DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, November 19, 2014, 17:55 (3655 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw (16 November): Then you must argue that all the species, extinct and extant, including the monarch butterfly, were necessary for the existence of humans.
DAVID (16 November): Not at all. 
DAVID (17 November): I think that is the case. See the Spetner review.
dhw: Gratifying though it is to have converted you from “not at all” on Sunday to “I think that is the case” on Monday, I can't help wondering what you will believe on Tuesday. -DAVID: I have misled your thinking. My answer was obtuse. Under my thinking, much of the bush is created by variation from the original patterns. If the IM or the NREH is guided and controlled as I think, then monarchs were not completely planned in the beginning of life, but developed at the right moment in time again under implanted guidance in the genome. It is the balance in nature that is necessary to have humans as the custodians, as Genesis states, as well as having life last for 3.8 billion years until our arrival.-Your thinking is becoming harder and harder for me to follow. Clearly the bush is created by variations. However, you have discounted the possibility that the monarch could be an IM variation: “Complex lifestyles like the Monarch butterfly must be planned and designed. This cannot have come from a generic butterfly pattern. It is beyond the concept of an IM.” (2 November) If it was not completely planned in the beginning (what does that mean? God planned two lives and half a journey?), but developed “again under implanted guidance” at the right moment, God must have implanted the guidance later, which means he must have dabbled, but you have now discounted dabbling. If God started evolution with the intention of producing humans, why did he have to specially half preprogramme and then do a new dabble just to get the monarch to produce four generations and migrate within a year? I don't understand how the custodian reference fits in. Are you saying God had to produce the monarch so that humans could be its guardians? Or are you saying Nature had to be balanced in order to produce humans so that humans could preserve the balance of Nature? If so, what does that have to do with the monarchic half preprogramme and half dabble? I don't understand the relevance of “having life last for 3.8 billion years etc.” either. I'm sure this new theory must somehow make sense to you, so do forgive me if I am the one who is being obtuse, but perhaps you could formulate it a little more clearly?