Re: [asa] Guided evolution mechanism?

Hi all,

Thanks for your comments on this thread. I wanted to hone in more closely on my specific question, because I'm not sure that the initial explanations really grasped what I was trying to get at. To kick-start the discussion, Mike Gene writes:

"Back in 2005, I reviewed another paper and noted:....'"This study does not in any way indicate a fundamental flaw in Darwin's Theory. Nor does it demonstrate that bacteria can target the specific genes needed to survive the environmental insult. What it does do is help us understand that life takes control of its fate. Living things are not passive participants of the interplay between stochastic events and environmental pressures, where mutations that just happened to exist are favored in an environment that just happened to exist. Instead, environmental challenges are met with a truly biotic response. First, the cells try to repair themselves. But if this fails, then they seek out an adaptation by maximizing their chances of finding an adaptation. Evolution is, at least, partially controlled by properties intrinsic to life.'"

This is what I was trying to understand better, and this is what I think the original article was getting at as well...to put it simply, who are "they"... "they seek out" "they" are "not passive participants", "they" "take control of [their] fate". If this is really true at the cellular, or even more basically, at the chemical level (individual proteins, molecules, etc.)...then *who* or *what* are "they"? Does this imply some of consciousness resides at this level? Or are they merely machines, like the machines in the cruise control examples given by others? Are they somewhere in between? And if they are "conscious" in some manner, what criteria would you use to distinguish "sentience" from "conscious"? Because surely, if you asserted consciousness at this level, then the next question to follow would be sentience, and that opens up a whole nother debate. Likewise, if you assert that cells and even chemical compounds are machinery that *control*
 something in order to exert *directional influence*, doesn't this imply design by an external force (GOD!!)?

Thanks ahead of time for your responses.
Christine

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7

Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit www.azrescue.org to find out how.

Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at www.cleanup.org

--- On Wed, 11/12/08, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:

> From: Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Guided evolution mechanism?
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 10:38 PM
> Hi Christine,
>
>
>
> Comments? Thoughts? The bunny smiles.
>
>
>
> Back in 2005, I reviewed another paper and noted:
>
> "This study does not in any way indicate a fundamental
> flaw in Darwin's
> Theory. Nor does it demonstrate that bacteria can target
> the specific genes
> needed to survive the environmental insult. What it does do
> is help us
> understand that life takes control of its fate. Living
> things are not
> passive participants of the interplay between stochastic
> events and
> environmental pressures, where mutations that just happened
> to exist are
> favored in an environment that just happened to exist.
> Instead,
> environmental challenges are met with a truly biotic
> response. First, the
> cells try to repair themselves. But if this fails, then
> they seek out an
> adaptation by maximizing their chances of finding an
> adaptation. Evolution
> is, at least, partially controlled by properties intrinsic
> to life.
>
> While the teleological echo is faint, it is nevertheless
> there. We can begin
> to catch a glimpse of evolution as homeostasis."
>
> I then explained the connection to front-loading (which I
> often define as
> 'RM + NS under contol'):
>
> "Thirdly, and most importantly, these type of findings
> are expected from the
> hypothesis of Front Loaded Evolution. This hypothesis
> entails that the
> future is designed through the present. To do this, designs
> at one point in
> time must be carried across deep time. To design in this
> manner, we would
> thus predict that evolution is dependent on biotic context,
> as it is this
> context that houses the design. In other words, if
> evolution was purely a
> function of random happenstance propagated only because
> such events happened
> to elicit greater fitness against the backdrop of haphazard
> environmental
> conditions, we would predict that the ability to design the
> future through
> the present would be quickly swamped by noise. But if there
> is a strong,
> intrinsic component to evolution, the designs are buffered
> against such
> loss."
>
> Concerning the cell and its contents, Bruce Alberts noted
> back in 1999,
> "But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk
> because the chemistry
> that makes life possible is much more elaborate and
> sophisticated than
> anything we students had ever considered." Sometime in
> the future, another
> leading scientist will write, "But, as it turns out,
> we exist because
> evolution has been much more elaborate and sophisticated
> than anything we
> students had ever considered."
>
> - Mike Gene
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christine Smith"
> <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 12:03 PM
> Subject: [asa] Guided evolution mechanism?
>
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Well, I think this would impact some of the
> discussions we've been having
> > :)
> >
> >>From the ASA Science & Faith blog:
> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081111183039.htm
> >
> > Excerpt: "Applying the concepts of control
> theory, a body of knowledge
> > that deals with the behavior of dynamical systems, the
> researchers
> > concluded that this self-correcting behavior could
> only be possible if,
> > during the early stages of evolution, the proteins had
> developed a
> > self-regulating mechanism, analogous to a car's
> cruise control or a home's
> > thermostat, allowing them to fine-tune and control
> their subsequent
> > evolution....
> >
> > ....The scientists do not know how the cellular
> machinery guiding this
> > process may have originated, but they emphatically
> said it does not
> > buttress the case for intelligent design, a
> controversial notion that
> > posits the existence of a creator responsible for
> complexity in nature."
> >
> > Can someone provide some more background on
> "control theory"?
> >
> > It sounds to me like they're basically saying that
> cells, or the chemical
> > components of cells, can actually direct (or at least
> exercise influence
> > over) their own evolution? If so, does this imply that
> they are conscious
> > in some manner? How else could they
> "control" anything in an "intentional"
> > sense? If it is indeed "intentional control"
> at the cellular level, then
> > besides consciousness residing at that level, I
> can't help but to think it
> > would bolster the design argument?
> >
> > Comments? Thoughts?
> >
> > In Christ,
> > Christine
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 17 13:14:24 2008