DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, November 23, 2014, 14:52 (3651 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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?-I won't repeat the very complex lifestyle of the monarch. Is it due to chance, law, or design? Considering the body changes, the long flight plan and the eating requirements (milkweed) chance seems entirely unreasonable. Does it follow a required law of nature? No, they could just as well live their entire lives in Mexico, as they thrive here in winter. If they originated in the USA and discovered Mexico why not make life easier and stay there? No, there appears to be a specified complexity to require this life style. From that reasoning it appears designed to me. Designed by God or his proxy, the IM or NREH. I accept nothing else, because it makes no sense.. 
> 
> dhw: 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.-I don't think the IM is in any way autonomous. I never have. That we have a 'partial glimmer' is true for current knowledge, but for my reasoning, semi-autonomy is all I can predict, based on the comments above. -> 
> dhw: 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.-Only the point I keep repeating: everyone who is an animal needs to eat something. Plants need to thrive and supply needed nutrients to the animals. A very large bush is needed to provide that requirement. It is obvious. There is nothing more to the concept. By the way, the 99% lost species comment is what the literature presents.