Bacterial motors carefully studied (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, April 02, 2016, 13:30 (3157 days ago) @ David Turell

David's comment: How is a natural process of evolution able to invent such complex solutions better than thinking humans seem able to do? Possibly a better mind behind it all.
dhw: Not necessarily a better mind, but perhaps different minds. .....Yes, we've been over this again and again, but so long as you revert to your favourite divine "pre-planning concept", I will revert to my alternative! It's called an “agnostic balance of nature”.-DAVID: Yes, over again and again. I am incredulous that evolution can advance because the organisms are so inventive in and of themselves. This is why I constantly present newly-discovered amazing inventions of nanomachines, etc., and other anatomic structures. But I've run into your brick wall. You are convinced that such complexities can be easily invented by the organisms themselves. I'm convinced it ain't so easy! Denton is like you. He wants 'laws of nature' to do it. Each of you agnostics look for 'outs'. And then you give the opinion Denton hasn't added anything! But neither have you. I'm sure you like answers just as I do. You just won't take (faith) the logical one. Remember no proof is allowed!-By editing my post, you have subtly changed the subject, so let me restore the section you left out, which refers to your God's 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder throughout the history of evolution: 
Dhw: “I find it hard to imagine a less “easy” method than the programme described above. If you want an “easier method”, and discounting the ability of blind chance to produce such complex mechanisms, individual inventive intelligences - perhaps originally created by your God and left to do their OWN thing for their OWN purposes - will fit the bill.” (My new bold)-The discussion concerns how evolution works. This has absolutely nothing to do with agnosticism. The alternative that I have presented to your preprogramming is that your God may have given organisms the intelligence to do their own inventing, and therefore pursue their own purposes. You surely won't deny your God's ability to invent such a mechanism, which although hypothetical at least has the feasibility granted by existing mechanisms for adaptation and by the claims of some scientists that cells are sentient, cognitive, intelligent beings. However, the hypothesis is anathema to you because it goes against your theory that God's evolutionary purpose was to produce or feed humans, although you freely admit that you don't know how the purpose and the history fit together. Of course there is no proof either way, but it is extremely naughty of you to pretend that my hypothesis is looking for an ‘out'. It is an explanation for the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, and it allows for your God. It just doesn't allow for your personal reading of your God's mind and evolutionary method.