Tony: "Supposed to be" implies purpose. It also implies something to suppose that purpose. Maybe that's why no one wants to answer the question. If they answer it honestly, there is only one answer that can be arrived at.-Thank you. Exactly my point. At the Reason Rally purpose was never mentioned, only the usual Dawkins' straw men. -http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2012/03/25/all-dawkinss-straw-men/-I love how he reduces natural selection to expose the true weakness of the concept. For example, our ancestors left the trees: Darwinist says, had to learn to be upright to move faster, travel more, be safer. NS to the rescue, and makes us upright. How about, vertebrae change allowing upright posture, then we leave trees. Old passive NS appreciates the change as we move on of our own power.

DAVID: Why is there something rather than nothing? The most profound question in philosophy. Raised hundreds of years ago, and I haven't seen a reasonable answer yet.
> 
> dhw: I suggest: Because that's how things are.-I think we have to accept that is the way it is supposed to be.


> dhw: While I cannot believe that chance is capable of assembling such mechanisms, nor can I believe in a universal intelligence that came from nowhere. And so just as the term "convergence" tells us nothing about HOW different organisms come up with similar solutions, the term "First Cause" tells us nothing about HOW an intelligent designer could simply be there. Such expressions merely provide a linguistic cloak for the unsolved mysteries ... -Some things are meant to be mysterious. We humans are not meant to know everyting, much as we might desire. Leaps of faith are required, especially to get down from a fence. Why is there something rather than nothing? The most profound question in philosophy. Raised hundreds of years ago, and I haven't seen a reasonable answer yet.

An article by paleobiologist Professor Simon Conway Morris in CAM (Cambridge Alumni Magazine) discusses convergent evolution ... the process by which totally different organisms may evolve similar characteristics in response to environmental requirements. He believes that "evolution converges on the best possible solution, rather than on a best fit, random solution (leading many commentators to accuse him of being a creationist ... something he finds amusing, but says is rubbish.)"
> 
> It's interesting that he is "accused" of being a creationist. Since creationism does run counter to current scientific findings, one can well understand why it's regarded by scientists as a crime. However, one should surely distinguish between creationists (who believe in the literal truth of the Bible) and ID-ers like David who argue that life shows every sign of having been consciously designed. There is nothing in the intelligent design argument that contradicts whatever evolutionary scenario science comes up with. More of this in a moment.
> And yet he's not suggesting anything deeply mysterious at work! Of course, as I have repeated ad nauseam, you don't solve one mystery by creating another (the provenance and nature of a creator). Just like "convergence", "first cause" is a convenient expression that explains absolutely nothing. The origin of the mechanisms for life, evolution and consciousness are indeed beyond our comprehension. I'm not sure that "we won't know", but I am sure that we don't know. Could there be a clearer argument for agnosticism?
> 
> (Professor Morris is apparently a Christian, but he dissociates himself from Intelligent Design. See if you can make sense of this on:
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/belief/scripts/conwaymorris.html)-Is this the segment you are referring to?rof Simon Conway Morris, a renowned palaeontologist at the University of Cambridge, is not entirely convinced by these arguments, however.-"I would tend to raise one cautious eyebrow to such arguments," he said. After all, there is a horrible gulf between elementary chemical systems and the creation of fully functioning cells. It is a gap that we have been remarkably unable to bridge experimentally."-Prof Conway Morris concluded: "One important jigsaw piece that is rarely mentioned in these discussions is Fermi's Paradox." This is the concept of the Great Silence; in other words, if life is common in the Universe, why have we not managed to contact it?-And that surely is the key. For in the absence of verifiable alien contact, scientific opinion will forever remain split as to whether the Universe teems with life or we are alone in the inky blackness".-I discuss Conway Morris at length in my book. His ideas are on my side even if he doesn't recognize it. I believe he is a Christian, but must continue to wear his science hat. I've read the Cambridge Alumni article completely prior to seeing dhw's entry. And I've read Morris' book 'Convergence". His thoughts are the best evidence for an intelligent universe I know. -And the import of the concept, convergence, is not the same as the concept of first cause. Convergence exists. First cause is a philosophic conjecture, taken finally on faith. To me convergence is one of the proofs of first cause, i.e., intelligence. The universe is filled with intelligence. That is why Morris at the end of his interview mentioned consciousness. A clever Christian sneaking in his faith. I know Simon well and he is not Cowell.

http://the-scientist.com/2012/01/01/motor-lock/

This article and the one about parasites under Natures Wonders, on which you comment that “these guys are so clever”, once again show “intelligence” within the cell itself as well as within creatures which have devised an immensely complex technique of survival. One must always bear in mind that at some time each of these techniques was new, and so some form of intelligence must have experimented with it before it got passed on.

The latest Workshop from the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies contains two brief reports from New Scientist which I find extremely revealing in this context. “Sulphur eating bacteria that live in sediments on the sea floor appear to be connected by ‘a network of microbial nanowires’. Electric current flowing along these protein filaments allows ‘communities of bacteria to act as one super-organism’. The process has been called ‘electrical symbiosis’.” This ties in with Lynn Margulis’s ‘symbiotic life forms’. Each of us is also a super-organism, and we contain a wide variety of ‘intelligent’ communities that are interconnected.

Along with this argument, I’m still intrigued by the idea of the intelligent cell (or community of cells) responding to outside conditions and working out ways to survive. Applying this idea, rather than that of random mutations, to the evolution of new organs, organisms, and species – including us humans – ties in with another tiny report summarized from New Scientist: “There were short-lived, rapid changes in climate between 2 and 3 million years ago, just at the time many early species of hominid arose, suggesting that the pressure was on for adaptability, a hallmark of our species.” If many early species of hominid coincided with environmental changes, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that the relationship may have been causal, and adaptability may therefore explain the origin of ALL species once life had begun. And so in place of random mutations and gradualism as keynotes of innovation (and hence of evolution), we would have communities of intelligent cells that adapt and innovate to create new techniques for survival. The more drastic the environmental change, the more rapid the response and the more radical the innovation. Natural Selection then eliminates those cell-communities that cannot adapt or whose innovations are inadequate. Evolution as sporadic revolution, or punctuated equilibrium.

http://the-scientist.com/2012/01/01/motor-lock/

David has now alerted us to a very important article (under Life as Evolving Software):

http://iose-gen.blogspot.com/2010/06/origin-of-body-plan-level-biodiversity.html#gold

which launches a powerful attack on the two weak points of Darwin’s theory that we’ve discussed repeatedly: gradualism and random mutations. What is not clear, though, is the alternatives we’re expected to believe in. This is not a matter of chance v. design, but of how evolution actually progressed. The article does not propose God’s separate creation of species (unless I’ve missed something), so do we or don’t we believe that living creatures – apart from the very first form(s) of life – must descend from other living creatures? If we do, then we HAVE to adhere to Darwin’s theory of common descent.

The idea we’ve been contemplating recently is that of a mechanism which responds to changes in the environment by adapting and possibly innovating. The more drastic the environmental change, the more urgent the need to adapt. Then why not bite the bullet and accept the possibility that adaptations/innovations may have occurred not over thousands of years but over one or very few generations? These would be the leaps which Darwin thought impossible, but is it not equally impossible that species should take thousands of years to adapt to a sudden environmental change that has killed off vast numbers of their fellow creatures? There would be no fossil record of transitional forms because there aren’t any. An adaptation under urgent circumstances must function at once – you survive or you perish – and so must an innovation, or it will be of no use.

This links up with Lynn Margulis’s observation summed up in the Guardian obituary: “...tiny membrane bound organelles that inhabit in their hundreds each of the trillions of cells that make up every organ of our bodies, were once free living creatures, before being incorporated into the symbiotic life forms which were our distant ancestors.”

Once we accept the concept of a physical mechanism (the “intelligent cell”?) that creates its own symbiotic combinations, takes its own decisions, adapts to changing conditions – anything becomes possible. This concept – with the degree of intelligence varying just as it does in individual creatures – would answer all the questions raised by anti-evolutionists, bearing in mind that Darwin’s theory does not preclude design.

As far as chance v. design is concerned, intelligence would be contained within all forms of life, but would not necessarily be independent of living organisms (as is the conventional God). That might be acceptable even to an atheist. (George, where are you?) David and also BBella, I think, take this one step further and attribute “intelligence” to the universe as a whole. An atheist might call this “the laws of Nature”. Thus the barriers between theism and atheism become increasingly blurred, so long as this form of “intelligence” is not endowed with personal attributes. (David’s pet concept, though his little "secrets" keep breaking through his arguments!) Ultimately, it comes down to how we define intelligence, and that in turn entails the all-important phenomenon of consciousness. Perhaps this is as far as we can go in our speculations, but are these ideas any more fantastic than the various scenarios our theists, atheists and scientists bombard us with on an almost daily basis?

DAVID: Exactly!! As explained above. You have entered my consciousness. Don’t rummage around too much. I have my secrets!

You gave away one of your secrets when explaining your theory: “The UI wished to create a living being with consciousness.” Once you attribute wishes to your UI, you start the train of thought that leads to conventional religion and anthropocentrism, but I shan’t rummage any more. Keep the rest of your secrets, you Jewish theist panentheist ID-er UI-er MD-author-cowboy, you!

In other words, he planned randomness (the unpredictable environment) and created a mechanism that would enable some species to adapt and survive while others would perish. But since he did not plan each individual environmental change, he could hardly have planned which species did what, or when they did it.

My thoughts exactly. Have you entered my consciousness?

DAVID: Does God intervene? Not much if at all.

Without intervention, it seems to me that God was leaving an awful lot to chance if you still cling to the anthropocentric theory you’ve inherited from some of the established religions. (I can be naughty too!) How much simpler it would be to attribute diversity to the responses of intelligent cells to different environmental challenges.

You do not understand my theory. I'll repeat: I propose there is a mechanism in the genome to drive evolutionary compexity to the point that an organism will arrive like us or very much like us. This is the pre-planning. The UI wished to create a living being with consciousness. Not much is really left to chance, but a long time for the environment and epigenetics to work things out.

I go back to my extremely respectable – because it has an official name – theory of punctuated isolation equilibrium.

I amalgamated that name from Gould's theory; he proposed PE while species were in isolation.

What we have is exactly the same process as with other developments: environmental change, need to adapt, possible innovations, continued refinement. In this case, the chimpobos lose their tree habitat, come down to earth, exercise their brains to work out a new way of life, and gradually lose their chimpiness (or boboness) as their brains develop and their bodies adapt. Then you don’t need intervention, you don’t need pre-planning (other than the original mechanism for diverse forms of adaptation), you don’t need to explain the history of extinctions, and you don’t need to bother about God’s special focus on, interest in, purpose for Man. Then, David, you can say you believe in a UI without attributes!

Exactly!! As explained above. You have entered my consciousness. Don't rummage around too much. I have my secrets!

DAVID: Not at all. The Earth is an evolved and evolving planet. It is in a hostile universe, and its solar system has asteroids that are still available for making trouble. Ask the recently departed dinosaurs. Then locally (in time and place) are tsunamis, tornados, earthquakes and other killers, all necessary for the evolution process of Earth.
With that as the physical evolutionary force set up in the beginning, I believe God arranged for the genome to have remarkable responsiveness for adaptation to physical disasters, and at the same time a diversity of life forms. Chixulub nailed the dinos, but the little mammals survived because of this pre-planning.

Ah, we’re moving closer. In this scenario, if I’ve understood you correctly, your God did not preplan the route to humans, but ensured that life would go on, and that species would diversify no matter what natural, unplanned disasters might strike. In other words, he planned randomness (the unpredictable environment) and created a mechanism that would enable some species to adapt and survive while others would perish. But since he did not plan each individual environmental change, he could hardly have planned which species did what, or when they did it.

DAVID: Does God intervene? Not much if at all.

If he did intervene, in what way do you think he might have done so? If it was Chicxulub that did for the dinosaurs (this still seems to be controversial), might that have been God’s way of removing “unnecessary” species, or did he perhaps see a likely looking bonobo and think: “I can do something different with this”? My question is serious. Without intervention, it seems to me that God was leaving an awful lot to chance if you still cling to the anthropocentric theory you’ve inherited from some of the established religions. (I can be naughty too!) How much simpler it would be to attribute diversity to the responses of intelligent cells to different environmental challenges. I go back to my extremely respectable – because it has an official name – theory of punctuated isolation equilibrium. What we have is exactly the same process as with other developments: environmental change, need to adapt, possible innovations, continued refinement. In this case, the chimpobos lose their tree habitat, come down to earth, exercise their brains to work out a new way of life, and gradually lose their chimpiness (or boboness) as their brains develop and their bodies adapt. Then you don’t need intervention, you don’t need pre-planning (other than the original mechanism for diverse forms of adaptation), you don’t need to explain the history of extinctions, and you don’t need to bother about God’s special focus on, interest in, purpose for Man. Then, David, you can say you believe in a UI without attributes!

Do you really believe that every single environmental change and every single species extinction was planned by God as an essential step to the creation of humans?

Not at all. The Earth is an evolved and evolving planet. It is in a hostile universe, and its solar system has asteroids that are still available for making trouble. Ask the recently departed dinosaurs. Then locally (in time and place) are tsunamis, tornados, earthquakes and other killers, all necessary for the evolution process of Earth.

With that as the physical evolutionary force set up in the beginning, I believe God arranged for the genome to have remarkable responsiveness for adaptation to physical disasters, and at the same time a diversity of life forms. Chixulub nailed the dinos, but the little mammals survived because of this pre-planning.

Does God intervene? Not much if at all.

DAVID: This opinion comes from Stephan, Niles, David H.. It is the punctuated isolation equilibrium theory that fits the huge jumps in Darwinism that don't fit the bearded one's proposal. All the guys have to do is follow the receding forest margins, and not bother to change. Animals usually follow the path of least resistance.

I’m delighted to hear that I’m in the company of professionals, though I really didn’t imagine I was the first to hit on the idea! We needn’t dwell on Darwin’s gradualism. I’ve already said many times that (a) I don’t accept it, and (b) I don’t understand why he thought it was so crucial to his theory. It isn’t. Your objection to what I now know is called punctuated isolation equilibrium theory (I’m impressed!) assumes that our ancestors were in a position to follow the receding forests. Isolation can have many causes: mountains, lakes, seas, deserts; or there may be fierce competition as the habitat shrinks (assuming it isn’t wiped out suddenly), again requiring a change of lifestyle. What animals “usually” do doesn’t preclude exceptional circumstances producing exceptional consequences. No-one has explained how humans evolved, but we do know that isolated areas have produced unique species (think of Madagascar), so the isolation scenario has its precedents.

DAVID: To be nice, I think your theory is possible, but not reasonable without some pushing somewhere.

Dhw: The push would be environmental. […] Africa is a vast continent – there is no reason why such an event should not be localized to a single region. It would only need one to start the process. Now perhaps you can be even nicer!

DAVID: I can be a little naughty at times, but generally I am very nice. You haven't disproved the need for genome guiding pushes!

And you haven’t disproved the theory that environmental pressure may have provided the push. No-one has yet proved or disproved anything. But you and I have always been nice to each other, and when we are naughty, it’s fun! You are angling for “genome guiding pushes” because, I presume, they would fit in with your concept of pre-planning. I’m angling for environmental change as the trigger and epigenetics as the mechanism, not to pursue any agenda but because it seems to me to fit in better with the long history of evolutionary comings and goings. This doesn’t run counter to design theory (or to chance theory, but that’s another matter) – only to your view of its scale and implementation. Do you really believe that every single environmental change and every single species extinction was planned by God as an essential step to the creation of humans?

I’m not thinking of two common ancestors looking at the same savannah, with one changing and the other staying the same. I’m thinking of one particular area where the forest disappears. ALL our guys and dolls have to get used to savannah life, whereas elsewhere life can continue the same arboreal way. We know it takes two to tango, but with this scenario you have a whole tribe to tango. If epigenetics and Lamarckism can stand up to it, you have all the “ancestors” in this one area needing to develop new skills, from which evolve the anatomical and intellectual changes that ultimately lead to us.

This opinion comes from Stephan, Niles, David H.. It is the punctuated isolation equilibrium theory that fits the huge jumps in Darwinism that don't fit the bearded one's proposal. All the guys have to do is follow the receding forest margins, and not bother to change. Animals usaly follow the path of least resistence.

DAVID: If an open option allows an advantage in complexity, but does not require it, why did it happen? Dumb luck or some push to complexity? I think there is a pushing mechanism and that it will be found in the near future. To be nice, I think your theory is possible, but not reasonable without some pushing somewhere.

The push would be environmental, with change required by natural deforestation. Africa is a vast continent – there is no reason why such an event should not be localized to a single region. It would only need one to start the process. Now perhaps you can be even nicer!

I can be a little naughty at times, but generally I am very nice.You haven't disproved the need for genome guiding pushes!

I’m not thinking of two common ancestors looking at the same savannah, with one changing and the other staying the same. I’m thinking of one particular area where the forest disappears. ALL our guys and dolls have to get used to savannah life, whereas elsewhere life can continue the same arboreal way. We know it takes two to tango, but with this scenario you have a whole tribe to tango. If epigenetics and Lamarckism can stand up to it, you have all the “ancestors” in this one area needing to develop new skills, from which evolve the anatomical and intellectual changes that ultimately lead to us.

DAVID: If an open option allows an advantage in complexity, but does not require it, why did it happen? Dumb luck or some push to complexity? I think there is a pushing mechanism and that it will be found in the near future. To be nice, I think your theory is possible, but not reasonable without some pushing somewhere.

The push would be environmental, with change required by natural deforestation. Africa is a vast continent – there is no reason why such an event should not be localized to a single region. It would only need one to start the process. Now perhaps you can be even nicer!

There is obviously something that drives complexity in the genome, such as the newly-discovered epigenetics[/i].

You’d used this as a reason for considering humans to be a “chosen species”, whereas I’m saying the fact that complexity was not needed is no reason for regarding humans as the original goal (pre-planning). It’s clear that something must drive complexity, simply because we have it, and epigenetics is an immensely promising development in our possible understanding of the mechanism.

Correct. Something must drive complexity, because in the facts we are discussing, humans and chimps diverged, and I don't see any driving force.

One theory is that somewhere or the other (in Africa?) the forests disappeared and the common ancestor had to come down from the trees and start a new life on the ground. This would have entailed developing new skills. Is it not possible, then, that the process was the reverse of what you’ve outlined, and the need for new skills entailed developing the brain (much as certain exercises may strengthen and expand our muscles), as well as necessitating certain changes in the anatomy. This in turn entailed less use of other parts of the body, and so in due course the body became smaller and weaker as physical power gave way to intellectual power.

Lets climb up into the trees 6 million years ago. We are two common ancestors looking at a growing savannah. One of us stays roughly the same and the other becomes US, the H. sapiens. Why did we climb down? What drove us? Nothing we know of. We cannot relive ancient history. We can only guess. But one of us did get down. That guy lost those heavy arm and shoulder muscles and as part of the changes grew a giant brain.

The savannah gave both of us the option to try a different lifestyle, but it did not require it. Natural selection requires some sort of challenge. The climate change doesn't seem to offer any. As a result, we really have idea why this happened. But it did, and we are here, in all our glory.

If an open option allows an advantage in complexity, but does not require it, why did it happen? Dumb luck or some push to complexity? I think there is a pushing mechanism and that it will be found in the near future. To be nice, I think your theory is possible, but not reasonable without some pushing somewhere.