Teleology & evolution: Stephen Talbott's take (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, June 13, 2016, 19:50 (3085 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: “Turning on” a “complexity mechanism” is what I call cell communities using their autonomous inventive mechanism or intelligence. Just as a community of ants can build a complex city, I am proposing that communities of cells can also build the complexities of evolutionary adaptations and innovations, such as high arched palate, dropped epiglottis etc. on their own initiative.-The human anatomic changes for speech are far more complex than a network of ant tunnels. If you want to compare to ants, use the level of anatomic changes in the ant bodies themselves. Your example is light years removed from what happened in human evolution. It now appears that Neanderthals have a portion of what humans have for speech, and there is no other in between species to take away the impression of an anatomic saltation to accommodate human speech, thus requiring exquisite planning.-> 
> dhw: I still don't see the point of your analogy. The cell doesn't enter itself and switch on a separate "module". The "module" (inventive/complexification mechanism) has to be part of the cell community.-No, it just has to be part of the genome for whole animals. We are discussing at different definitions. Your cell communities are whole animals, which is what I view in this discussion.
> 
> dhw:Your “complexity mechanism” is apparently nothing but the carrying-out of onboard instructions - which is no different from preprogramming. And yet on Tuesday 7 June, you agreed that an autonomous or “free” mechanism, creating its own innovations/complexifications with your God only dabbling AFTERWARDS to “correct problems”, was an acceptable alternative to your God being “hands on all the way along in evolution”. The latter hypothesis, you said, was “not as compatible with the h-p bush of life”. You have now rejected the alternative you accepted a week ago.-No I haven't. I'm in the middle of looking at reasonable theory and your comments help. We are never going to come to agreement with your agnostic position. A complexification module which can offer several complexities explains the h-p. It must be part of whole animal genomes, single cell or cell community discussions just confuse the issue.-> dhw: The IF is the extent of cellular intelligence. I have accepted the possibility that your God supplied the “mind” of the cells, and on 7 June you accepted the possibility that cells did their own autonomous inventing/complexifying, which requires such a mind. How can onboard instructions offer a “free” alternative to preprogramming and dabbling?-I am envisioning a complexity-planning layer of the whole animal genome which offers several solutions to noxious or inviting stimuli, thus producing an h-p bush. God can then step in to help if problem results turned up. The animals can turn it on, but they cannot do any planning themselves.