Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them? (Animals)

by dhw, Sunday, December 13, 2015, 15:24 (3267 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: ...I have no idea how God guided evolution, but I'm sure he did.
dhw: That still doesn't explain why he would “guide” the weaverbird to build its weird nest, or why he would “guide” other organisms extant or extinct to do equally weird and wonderful things.... -DAVID: I'm not the only one. The book: Nature's I.Q., extraordinary animal behaviors that defy evolution , 2009, has more than 100 examples. The authors, who believe in ID, (one is a theologian) use the weaver bird. They demonstrate the intricate types of weaving knots the birds use. They point to the obvious, only a complete nest is useful and therefore the nest was not developed stepwise. They conclude, since all nests are exactly the same for each type of weaver: "they simply obey a series of instincts programmed into them. They are unable to revise or modify the 'program'."-The problem is not what happens once an invention proves successful. We do not seek to revise or modify the programme that runs our heart, eyes, liver, digestion system etc. Once the proto-nest was built and approved of by natural selection (it obviously worked for the weaverbird), there would be no reason for it to change unless it was confronted with new challenges. Why was it built in the first place? No idea. Ask a weaverbird. Why did God do it if all he wanted was to create humans? I shouldn't ask.
 
DAVID: Always the two, 'how' and 'why'. Note again, you want to know 'why'. They don't care about 'why', but the simple observation of such events indicate to them and me intelligent planning did it. There is no other explanation, so why ask why? The 'how' answer is obvious.-I agree that intelligence did it, but the question of preprogramming/dabbling versus autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) has been our dispute all along. And it is not the design argument that I am challenging, but your anthropocentric theology, which not surprisingly the authors of the book apparently do not deal with. 
 
DAVID: It occurs to me that if you would delve deeper, see the intricacy of the knots, instead of superficially looking at pictures of the nests, you would better understand the point of view. I have brought you all sorts of information to support my point of view, but my submissions and discussions are much more superficial than if you did your own study. I know how busy you are, but!-I really and truly don't have the time or desire to go off and study weaverbirds' nests, but they are only one example of the great chasm between the argument for design and the argument for your anthropocentric ”arrow of purpose”, which under “A new synthesis” you admit you “do not fully understand” , which I would phrase as “it doesn't make sense”.
 
I listened to the Noble lecture, which reaffirms our own long-held scepticism towards random mutations and gradualism, and the importance of epigenetic processes which you have frequently highlighted for us and which fit in nicely with an autonomous inventive mechanism. However, he says: “The genome is an 'organ' of the cell not its dictator. Control is distributed.” This runs contrary to your belief that any controlling mechanism has to be in the genome (I have always bowed to your superior knowledge of these matters). I also noted Noble's admiration for McClintock and Shapiro - two champions of the concept of cellular intelligence.