Life's biologic complexity: Automatic molecular actions (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, December 06, 2016, 16:24 (2909 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw: …You can’t explain why God didn’t start with humans. My hypothesis offers an explanation. So once more: please tell me what aspect of my hypothesis does NOT fit the facts of the history of evolution.

DAVID: You are correct. Your hypothesis fits the history. What I have done is to keep attacking your basic assumptions about cellular intelligence, based on a few hyperbolic statements by a few scientists, and your apparent lack of recognition of the need for precise planning in advance for the complexity I've demonstrated. Because it fits the history by no means shows it is anywhere near a correct possibility.

dhw: You are quite right to cast doubt on the question of just how inventive cellular intelligence might be. We don’t know. That is why it is NOT a basic assumption, but a hypothesis, .... For some reason you are always desperate to stress “planning in advance”, but as I keep pointing out, organisms react to the environment. The same applies both to adaptation and to innovation: until the environment demands or is suitable for change, the adaptation or invention cannot take place. We KNOW that organisms can change their genome in order to adapt. That is not advance planning, it is a reaction. What we don’t know is whether they can make the more complex changes involved in innovation. But it is a possibility that they can.

This is a basic point of mine you keep skipping: "your apparent lack of recognition of the need for precise planning in advance for the complexity I've demonstrated.' Because it fits the history by no means shows it is anywhere near a correct possibility. You almost never comment on my point about the whale series and the enormous physiologic alterations and phenotypical changes that are required for each next step in the eight or nine known. Each biologic gap is huge with no forms showing a tiny alteration, which cellular intelligence might be capable of creating. In evolution all we see is major gaps, which is why Gould and Eldridge invented their hypothesis of punc-enq. Your approach is entirely wishful thinking.

dhw:But an explanation that “fits the history” merits at least as much serious consideration as one that doesn’t.

When it doesn't recognize the true complexity of the gaps it is not a serious contender for logic.