyl appendages as examples. Use Ediacaran to Cambrian as a guideline. A mighty jump sets the basis for what we see today. This implies planning and guidance. Epigenetics is more the IM I think of, small necessary adaptations, not necessarily leading to new species. -> dhw: I have proposed an alternative to preprogramming and dabbling which would cover your “partial” - namely that your God has given organisms free rein, but intervenes if he doesn't like what is going on, or wants to guide evolution in a different direction. This would cover the anomaly of all the species, lifestyles and natural wonders that do not seem to fit in with your anthropocentrism. -I don't think the bush of life is from free rein, but a required balance of nature, no matter how weird some the outcomes happen to be. We've discussed this before. You are the guy who wants a reason for everything, and I've given you one.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
dhw: ...your ‘onboard drive to complexity' is no different from the ‘inventive mechanism' we have agreed must be present. DAVID: I agree. But I see a degree of difference. In 'drive to complexity' I see a specific intent to make organisms more progressively complex arriving at humans and their brain. An arrow of purpose. To me the IM doesn't seem to imply that purpose. -Of course an IM doesn't imply the intent to arrive at humans. Nor does a drive to complexity. That is the purpose you have imposed on it.-DAVID: The invention need not be more complex, but just a useful adaptation for an immediate purpose.-I do not regard adaptation as invention. We have agreed that it is innovation that leads to new species. Actually I find it irritating that some commentators treat examples of adaptation as evidence for evolution - including the trout and the daphnia I referred to earlier. Adaptation alone would have left life stuck on bacteria. My hypothesis is that the same intelligent inventive mechanism may be responsible for both adaptation and innovation.-dhw: I have never understood what you mean by “partial” or “semi” other than as a reference to the restrictions imposed by the environment and the organism's own nature, which do not explain inventiveness. DAVID: In my guesses as to how it works, I can't give you any exactitude about God's limits to inventiveness. I am not even thinking about environment or the organism's nature, but construction of new useful parts. Obviously two heads are not allowed. This is where pattern planning fits into my thinking, Pentadactyl appendages as examples. [...]-Patterns are inevitable if all organisms descended from earlier organisms. Once the pentadactyl pattern had been invented, different organisms would have varied it for their own purposes. Are you now suggesting with your “partial” that your God stuck the first limbs on the protowalker and then gave all subsequent organisms the freedom to develop their own versions? That would fit in with the hypothesis I suggested below: dhw: ...namely that your God has given organisms free rein, but intervenes if he doesn't like what is going on, or wants to guide evolution in a different direction. This would cover the anomaly of all the species, lifestyles and natural wonders that do not seem to fit in with your anthropocentrism. DAVID: I don't think the bush of life is from free rein, but a required balance of nature, no matter how weird some the outcomes happen to be. We've discussed this before. You are the guy who wants a reason for everything, and I've given you one. -Actually, it's the other way round. You are the guy who keeps telling me to look for a reason for everything, by which you mean your God's “arrow of purpose”. Apparently dinosaurs are dead, the wasp lays its eggs on the spider's back, the duckbilled platypus is still waddling around, and zillions of probably lifeless solar systems come and go in order to balance nature just so that we humans can exist. No, sir, I am the guy who challenges your reason for everything.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
by David Turell , Sunday, November 29, 2015, 15:54 (3280 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: My hypothesis is that the same intelligent inventive mechanism may be responsible for both adaptation and innovation.-And my objection to your hypothesis is that you are implying an enormous inventive mental capacity to pre-plan the jump in the Cambrian explosion. I feel you need to factor in the enormous gap in your thinking. Darwin knew this, but never got the solution he wished for. > > dhw: Patterns are inevitable if all organisms descended from earlier organisms. Once the pentadactyl pattern had been invented, different organisms would have varied it for their own purposes. Are you now suggesting with your “partial” that your God stuck the first limbs on the protowalker and then gave all subsequent organisms the freedom to develop their own versions? -Yes, that is my concept. For example the horse walks on one toe on each leg. Penta- to unidactyl.-> > dhw: You are the guy who keeps telling me to look for a reason for everything, by which you mean your God's “arrow of purpose”. Apparently dinosaurs are dead, the wasp lays its eggs on the spider's back, the duckbilled platypus is still waddling around, and zillions of probably lifeless solar systems come and go in order to balance nature just so that we humans can exist. No, sir, I am the guy who challenges your reason for everything.-That is correct. You want me to have a reason for everything, and I admit in some areas the reasons are not obvious, but the overall purpose is. I ask you, is there a 'natural purpose' in the universe and in evolution of life or a specific purpose? Is there evidence of planning or simply a chance progression of change? There is our basic major difference.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
DAVID: ...my objection to your hypothesis is that you are implying an enormous inventive mental capacity to pre-plan the jump in the Cambrian explosion. I feel you need to factor in the enormous gap in your thinking. Darwin knew this, but never got the solution he wished for.-I accept the objection regarding the unproven “enormous inventive mental capacity”, though not in relation to preplanning. My hypothesis is based on the idea that organisms respond to (but do not predict) changes in their environment. This is known to happen with adaptation. I take it one (giant) step forward, and apply the same process to innovation. Dry land appears, and a particularly inventive fish decides to explore. It does not prophesy that dry land will appear and juggle around with its genome in anticipation. Yes, the Cambrian is an unexplained mystery of colossal proportions, but I do not see my hypothesis (not a belief) as any more unlikely than yours (a belief) or Darwin's.-dhw: Patterns are inevitable if all organisms descended from earlier organisms. Once the pentadactyl pattern had been invented, different organisms would have varied it for their own purposes. Are you now suggesting with your “partial” that your God stuck the first limbs on the protowalker and then gave all subsequent organisms the freedom to develop their own versions? DAVID: Yes, that is my concept. For example the horse walks on one toe on each leg. Penta- to unidactyl.-This is more hopeful. If horses had the freedom to develop their own unidactyl variation, maybe some fish worked out how to survive on dry land, and maybe insects, birds, molluscs and vertebrates worked out their own varieties of senses, appendages and lifestyles, and maybe my friend the weaverbird worked out its own variation on nest-building patterns...That would explain the huge variety we find in the evolutionary bush, wouldn't it? Organisms following their own evolutionary paths. -dhw: You are the guy who keeps telling me to look for a reason for everything, by which you mean your God's “arrow of purpose”. Apparently dinosaurs are dead, the wasp lays its eggs on the spider's back, the duckbilled platypus is still waddling around, and zillions of probably lifeless solar systems come and go in order to balance nature just so that we humans can exist. No, sir, I am the guy who challenges your reason for everything.-DAVID: That is correct. You want me to have a reason for everything, and I admit in some areas the reasons are not obvious, but the overall purpose is. I ask you, is there a 'natural purpose' in the universe and in evolution of life or a specific purpose? Is there evidence of planning or simply a chance progression of change? There is our basic major difference.-Your argument appears to be that humans are here, and therefore humans are the overall purpose, while everything else either is or was here but I shouldn't ask why. So long as I don't ask why your hypothesis doesn't seem reasonable, your hypothesis is reasonable to the point of being "obvious". However, your questions are indeed the major ones that gave rise to this website in the first place. If there is a God, I agree that there has to be a purpose behind his creation of life. If there is no God, we can only make our own purposes. The difference here is that I don't know if God exists and you think you do. But when I put on my theist hat and consider the history of evolution, the difference between us is that I can see a variety of choices relating to God's purpose, whereas you can only see one: the production of humans (which in any case is only half a purpose, the other half of which would be the reason for producing humans).
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
by David Turell , Monday, November 30, 2015, 15:34 (3279 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: My hypothesis is based on the idea that organisms respond to (but do not predict) changes in their environment.-We all accept this simple premise.-> dhw: This is known to happen with adaptation. I take it one (giant) step forward, and apply the same process to innovation.... Yes, the Cambrian is an unexplained mystery of colossal proportions, but I do not see my hypothesis (not a belief) as any more unlikely than yours (a belief) or Darwin's.-And the sticking point is the colossal Cambrian. Innovation from nothing to brains in 10 million years, noting that some extra oxygen appeared, is a wild bit of wishful thinking. Your logic: The living use oxygen for energy, brains need lots of energy, so of course brains appeared. Yes a giant illogical step.-> > dhw: This is more hopeful. If horses had the freedom to develop their own unidactyl variation, maybe some fish worked out how to survive on dry land, and maybe insects, birds, molluscs and vertebrates worked out their own varieties of senses, appendages and lifestyles,...That would explain the huge variety we find in the evolutionary bush, wouldn't it? Organisms following their own evolutionary paths. -I've accepted the possibility of individual inventiveness to some degree, but not to the extent you are proposing. > > dhw: Your argument appears to be that humans are here, and therefore humans are the overall purpose, while everything else either is or was here but I shouldn't ask why. So long as I don't ask why your hypothesis doesn't seem reasonable, your hypothesis is reasonable to the point of being "obvious". However, your questions are indeed the major ones that gave rise to this website in the first place. If there is a God, I agree that there has to be a purpose behind his creation of life. If there is no God, we can only make our own purposes. The difference here is that I don't know if God exists and you think you do. But when I put on my theist hat and consider the history of evolution, the difference between us is that I can see a variety of choices relating to God's purpose, whereas you can only see one: the production of humans (which in any case is only half a purpose, the other half of which would be the reason for producing humans).-Excellent summary. But note, if one goes back six/million years we see roughly the same animals and plants we see now. Little is changed except the appearance of highly sentient humans. Relative stasis except for the human line. I see purpose in that. I understand you don't. But you are glad to be here, I'm sure.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
dhw: My hypothesis is based on the idea that organisms respond to (but do not predict) changes in their environment. DAVID: We all accept this simple premise.-I was objecting to your insistence that innovations must be planned in advance. Planning entails prediction. You even have your God preprogramming them 3.8 billion years ago. dhw: This is known to happen with adaptation. I take it one (giant) step forward, and apply the same process to innovation.... Yes, the Cambrian is an unexplained mystery of colossal proportions, but I do not see my hypothesis (not a belief) as any more unlikely than yours (a belief) or Darwin's.-DAVID: And the sticking point is the colossal Cambrian. Innovation from nothing to brains in 10 million years, noting that some extra oxygen appeared, is a wild bit of wishful thinking. Your logic: The living use oxygen for energy, brains need lots of energy, so of course brains appeared. Yes a giant illogical step.-Not “of course brains appeared”, but new conditions enabled existing organisms to use their intelligence inventively. The sticking point is whether they have that kind of intelligence. I note your comment in your new post on the Cambrian: "Either good planning or lots of lucky sequential chance events." Not necessarily planning or lucky. Even you don't know whether your God planned every environmental change. If organisms used the new chance conditions inventively, their innovations were not by chance. It's only luck if you insist that your God intended to produce all the new species, culminating in humans, but didn't know how to do it. Otherwise, it's a case of organisms using the new environment for their own purposes. -dhw: ...If horses had the freedom to develop their own unidactyl variation, maybe some fish worked out how to survive on dry land, and maybe insects, birds, molluscs and vertebrates worked out their own varieties of senses, appendages and lifestyles,...That would explain the huge variety we find in the evolutionary bush, wouldn't it? Organisms following their own evolutionary paths. DAVID: I've accepted the possibility of individual inventiveness to some degree, but not to the extent you are proposing.-So if horses were free to work out their own unidactyl variation, let's see how far we can go. Do you now think the weaverbird may have designed its own nest without being preprogrammed or dabbled with? -dhw: ...The difference here is that I don't know if God exists and you think you do. But when I put on my theist hat and consider the history of evolution, the difference between us is that I can see a variety of choices relating to God's purpose, whereas you can only see one: the production of humans (which in any case is only half a purpose, the other half of which would be the reason for producing humans) DAVID: Excellent summary. But note, if one goes back six/million years we see roughly the same animals and plants we see now. Little is changed except the appearance of highly sentient humans. Relative stasis except for the human line. I see purpose in that. I understand you don't. But you are glad to be here, I'm sure. If God exists, yes, I can certainly see purpose in his bringing us into existence. There is, however, no need to assume that it was his intention right from the start and the whole of evolution was geared to us. But you cannot bear the thought of your God experimenting, or not knowing what he was doing, or going wrong, so you would rather put up with the illogicality of dead dinosaurs and waddling platypuses and zillions of lifeless solar systems. However, you are absolutely right that I am glad to be here, happy to be able to discuss these matters with a dear friend, and grateful for every moment of this miraculous life.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 02, 2015, 03:08 (3278 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Not “of course brains appeared”, but new conditions enabled existing organisms to use their intelligence inventively. The sticking point is whether they have that kind of intelligence. ...If organisms used the new chance conditions inventively, their innovations were not by chance. .... it's a case of organisms using the new environment for their own purposes.-You are now proposing, perhaps inadvertently, a sort 'drive to complexity theory' like mine. Darwin proposed changes or adaptations due to challenges. Many Darwinists still view evolution this way, but we have discussed fossil series leading to current organisms for no apparent reason than advancing complexity. > > dhw: So if horses were free to work out their own unidactyl variation, let's see how far we can go. -I don't know if hoofed animals did this one their own. Deer use two fingers. it is part of a developmental pattern, as other patterns I've described.->dhw: If God exists, yes, I can certainly see purpose in his bringing us into existence.-Good.-> dhw: There is, however, no need to assume that it was his intention right from the start and the whole of evolution was geared to us. But you cannot bear the thought of your God experimenting, or not knowing what he was doing, or going wrong, so you would rather put up with the illogicality of dead dinosaurs and waddling platypuses and zillions of lifeless solar systems.-They are illogical to you, not to me. That is a major difference. You want everything neatly as you would have planned it. However, you are not God.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
dhw: Not “of course brains appeared”, but new conditions enabled existing organisms to use their intelligence inventively. The sticking point is whether they have that kind of intelligence. ...If organisms used the new chance conditions inventively, their innovations were not by chance. .... it's a case of organisms using the new environment for their own purposes.-DAVID: You are now proposing, perhaps inadvertently, a sort 'drive to complexity theory' like mine. Darwin proposed changes or adaptations due to challenges. Many Darwinists still view evolution this way, but we have discussed fossil series leading to current organisms for no apparent reason than advancing complexity. -I have pointed out over and over again that my hypothesis is NOT a response to challenges, which would be adaptation, but the quest for improvement (the same as your drive to complexity) which leads organisms to find new ways of exploiting their (changed) environment.-dhw: So if horses were free to work out their own unidactyl variation, let's see how far we can go. DAVID: I don't know if hoofed animals did this on their own. Deer use two fingers. it is part of a developmental pattern, as other patterns I've described. -I asked if by “partial” you meant that “your God stuck the first limbs on the protowalker and then gave all subsequent organisms the freedom to develop their own versions”. You replied “Yes, that is my concept. For example the horse walks on one toe on each leg.” I took your “yes” to mean yes. But perhaps you are playing hard to get! I then gave more examples, including my buddy the weaverbird, and suggested they may also have had such freedom. You replied: ”I've accepted the possibility of individual inventiveness to some degree, but not to the extent you are proposing.” This is a very evasive reply.-And I must say in all honesty that it is both expected and accepted. We tend to goad each other, which is fun and sometimes illuminating. But we can stop beating about the evolutionary bush for a moment and face the brutal fact that while I can afford to be direct, because I have no faith at stake, you need such evasions. Individual inventiveness means autonomous intelligence, the very thought of which is anathema to you. It would mean accepting the claims of Margulis, McClintock, Buehler, Shapiro & Co that cells/cell communities are intelligent beings, and if for argument's sake we agree that God exists, it would also mean that your God did not control the course of evolution and gear every innovation to the production of a single species. That is all integral to your faith, and I respect it. In response to my point that dead dinosaurs etc. did not fit in logically with your anthropocentrism, you have responded: “They are illogical to you, not to me. That is a major difference. You want everything neatly as you would have planned it. However, you are not God.” Quite right. I need hardly point out to you that you are not God either, and so each of us with our blinkers (you) or myopia (me) can go on groping through the darkness and goading each other!
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 02, 2015, 21:25 (3277 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I have pointed out over and over again that my hypothesis is NOT a response to challenges, which would be adaptation, but the quest for improvement (the same as your drive to complexity) which leads organisms to find new ways of exploiting their (changed) environment.-OK. We agree. Now, do organisms arrive at this ability on their own through evolution. I believe it was implanted. > > dhw; I asked if by “partial” you meant that “your God stuck the first limbs on the protowalker and then gave all subsequent organisms the freedom to develop their own versions”. You replied “Yes, that is my concept.... You replied: ”I've accepted the possibility of individual inventiveness to some degree, but not to the extent you are proposing.” This is a very evasive reply.-Not at all. I believe in pattern planning as I have described over and over. But not evasive, they may be allowed a degree of modification of the basic pattern. > > dhw: And I must say in all honesty that it is both expected and accepted. We tend to goad each other, which is fun and sometimes illuminating. But we can stop beating about the evolutionary bush for a moment and face the brutal fact that while I can afford to be direct, because I have no faith at stake, you need such evasions.-To me, I am not evasive. In my mind the outline I see for theistic evolution to reach humans, it requires guidelines. I fully understand your position on the picket fence. -> dhw: Individual inventiveness means autonomous intelligence, the very thought of which is anathema to you.-No it doesn't. As long as the individual inventiveness follows certain guidelines and limits, I'm happy. You want total autonomy for the inventiveness because it fits your seat on the picket fence-> dhw: ... In response to my point that dead dinosaurs etc. did not fit in logically with your anthropocentrism, you have responded: “They are illogical to you, not to me. That is a major difference. You want everything neatly as you would have planned it. However, you are not God.” Quite right. I need hardly point out to you that you are not God either, and so each of us with our blinkers (you) or myopia (me) can go on groping through the darkness and goading each other!-Let the goading continue! I am not blinkered. I simply don't see things as you do. You are still insisting that evolution follow your logic.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
dhw: I have pointed out over and over again that my hypothesis is NOT a response to challenges, which would be adaptation, but the quest for improvement (the same as your drive to complexity) which leads organisms to find new ways of exploiting their (changed) environment. DAVID: OK. We agree. Now, do organisms arrive at this ability on their own through evolution. I believe it was implanted.-The ability is the autonomous inventive intelligence, and I have always accepted the possibility that God “implanted” it. Your argument (with nebulous modifications, as below) has always been that organisms do not have the ability at all: either God has to preprogramme the innovations, or he has to dabble.-dhw:... You replied: ”I've accepted the possibility of individual inventiveness to some degree, but not to the extent you are proposing.” This is a very evasive reply. DAVID: Not at all. I believe in pattern planning as I have described over and over. But not evasive, they may be allowed a degree of modification of the basic pattern. [...] To me, I am not evasive. In my mind the outline I see for theistic evolution to reach humans, it requires guidelines. -We have argued over and over again about the meaning of “guidelines”. I am trying to find out what degree of individual inventiveness you will accept, if any at all. We both accept natural and environmental limitations, and you say your God establishes the patterns (e.g. the prototype appendages). So is it possible in your estimation, without evasion, that God left the horse with the freedom to develop its own unidactyl hoof, and the weaverbird to design its own nest?-DAVID: You want total autonomy for the inventiveness because it fits your seat on the picket fence.-At the moment I just want an answer to the above question. -DAVID: You want everything neatly as you would have planned it. However, you are not God.” DHW: Quite right. I need hardly point out to you that you are not God either, and so each of us with our blinkers (you) or myopia (me) can go on groping through the darkness and goading each other! DAVID: Let the goading continue! I am not blinkered. I simply don't see things as you do. You are still insisting that evolution follow your logic.-I don't insist, I hypothesize, whereas you have a fixed belief. Nor do I “want everything neatly planned as you would have planned it.” I don't “want” anything. I see the higgledy-piggledy bush, which you struggle to explain, and I ask how this fits in with the “arrow of purpose” you think you can see, and I suggest that the lack of neatness might mean God did not have your “arrow of purpose”. And so I look for other possible explanations.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
by David Turell , Friday, December 04, 2015, 00:31 (3276 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: OK. We agree. Now, do organisms arrive at this ability on their own through evolution. I believe it was implanted. > > dhw: The ability is the autonomous inventive intelligence, and I have always accepted the possibility that God “implanted” it. Your argument (with nebulous modifications, as below) has always been that organisms do not have the ability at all: either God has to preprogramme the innovations, or he has to dabble.-You seem to forget that we have discussed an inventive mechanism many times in the past.-> > dhw: We have argued over and over again about the meaning of “guidelines”. I am trying to find out what degree of individual inventiveness you will accept, if any at all. We both accept natural and environmental limitations, and you say your God establishes the patterns (e.g. the prototype appendages). So is it possible in your estimation, without evasion, that God left the horse with the freedom to develop its own unidactyl hoof, and the weaverbird to design its own nest?-The nest and the hoof are not equivalent. The hoof is an onboard modification of an existing body form. I can see epigenetics playing a role here. The nest on the other hand requires intricate design of an object. I think that needs intelligent planning. If God guides evolution as I propose, I don't know why I have to define how much guidance for you. I've said I don't know, but to get humans as the goal, there has to be guidance. We humans are not required by environmental pressures. Our development is well beyond necessity. > DAVID: Let the goading continue! I am not blinkered. I simply don't see things as you do. You are still insisting that evolution follow your logic.-> dhw:... whereas you have a fixed belief. .... I see the higgledy-piggledy bush, which you struggle to explain, and I ask how this fits in with the “arrow of purpose” you think you can see, and I suggest that the lack of neatness might mean God did not have your “arrow of purpose”. And so I look for other possible explanations.-I don't see a lack of neatness. I've explained to you the balance of nature, to fit the issue of food supply. Someone eats the platypus, etc. I'm sure God knew what he was doing, but in your position I can understand your doubts.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
Dhw: So is it possible ...that God left the horse with the freedom to develop its own unidactyl hoof, and the weaverbird to design its own nest? DAVID: ...The hoof is an onboard modification of an existing body form. I can see epigenetics playing a role here. -The onboard modification of existing forms still requires the cooperation of cell communities as they respond to the environment (which as I understand it is the basis of epigenetics). You have avoided actually saying yes, but I'll take this as meaning that proto-unidactyl horses were free and able to vary an existing pattern by themselves, as opposed to relying on God's intervention or a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for horses' hooves. DAVID: The nest on the other hand requires intricate design of an object. I think that needs intelligent planning.-Most birds build nests, and even the most complex weaverbird apartment block is a variation on the pattern, like the horse varying the pattern of the foot. In both cases, once a new pattern has been successfully established, it is taken over by subsequent generations. You have rightly pointed out that cells do not have brains, and cellular intelligence is still controversial, but there is no controversy over the problem-solving intelligence of certain birds. So are you saying that other birds (like, say, pigeons) have been intelligent enough to produce their own simpler variations, and only the weaverbird needed God's private tuition (or computer programme)? My question is of course aimed partly at your “large organisms chauvinism” (Shapiro) in relation to the intelligence of our fellow organisms, and partly at your anthropocentric view of evolution (see below).-DAVID: If God guides evolution as I propose, I don't know why I have to define how much guidance for you. I've said I don't know, but to get humans as the goal, there has to be guidance. We humans are not required by environmental pressures. Our development is well beyond necessity.-As we have agreed repeatedly, NO multicellular organisms were required by environmental pressures, since bacteria have survived perfectly well from the year dot. IF humans were the goal right from the start, they would certainly have required guidance, but according to you not even the weaverbird could build its nest without “guidance”, so the weaverbird must also have been the goal. In fact, apart from minor modifications like the horse's hoof, ALL innovations, complex lifestyles and natural wonders extinct and extant required God's “guidance”, and yet his only goal was humans. DAVID: I don't see a lack of neatness. I've explained to you the balance of nature, to fit the issue of food supply. Someone eats the platypus, etc. I'm sure God knew what he was doing, but in your position I can understand your doubts. I'm afraid I have always had great difficulty figuring out how the lost 99% of species, lifestyles and natural wonders - not to mention my beloved weaverbird's nest - have served merely to provide a food supply for us humans. I can see why you understand my doubts.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
by David Turell , Friday, December 04, 2015, 20:05 (3275 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: ...The hoof is an onboard modification of an existing body form. I can see epigenetics playing a role here. > > dhw: The onboard modification of existing forms still requires the cooperation of cell communities as they respond to the environment (which as I understand it is the basis of epigenetics). You have avoided actually saying yes, but I'll take this as meaning that proto-unidactyl horses were free and able to vary an existing pattern by themselves,...-You don't see the point. Many mutations cause a loss of information. Losing four toes is such a loss. Evolution works tis way, so the horses may have done it on their own.-> > DAVID: The nest on the other hand requires intricate design of an object. I think that needs intelligent planning. > > dhw: Most birds build nests, and even the most complex weaverbird apartment block is a variation on the pattern, like the horse varying the pattern of the foot.-Not the same as explained.-> dhw:You have rightly pointed out that cells do not have brains, and cellular intelligence is still controversial, but there is no controversy over the problem-solving intelligence of certain birds.-They solve simple problems, not specialized nest building.-> > dhw: IF humans were the goal right from the start, they would certainly have required guidance, but according to you not even the weaverbird could build its nest without “guidance”, so the weaverbird must also have been the goal. In fact, apart from minor modifications like the horse's hoof, ALL innovations, complex lifestyles and natural wonders extinct and extant required God's “guidance”, and yet his only goal was humans.-I see nothing wrong with your analysis.- > dhw:I'm afraid I have always had great difficulty figuring out how the lost 99% of species, lifestyles and natural wonders - have served merely to provide a food supply for us humans. I can see why you understand my doubts.-Somebody has to eat somebody. The current animals are a vast improvement over dinosaurs. What is wrong with losing 99% to create progress in evolution? What is here is complicated enough and there is just so much room for life on Earth.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
DAVID: ...The hoof is an onboard modification of an existing body form. I can see epigenetics playing a role here. dhw: The onboard modification of existing forms still requires the cooperation of cell communities as they respond to the environment (which as I understand it is the basis of epigenetics). You have avoided actually saying yes, but I'll take this as meaning that proto-unidactyl horses were free and able to vary an existing pattern by themselves,... DAVID: You don't see the point. Many mutations cause a loss of information. Losing four toes is such a loss. Evolution works tis way, so the horses may have done it on their own.-No, I don't see your point. Whether the modification is a loss or gain, it still requires cooperation among the cell communities in their response to the environment. (And I would call the loss of four toes “the loss of four toes”, not “a loss of information”.) My point was the question whether the horses did it on their own or had to be guided by your God. Thank you for answering.-dhw:You have rightly pointed out that cells do not have brains, and cellular intelligence is still controversial, but there is no controversy over the problem-solving intelligence of certain birds. DAVID: They solve simple problems, not specialized nest building.-Birds build nests, but they don't actually know how to build nests? This leads straight to the unanswered question which was the whole point of my response here: “So are you saying that other birds (like, say, pigeons) have been intelligent enough to produce their own simpler variations, and only the weaverbird needed God's private tuition (or computer programme)?” dhw: IF humans were the goal right from the start, they would certainly have required guidance, but according to you not even the weaverbird could build its nest without “guidance”, so the weaverbird must also have been the goal. In fact, apart from minor modifications like the horse's hoof, ALL innovations, complex lifestyles and natural wonders extinct and extant required God's “guidance”, and yet his only goal was humans. DAVID: I see nothing wrong with your analysis.-That's good news for the weaverbird, except that there is a direct contradiction you have not seen, or prefer not to see, in my analysis. The weaverbird was God's evolutionary goal, but God's only evolutionary goal was humans.-dhw: I'm afraid I have always had great difficulty figuring out how the lost 99% of species, lifestyles and natural wonders - have served merely to provide a food supply for us humans. I can see why you understand my doubts. DAVID: Somebody has to eat somebody. The current animals are a vast improvement over dinosaurs. What is wrong with losing 99% to create progress in evolution? What is here is complicated enough and there is just so much room for life on Earth. Nobody has to eat anybody. Meat-eating is not essential to life. I've often wondered why your God would deliberately have invented the sheer horror of carnivorousness. I'm not sure that dinosaurs would agree with your criteria for ”improvement” or indeed how they served the purpose of providing a food supply for humans since we weren't around at the time. But perhaps you are assuming that a leg of lamb is more nourishing than a leg of brontosaurus.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
by David Turell , Saturday, December 05, 2015, 15:04 (3274 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You don't see the point. Many mutations cause a loss of information. Losing four toes is such a loss. Evolution works tis way, so the horses may have done it on their own. > > dhw: No, I don't see your point. Whether the modification is a loss or gain, it still requires cooperation among the cell communities in their response to the environment. (And I would call the loss of four toes “the loss of four toes”, not “a loss of information”.) -You still don't understand information. Each toe requires information for its existence and that information disappears when the toe does. In this case phenotypic information. > > dhw: Birds build nests, but they don't actually know how to build nests? This leads straight to the unanswered question which was the whole point of my response here: “So are you saying that other birds (like, say, pigeons) have been intelligent enough to produce their own simpler variations, and only the weaverbird needed God's private tuition (or computer programme)?”-Of course birds know how to build their own style of nest. The issue is how they developed that knowledge, weaver or otherwise. > > dhw: IF humans were the goal right from the start, they would certainly have required guidance, but according to you not even the weaverbird could build its nest without “guidance”, so the weaverbird must also have been the goal. In fact, apart from minor modifications like the horse's hoof, ALL innovations, complex lifestyles and natural wonders extinct and extant required God's “guidance”, and yet his only goal was humans. > DAVID: I see nothing wrong with your analysis. > > dhw: That's good news for the weaverbird, except that there is a direct contradiction you have not seen, or prefer not to see, in my analysis. The weaverbird was God's evolutionary goal, but God's only evolutionary goal was humans.-I ignored that point, since it is patently obvious you are poking fun.->> DAVID: Somebody has to eat somebody. The current animals are a vast improvement over dinosaurs. What is wrong with losing 99% to create progress in evolution? What is here is complicated enough and there is just so much room for life on Earth.-> > dhw: Nobody has to eat anybody. Meat-eating is not essential to life. I've often wondered why your God would deliberately have invented the sheer horror of carnivorousness. -The dinosaurs also had plant eaters. Lions don't nibble the savanna's grass. Meat eating is built in to some, plants to others. Humans make choices as free will omnivores or haven't you noticed.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
DAVID: You don't see the point. Many mutations cause a loss of information. Losing four toes is such a loss. Evolution works tis way, so the horses may have done it on their own. dhw: No, I don't see your point. Whether the modification is a loss or gain, it still requires cooperation among the cell communities in their response to the environment. (And I would call the loss of four toes “the loss of four toes”, not “a loss of information”.) -DAVID: You still don't understand information. Each toe requires information for its existence and that information disappears when the toe does. In this case phenotypic information.-Perhaps there is a stage missing from this exchange. In response to your comment on epigenetics, I pointed out that epigenetic modifications still required cooperation among the cell communities - which I see as autonomous - and you said losing four toes means a loss of information. What does that have to do with the horse's autonomous ability to switch itself from pentadactyl to unidactyl? (And, in parenthesis, why bring "information" into the discussion?) DAVID: [Birds] solve simple problems, not specialized nest building. dhw: Birds build nests, but they don't actually know how to build nests? This leads straight to the unanswered question which was the whole point of my response here: “So are you saying that other birds (like, say, pigeons) have been intelligent enough to produce their own simpler variations, and only the weaverbird needed God's private tuition (or computer programme)?” DAVID: Of course birds know how to build their own style of nest. The issue is how they developed that knowledge, weaver or otherwise.-So are you saying that other birds were able to design their own nests, but weaverbirds needed God's private tuition? -dhw: IF humans were the goal right from the start, they would certainly have required guidance, but according to you not even the weaverbird could build its nest without “guidance”, so the weaverbird must also have been the goal. In fact, apart from minor modifications like the horse's hoof, ALL innovations, complex lifestyles and natural wonders extinct and extant required God's “guidance”, and yet his only goal was humans. DAVID: I see nothing wrong with your analysis. dhw: That's good news for the weaverbird, except that there is a direct contradiction you have not seen, or prefer not to see, in my analysis. The weaverbird was God's evolutionary goal, but God's only evolutionary goal was humans.-DAVID: I ignored that point, since it is patently obvious you are poking fun.-I am not poking fun. It is essential to your anthropocentric view of evolution that God “guided” it towards humans. But you also insist that God ”guided” the weaverbird in the design of its nest. To an earlier question you responded: ”I'm sure God knew what he was doing.” With my theist hat on, I am happy to agree. But as I can see no logic in the claim that God had to teach the weaverbird how to build its nest so that there would be a balance of Nature to provide humans with their food, I am suggesting that perhaps you might have misinterpreted what God was doing. -DAVID: Somebody has to eat somebody. The current animals are a vast improvement over dinosaurs. What is wrong with losing 99% to create progress in evolution? What is here is complicated enough and there is just so much room for life on Earth. dhw: Nobody has to eat anybody. Meat-eating is not essential to life. I've often wondered why your God would deliberately have invented the sheer horror of carnivorousness. DAVID: The dinosaurs also had plant eaters. Lions don't nibble the savanna's grass. Meat eating is built in to some, plants to others. Humans make choices as free will omnivores or haven't you noticed.-I have noticed. And I have noticed that some animals are vegetarian and some are carnivorous and some are both. I have also observed that life is possible without carnivorousness, and so - with my theist hat on - I do not wonder WHETHER your God invented the horrors of carnivorousness, but WHY.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
by David Turell , Sunday, December 06, 2015, 16:10 (3273 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Perhaps there is a stage missing from this exchange. ...you said losing four toes means a loss of information. What does that have to do with the horse's autonomous ability to switch itself from pentadactyl to unidactyl? (And, in parenthesis, why bring "information" into the discussion?)-Loss or deletion of information is an easier task than gaining or inventing information which is a problem is evolution, searching among trillion protein molecules to find the right ones for the function desired.-> DAVID: Of course birds know how to build their own style of nest. The issue is how they developed that knowledge, weaver or otherwise. > > dhw: So are you saying that other birds were able to design their own nests, but weaverbirds needed God's private tuition? -Neat twist of my words. I've simply said all birds know how to build their own. How they learned initially is the separate issue. We have no answer. The weaver nest is exceptionally complex, a woven bag with the entry at the top, so it becomes a prime example of the general issue, an extreme case to make the point.-> dhw: That's good news for the weaverbird, except that there is a direct contradiction you have not seen, or prefer not to see, in my analysis. The weaverbird was God's evolutionary goal, but God's only evolutionary goal was humans. > > DAVID: I ignored that point, since it is patently obvious you are poking fun. > > dhw: I am not poking fun. It is essential to your anthropocentric view of evolution that God “guided” it towards humans. I am suggesting that perhaps you might have misinterpreted what God was doing.-Very likely. What you have done in our conversation is to demand that we delve into God's methods, looking at His most intimate operative details in producing evolution. I can only make the most simple of guesses, following my general and I think logical conclusion that if I accept evolution, and I have, God guided it. You want to understand God's methods exactly before you decide to accept Him. He doesn't work that way. > DAVID: The dinosaurs also had plant eaters. Lions don't nibble the savanna's grass. Meat eating is built in to some, plants to others. Humans make choices as free will omnivores or haven't you noticed. > > dhw: I have noticed. And I have noticed that some animals are vegetarian and some are carnivorous and some are both. I have also observed that life is possible without carnivorousness, and so - with my theist hat on - I do not wonder WHETHER your God invented the horrors of carnivorousness, but WHY.-Another example of your attempt to justify every aspect of the bush of life to fit your form of logic, before moving forward to some type of conclusion. You have just questioned God's motives. We might as well discuss why terrorists kill people. By your lights God could forbid it and stop them. I think lions have free will or at least freedom of action. And back balance of nature, it works best with both herbivores and carnivores. Wolves have been re-introduced to parts of the American West because the balance was way out of whack.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
dhw: Perhaps there is a stage missing from this exchange. ...you said losing four toes means a loss of information. What does that have to do with the horse's autonomous ability to switch itself from pentadactyl to unidactyl? (And, in parenthesis, why bring "information" into the discussion?) DAVID: Loss or deletion of information is an easier task than gaining or inventing information which is a problem is evolution, searching among trillion protein molecules to find the right ones for the function desired.-Ah! That is the missing piece. It doesn't invalidate the argument that the cells must cooperate, but it does draw a useful line between this particular modification and invention. Thank you.-dhw: So are you saying that other birds were able to design their own nests, but weaverbirds needed God's private tuition? DAVID: Neat twist of my words. I've simply said all birds know how to build their own. How they learned initially is the separate issue. We have no answer. The weaver nest is exceptionally complex, a woven bag with the entry at the top, so it becomes a prime example of the general issue, an extreme case to make the point.-How any organism learned to do anything initially is the problem we are trying to solve, and your reluctance to attribute autonomous inventive intelligence to the weaverbird is a “prime example of the general issue”, because it means that according to you all innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders require preprogramming or dabbling by your God. Here is an alternative explanation for the weaverbird's nest: early birds had the intelligence to realize it would be safer to make their homes in trees, and they used the available materials to build simple nests. The weaverbird has a particular flair for intelligent design, and his nest is therefore a lot more complex. It is not unusual in Nature for different species to come up with variations of greater or lesser complexity. They use what may be their God-given intelligence to work out their own solutions to problems. Dhw: It is essential to your anthropocentric view of evolution that God “guided” it towards humans. I am suggesting that perhaps you might have misinterpreted what God was doing. DAVID: Very likely. What you have done in our conversation is to demand that we delve into God's methods, looking at His most intimate operative details in producing evolution. I can only make the most simple of guesses, following my general and I think logical conclusion that if I accept evolution, and I have, God guided it. You want to understand God's methods exactly before you decide to accept Him. He doesn't work that way.-“He doesn't work that way” suggests you know how he works! For the sake of our discussions on this subject, I have at all times worn my theist hat, “accepted” God, but queried your very specific interpretation of his intentions and his methods: to produce humans, and to preprogramme or personally create innovations, lifestyles and wonders in order to balance Nature so that it will provide food for humans. I have offered a different interpretation of the way God may work. What is wrong with that? If God exists, every attempt to explain the nature of our world has to be an attempt to understand his intentions and his methods. Dhw: I do not wonder WHETHER your God invented the horrors of carnivorousness, but WHY. DAVID: Another example of your attempt to justify every aspect of the bush of life to fit your form of logic, before moving forward to some type of conclusion. You have just questioned God's motives. We might as well discuss why terrorists kill people. By your lights God could forbid it and stop them. I think lions have free will or at least freedom of action. And back balance of nature, it works best with both herbivores and carnivores. Wolves have been re-introduced to parts of the American West because the balance was way out of whack.-The terrorist analogy is out of kilter. I am not talking of forbidding and stopping. According to you, evolution has proceeded in accordance with what your God wanted, and so the concept of live creatures eating other live creatures was his invention. (In passing, I didn't know lions had the freedom of will and/or action to become vegetarian if they wanted to.) You have given me your explanation, and so I will simply express my surprise and regret that he could not have found a less horrific means of balancing Nature.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
by David Turell , Monday, December 07, 2015, 22:11 (3272 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Here is an alternative explanation for the weaverbird's nest: early birds had the intelligence to realize it would be safer to make their homes in trees, and they used the available materials to build simple nests. The weaverbird has a particular flair for intelligent design, and his nest is therefore a lot more complex. It is not unusual in Nature for different species to come up with variations of greater or lesser complexity. They use what may be their God-given intelligence to work out their own solutions to problems.-Neat just-so story. Did Wally Weaver really need something so complex, which takes great time and energy? Perhaps he was the Frank Lloyd Wright of bird architects. No efficiency here. > > “He doesn't work that way” suggests you know how he works! ..... I have offered a different interpretation of the way God may work. What is wrong with that? If God exists, every attempt to explain the nature of our world has to be an attempt to understand his intentions and his methods.-But you want very specific intents and I prefer to draw with a broad brush. > > dhw: According to you, evolution has proceeded in accordance with what your God wanted, and so the concept of live creatures eating other live creatures was his invention. (In passing, I didn't know lions had the freedom of will and/or action to become vegetarian if they wanted to.)-Their guts and metabolism are built for meat, I'm sure/-> dhw: You have given me your explanation, and so I will simply express my surprise and regret that he could not have found a less horrific means of balancing Nature.-I admire that you are a softy at heart. Have you become a vegan ? That would be consistent with your wishes for carnivorous evolution.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
dhw: Here is an alternative explanation for the weaverbird's nest: early birds had the intelligence to realize it would be safer to make their homes in trees, and they used the available materials to build simple nests. The weaverbird has a particular flair for intelligent design, and his nest is therefore a lot more complex. It is not unusual in Nature for different species to come up with variations of greater or lesser complexity. They use what may be their God-given intelligence to work out their own solutions to problems.-DAVID: Neat just-so story. Did Wally Weaver really need something so complex, which takes great time and energy? Perhaps he was the Frank Lloyd Wright of bird architects. No efficiency here.-I expect Wally's nest serves his purpose admirably. Your alternative? Your God preprogrammed the nest 3.8 billion years ago or gave Wally private tuition, because the complex nest was necessary for God to balance Nature in order to feed human beings. Now that really is a just-so story.-dhw: “He doesn't work that way” suggests you know how he works! ..... I have offered a different interpretation of the way God may work. What is wrong with that? If God exists, every attempt to explain the nature of our world has to be an attempt to understand his intentions and his methods.-DAVID: But you want very specific intents and I prefer to draw with a broad brush. There could scarcely be a narrower intent than evolution having the sole purpose of producing and feeding humans. Your broad brush smudges out all the inconsistencies of such a hypothesis, as above re the weaverbird.-dhw: According to you, evolution has proceeded in accordance with what your God wanted, and so the concept of live creatures eating other live creatures was his invention. (In passing, I didn't know lions had the freedom of will and/or action to become vegetarian if they wanted to.) DAVID: Their guts and metabolism are built for meat, I'm sure.-Of course they are. And according to you, that's what God wanted, and according to me that's a pretty gruesome system of survival. Yes, I am a softy, and no, I like eating my fish and my turkey, and yes, I think non-carnivorous evolution would have been “nicer”! No need to go into further details!
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE: bipedalism
by David Turell , Monday, April 17, 2017, 18:06 (2775 days ago) @ dhw
Here is a very long essay on the real start of bipedalism 23 million years ago based on skull changes in a monkey species. The point is made that although we resemble apes to some degree we are really a very separate genus.
http://inference-review.com/article/the-last-threshold
Man has been a part of the animal kingdom for more than three million years. Yet many cultures have seen man as quite separate, or excluded man entirely, from nature. We see this among monotheistic societies that nurture theological explanations for the origin of our species.
On the contrary, straightening, with its correlated anatomical and psychomotor changes, is an intrauterine process that took place over the course of more than forty million years. It resulted from a growth in complexity of the embryonic nervous system and its rotational dynamics, and led to a succession of threshold effects incompatible with the nested hierarchy of Linnaean classification.
The identification of the first hominids is flawed.
***
On the Linnaean system of classification, it should be possible to distinguish a structure that elevates Homo sapiens to the rank of genus when compared to the characteristics of the species. Homo anatomy must appear gradually before any sapiens characteristics. For obvious scientific reasons the genus Homo must be rigorously defined. The defining characteristics of the skeleton of Homo sapiens are, in fact, linked to the degree of verticality in the brainstem and spinal cord. Homo corresponds to a verticalization now visible only in sapiens.
***
These embryological details have dramatic consequences. The emergence of upright hominid posture need no longer be linked to habitat changes. Its origin must be attributed to the increasing complexity of the nervous system. The embryonic body plan was reorganized through a series of threshold effects which are still in evidence in every human embryo.
***
The sole vertebrate embryo in which the dorsal cord extremity is almost verticalized is that of Homo sapiens. This is a process that began around thirty-nine million years ago in an Asian species of prosimian that underwent a contraction in the base of its skull and a declination of its brain stem. This produced the first degree of neural straightening and cranio-facial contraction in the simians. Twenty-three million years ago, at least one African species of small gibbon-like simians underwent further contraction and declination. This produced the second degree of neural straightening. The embryonic dorsal cord was almost vertical among many species of great apes, remaining so until adulthood. This was presumably the case, at least, with respect to Australopithecus (4.5–1.977 mya).43 Thereafter the process accelerated, at an unprecedented rate. The lowered cerebellum and straightened brain stem is that of Homo sapiens, which Linnaeus named in 1758 and which emerged in East Africa 160,000 years ago. The evolutionary trajectory follows the straightening of the dorsal cord, but during the first stages of verticalization there was no dramatic accompanying increase in brain volume. Cranial volume is thus no longer the benchmark, or rubicon. The benchmark is, in fact, the straightening of the skull base.
***
The trajectory of evolution from the first primates to Homo sapiens is defined by the increasing complexity of the nervous system. But this process was not gradual and not limited to the cerebral hemispheres. Neural embryogenesis increased in complexity, while the supporting tissues that would become the skeleton were transformed. Hence the thresholds and angular discontinuities. This is the process at the origin of neural straightening, in particular that of the cerebellum.
***
Considering the relevant parameters, it appears that Homo embryogenesis could not have been derived from australopithecine embryogenesis:
The earliest angular values of the embryonic contraction (the accordion phase) of the Homo base are identical with those of australopithecines.
As can be seen in Paranthropus, further evolution of the australopithecine skull base occurred 1.8 million years ago (mya), separately, in eastern Africa (Paranthropus boisei) and South Africa (Paranthropus robustus), exhibiting a maximal embryonic accordion-like compression.
The Homo and sapiens embryonic thresholds are separated by at least 3 million years.
***
In Homo sapiens, the connections between the cerebellar and cerebral neocortex are known, and it appears they participate in high-level cognitive functions, for example memory, dexterity, language, and reflection. Gestures such as walking and grasping become conscious with psychomotor development.
The great novelty here is the sudden change in posture of the cerebellum, and a new neuronal complexity; the cerebellum had to control its own balance.
Comment: this article presents that preparation for H. sapiens began over 23 million years ago in the base of the skull. I note another area of research in my book, The Atheist Delusion , on page 258 which notes lumbar vertebral changes in a monkey 23 million years ago in preparation for upright posture. Pre-planning. God in control.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE: teleonomy
by David Turell , Friday, April 05, 2024, 18:09 (230 days ago) @ David Turell
Natural purpose proposed in a book:
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262546409/evolution-on-purpose/
"A unique exploration of teleonomy—also known as “evolved purposiveness”—as a major influence in evolution by a broad range of specialists in biology and the philosophy of science.
"The evolved purposiveness of living systems, termed “teleonomy” by chronobiologist Colin Pittendrigh, has been both a major outcome and causal factor in the history of life on Earth. Many theorists have appreciated this over the years, going back to Lamarck and even Darwin in the nineteenth century. In the mid-twentieth century, however, the complex, dynamic process of evolution was simplified into the one-way, bottom-up, single gene-centered paradigm widely known as the modern synthesis. In Evolution “On Purpose,” edited by Peter A. Corning, Stuart A. Kauffman, Denis Noble, James A. Shapiro, Richard I. Vane-Wright, and Addy Pross, some twenty theorists attempt to modify this reductive approach by exploring in depth the different ways in which living systems have themselves shaped the course of evolution.
"Evolution “On Purpose” puts forward a more inclusive theoretical synthesis that goes far beyond the underlying principles and assumptions of the modern synthesis to accommodate work since the 1950s in molecular genetics, developmental biology, epigenetic inheritance, genomics, multilevel selection, niche construction, physiology, behavior, biosemiotics, chemical reaction theory, and other fields. In the view of the authors, active biological processes are responsible for the direction and the rate of evolution. Essays in this collection grapple with topics from the two-way “read-write” genome to cognition and decision-making in plants to the niche-construction activities of many organisms to the self-making evolution of humankind. As this collection compellingly shows, and as bacterial geneticist James Shapiro emphasizes, “The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable.”
ID's answer:
https://evolutionnews.org/2024/04/design-without-a-designer-new-book-says-yes/
"Teleonomy is “internal teleology” — goal-directedness that comes from within a system, not from outside. Under this theory, there need be no God (or aliens, or Platonic or Aristotelian forms, or anything of the sort) guiding the development of living systems; the living systems themselves set the goals.
***
"Corning is saying that all sorts of evolutionary theories contain the hidden assumption of purposiveness, i.e., design. This is an important admission, since it’s what ID theorists have been saying.
"Of course, he differs on where this design comes from. But it’s worth noting that the thesis of teleonomy implicitly acknowledges the validity of the design inference. If you can infer design in nature, you can infer design in nature. Period. Then you can decide whether it comes from within or from without.
"That means that if the teleonomic explanation (“living systems actively shape their own evolution”) doesn’t hold up, the old alternative hypothesis will be there, waiting.
***
"...teleonomy is “not simply a product of natural selection. It is also an important cause of natural selection and has been a major shaping influence over time in biological evolution.” Conversely, natural selection “has been both a cause of this purposiveness and an outcome.”
"This is not, in itself, illogical. You could have two forces at work — purpose and natural selection — that synergistically encourage each other, in a sort of positive feedback loop. But then, you still have to explain how the feedback loop got started.
***
"The problem with this explanation is not that it is false. As it happens, it is quite true. The problem is that it fails to explain. It does not answer the question that was really being asked.
"Likewise, “teleonomy” fails to explain. The design of nature requires an explanation, an ultimate explanation. Rather than explain, invoking “teleonomy” just dodges the question. If we say that natural selection and random variation cannot explain something, evolutionary biologists can say, “Well, it’s not random variation, it’s goal-oriented.” If we ask where the goal-oriented-ness itself came from, they will say “natural selection.” The question returns to where it began; a final cause for the existence of design in nature has yet to be proposed."
Comment: good old Shapiro is back. Long ago we concluded natural selection is passive. Now suddenly with wishful thinking it is active again. As humans, who plan with purpose, we know a mind must be involved to plan the demonstrated intricacies of living biochemistry!
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
by BBella , Saturday, December 05, 2015, 22:02 (3274 days ago) @ dhw
Nobody has to eat anybody. Meat-eating is not essential to life. I've often wondered why your God would deliberately have invented the sheer horror of carnivorousness. -I wondered the same. ->I'm not sure that dinosaurs would agree with your criteria for ”improvement” or indeed how they served the purpose of providing a food supply for humans since we weren't around at the time.-There are ancient pictographs and rock glyph's showing man coexisting with dinosaurs.->But perhaps you are assuming that a leg of lamb is more nourishing than a leg of brontosaurus.
EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE
by David Turell , Saturday, December 05, 2015, 22:36 (3274 days ago) @ BBella
> Bbella: There are ancient pictographs and rock glyph's showing man coexisting with dinosaurs.-Where? Do you have pictures?