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

by David Turell , Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 20:09 (3083 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: This fits my idea that a complexification mechanism is at work with an h-p of hominids as you suggest.
> 
> dhw: So 3.8 billion years ago he provided the first cells with a multichoice programme ...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?-Awhile ago I proposed that evolution follows primary patterns. I think that fits. The concept of complexification then allows for inventions that branch out into several possibilities of complexity, at which point natural selection picks a winner. If a complex mechanism needs help to work properly, God dabbles. Not really multiple choice so much as multiple invention pathways, several of which can appear at the same time, presuming that such a complexity mechanism (module) is somewhere hidden in the layers of the genome.
> 
> 
> dhw: 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.-Because God uses evolution, not His direction, which allows for several pathways to a desired result.-> 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
> 
> dhw: 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.-It is not too technical to understand! Humans have demonstrated that driving genetic changes is possible. Ours are artificial, but natural ones may exist. That is what we have been discussing all along.
> 
> 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.-Yes, and an IM can be a CM (complexity)-> dhw: 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.-It doesn't take much intelligence to copy biomechanisms in nature, but my point is these natural mechanisms are gifts to us to use that we don't have the capacity to invent with our big brains. Why do you think cells without brains can do these amazing mechanisms? I know the answer: Shapiro's single-celled bacteria make meaningful responses to stimuli. Not the same level of inventive capacity!