First multicellularity: algae (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, May 14, 2016, 15:02 (3113 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: As these posts are getting longer and longer and increasingly repetitive, I am telescoping them and will try to bring the issues into sharper focus.
> For argument's sake, I have accepted that God may have started life and invented the mechanisms for evolution. There are, however, two points at issue between David and me: 1) David insists that organisms are incapable of organizing themselves. Prime example to illustrate all the problems: the weaverbird's nest.-Big mistake in understanding my thought: Complexity refers only to structure of organisms, not their inventions like the nest. That is life-style. Weaver has his nest, birds and insects, turtles and salmon migrate and frankly I'm more puzzled by the development of whales, mammals under water (!), which is well-explained by sticking with increasing structural complexity as part of evolution's driving force. Structure allows life-style which is a different kind of adaptation than phenotypical changes. Structure and life-style act as forces on each other. - 
> dhw: 2) David insists that God's purpose was to produce and feed humans....However, all the weird wonders create a balance in Nature, whereby all organisms that survive have something to eat. (I am reproducing the arguments. ..David believes evolution develops through a “drive to complexity”.-This one is correct. Object to Mr. Weaver all you want.
> 
> dhw: I have proposed an alternative: God set up the mechanism for evolution whereby organisms are capable of organizing themselves (the intelligent cell), and all the weird wonders are the consequence of their individual efforts to survive and/or improve (“drive for improvement”). -Here you accept God and purposeful mechanisms. Where is your agnosticism? We do see epigenetics which I think is certainly God-given and purposeful for adaptation. We now both have 'drives' which must be accepted as necessary. There remains no reason for the advance beyond bacteria-
> dhw:God may occasionally have dabbled. David objects because he believes all cellular behaviour is automatic, having been preprogrammed by God. That is the first point to be covered here: 
> 
> DAVID: God's instructions set up the chemical cascades and feedback loops. Those reactions are all automatic, following no instructions in present time.-You are conflating dabbling with automatic processes. Cells and simple organisms function automatically, but God dabbles at the life-style level with more complex organisms (whales) and at the course correction level of evolution: He pushed bacteria to develop multicellularity. I can't define the 'push'. It is currently undiscovered.
> 
> dhw: According to you, God has set up instructions (to cover a few billion years - “no instructions in present time”), Shapiro and Co. think Billy works out the solution for himself because he is intelligent. And where do you think an atheist researcher - there are bound to be a few - would believe the instructions (if any) came from?-The atheists are seeing epigenetic modifications and are struggling with accepting it.
> 
> DAVID: Your proposal that organisms try somehow to improve implies purposeful behavior. 
> 
> dhw: Of course. Do animals, birds, insects build their shelters, hunt their prey, flee their enemies without knowing what they're doing? This is the basis for speculating that their sense of purpose may go beyond that of survival. Some animals use tools to improve their chances of success. It's all purposeful behaviour.-I agree, and who do you think gave such purposeful behavior (life-style) to them? Or gave them the ability to develop it? You will suggest a nicely balanced God-given, or worked it out for themselves, balanced on the fence.-> dhw: But this does not explain why God “guided” the weaverbird to build its nest (one example among millions) as part of his plan to produce humans. -Again, you have pounced on a side event of life-style, not structure, which is what advances in evolution. How the bird domiciles is a secondary argument of how did the bird do it, make such a complex invention. Either he did it or God did it, take your choice, as you do.
> 
> dhw: in which case he must have given organisms the means to complexify of their own accord. Enter the intelligent cell. Thank you.-A drive to complexity is a force, not an intellectual choice. Evolution is driven.-> 
> dhw: Your Theory One: since organisms are incapable of organizing themselves, God personally “guided” all innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders to create a balance of Nature in order to produce/feed humans. Your Theory Two: he doesn't guide them because they act independently of his plans and instructions, > Am I the only one who finds this confusing?-In theory two you are the one creating confusion. God is in control, period!