Innovation (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, May 17, 2013, 14:39 (4007 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Because species appear de novo, genetics provides adaptation but NOT speciation.-dhw: If innovations are preprogrammed, the programme must be within the genome. Now, however, you are saying that genetics only provides adaptation (which would normally preserve the status quo) and NOT speciation! In that case, ALL innovations must be the result of God dabbling. In other words, you now appear to be arguing for separate creation of species (Creationism), which is the direct antithesis of evolution!-DAVID: I can only look at the record we see. We do not know how speciation occurs. We just know that it is abrupt and very new complete organisms appear. How much control the genome, itself, has in specialtion is simply a very open question.
 
If it is a very open question, there is no way that you can state so emphatically that genetics does not provide speciation. Clunk!-DAVID: Can the genome by itself produce a species? No proof exists yet if we exclude Darwin's gradualism, and it is excluded in our discussions. I have repeatedly said I don't know the mix between pre-programming and dabbling. I have to assume that pre-programming included a drive to complexity when none is really needed as bacteria have proven. We cannot know how God dabbles, directly or indirectly, but evolution doesn't seem to be all preprogramming or the genome would show us some evidence of that, and it doesn't in the research so far. I can go no further. I have a strong belief that theistic evolution occurred. I cannot believe in a chance process. it is beyond all odds.-None of this justifies your initial claim above. We cannot know, and science cannot tell us, if there is a God at all, let alone whether/how he dabbles, whether/how much he has preprogrammed, whether innovations are random or created by an intelligent genome. All such theories are speculation, and so none of us can go any further. However, not believing in chance is not a reason for believing in God, any more than not believing in God is a reason for believing in chance. There is a comfy cushion awaiting you right next to me on my fence.-*****-dhw: As regards the "bush of life", how do you know it would not have had the same shape, whether God dabbled, or a panpsychist or God-invented intelligent genome did its own thing?
 
DAVID: Because of the prolific ablity to adapt, organisms could head off in any direction. Life as designed is very inventive. See natures wonders in the forum. Therefore, the bush will always be the result.-It is not the prolific ability to adapt that advances evolution ... it is the prolific ability to INNOVATE. This inventiveness would still apply whichever of the above scenarios you believed in. The bushiness of the bush therefore proves nothing, though I'd say the fact that it heads off in so many different directions suggests the absence of any single purpose, apart perhaps from bushiness.