Genome complexity; epigenetics: Lamarck is back (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, June 02, 2016, 12:49 (3098 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: "Even outside of evolutionary biology, some of the most influential thinkers and writers in biology and cognitive science today have adopted the Weismannian view that living organisms are essentially passive, made of dumb and inert mechanical parts.”
Dhw: This is also your own theistic view when you revert to your theory of divine preprogramming. According to that, all the “parts” can do is passively obey the instructions laid down for them by your God 3.8 billion years ago, or let themselves be dabbled with.-DAVID: That is not a problem for me, but it is for you. My problem with that assumption is I can't discern how God controls evolution whether by pre-programming, or dabbling or both, but I'm content that He is in control.-Once again you are turning your back on the “free mechanism” you had accepted on Monday 30 May. However, all this highlights a basic contradiction in the essay you quoted: the author stated that Lamarck was dangerous in his time because his “description of evolution as resulting from living organism's own agency threatened God's monopoly on creation.” And yet he goes on to say that Darwinists and now neo-Darwinists (atheists) like Dawkins have tried to eradicate Lamarckism! As I see it, Lamarckism would actually help the atheist cause by adding purposeful change to random mutations, and so I can only assume that the opposition is purely scientific (lack of evidence) rather than agenda-driven. But since you say the subject creates problems for atheists, perhaps you can tell us their other objections. On the other hand, Lamarckism does not exclude the existence of God as the maker of the inventive mechanism, but it does create a challenge to your preprogramming theory. Epigenetics seems to be the new form of Lamarckism, and even you admit you don't know how far the process might extend - but that doesn't matter to you, because you are content that God either preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation.
 
dhw: Your bold is not the crux of our discussion, because my hypothesis that evolution develops through the “agency” of the organisms themselves is NOT a means of eliminating the designer. It explains the higgledy-piggledy bush, and is an alternative to your hypothesis […].
DAVID: Of course, your analysis is excellent, IF organisms can develop the evolutionary agency on their own. In my view they can't as in the essay. But my complexification theory explains the bush also, because it is a variation on your theme.-Your swift reversion to your God programming every complexity is not a variation on my theme at all. It is the exact opposite. All you are now saying is that the bush is higgledy-piggledy because God deliberately preprogrammed or dabbled every twig (just for the sake of complexity). I am saying it is higgledy-piggledy because (theistic version) God gave organisms the freedom to create their own complexities.