Evidence for pattern development; mulling (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, December 01, 2014, 17:42 (3436 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The funny thing about the scientific literature and thought is when a new idea occurs to me, or in fact brought home to me by Tony's comments about setting up basic pattern programs in computer development (Thank you, Tony) it is helping solve my dilemma. God is seen as a master programmer who uses basic patterns to make evolutionary development easier to program. So the light bulb goes off, and I look at the literature, and patterns are everywhere. The phenomenon of "convergence" when totally different species exhibit the same 'new' structure or ability is strong evidence of patterns being used from the basic beginnings of life. In this way an IM or NREH taps into the recorded ancient pattern in the genome and makes some modification to fit the current requirement. Thus the step forward in evolutionary development comes from the past, guided by it, makes a small limited modification, and something somewhat new appears. In my words 'semi-autonomous and under guidelines'. All of this primarily programmed from the beginning of life. My dilemma shrinks as I think and we discuss.-I don't think even a hardened evolutionary atheist would dispute that there are patterns. They give powerful support to common descent, which lies at the very heart of the theory. “Convergence” makes perfect sense if we accept the premise that organisms are intelligent beings, and will come up with similar (though “personalized”) solutions when confronted with similar problems. Why must monarchs delve or tap into ancient God-given patterns? Can't migration be seen as an example of “convergence”, in which birds and butterflies feel the pinch and realize they've gotta get up an' go, or it's all over? Hardly rocket science, is it? Where and how far they go will depend on their own capabilities, but once they find a suitable new home, they maintain the migratory pattern they have established. If Mexico suddenly turned glacial all the year round, your monarch would find somewhere else to go or he'd abdicate. -However, the real difficulty as always is not “small, limited modifications”, to which you confine the IM, but innovations. When you say “all of this primarily programmed from the beginning of life”, you are blurring distinctions, since this refers to the IM. You keep insisting that your God preprogrammed the very first minuscule living cells to cover every single MAJOR modification (= innovation) plus every single individualistic lifestyle (monarch, plover, E.coli), leading from bacteria to humans. You love to produce statistics to prove the impossibility of chance. How many programmes would your God have had to put into those first cells, allowing for every possible type of environment? With your new-found confidence, you have even decided to discount divine dabbling, which makes evolution totally reliant on programmes to be passed on from the very beginning. And since your God did not control the environment, these could have been wiped out at any moment by a catastrophe, thus scuppering all his alleged plans for humans. Whereabouts in the scientific literature have you found support for this hypothesis? At least my own has the scientific backing of specialists who emphasize the intelligence and cooperativeness of cells, and it still allows for your God to be the source of the inventive mechanism.