Genome complexity; epigenetics: Lamarck is back (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, June 03, 2016, 02:03 (2878 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "Even outside of evolutionary biology, some of the most influential thinkers and writers in biology and cognitive science today have adopted the Weismannian view that living organisms are essentially passive, made of dumb and inert mechanical parts.”
> Dhw: This is also your own theistic view when you revert to your theory of divine preprogramming. According to that, all the “parts” can do is passively obey the instructions laid down for them by your God 3.8 billion years ago, or let themselves be dabbled with.
> 
> DAVID: That is not a problem for me, but it is for you. My problem with that assumption is I can't discern how God controls evolution whether by pre-programming, or dabbling or both, but I'm content that He is in control.
> 
> dhw: Once again you are turning your back on the “free mechanism” you had accepted on Monday 30 May.... Epigenetics seems to be the new form of Lamarckism, and even you admit you don't know how far the process might extend - but that doesn't matter to you, because you are content that God either preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation.-My mind is still mulling. I'm back on the complexity track today, as you will see.
> 
> dhw: Your swift reversion to your God programming every complexity is not a variation on my theme at all. It is the exact opposite. All you are now saying is that the bush is higgledy-piggledy because God deliberately preprogrammed or dabbled every twig (just for the sake of complexity). I am saying it is higgledy-piggledy because (theistic version) God gave organisms the freedom to create their own complexities.-I'm agreeing with you. I like the idea of complexity for complexity's sake, with God's dabbling after the complexity appears, as He sees necessary.