autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, January 30, 2018, 17:58 (2487 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Then I see no point in your using terms like “semiautonomous” and “guidelines” when you stand by your preprogramming and/or dabbling hypothesis, which precludes any kind of autonomy. My own hypothesis does have specifics, namely that cells/cell communities are intelligent: we can observe them communicating, solving problems, taking decisions etc., which enable them to adapt to changing conditions. But we do not know if this intelligence can stretch as far as invention of new forms and functions (innovation), and so of course it remains a hypothetical explanation of speciation.

However, your inability to provide specifics does not end here. The reason why the weaverbird’s nest is my favourite example is that it throws the brightest possible light on the massive hole in your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution’s history. You now have God 100% responsible for tying the knots. How can this conceivably be motivated by the need to provide energy to keep life going for the purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens?

The answer to the first comment is God is in control by whatever means He needs to be for evolution to continue. The weaver bird is part of balance of nature which provides the energy for life to continue evolving through time. It took time to get to the human brain, which you acknowledge.