More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, August 09, 2015, 12:18 (3185 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: One of the main things that comes up is that there has to be planning for every possible variant. With my method, that is not precisely true. There are lots of possible variants that simply will not succeed (extinction events). But for all other things, what seems to be missed is that only the variants within a prototype must be accounted. This is different from David's concept and from mainstream evolution in that it doesn't require any prototype to contain the code required to create a different type of prototype. Mainstream evolution requires that their be an origin somewhere that contains all possibilities...-You are making the same point that I made earlier: David's programme for all species and variants is contained within the first living cells, whereas you have programmes split up between and confined to the prototypes. Your version still entails common descent, but only from your theoretical prototypes, whereas his and mine entail common descent from a theoretical single source. The fact that many variants don't succeed raises difficult questions for both of you (not for me), but we have discussed those before.
 
I still don't know where you yourself, Tony, draw the line between preprogramming and individual intelligence. Do you, for example, believe that the prototype bird passed on a programme for the weaverbird's nest, the plover's migration, the Egyptian plover's symbiotic relationship with the Nile crocodile?-As regards mainstream evolution requiring an origin that contains all possibilities, this is why I am so sceptical of David's view that all possibilities were programmed into the first cells, and am interested in finding out how many possibilities you think were programmed into each of your prototypes (as opposed to their working things out for themselves). The alternative that I have proposed - without the conviction of belief - is that the first cells did not contain any programmes at all, but only the ability (i.e. a form of intelligence) to devise an open-ended sequence of programmes, which inevitably became more and more complex as they cooperated and learned to cope with different environments. A perfect analogy and also outcome to this process is provided by us humans. Theistic version: God provided cells/cell communities with the ability to create increasingly complex programmes only for “natural” organic purposes (the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution), and the culmination of this process so far - I agree that humans are special in this respect - is a cell community which began with comparatively simple programmes (e.g. tool-making) and has gone on to create increasingly complex programmes for all kinds of purposes.