Contingent evolution: what pushes it? (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, November 04, 2014, 20:47 (3672 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: (I still don't understand why you refuse to consider the possibility of evolution as a process initiated and guided by God, which would remove most of your objections anyway.)-Because I see no case for evolution. Why would I try and fit in a theory that I see as even more fanciful than "God did it"?->DHW: Evolution itself is in a period of stasis, so of course there has been no direct observation - there has been no direct observation of God creating new species either... Punctuated equilibrium explains the apparent jumps (probably associated with changes in the environment after periods of stasis).-Is it? Or could it be that it simply did not occur as defined. Punctuated equilibrium makes the problem worse, not better, because that would require extremely rapid evolution, instantaneous, one might say. Now, since the text book definition of evolution is 'change over time', does 'instantaneous fully formed appearance' of an organism fit that description?-
>DHW: The fossil record clearly shows a progression from simpler to more complex organisms, and what David calls the patterns suggest common ancestry. -I suppose that depends on what you are implying with the word "progression". If you mean a linear curve, then you would be mistaken. If, instead, you meant a stepwise series of gaps from less complex to more, then yes, that is indeed what it shows, and that is antithetical to evolution.-
>The God theory is also a theory and not a fact, and is based on a great variety of assumptions without one shred of objectively verifiable evidence, but neither you nor I would see that as a reason to dismiss it.-I would say that the evidence is acutely in favor of the God theory.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.