Innovation (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, May 12, 2013, 18:35 (4012 days ago) @ David Turell

dhW: As you well know, I do not believe or disbelieve my panpsychist version, and you are quite right to be incredulous. But perhaps you could explain to me HOW ELSE your own version might work. The invention of new organs is linked, we believe, to random changes in the environment.
 
DAVID: Those inventions cannot be linked to random changes!!! That is the key issue between us. -Innovations are most likely triggered either by necessity (the organism must change in order to survive) or by experimentation (a new environment offers new opportunities). If your God did not preprogramme the changes in the environment, then the changes in the environment were random, and so the invention of new organs is linked to random changes in the environment! (One exclamation mark will do!) The invention itself is NOT random. The key issue between us is HOW innovations are created.
 
DAVID: The Cambrian had very complex preditors which chomped up complicated prey, that required differential digestion. Thus a liver had to be arranged to aid in that complex digestion. I apologize for not being this explicit in my goading you with the liver. I expected you to make a logical jump for which you don't have the background. The liver has to be designed specifically to fill this role. Trial and error would not have sufficed.
 
Nowhere have I even suggested trial and error (although of course error would automatically lead to individuals' non-survival). The example you have given perfectly illustrates how my alternative hypothesis works: the new (Cambrian) environment brought forth a multitude of new organisms, among which were some that chomped up others and needed a liver. The genome responded by creating a new combination of different cells. The "key issue" between us is how the genome came up with the design.-DAVID: It cannot work by itty-bitty advances. No matter how bright your imagined cells are, they could not conjure up a liver by cooperation. They had to have a whole outlined architectural plan in their DNA from the beginning.-1) From the beginning of what? Are you saying that God preprogrammed the liver into the very first forms of life, to pass on through billions of years and generations until the Cambrian? In that case, God must have preprogrammed EVERY innovation into the first forms of life. Is that what you believe? 2) Nowhere have I argued for itty-bitty advances. I accept punctuated equilibrium and organs de novo. So once again, let me ask you: if your God did NOT preprogramme the liver from the beginning of life but had to intervene: "Does his infinite intelligence hone in telekinetically on the chosen few, or does he take them to his great lab in the sky, or merely say "Let there be livers..."? (My question is serious.)-DAVID: More than likely livers are entirely and carefully planned.-That is not an answer. I'm asking how it works physically. And I will offer you a possible answer in accordance with your divine scenario: God has implanted in the genome the ability to invent new organs to cope with or exploit changes in the environment. The genome gives out its instructions to the cells, which cooperate, as instructed, to build the liver. Do you have any objections to this explanation? If you believe that God implanted the actual programme for the liver in the genome (as opposed to the ability to do the designing), WHEN and HOW do you think he did so?-As regards your various Darwin quotes, here's another for your armoury: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." We long, long, long ago agreed that he was wrong. But unlike Darwin himself, we need to separate his "theory" into several theories, and consider each one on its merits and in accordance with the findings of modern science. So please can we finally drop the subject of gradualism. That particular theory is not an issue between us.-dhw: Evolution therefore progresses in accordance with how these intelligences respond to environmental conditions, either adapting or innovating through cooperation. Hence the bush, which grows as and when these intelligences come up with their innovations. Neither by chance nor by central organization.-DAVID: I've explained how wrong this statement has to be.-You have explained that the invention of new organs is not linked to random changes in the environment (disagree), that such organs have to be specifically designed (agree), that they cannot come into being gradually (agree), that the genome is the mechanism with the plan (agree), and that only God could provide the necessary organization (judgement suspended).