EVOLUTION AND PURPOSE (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, December 05, 2015, 13:21 (3274 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: ...The hoof is an onboard modification of an existing body form. I can see epigenetics playing a role here. 
dhw: 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,...
DAVID: You don't see the point. Many mutations cause a loss of information. Losing four toes is such a loss. Evolution works tis way, so the horses may have done it on their own.-No, I don't see your point. Whether the modification is a loss or gain, it still requires cooperation among the cell communities in their response to the environment. (And I would call the loss of four toes “the loss of four toes”, not “a loss of information”.) My point was the question whether the horses did it on their own or had to be guided by your God. Thank you for answering.-dhw: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.
DAVID: They solve simple problems, not specialized nest building.-Birds build nests, but they don't actually know how to build nests? This leads straight to the unanswered question which was the whole point of my response here: “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)?”
 
dhw: 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 see nothing wrong with your analysis.-That's good news for the weaverbird, except that there is a direct contradiction you have not seen, or prefer not to see, in my analysis. The weaverbird was God's evolutionary goal, but God's only evolutionary goal was humans.-dhw: I'm afraid I have always had great difficulty figuring out how the lost 99% of species, lifestyles and natural wonders - have served merely to provide a food supply for us humans. I can see why you understand my doubts.
DAVID: Somebody has to eat somebody. The current animals are a vast improvement over dinosaurs. What is wrong with losing 99% to create progress in evolution? What is here is complicated enough and there is just so much room for life on Earth.

Nobody has to eat anybody. Meat-eating is not essential to life. I've often wondered why your God would deliberately have invented the sheer horror of carnivorousness. I'm not sure that dinosaurs would agree with your criteria for ”improvement” or indeed how they served the purpose of providing a food supply for humans since we weren't around at the time. But perhaps you are assuming that a leg of lamb is more nourishing than a leg of brontosaurus.