EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, December 04, 2015, 18:07 (3275 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: So is it possible ...that God left the horse with the freedom to develop its own unidactyl hoof, and the weaverbird to design its own nest?
DAVID: ...The hoof is an onboard modification of an existing body form. I can see epigenetics playing a role here. -The onboard modification of existing forms still requires the cooperation of cell communities as they respond to the environment (which as I understand it is the basis of epigenetics). You have avoided actually saying yes, but I'll take this as meaning that proto-unidactyl horses were free and able to vary an existing pattern by themselves, as opposed to relying on God's intervention or a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for horses' hooves.
 
DAVID: The nest on the other hand requires intricate design of an object. I think that needs intelligent planning.-Most birds build nests, and even the most complex weaverbird apartment block is a variation on the pattern, like the horse varying the pattern of the foot. In both cases, once a new pattern has been successfully established, it is taken over by subsequent generations. You have rightly pointed out that cells do not have brains, and cellular intelligence is still controversial, but there is no controversy over the problem-solving intelligence of certain birds. So are you saying that other birds (like, say, pigeons) have been intelligent enough to produce their own simpler variations, and only the weaverbird needed God's private tuition (or computer programme)? My question is of course aimed partly at your “large organisms chauvinism” (Shapiro) in relation to the intelligence of our fellow organisms, and partly at your anthropocentric view of evolution (see below).-DAVID: If God guides evolution as I propose, I don't know why I have to define how much guidance for you. I've said I don't know, but to get humans as the goal, there has to be guidance. We humans are not required by environmental pressures. Our development is well beyond necessity.-As we have agreed repeatedly, NO multicellular organisms were required by environmental pressures, since bacteria have survived perfectly well from the year dot. IF humans were the goal right from the start, they would certainly have required guidance, but according to you not even the weaverbird could build its nest without “guidance”, so the weaverbird must also have been the goal. In fact, apart from minor modifications like the horse's hoof, ALL innovations, complex lifestyles and natural wonders extinct and extant required God's “guidance”, and yet his only goal was humans.
 
DAVID: I don't see a lack of neatness. I've explained to you the balance of nature, to fit the issue of food supply. Someone eats the platypus, etc. I'm sure God knew what he was doing, but in your position I can understand your doubts.

I'm afraid I have always had great difficulty figuring out how the lost 99% of species, lifestyles and natural wonders - not to mention my beloved weaverbird's nest - have served merely to provide a food supply for us humans. I can see why you understand my doubts.