DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, November 23, 2014, 13:24 (3651 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What you seem to forget is that migration is not entirely related to climate. Turtles migrate around the Atlantic and return to Florida, salmon migrate back and forth from ocean to inland streams. Migration ability is part of the original patterns IMHO. And I don't think you know Mexico. I've toured all over and except for the high mountain ranges it is quite warm and tropical in many areas. -I will gladly yield to your superior knowledge of migration, turtles, salmon and Mexico. But do you really believe that your God preprogrammed the very first cells so that billions of years and organisms later their descendants would produce two types of bird and butterfly to migrate or not migrate, irrespective of conditions? Is it not possible that each species in its own environment took its own decisions for its own particular reasons, and passed the lifestyle on to subsequent generations? -dhw: Yesterday you agreed that no one knows how much autonomy the inventive mechanism might have. Today you're back to your adaptations prescribed by your usual nebulous “information” and “guidelines”. ... 
DAVID: You are the one that does not understand 'information', which is not nebulous and is accepted by all Darwin and non-Darwin commentators. [...] I'll repeat this until you recognize that DNA imparts information and instructions, just like when you got your computer and set it up. That we have only a partial glimmer of all that information is very obvious from the current state of research.-I am not doubting that DNA imparts information and instructions. My point is that you use the terms “information” and “guidelines” to blur the issue of autonomy. The fact that we have only a “partial glimmer” should stop you from insisting that the scope of the IM is limited to minor adaptations. -dhw: Not “the” balance, but “a” balance. A balance is indeed required for life to continue, and that balance is constantly changing..... If we didn't have it, we wouldn't survive, whereas other organisms would. 
DAVID: I realize I have not explained clearly that I view the balance in nature as requiring a vast number the organisms, both animal and plant. When I wrote about the need for life to have a constant supply of energy, I was pointing out that the top of the heap, humans, eat those that are not at the top, and those eat others below until one gets down to bacteria at the bottom. [...] The bush has purpose through balance. You keep looking at climate balance and catastrophic events and that is a side issue.-Of course nature contains a vast number of organisms, and of course life requires energy, and of course they get it from one another. You have said that 99% of species that ever existed are now extinct. I don't know if the figure is correct, but it shows you that the bush and the balance keep changing as conditions change, climate and catastrophe being only two of the relevant factors. The latest is human intervention. Please tell me what you are trying to prove.