Pre-programming evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, January 21, 2015, 22:59 (3592 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: As far as fine tuning is concerned, the whole argument seems to me as inconclusive as the so-called anthropic principle. We have life, so the conditions that have led to that life must be conducive to life. Whether other conditions might lead to other forms of life we don't know. We can say, "This is how it is", but we can't say, "This is how it had to be" because we have nothing to compare it with.-Fair enough, but when one looks at the required exactness, against the thought that the universe appeared by chance, your line or reasoning falls apart.
> 
> dhw: As for your dilemma, David, which relates to the subject of this thread, you have conveniently omitted the third element, which we have spent so long discussing. You don't know to what extent organisms have been left to themselves to direct the course of evolution.-But giving the organisms an IM is just a subsection of the design theory.-> dhw:unless the weaverbird's nest is crucial to the balance of nature and/or the production of humans, this nebulous argument falls apart. So your dilemma is not nearly as straightforward as you make it seem --I gave you weaverbirds' nests as an example of life's inventiveness. Look at the amazing diversity of life's inventions. For no reason or for purpose? I see purpose. It is the diversity I look at, not one lone form of nest. Big picture, forest, not trees.