Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> dhw: [i]You are putting across to me what I have been trying to put across to you ever since this discussion began. You have now agreed that there is such a mechanism and have placed it in the genome, which is fine with me (so long as we don&apos;t lose sight of the fact that the genome is part of the cell), because I am only concerned with the existence of the mechanism, not with its location...... And if the solution is not preprogrammed, the genome has the same autonomy as the bridge builder.[/i]-DAVID: [i]It seems we are in agreement, now that we are discussing the IM as part of the genome[/i].-This is good news. May I also take it that you now accept &#147;inventive&#148; as meaning &#147;[i]creating new things and performing new actions without being preprogrammed[/i]&#148;? If so, and still recognizing that my autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism is only a hypothesis, perhaps we can move on, and so with my fingers crossed I am opening a new thread on the subject of &#147;purpose&#148;. Just a couple of loose ends to tie up:   DAVID: [i]I view the DNA of a cell as a local control center, not a fully active &apos;brain&apos; as we have. Remember that DNA from the zygote is very plastic and adapted to each cell for its particular function. What controls the IM is the totality of all the DNA in the whole organism in speciation.[/i]-I use the human brain as an analogy. That is why I was careful to say &#147;the equivalent of a brain&#148;. I was pleased to see you using the same analogy when you wrote &#147;[i]I still view the genome as the brains of the cell[/i].&#148; As regards totality, I have always been equally carefully to bracket cells and cell communities. Once cells had merged to create multicellularity, there had to be cooperation between them, and clearly that means all the cell communities that constitute the whole organism must integrate their many mechanisms. Once again we are in agreement.   dhw: [i]As for teleology, Darwin chose survival as the purpose of evolution. Previously you have always insisted that its purpose was the production of humans, which ran counter to the higgledy-piggledy nature of the evolutionary bush.[/i]-DAVID: [i]It is not counter to a bush, if the IM is somewhat on its own in originating changes.[/i]-I will deal with this, and the Talbott section on fitness, under "Does evolution have a purpose?"