autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, March 11, 2018, 13:03 (2447 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Tony’s emphasis was on prototypes, and this article emphasizes convergence, and both ideas are consistent with Darwin’s theory that all the variations sprang from a few forms or one. That includes similar patterns evolving as well as different ones. Why you should equate this with God “guiding” evolution I really don’t know. These spiders adapted to their different environments by using different coloured camouflage. If God exists and did not preprogramme each colour scheme 3.8 billion years ago or do a personal dabble so that these different colour schemes would balance life to keep it going before he was able to fulfil his one and only purpose of producing the sapiens brain, then he must have given them the mechanism to do it themselves.

DAVID: I see it differently. If God used patterns and even gave organisms mechanisms, it makes his job of creating a huge diversity bush easier. I believe God guided evolution. You don't.

This depends on what you mean by “guided”. You now seem to regard his job as “creating a huge diversity bush”, which is a colossal switch from creating the brain of Homo sapiens – hitherto his one and only purpose. I am the one who suggests that if he exists, he actually WANTED a huge diversity bush, and I’m quite happy to accept Darwin’s proposal that this evolved from a few forms or one, which matches Tony’s and your own. Each twig, however, would not need “guidance” if he gave it an intelligent, AUTONOMOUS, inventive mechanism of its own – e.g. he did not have to design a particular nest, a particular camouflage, a particular migratory pattern etc. That is where your “guidance” goes way beyond my personal bounds of credulity, and of course my hypothesis leads precisely to him thus doing his “job” of creating a huge diversity bush.

DAVID: And I will stick to the point that intelligently planned responses by a designer is information contained in bacteria and ants, providing automatic responses to stimuli and changing conditions for those organisms. PAX.

dhw: It’s not a point, it’s a subjective opinion which you continually try to present as if it were a fact. I can no more disprove your subjective opinion than you can disprove that of the scientists who disagree with you. If you accept this, we can have pax.
DAVID: We disagree. You can't present them as fact either. PAX.

I always try to make it clear that my view, and that of my own expert witnesses, is a hypothesis not a fact. PAX, until you once again hone in on automatic molecular processes as the source of intelligence in bacteria but not in humans.