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

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, October 31, 2018, 16:23 (2216 days ago) @ dhw

DHW:Co-dependency is Margulis’s theory of symbiosis, but that still requires cooperation. The body is a mass of symbiotic relationships requiring cooperation between the different cell communities.

This presents chicken and egg problems, as well as communication and planning problems in regards to intelligence.

TONY: […] 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.

DHW: With my theist’s hat on, I’m happy with this. Your God’s renunciation of control would explain the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, with its unpredictability adding interest to the spectacle. (This may irritate you, but it fits in with your views on control.)

I should amend to clarify that there are times when he asserts control, meaning that he is capable and has done so.

TONY: As best I can reason, the idea is that chaotic events provoke opportunities to grow.

This again fits in with the hypothesis that your God enjoys seeing change, which would include growth,

TONY: 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.

I don’t understand why you are confining your comments to humans. My questions concern the whole history of life.

Why is my statement limited to humans?

TONY: 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. […]

DHW: Agreed. The history of life is one of change, and your account seems to suggest your God let it run its own course rather than preprogramming or dabbling every change for the sake of the human brain, as proposed by David.

Degrees of Freedom, DHW, degrees of freedom. Freedom and variation within limits.

TONY: All of the mad scrambling to recover from one fire after another about evolutionary theory should clue them in, but they […] 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.

TONY: 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.

DHW: I’m sorry, but firstly the fact that there are issues over origins (which are not the subject of the theory) and over the means by which evolution progresses, does not disprove the theory that all life descended from one or a few forms. Even you have agreed that these were single cells. However, even more to the point, not one of these issues provides a shred of evidence that there is a sourceless supermind which produces species out of thin air. Issues are issues, not evidence!

Um... that makes no logical or scientific sense. A hypothesis is disproved by its failed predictions. Evolution has made lots of failed predictions.

TONY: 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.

Of course they are among them. Evolution proceeds in bursts (see Gould’s punctuated equilibrium). Darwinian evolution does not discount there being long periods of environmental stasis leading to long periods of stable species. Panpsychism endows all things with some form of mental ability. Why do you think it impossible for organisms to have mental abilities just because their species is stable for a long time?

I do not think it impossible. I think there is no evidence for the degree of intelligence you attribute to them.

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