Revisiting convergence (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, June 19, 2015, 16:48 (3444 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Why on earth convergence should be regarded as evidence of “pattern planning” I don't know. If all forms of life developed from earlier forms, it stands to reason that regardless of divergence, there will be similar solutions to similar problems.-DAVID: It stands to reason that it makes it much easier to plan an evolution of life process if some standard solutions and plans are in place in the beginning.-The at best tautological statement that it is easier to plan evolutionary life processes if you plan them can be countered by the equally tautological statement that it is easier for evolutionary mechanisms to work out their own solutions if they are left to work out their own solutions. 
 
dhw: If you insist on interpreting every variation (divergence) and every similarity (convergence) as evidence of God's planning, I shall have to insist on asking you why each example - in this case the venom of the centipede and the spider - was essential to the production of humans.-DAVID: I don't know that it is. It is a point you keep insisting on, as though every variation is part of a necessary plan for human development. It obviously isn't.-It is you who have always insisted that your God's purpose in creating life and evolution was to produce humans! You have previously argued that you don't know why all these variations were necessary. However, I gladly accept your acknowledgement that all these variations obviously were NOT necessary for human development, and I trust you will now also acknowledge that the long higgledy-piggledy history of life obviously does not fit in with your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution. -dhw: So just add it to the weaverbird's nest, the monarch's lifestyle, the plover's navigation, the whale's blowhole, the spider's silk...This could go on forever. I have a proposal: if you stop harping on about planning, I'll stop asking you how the plans fit in with anthropocentrism.-DAVID: Again, I don't know that that they need to fit in with the final goal. Maybe God is just being inventive on the side of the major stream to see or show just how clever He can be in conjuring up Natures Wonders-Or maybe (if he is there) he is just seeing how clever the autonomous inventive mechanism can be in conjuring up Nature's Wonders.-dhw: But please don't stop telling us about Nature's Wonders. These are a revelation in themselves.
DAVID: Thank you, and yes they are. They make my point that these complex life plans require design.-I don't know why you call them “life plans”, except that you are desperate to include the word “plan” in all your observations. I agree that these complexities require design, since I cannot believe that organisms simply blunder into them. The point at issue is whether they do the designing for themselves.