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

by dhw, Tuesday, June 14, 2016, 13:40 (3084 days ago) @ David Turell

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.
DAVID: 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.-My analogy concerns the manner in which non-human communities build complexities which require intelligent design. As we keep repeating, nobody knows the extent of cellular intelligence. As for the latest discoveries about Neanderthals, they once again highlight the problems of your focus on homo sapiens as your God's evolutionary purpose. The history of hominins suggests a higgledy-piggledy development, with natural selection deciding which should survive.
 
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.
DAVID: 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.-I don't understand your “no”. Whole animals are communities of cells. In my hypothesis, any innovation requires the cooperation of the cell communities that make up the single community we call an organism. I don't have a problem with the inventive mechanism being part of the genome, but you seem to be suggesting that the genome is separate from the cell or cell community!
 
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.
DAVID: No I haven't. […] 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.-I don't know why you have switched from “mechanism” to “module”, unless you think that module somehow justifies your concept of a divine computer programme. Nor do I know why you find cells/cell communities confusing, when you know as well as I do that the genome is part of the cell or of the organism, and that organisms are a community of cell communities.
 
dhw: How can onboard instructions offer a “free” alternative to preprogramming and dabbling?
DAVID: 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.-If organisms cannot do any planning, what you appear to be saying is that your God has preprogrammed the first living cells to pass on multiple choice responses to every stimulus throughout the history of life on Earth. Organisms then “turn on” the appropriate multiple choice programme when the appropriate conditions arise. Presumably, since you said the mechanism could be “free”, you envisage some cell communities saying to themselves: “Time to switch on Programme No. XYZ million and forty-two. Here are five options. I'll go for Number Three - high arched palate, dropped epiglottis etc.” Whereas other cell communities go for Number Two, and never get to talk like humans. Is this a fair summary of your hypothesis? If not, please correct any errors.-My own hypothesis - just to clarify the colossal differences - has the cell communities that make up a single organism reacting to stimuli by saying to themselves: “We have a new problem/opportunity. Let's work together to find a solution.” In the context of human language, the problem was to create new sounds in order to communicate the vastly expanded range of subject matter resulting from a new level of consciousness. The solution devised by some cell communities, using their own (possibly God-given) intelligence - embedded in their genome, if you like - was to change the structure of the larynx, epiglottis etc. Other organisms (cell communities) that did not have the same level of consciousness, remained as they were. Neanderthals, and perhaps other species of human as well, may have come up with their own new design - I don't know enough about the anatomies of earlier human species to detail any differences. Maybe our palaeontologists don't either.