Different in degree or kind: EVOLUTION (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, January 09, 2015, 00:23 (3607 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: You are repeating my own arguments! You said that human intelligence was not necessary for the survival of the apes, and I pointed out that NO evolution was “necessary”, since bacteria have survived unchanged. And so humans can't be special just because they were not needed!... I point to survival and improvement, but you can't see that these constitute purposes - even though you are confronted with them every day of your life.-You are attempting to turn the argument back onto me. You want survival and improvement to constitute purpose, and I agree partially. However, I'm not sure you have read Gould closely. There is more than one way to look at the phenomenon of advancing complexity in evolution, which provides survival thru improvement. Gould looks at humans as a 'glorious accident'. To quote him "if the tape of evolution were to be run again, it is extremely unlikely humans would appear". (slightly paraphrased) Note he views evolution as a series of chance contingent events with complexity building on previous contingent events. So what he describes makes the alternatives as either chance or design. I see no third way. Therefore I see guided purpose in survival thru improvement. And your sentence: " humans can't be special just because they were not needed!" is exactly my point turned on its head. Because there was no special natural threat that required the advances which made humans, they were created despite lack of need, therefore they are a special creation. This has always been my line of thought. 
> 
> dhw: Same again: all life appeared against all odds. If humans developed without any reason, so did all multicellular forms, since bacteria have survived without evolving. But if we accept improvement as a reason for evolution, it applies to all multicellular forms, including humans.-Exactly my point with the opposite conclusion. Why life, why advancement beyond bacteria? None of this was needed. Therefore there was a designed drive to complexity. Stated clearly in my first book.
> 
> dhw:Every organism tries to survive. That is one purpose. I'm suggesting that when the opportunity arises, organisms also try to improve.... But if you believe in common descent, every single innovation must have taken place within existing organisms, and whether your God started the whole process off or not, these innovations improved the organism's ability to cope with its environment. That is a purpose!-I am trying to discuss with you an overriding purpose, not individual animal purpose. What you are presenting is all true, but lacks the proper conclusion as I view it. Evolution is driven by information supplied. DNA could not have made its own information.- 
> 
> dhw: On the contrary, I have emphasized the twofold purposefulness of its developments: survival and improvement. What you are so desperately looking for is an overall purpose, and you insist that this is the production of humans..... The issue between us is not whether evolution is purpose-driven, but the fact that you are only prepared to consider ONE possible purpose.-Exactly. Your 'purpose' is at the individual animal level and is correct. But that is small 'purpose'. My 'purpose' tries to answer why is there life and evolution at all. Same question as 'why is there anything?'.