Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 29, 2020, 19:43 (1758 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw: We are not trying to explain why organisms remain the same! We are trying to explain why they do change when they change! Proposal: some must change if they are to survive; others may make use of new conditions to improve their chances of survival. Hence both adaptation and innovation. Why do you object to this?

DAVID: The bold is your problem. It is not the threatened ones that are at issue (see my statements above), it is the ones that that are changed for no good reason. What pushes them, if anything? God, yes!

dhw: I have just given you a good reason: they use the opportunity to improve their chances of survival! Obviously this is your problem: you refuse to accept the importance of survival as a drive for evolution.

DAVID: I don't refuse to accept that organisms when challenged need to adapt or go extinct. With no stress, why should any change?

dhw: I‘ve just told you – to improve their chances of survival.

DAVID: You have again insisted organisms can foresee future needs or abilities they currently do not have and create advances.

dhw: Again you simply refuse to read what I write. You have even quoted what follows. But I’ll put it in bold in the hope that you will notice it.

dhw: I keep telling you that my theory does NOT involve advance changes or foreseeing trouble ahead. I’ve bolded it for you, and next time I’ll capitalize it AND bold it.
And so I will. MY THEORY DOES NOT INVOLVE FORESEEING FUTURE NEEDS. MY THEORY IS THAT ORGANISMS ARE INTELLIGENT AND RESPOND TO NEW CONDITIONS. THEY DO NOT FORESEE THEM. AND SOME ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO ADAPT, AND SOME ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO FIND WAYS OF EXPLOITING THE NEW CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THEIR CHANCES OF SURVIVAL.

DAVID: Wow! Don't you realize 'motivation' requires a thinking mind?

dhw: Of course it does (though not a human-type mind). Haven’t you realized that for years now I have been proposing the theory of cellular intelligence (possibly invented by your God) as the driving force behind innovation – as also advocated by James A. Shapiro with his theory of “natural genetic engineering”?

DAVID: I know. Bacteria can do it without becoming new species. and God gave them the abilities.

dhw: I have no problem with the argument that these abilities are so complex that they may have been designed by your God. My problem is with your fixed belief that even bacteria have been preprogrammed with all the answers to all the problems they will face throughout evolution, and I propose that their intelligence is autonomous, and I propose that if single cells can have autonomous intelligence, then so can multicellular organisms, and maybe their collective intelligences are intelligent enough to produce evolutionary innovations for the sake of survival or of IMPROVING their chances of survival IN RESPONSE TO but not in advance of changing conditions. Please forgive me for all the emphasis and repetition, but I’m only trying to avoid future repetitions!:-|

Thank you for the clarification. Only current challenges can fit your theory. Not the future which has always been my point.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum