Does evolution have a purpose? (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, October 19, 2014, 01:18 (3687 days ago) @ dhw


> Previously we agreed that the “guidelines” consisted of the constraints imposed on all organisms by the limitations as to what they can and can't do, and the demands of the environment. Now you are extending these guidelines to plans, which can only relate to the construction of the innovations that led to new species: i.e. new cell communities in the form of new organs, bones etc. We have used the kidney before as an example. What sort of “guideline” are you imagining?-Lets try a different approach: the hundreds of types of mammals all give milk. They all have kidneys, livers, lungs and hearts. They all have 5 fingers and toes, or a modification thereof. All kidneys, livers and mammary glands, lungs and hearts are the same, in that they look the same under the microscope and function in the same way. What this pattern tells us is that the instructional manual for new species of mammals has certain set requirements. Whales don't look like elephants,camals don't look like giraffes, but all the functionality is about the same, alhtoug i must say the whale's mdifications in funtion are unbelievable to accomplish the seagoing feat. This is why I insist upon 'semi-autonomousness' if there is an IM instead of God stepping in each time there is speciation. You can't have these patterns without guidelines. Where there is freedom is the neck of the giraffe vs. the neck of the camel, or the blowhole of the whale while we have nostrils. -> 
> dhw: The autonomy consists of “freedom of choice in following those guidelines”. What does that mean? The IM is free to say it won't follow the planning guidelines?-I've shown the patterns. Those must be followed, because that is what we see in nature. It is body form (phenotype), habitat choice, that apears to me to be freer of constraint. God, if He gives such a mechanism to animals (or plants) is not going to let them run rampant in function. But bats and whales are related. The comparative anatomy of ther skeletons is just that: they can be compared and are modifications of the basic pattern. Wildly different habitats.
> 
> dhw: And you have not answered. I can only assume this is because you have now realized that in the context of macroevolution, your version of the IM has no autonomy at all.-Well yes it does as I am showing you. Our back and forth debate is my fault because I have not expressed the above observation of patterns before. Sometimes the recesses of my brain have to be dredged! The only area I know of where the pattern scheme is broken is in the consideration of brain development. Only humans have this enormous difference in function. As mammals we've got all the other organs and in the right patterns of function. But as Adler has right emphasized, there is nothing like the human brain. It broke the patterns. And for that reason I see only the hand of God at work, no IM here. And that is why I insist humans were God's goal.-Now lets take a quick look at the Cambrian: again all the same reqired organs and functionality, the patterns, but as ancestors of 37 existing phyla (famililes), the Cambrian era actually produced around 80 phyla, an exhuberance of animal form invention and obvious many animal form failures. Again, if there is an IM, it is in some degree free to create form but not function. Function has guidelines because successful life requires it. And it cannot be formed bottom up, but top down. It must have information and plans.