Junk DNA goodbye!: neutral DNA is shown as smaller (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, October 29, 2018, 16:51 (2000 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: Biological cooperation is central to my whole hypothesis. And I agree that natural selection, or “survival of the fittest” has no explanatory power if we are discussing how evolution progresses, because nature can only select from what already exists. However, you have raised a crucial point with your “chaotic nature of life and the random nature of misfortune”. This is a major problem if you want to discuss your God’s purpose for creating life. David’s anthropocentric view of life’s history hardly fits in with chaos and randomness, and so it raises the whole question of the extent to which his God remains in control of events and environmental changes. I don’t know your views on this. Was Chixculub, for instance, due to random chance, or do you think your God threw it at the dinosaurs?

I do not think that co-dependency and cooperation are the same thing. Co-dependency means that one can not function independently, while cooperation implies that each is independently successful, but becomes more successful by working with another. I think this difference is crucial a proper analysis of genetics because the 'chicken and egg' problems can not be wished away or magicked away by random chance.

There are a couple of interesting scriptures in the bible that refer to 'time and unforeseen circumstances', and there is also the concept of free will, and as well a concept of 'consequence of action'. So we have, at a minimum, three different vectors upon which, at least from a biblical context, God does not profess to assert control. It is also important to understand that the lack of assertion does not preclude the ability to assert control. The latter two are inextricably intertwined, and one can not be had without the other while still maintaining a sense of fairness and justice. The former, however, is a little harder to unpack.

As best I can reason, the idea is that chaotic events provoke opportunities to grow. This is not saying that such chaos is unavoidable, or that it can not be mitigated, but rather that it is absolutely necessary for life to exist and thrive. Without it we would be weak, lazy, complacent, ignorant, and frail. There is also the idea expressed that Jehovah is 'the one teaching you to benefit yourself', and that by 'keeping his commandments' you would be a long way ahead in avoiding the chaotic catastrophes of life. I have no way of knowing, nor does anyone else, whether or not Chixculub was God directed or not. Either is possible, and both sides of the argument have their merits. Yet, I can say with some degree of certainty that if Chiculub had not happened something else would have. Either atmospheric conditions would have changed, or the food supply would have ran short, or drought, or any number of other events would have eventually wiped out the dinosaurs as a dominant species.

TONY: All of the mad scrambling to recover from one fire after another about evolutionary theory should clue them in, but they see their marginal successes as grand victories, impressing themselves with their own cleverness, and become blind to the evidence in front of their eyes.

DHW: How many fires are you talking about in relation to evolutionary theory, i.e. the theory that all life is descended from a few forms or one? ... To be blind to evidence means the evidence is there, so (let me put on my atheist’s hat) please tell us what evidence there is for a sourceless supermind which produces species out of thin air.

To the first question: the fossil record, the genetic record, the complexity issue, the information origin issue, the abiogenesis issue, the speciation issue, the invention before selection issue, the co-dependency issue, the evolution of sex issue, the inter-species co-evolvement issue, etc. Pick one.

The answer to the second question is in the answers to the first.

TONY: It makes me sad, not angry, though it used to make me angry as well. If only they (research scientist) could ever set their ego aside, along with their own preconceived notions. I know DHW will likely chime in and say we all have our preconceived notions, including me, and he would be right. But a person can learn to let go of those.

DHW: A true and honest perception. Most of our discussions revolve around those preconceptions (or around notions which we have come to regard as more believable than others), but I would like to think that none of us are trying to impress the others with our own clever ego... But why would you be sad or angry at the suggestion that your God may have created a mechanism which enabled living organisms to diversify autonomously from the original few forms or one?

I think we all struggle with our ego, myself being no exception. That does not make me angry, though in all honesty the panpsychism answer does irritate me because the evidence for it is only overwhelming in that it is underwhelming. We have no evidence for panpsychism that can not be explained better by a more programmatic approach. However, there is also the case that could be made that the very stability of species over large scales of time is indicative of many things, but Darwinian evolution and panpsychism are not among them.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.