More miscellany Parts One & Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, August 17, 2024, 08:51 (30 days ago) @ David Turell

“De novo” (The Cambrian)

dhw: […] We only know of the gaps. What filled them is unknown.

DAVID: Yep, unknown, and destroying Darwin's step by step proposals.

dhw: We have long since agreed that he was wrong to insist that nature never “jumps”, although there is no doubt that much of evolution was a gradual process, as organs and organisms complexified. The eye and the brain are good examples.

DAVID: The eye and brain are not good examples. Cambrian eyes are really de novo as are their brains.

Even that is questionable, but I'm referring to the gradual development of eyes and brains from the first “primitive” forms to those of today.

99.9% versus 0.1%

DAVID: Please admit without the 99.9% the 0.1% would not exist.

dhw: Of course mathematically you can’t have 0.1% of survivors without the 99.9% of non-survivors, but that does not mean that the 99.9% were the ancestors of the 0.1%, ...But evolution is a fact, and so if God exists, maybe he had a different purpose and/or method than the imperfect, inefficient, schizophrenic one you impose on him.

DAVID: What does the bold mean? Then two parts of the sentence conflict.

You can’t have a percentage of anything without the existence of something else that makes up the 100! If more species had survived, the percentages would have been different, and if God had created us “de novo” (see "Cambrian"), we would have been the 100%. The 99.9% were NOT essential for the purpose you impose on your God, which is why your theory of evolution makes him ridiculously inefficient.

Insect gap

DAVID: […] All of ID theory is information must be supplied from outside the system. Your obvious lack of understanding how complex living biochemistry happened to be causes your attitude.

dhw: ID has become synonymous with the notion of God the designer, and so of course he is outside the system he created. But whether he exists or not, if intelligent cells do their own designing, then the designing will have been done from inside the system. Your prejudice against Shapiro’s theory and your adherence to your own schizophrenic beliefs “cause your attitude”.

No answer.

Shapiro redux: slight praise for ID

QUOTE: "The ID argument has a valid point with regard to the explanatory limits of neo-Darwinism, still widely regarded as the only legitimate scientific explanation of evolution. ID falls down by assuming (as do mainstream evolutionists) that genome change occurs from outside the boundaries of life itself.”

An excellent summary. It’s a pity ID confines design to God when Shapiro has offered an alternative that breaks open the limits of neo-Darwinism with a rational explanation of evolution which could be theistic or atheistic.

Plant controls (now “cellular intelligence”)

dhw: Whether that intelligence is powerful enough IN SOME SPECIES to allow for further speciation is a moot point, but that is why I say you are on the verge of accepting Shapiro’s theory. Acknowledgement of intelligence is a very big step in that direction. So too is acknowledgement that there are different degrees of intelligence. Some cell communities cannot go beyond devising means of survival. Comparatively few will be able to innovate. We can see an analogy in humans: not many of us have creative, innovative intelligence. But it only takes a few to create whole new industries/species.

dhw: For some reason, you omitted this important point.

DAVID: I find it a fine description of your view.

And you seem to have no reason for rejecting it.

The origin of a nervous system

QUOTE: "It seems that animals were able to cobble together a functioning nervous system very early in their evolution simply because most of the necessary proteins were already there.'"

dhw: If cell communities (animals) were able to cobble a nervous system together very early in evolution, it suggests that in due course they would have been able to “cobble together” all the innovations that have led to current species.

DAVID: More wishful thinking.

dhw: You simply cannot understand that although you yourself “first choose a God I wish to believe in”, my own agnostic approach is to examine all possible explanations. I do not have wishes. It is your wishes that prejudice you against Shapiro and that lead you into the maze of contradictions that you yourself label “schizophrenic”.

DAVID: No matter how many studies exist, we still do not know how speciation happens.

Correct. So isn’t it time you opened your mind to possible alternatives to your schizophrenic conclusions?

The brain: prewiring systems

DAVID: the early brain is prewired to be prepared for the necessary complexification that comes with new learned experiences. This can only mean the design was made in anticipation of the new requirements. Only a thinking mind can design in anticipation of new requirements.

You have agreed that complexification happens without your God’s intervention. If he exists, he would not have prewired brains to write symphonies, design motor cars, or fly to the moon. The prewiring provides us, and would also have provided our ancestors, with the ABILITY to create and meet new requirements. No crystal ball required, as you have already agreed.