First multicellularity: algae (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, May 15, 2016, 18:19 (3112 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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.
DAVID: Big mistake in understanding my thought: Complexity refers only to structure of organisms, not their inventions like the nest. That is life-style. - The mistake is yours, I'm afraid. This part of our disagreement does not concern complexity but the ability of organisms to organize their own innovations (structures), lifestyles and natural wonders, as opposed to their being “guided”. But by all means add complexifications to that list if you wish.
 
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”.
DAVID: This one is correct. Object to Mr. Weaver all you want. - It is the dislocation between the arguments (which you have left out) that I was drawing attention to. God guiding the weaverbird has nothing to do with the intention to produce/feed humans, and the fact that all surviving organisms must have something to eat is another non sequitur, since humans do not need to eat the weaverbird's nest. - 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?
DAVID: The atheists are seeing epigenetic modifications and are struggling with accepting it. - Accepting what? Do even your fellow theist researchers accept your theory that God implanted the first cells with instructions to enable bacteria to cope with every single problem for the next 3.8 billion years and onwards? - 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…
DAVID: I agree, and who do you think gave such purposeful behavior (life-style) to them? […] - I have said explicitly that for the sake of argument I accept your premise that God gave it to them, because this discussion concerns how evolution works. Not did God do it or not, but did God guide organisms, or did he give them the means to guide themselves? - dhw: But this [the drive to complexity] does not explain why God “guided” the weaverbird to build its nest (one example among millions) as part of his plan to produce humans. 
DAVID: 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. - But you have always insisted that God had to guide it, and THAT is the problem we started out with. If the bird has the intelligence to design something so complex, where can you draw the line? Maybe all other natural wonders and lifestyles are also the product of organisms' intelligence. And if they are THAT intelligent, maybe their cell communities are intelligent enough to produce their own evolutionary (structural) innovations or complexifications. The nest is the start of the slippery slope towards God giving organisms the means (intelligence) to innovate autonomously, thus creating the higgledy-piggledy bush. - DAVID: A drive to complexity is a force, not an intellectual choice. Evolution is driven. - But according to you evolution is driven with God's guidance at every step, and according to my hypothesis, it is driven from within by the organisms themselves: a drive for survival, and a drive for improvement. I still see no point in complexity for its own sake, but in the context of autonomy versus “guidance”, it makes no difference. If your drive to complexity is “free-ranging”, as you suggest in your protozoa post, you now appear to agree that organisms organize their own complexities (innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders) except when God dabbles. However…… - dhw: Your Theory Two: he doesn't guide them because they act independently of his plans and instructions.
DAVID: In theory two you are the one creating confusion. God is in control, period! - But when I pointed out that your “inventive process of life” seemed to work independently of your God's plans and instructions, you said that was correct. If it is, then God deliberately sacrificed his control (though he could dabble when he wanted to). Perhaps you didn't mean to endorse my interpretation, so let's pose the question directly: do you believe God “guided” every innovation (structural change), lifestyle (the monarch's migratory pattern) and natural wonder (the weaverbird's nest) - all are complex in their different ways - or do you believe he gave organisms the ability to organize their own “free-ranging” complexities independently of any plans and instructions, other than when he dabbled?