Teleology & evolution: Stephen Talbott's take (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, June 14, 2016, 19:11 (2878 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: As for the latest discoveries about Neanderthals, they once again highlight the problems of your focus on homo sapiens as your God's evolutionary purpose. The history of hominins suggests a higgledy-piggledy development, with natural selection deciding which should survive.-This fits my idea that a complexification mechanism is at work with an h-p of hominids as you suggest.-> dhw: I don't have a problem with the inventive mechanism being part of the genome, but you seem to be suggesting that the genome is separate from the cell or cell community!-Not separate, but perhaps a different genome layer than has been discovered. Note today's entry about gene drives, which are artificial DNA sections that can be put into living DNA to change a species. Is it possible this exists in life, but not found as yet: -https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gene-drives-spread-their-wings-> 
> dhw: I don't know why you have switched from “mechanism” to “module”, unless you think that module somehow justifies your concept of a divine computer programme.-Just to make it sound like a very separate area of the genome layers.
> 
> dhw: If organisms cannot do any planning, what you appear to be saying is that your God has preprogrammed the first living cells to pass on multiple choice responses to every stimulus throughout the history of life on Earth. Organisms then “turn on” the appropriate multiple choice programme when the appropriate conditions arise. Presumably, since you said the mechanism could be “free”, you envisage some cell communities saying to themselves: “Time to switch on Programme No. XYZ million and forty-two. Here are five options. I'll go for Number Three - high arched palate, dropped epiglottis etc.” Whereas other cell communities go for Number Two, and never get to talk like humans. Is this a fair summary of your hypothesis? If not, please correct any errors.-Yes!
> 
> dhw: The solution devised by some cell communities, using their own (possibly God-given) intelligence - embedded in their genome, if you like - was to change the structure of the larynx, epiglottis etc. Other organisms (cell communities) that did not have the same level of consciousness, remained as they were. Neanderthals, and perhaps other species of human as well, may have come up with their own new design - I don't know enough about the anatomies of earlier human species to detail any differences. Maybe our palaeontologists don't either.-The book, The Ape That Spoke, gives answers. H. erectus had a slightly arched palate and is thought to have been able to grunt a few words, but primarily used gestures, etc. Neanderthals have a weak apelike chin and not much arch to the palate, which suggests that could not have the clear and rapid speech we have. Once again we are different in kind, the result of complex planning of many anatomic changes. We are still left with not knowing whether God dabbles or a planning module is on-board. The inventions that come from biomimetics research (example, Velcro)refutes your conflation of cell intelligence with really having the intelligent planning required.