More about how evolution works: multicellularity (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, November 04, 2016, 12:55 (2939 days ago) @ dhw

Part Two

dhw: My proposal is that evolution is powered by need AND the desire (drive) for improvement.
DAVID: I'll pick you apart. Why should bacteria have a desire for improvement. They are built to survive anywhere in any form of stress. They don't need improvement to multicellularity.

It only takes two to tango. Any species that is successful will stay as it is, but it only requires the odd individual exception to start something new. Some – not ALL - single cells merged to begin the process of multicellularity. It was successful. Some – not ALL - individual fish left the water and set off a process leading to land animals. If you believe in common descent, EVERY innovation took place in some – not ALL – existing individuals and led to new species.

dhw: The purpose I “admit to” is need for survival AND the desire for improvement (possibly God-given), which explains multicellularity AND the vast range of innovations and natural wonders that constitute the history of life on Earth, including humans.
DAVID: Desire is an emotion. On the part of single-celled animals? Oh, I forgot, they are sentient, which means they receive stimuli and have the ability to edit their DNA. That is all Shapiro says. Find anything else in his book. I can't. The desire is God's.

It was you who introduced the word “desire”, and I suspected there was an ulterior motive, which is why I put “drive” in brackets (see the first quote above). No, I do not believe bacteria are filled with human emotions, and of course Shapiro doesn’t say they are. Not even you will deny that bacteria have a drive for survival, and if your God can implant that drive, he can also implant a drive for improvement, as implemented by the innovative intelligence of individual organisms.

Xxxxxx

DAVID: Massimo Pigliucci takes on Wagner and disagrees with his Platonic approach:

http://nautil.us/blog/the-neo_platonic-argument-for-evolution-couldnt-be-more-wrong

David’s comment: Wagner may well by off on a wild tear, but Pigliucci's reliance on the power of natural selection is also off the rails. Natural selections sits passively waiting for innovation. We still don't know how that happens, or why it happens, if there is no need for innovation as in the jump from bacteria to multicellularity.

For once we are in agreement! Pigliucci also takes random mutations for granted as the cause of innovation. You need a lot of faith to believe that.