Contingent evolution (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, June 29, 2014, 14:31 (3589 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: "Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. " ~ Evolution101 
What kind of modification? Genetic modification. How are those genes modified? -As with all the other great unsolved mysteries, we can only speculate.-TONY: "The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation." - Berkley

One might quibble over this definition and say the variations are random (because of the randomness of environmental change) but genetic mutations are not (see below). I've already expressed my scepticism over random mutations as such, and have offered a hypothesis, based on the research of many prominent scientists, which you have ignored in your list of alternatives (special creation and/or guided modifications): namely, that of the "intelligent cell". However, before I recap, please bear in mind that we're not discussing origins here. Our subject is whether evolution happened, and if so, how it works, what is the role of chance, and whether it has a purpose. I believe it did happen, in the sense that all organisms have descended from earlier organisms except for the very first, I don't know how it works, and the only purpose I can see with any clarity is that of survival, continuation and self-improvement. My apologies if you've read the following before, but I do feel it deserves inclusion in your list:-The first forms of life were endowed with mechanisms that enabled them not only to reproduce but also to adapt and innovate, in accordance with the needs and/or opportunities presented by a changing environment. Genetic modification was not random. It was engineered by the cell communities themselves ... and once a new combination proved to be successful, it was passed on. Scientific research suggests that cellular communities interact, communicate, take decisions, process information etc., and this hypothesis would account for the higgledy-piggledy development of the evolutionary bush, the sudden appearance of new organs and species (innovations must work if they are to survive) and the phenomenon of convergence (separate cell communities finding similar solutions to environmental problems). Theists can argue that the complexity of such mechanisms demands design; atheists can carry on placing their faith in a chance origin. It seems to me that this hypothesis is at least as credible as those you have offered.
 
TONY: Balancing something as complex as 'Nature' would require either perfect pre-planning or complete knowledge of the system. Additionally, the fact that the ecosystems are so easily thrown out of balance is itself a natural argument against that statement.-"Pre-planning" and "complete knowledge" imply a creative intelligence with an overall view. I'm not discounting that, but am proposing an alternative, which is billions of "intelligences" cooperating from within, because balance is essential to their survival. All of life is made of single units combining, and that is the essence of my panpsychist hypothesis: no pre-planning, no complete knowledge, but a system that evolved through cooperation and natural selection, in the sense that whatever did not work perished, and only what did work survived. Even David now concedes the possibility of his God experimenting. This hypothesis offers the possibility of billions of organisms experimenting. The unbalancing of ecosystems may be man-made or caused by natural disasters, neither of which presents an argument against the above. However, sooner or later, this hypothesis like all others, including that of a God, comes up against the brick wall of how such "intelligence(s)" originated.
 
TONY: .... From laws to the stars to our genetic code to the tiniest building blocks of physics, everything exists in the ONLY POSSIBLE COMBINATION that would allow life to exist.
DHW: This is a huge assumption. We simply do not know if other forms of life might exist in other conditions...-TONY: No, as of yet, I have seen nothing but gross speculation and wishful thinking to indicate that there is life anywhere else or that any other type of life form exist. [...] Yes, we have extremophiles on Earth, but they all fall within the normal confines of the life forms that we are already aware of.-We are constantly extending our view of the "normal confines" precisely because of the discovery of these extremophiles. But I don't disagree with you. It's ALL speculation, and that includes your hypothesis that this is the ONLY POSSIBLE COMBINATION. It's the only one we know, and that's as far as you can go.
 
TONY: I think you downplay the balancing act that has to be maintained in order for life to exist at all, much less to thrive and grow. Human's are the goal for David. I personally think there are other goals, but for the most part I have been trying to leave my particular religious beliefs out of the discussion.-I admire and am grateful for your self-discipline, because this discussion is complex enough without our delving into interpretations of ancient texts! Of course I don't think I'm downplaying the balancing act. I don't know how to account for it. Nor do you know how to account for a being that can create universes and bacteria, and knows all about the behaviour of matter before it even exists.