>
Ralph:
>You realize that this puts you outside of Behe and most current ID
>thought. Behe clearly says that this scheme *can not* produce
>irreducibly complex systems, like the molecular motors that drive
>flagellum. Adding minimal intelligence to the menu means nothing.
>Behe is adamant: IC systems can not be produced gradually by small
>steps. Period. And, of course, evolutionists say it's chance, not
>intelligence, so, once again, you find yourself in a lonely position.
>But probably you don't mind.
Bertvan:
ID is not yet a dogma. Anyone looking an alternative to "chance variation
and natural selection" is welcome. I had Hoyle's Intelligent Universe more
in mind than what you describe below. The intelligence I had in mind would be
a component of all life, perhaps its defining characteristic. I understand
Margulis believes a degree of consciousness is characteristic of all life.
(Margulis, having paid the obligatory lip service to natural selection, is
still recognized by the establishment. Right?)
Ralph:
>I want to look at your ideas as though they were the reality for a
>moment. I'm going to assume that this minimal intelligence you
>posit is within the organism. If the intelligence is imposed on
>the organism from outside, then all bets are off because anything
>is possible. The outside intelligence can be made as large as
>necessary to make the system work.
>Let us suppose that we have a bacterium that is without flagellum.
>Tired of being pushed about by its environment, this bacteria has,
>by its intelligence, conceived of a limited goal of developing
>locomotion. It is at a slight disadvantage since it has never seen
>a molecular motor or a flagellum but, being of minimal intelligence,
>this doesn't bother it.
>Now it has to make some sort of change in its DNA. It can't just
>change some DNA at random and wait to see what happens. Being
>intelligent, it wants to head straight for its goal instead of
>floundering around like evolution. Waiting around for a
>beneficial mutation to come along sounds a lot like evolution
>too, and would not seem to be putting its intelligence to the best
>possible use.
>Now we have a bacterium with sufficient intelligence and know-how
>to change its own DNA. Pretty good. We've barely gotten there
>ourselves. More than that, though, the bacterium has to *predict*,
>accurately, the result of the change it is making. As I pointed
>out above, if the bacterium is just going to change DNA at random
>and wait to see what happens, why do we need to impute intelligence
>to it?
>Even if it *did* change its DNA at random and waited to see what
>happens, to *intelligently* recognize when a change is beneficial
>*and* moves it towards its goal, would seem to require a degree of
>consciousness of self that is quite amazing. Not even animals
>as complex as cats and dogs seem to possess that degree of awareness.
>To anticipate you, can I say for *certain* that Fido doesn't know
>he's Fido and not Rex? No, I can't.
>Now, what do we have? We have a bacterium that:
>1. Can set a goal and formulate plans to add a device to its
structure that it hasn't possessed before;
Bertvan:
Devices were added. (either by chance or as the result of intelligence) I
see no reason for any awareness of a goal. Creative ability, and awareness of
increased efficiency might be enough.
>2. Can create said device from scratch.
Bertvan:
Pretty hard to figure out how that happened as the result of minimal
intelligence - much less by chance. (no intelligence at all)
>3. Can change its own DNA in an intelligent manner;
Bertvan:
Perhaps the greatest intelligence in contained in the DNA itself. Scientists
keep speaking of genes "assuming a new function". DNA does chang, either by
chance or due to some rational mechanism. Maybe DNA is the designer.
>4. Can predict, with accuracy, the results of its DNA changes;
Bertvan:
Don't see the need for predictions
>5. Can recognize when such a change will help it achieve
>at least one step towards its goals.
Bertvan: . Feedback mechanisms. "Use" could provide pressure for development
of an organ. Lack of use could lead to atrophy.
But hey, it isn't anything I'm trying to sell. To me anything sounds more
plausible than "chance variation and natural selection".
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 16:20:00 EDT