Does evolution have a purpose? (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, October 24, 2014, 22:29 (3681 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw:In other words, the organism can only do what it can do. I too wish you knew what other guidelines you were talking about, since the term is so crucial to your hypothesis!-I think the guidelines would define the limits to adaptive changes. Thus the organisms adapt to the challenges of nature, but don't alter the general progression of evolution that God intends.
 
> 
> dhw" You left out the part of your post I was commenting on. You wrote: “The dilemma has simply been an indecision on my part as to whether God could program all of evolution from the very beginning, or had to step in and dabble when evolution wasn't following exactly the path he wanted.” This can only mean the programme wasn't working as he wanted, and so if the IM is “substituted for the necessity of the dabble”, clearly the IM is capable of far more than extensions or “additional programming”. -I think I have explained this above. The IM would be limited to modest alterations in response to environmetal pressures. It might grow the giraffe's neck without altering the thrust of evolution, but it cannot make the whale series, because of the massive pattern changes between each step in the development of whales.-> dhw:Or are you saying that God wanted evolution to follow the path of the myrmecophilous beetle, the rafting ant, the silk-weaving spider, but the programme failed to come up with them, and so you thought he would have had to dabble, but instead you now realize that the IM was able to steer evolution onto God's intended ant-raft-silky path after all? -I think the issues above are open to interpretation. Ant rafting is a definite adaptation that I envision the IM doing. Spider silk is part of the pattern issue; God did it, as it is complex chemistry. The myrmecophilous/ant symbiosis can probably also be an IM learned arrangement. Note I consider the IM adaptive, but I think my idea that dabbling can be limited to great degree is the concept of God having to do all the complex patterns at the beginning. Is dabbling then totally excluded? Not necessarily. I just can't answer the issue of God's total infallibility in programming evolution. I admit I still have some dilemma, which I doubt I can remove, unless I accept God as religions define Him. And so far I don't, although here with evolution I am inclined to.-My thinking is still open and progressing under your questioning.