DILEMMAS: my position clarified (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, November 09, 2014, 15:21 (3665 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I did not think for one moment that non-functional forms existed! My point was that there are no fossils of non-functional organisms because there cannot have been any non-functional organisms.
DAVID: I'm sorry. You seemed to imply the gigantic gap in progressively complex fossils before the Cambrian was due to their non-functionality. Of course it makes no sense. That gap is very real and as that remote part of time is further investigated, nothing has appeared that is very complex....If the gap remains, and it has since Darwin's time, naturally occurring evolution is disproven by that negative.-It's fascinating to speculate on why so many new species appeared, but it would also be interesting to know why so many new species failed to survive. God's preprogramming and/or dabbling would appear to have been highly ineffective in those cases, whereas an independently operating inventive mechanism would have had its successes and failures (“failures” meaning functioning organisms that did not stand the test of natural selection). Why do you think your God planned for all those species to “explode” onto the Cambrian scene and then depart so (relatively) soon? -dhw: It still depends on how you define balance. Until the Earth explodes, is burnt up, is smashed to pieces or whatever, it will have some sort of balance.-DAVID: We see imbalance now...Red in tooth and claw still applies and is best if maintained. Too many people surviving in Africa is displacing the wildlife... For the best outcome for living organisms, the original balances are best. That is indisputable.-You wrote: “At each period of history, the Earth and life have maintained a careful successful balance.” At each period of life's history, species have become extinct, so what balances what? If “Nature red in tooth and claw” is best, the best balance was clearly before the introduction of humans, who are the reddest of all Nature's animal species. “Too many people”? So balance depends on there being fewer people, which means war, natural catastrophes, disease etc. to restore the natural balance. Fair enough, but it really makes you wonder why God bothered to preprogramme the life cycle of the monarch butterfly.
 
dhw: ...so I am prepared to consider different options. No teasing. Whereas certainly possible on Monday, impossible on Tuesday, maybe on Wednesday....that's teasing.
DAVID: I've just been mulling. And I have declared my position at the start of this thread.-You said that the basic patterns were preprogrammed, and the IM was “adaptation and nothing more”. You also went on to say that “there is a whole layer of gene function we know nothing about”, and later conceded it was “certainly possible” that the IM could do more than adapt. Please carry on mulling, but perhaps it might be wiser to refrain from authoritative statements about what functions genes can and cannot perform until science finally establishes what genes can and cannot perform!-dhw: Of course we have these three options, and of course consciousness is a significant event (especially for us), but that is still no reason to believe that God started out with the intention of creating us, was always in total control, and preprogrammed the monarch butterfly's life cycle! He may have started out with no particular intentions, may not have been in total control, and the Earth might not be unbalanced even by the extinction of the monarch butterfly, which might have figured out its migratory pattern all by itself!-DAVID: I think my analysis has proven to me 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that my theory is correct.
 
Well, you should know what you think your analysis has proven to you, and you wouldn't believe it if you thought there was reasonable doubt. Where you, Tony and I differ is in what we hold to be reasonable doubt. Just where does “rational sense” end and faith begin? For me - and I hope for you and Tony too - that is what makes these discussions worthwhile.