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

by David Turell , Thursday, November 01, 2018, 17:31 (2215 days ago) @ dhw

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.)

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

dhw: No problem. If God exists and created the great spectacle, he could certainly interfere if he wanted to. “I’ve had enough of these damned dinosaurs. I’ll chuck an asteroid at ‘em an’ see what happens next.”

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.

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

TONY: Why is my statement limited to humans?

I didn’t think “we would be weak etc.”, meant you were identifying “us” with bacteria, dinosaurs or the duckbilled platypus.

DHW: 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.

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

dhw: With my theist’s hat on, I’ll settle for that. How much freedom/limitation is open to question, but my objection was to David’s hypothesis.

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!

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

dhw: You can’t “disprove” the hypothesis of common descent any more than you can "disprove" the hypothesis of separate creation until you actually know the truth about speciation! They both remain hypotheses. And I’m afraid your list of “issues” still doesn’t provide a single shred of evidence for your own hypothesis that a sourceless supermind produces species out of thin air.

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.

dhw: 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?

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

dhw: I was responding to your claim that stability was not "indicative" of Darwinian evolution or panpsychism. But I agree with your comment. That is why my hypothesis remains a hypothesis. There is no evidence for any of the theories relating to the origin of species, and that is why the debate continues.

DAVID: dhw uses a massive illogical extrapolation from observed intelligent responses by single cells which are automatically functioning every second to maintain the homeostasis of life. Life requires that cells are constantly functioning. Many of them keep on functioning, even after death, which is why we can transplant organs.

dhw: Of course most functions are automatic. Intelligence comes into play when there are problems to be solved. Those are the “observed intelligent responses”. And of course life requires cells to function! That does not mean they are not intelligent! But, as above, my hypothesis is a hypothesis, and remains as hypothetical as your own hypotheses.

What you skip over about 'observed intelligent responses' is I view those responses as continuous to keep life alive and therefor totally automatic, with no evidence that cellular intelligence can be stretched to design for future changes. Therefore the basis of your hypothesis fails from the beginning.