More miscellany Parts One & Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, September 18, 2024, 14:27 (64 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: First means first. The designing mind in uncaused.

dhw: Or infinite combinations of matter eventually produce primitive forms of life which evolve.

DAVID: What types of matter causes them to combine in the first place? What made those types? Nebulous as usual.

dhw: First means first. Energy and matter are “uncaused”. What type of anything causes the existence of a supreme form of consciousness? What made this mind? Nebulous as usual. Can’t you see that each of the alternative “first causes” poses questions that are equally impossible to answer?

DAVID: See today's entry on matter theoretically becoming purposeful.

Theoretical origin of life

QUOTES: In the sciences, adaptive function refers to an organism’s capacity to biologically change, evolve or, put another way, solve problems

At some point in the Universe’s history, matter became purposeful. It became organised in a way that allowed it to adapt to its immediate environment.

The second quote shows that “problem solving” tells us absolutely nothing about the origin of life. The question is how matter became purposeful and intelligent enough, not only to solve problems but also to reproduce itself, become conscious of its environment, change its own structures etc.

DAVID: I view this as the anything but God/mind approach. Obviously a designing mind is necessary to explain life's origin. Note my bolds showing the need for information handling. Life builds a library of necessary information which it uses.

It’s not life that builds the library but living organisms, i.e. intelligent cell communities. If your uncaused God exists, he would have designed them. If he doesn’t exist, then we are back to uncaused energy and matter, which is no less nebulous than uncaused consciousness.

Earthworm DNA is weird

QUOTE: "They suspect the worm's genomes scrambled in response to shifts into new habitats, but have yet to determine which came first, the worm's ventures into freshwater and land or their genes' adventures into new positions in their genetic molecules (chromosomes).”

dhw: Common sense suggests to me that just as bacteria are able to edit their DNA in response to new conditions, the worm did the same.

DAVID: Your sense is not common, or the experts would not be puzzled.

dhw: They suspect that this is the case, and I have no idea why you are so resolutely opposed to it.

DAVID: It is an extension of Shapiro's theory, which can happen factually only in bacteria.

It is not a “fact” that it can happen only in bacteria. That is your subjective wish and/or opinion.

And under “plate tectonics”
DAVID: Speciation is a major form of adaptation, and no one knows how it happens. Cells don't/can't form now major designs.

dhw: Since no one knows how it happens, how can you know that it DOESN’T happen Shapiro’s way?

DAVID: NO EVIDENCE. Do you have some?

How many more times? If species have the autonomous ability to adapt, it is not unreasonable to theorize that this ability might extend to innovation, as per Shapiro. See also the next item:

Intracellular communication

QUOTE; How can RNA from one branch of the tree of life be understood by organisms on another? It’s a common language, Buck said. RNA has most likely been around since the very beginning of life.

dhw: The ability of cells to communicate is, of course, a fundamental feature of the intelligence which would enable cell communities to make changes to themselves as they respond to new conditions. We know that these changes take place as adaptations, and there is no reason to suppose that they might not also extend to the innovations that result in new species.

DAVID: All theoretical.

As is your theory that there is an unknown, sourceless, conscious being who personally programmed or dabble every single species, not to mention every single lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. of the past, present and future.

The brain: profound changes in pregnancy

QUOTES: "The breakthrough is based on the neurological changes of one first-time mother, who had snapshots of her brain taken before, during, and after pregnancy.”

"As the pregnancy advanced, researchers noticed a widespread shrinking of gray matter, which is the brain tissue that includes the bodies of neurons.”

“How these brain changes relate to behavioral changes is unknown.”

DAVID: this process presents an interesting question. It is purposeful preparation for a future event, caring for a newborn. Chance evolution, as Darwin proposed can't possibly produce this result. Only a designing mind could.

We know that all kinds of experiences result in brain changes, so it’s hardly surprising that the arrival of a new body inside the mother’s body would do the same. But the changes are not preparation for a future event – they are responses to an on-going present event: see the first two quotes. If you must bring in your usual swipe at Darwin (though I agree that such processes are not by chance), then I will bring in my usual reference to Shapiro: here we have a prime example of cell communities responding intelligently to new conditions.