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

by dhw, Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 17:42 (3083 days ago) @ David Turell

I am juxtaposing sections of our latest exchange in order to try and clarify the arguments. -dhw: 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.-DAVID: Yes!-dhw: 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.
DAVID: This fits my idea that a complexification mechanism is at work with an h-p of hominids as you suggest.-So 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with a multichoice programme of palates and epiglottises (your complexification mechanism) to be passed down to all the pre-humans, and some chose one type and became homo erectus, and others chose another type and became Neanderthal. Homo sap picked the right one, and bingo he talked like us, and the rest died out. (Though maybe God told him which one was the lucky ticket.) This sort of lottery was built into the first cells to cover every single innovation and natural wonder throughout the entire history of evolution, except when God dabbled. Is that still correct? -My alternative was: "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."-DAVID: The book, The Ape That Spoke, gives answers. H. erectus had a slightly arched palate and is thought to have been able to grunt a few words, but primarily used gestures, etc. Neanderthals have a weak apelike chin and not much arch to the palate, which suggests that could not have the clear and rapid speech we have. -Thank you. “Thought to have” and “suggests” is nice and vague. I can't help wondering why your God would have preprogrammed these different choices 3.8 billion years ago when he only wanted homo sap.
 
DAVID: Once again we are different in kind, the result of complex planning of many anatomic changes. We are still left with not knowing whether God dabbles or a planning module is on-board.-All these hominins had larynxes and epiglottises, not to mention eyes, legs, hearts, brains. What is different in “kind” between an arched palate and a more arched palate? How do we know that less clear and rapid (unproven anyway) is different “in kind” from more clear and rapid? And we are still left not knowing whether God dabbles, there is a multiple choice programme on board for every possible innovation, or cell communities have their own means of reorganizing themselves both adaptively and inventively. Please don't forget the third of the multiple choices!-dhw: 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!
DAVID: Not separate, but perhaps a different genome layer than has been discovered. Note today's entry about gene drives, which are artificial DNA sections that can be put into living DNA to change a species. Is it possible this exists in life, but not found as yet: -https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gene-drives-spread-their-wings-Too technical for me, I'm afraid, but my point is that if the inventive mechanism is situated in the genome, it is still integral to the cell community, and evolutionary innovation is only possible if the different cell communities cooperate.-dhw: 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.DAVID: Just to make it sound like a very separate area of the genome layers.-An inventive mechanism can also be a separate area.-DAVID: The inventions that come from biomimetics research (example, Velcro) refutes your conflation of cell intelligence with really having the intelligent planning required.-I don't follow. If it takes human intelligence to copy the work of natural organisms, how does that prove that natural organisms do not have intelligence? I'm not saying the burr is another Einstein, but I would not discount cellular intelligence even in plants.