Balance of nature illustrated (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 10, 2015, 09:54 (3355 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw:Please remember we are trying to find a convincing explanation for the diversity of life and the constant comings and goings, which you say amount to 99% of life forms but were all somehow geared to the production of humans. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant, but sometimes it is quite hard to follow your line of reasoning.
DAVID: The reasoning is working back from the against-odds appearance of humans. We know humans are here. We know that life stays in balance, despite all the losses. Therefore I assume a connection, which is, since we know that life takes continuous ingestion of energy, the two are tied together.-ALL life is against odds, and we know the duck-billed platypus is here. I still don't understand what you mean by “life stays in balance”. The 99% of extinct species suggest that it doesn't. I can certainly accept Romansh's “interconnectedness”, but that would apply even if there were no humans on Earth.
 
dhw: I don't have a problem with “design” as an argument. The problem for me continues to be the difficulty of fitting together all the bits and pieces that make up your choice: a 3.7-billion-year inheritable programme, divine personal demonstrations, the relevance of the nest and a 99% extinction rate to a balanced food supply and the emergence of humans as God's goal for evolution...-DAVID: Of explained my reasoning above. For all the incidental issues you keep dwelling upon, I have offered reasonable guesses. But I stick to the dilemma as the best spot to be in for the moment: I don't have an answer. Which is why I brought up the issue of the mind of God. Does He think like we do? We have only our minds to consider as evidence. I don't know if He does. I see the evidence for evolution of life. I have assumed that God guides it, as the best explanation for appearance of humans. You keep harping on how He does it, and I've freely admitted, I don't know.
 -If God exists, of course we can't know for sure how he thinks. So we could stop speculating and end all discussions, which would be the classic agnostic approach: impossible to know...end of story. But it is our nature to seek explanations for the world as we know it. The issues I've raised concerning your own hypotheses (preprogramming and dabbling) are far from incidental, since the weaverbird problem exemplifies that raised by every single innovation and lifestyle that you regard as beyond the capabilities of organisms themselves. You've given me reasons for rejecting my alternative hypothesis (an autonomous inventive mechanism), and I've given you reasons for doubting yours. Neither of us knows. -DAVID: It seems as if you will accept design if I can prove a methodology to God's handling of evolution. I can't. Based on odds humans shouldn't be here. Since they are here, it is easy to assume God arranged it. Easy for me but not for you. So be it. -I have never asked for proof, because we both know proof is impossible. I merely ask for coherent explanations. See above for the odds against the duck-billed platypus. Yes, it's easy to assume God arranged it, and it's easy for an atheist to assume there is no such thing as God. What's not so easy is to explain how God did it or chance did it. You're happy to ask the atheist how chance could have done it, but complain if you are asked how God could have done it. -DAVID: Remember, my acceptance of God is based on lots of other factors besides the process of evolution.-That is a fair comment, and my own open-mindedness on the subject also incorporates other factors.