DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, November 16, 2014, 15:07 (3661 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: When you talk of balance, you need to say what is balanced against what. Some species are more successful than others, so some go extinct, or a catastrophe obliterates 90% of them. Is that balance? Why (and by whom) should some species be regarded as more important than others?-DAVID: "The term balance of nature is a recognized scientific concept:
The balance of nature is a theory that proposes that ecological systems are usually in a stable equilibrium (homeostasis), which is to say that a small change in some particular parameter (the size of a particular population, for example) will be corrected by some negative feedback that will bring the parameter back to its original "point of balance" with the rest of the system. It may apply where populations depend on each other, for example in predator/prey systems, or relationships between herbivores and their food source. It is also sometimes applied to the relationship between the Earth's ecosystem, the composition of the atmosphere, and the world's weather."-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_nature-Perhaps you didn't notice that according to this article, the theory has been largely discredited, especially among ecologists.-DAVID: I view this concept as fitting Tony's comments and it fits Darwin's agony over the fact that cruel animals eat other animals. All life must consume energy to continue. It must be in balance, which is always restored after catastrophes. Dinosaurs, Chicxulub, us as examples.-There have always been periods of what you might call imbalance followed by what you might call balance followed by “imbalance” followed by “balance”, and this will continue until the Earth is destroyed, and “imbalance” wins the day. You might call it punctuated equilibrium. The concept tells us nothing except that life and/or Planet Earth will continue until life and/or Planet Earth ends.-DAVID: There is no evidence of improvisation in the clear picture of step-wise development from single cell to us. 
dhw: Can you really trace a clear picture? If so, the Nobel Prize awaits you. No improvisation? What about the bush? Do bacteria to trilobite to dinosaur to mosquito to boa-constrictor to dodo to elephant to duck-billed platypus to gorilla to monarch butterfly suggest to you a clear, step-wise development from single cell to us?

DAVID: Patterns at first, then adaptations that flair out in many directions, creating a living balance in each niche in nature. Spetner even quotes the Talmud on this point! More of that later as I finish the book. The rabbis had this figured out 300 years ago.-So please describe the clear steps by which bacteria became humans. -dhw: You said earlier that you were “bothered” by both the preprogramming theory and the dabbling theory, but any alternative clearly bothers you even more because it would cast doubts on your anthropocentrism. You don't get rid of the bother that easily, though. It will continue to give you a dilemma, no matter how hard you try to ignore it. Your dilemma, however, lies in the detail. Mine is on a far broader scale!
DAVID: My 'bother' is coming to an end as I mull. I'm sorry you are stuck in dead-end thinking. But your challenges have been very helpful.-It is far from dead-end thinking, as the quest has led to at least two hypotheses I had not considered when I wrote the brief guide: 1) a panpsychist alternative to God(s), 2) an inventive mechanism to explain the course of evolution. The discussions between us have always been very helpful and (for me) very instructive, but they will always culminate in dilemmas that can only be resolved by faith, no matter how hard you try to kid yourself that you have all the answers!