Autonomy and balance (Evolution)
I am drawing various threads together so that we don't have to keep repeating arguments. (My thanks again to David for yet more fascinating and enlightening articles.) 	 Under “balance”: David's comment: A perfect reason for the bush of life. As I've stated everyone has to eat for evolution to exist and progress. Ecosystems must maintain balance. The higgildy-piggeldy has full-blown purpose behind it.-But the balance is constantly changing! The ecosystems do not maintain balance, they change their balance. That is why 99% of species have gone extinct. The only “full-blown purpose” (if there is/was one) would therefore have to be changing the balance - so you must choose: did your God manipulate every change in organisms and in the environment (and hence in the balance), or did he leave it to the organisms themselves as they interacted with the uncontrolled environment - apart from his occasional dabble?-Under “Shrimp”: dhw: After all, without the shrimp's crusher, nature would have been unbalanced, wouldn't it? DAVID: You must be clairvoyant. You identified a top predator in an ecosystem before I published an essay on the subject: Balance of nature; ecologists view, Thursday, June 02, 2016, 15:45. I'm impressed!-See above. The literal meaning of “clairvoyant” is clear seeing, and I hope you will be able to see clearly that without the shrimp's crusher, nature would have had a DIFFERENT balance. Under “snow”: dhw: Thank you for this clarification. It's good to hear that your God did not after all create every innovation and natural wonder, 99% of which are extinct, for the purpose of producing and feeding humans.... The balance of nature is whatever balance exists at any particular time, and it is not geared to any particular species but changes according to whatever species are flourishing at that time. "Nothing more." DAVID: I'm glad we straightened out your contortionating.-You may not have realized that all the above contortions were contained in your earlier hypotheses - what I called your anthropocentric interpretation of evolutionary history. And the idea that the higgledy-piggledy bush has “full blown purpose” behind it is another contortion, especially in view of your twists and turns in relation to the “complexity” mechanism, as now stated on the Lamarck thread: dhw: Your swift reversion to your God programming every complexity is not a variation on my theme at all. It is the exact opposite. All you are now saying is that the bush is higgledy-piggledy because God deliberately preprogrammed or dabbled every twig (just for the sake of complexity). I am saying it is higgledy-piggledy because (theistic version) God gave organisms the freedom to create their own complexities. DAVID: I'm agreeing with you. I like the idea of complexity for complexity's sake, with God's dabbling after the complexity appears, as He sees necessary.-If you agree that your God gave organisms the freedom to create their own complexities, as opposed to his preprogramming or dabbling every change, you have a clear explanation for the higgledy-piggledy bush, in which the balance of nature is constantly changing through the work of the organisms themselves, following no “full-blown purpose” other perhaps than your God's “let's see what happens next”. And disappearing into this deliberate free-for-all is the theory that he created life in order to produce humans - at best they are the result of a dabble.-I'm afraid I still can't take to the idea that the autonomous inventive mechanism creates complexities for their own sake without any particular function, bearing in mind the fact that all the different species extant and extinct, weird or not weird (by your standards), arose through innovations that must have worked. In the context of your God's “purpose”, diversity for its own sake sounds more feasible to me, as organisms explore the different possibilities of survival/improvement. Finally, if your God designed an autonomous inventive mechanism which created all the complexities that resulted in all the diverse species, and if you believe in common descent, that mechanism can only be situated within the cell communities that go to make up each organism. More about this under “protozoa”.
Autonomy and balance
by David Turell 
, Saturday, June 04, 2016, 02:21 (3093 days ago) @ dhw
dhw; But the balance is constantly changing! The ecosystems do not maintain balance, they change their balance. That is why 99% of species have gone extinct. The only “full-blown purpose” (if there is/was one) would therefore have to be changing the balance - so you must choose: did your God manipulate every change in organisms and in the environment (and hence in the balance), or did he leave it to the organisms themselves as they interacted with the uncontrolled environment - apart from his occasional dabble?-You are nitpicking. Of course the balance changes as organisms change, but balance is always adjusting and maintaining. It may be briefly slightly out of balance, but adjusts right back. The balance means food for all, the necessary energy life requires. Looking at the present, I don't think God is currently adjusting, but our time here is so short as humans we haven't seen any current evolution. We've seen balance out of adjustment, but it is due to human clumsiness with Australia as a prime example. Since we are aware of epigenetic adaptations, they may be all that is necessary now. We don't know how new species arise, but that is not your question.-> dhw;The literal meaning of “clairvoyant” is clear seeing, and I hope you will be able to see clearly that without the shrimp's crusher, nature would have had a DIFFERENT balance.-Of course. There are micro balances in each little isolated area on Earth. It is not one vast balance.-> DAVID: I'm agreeing with you. I like the idea of complexity for complexity's sake, with God's dabbling after the complexity appears, as He sees necessary. > > If you agree that your God gave organisms the freedom to create their own complexities, as opposed to his preprogramming or dabbling every change, you have a clear explanation for the higgledy-piggledy bush, in which the balance of nature is constantly changing through the work of the organisms themselves, following no “full-blown purpose” other perhaps than your God's “let's see what happens next”.-Once again contorting my thoughts. Certainly a complexifying mechanism running on its own gets to the h-p bush, and God can then step in to help iron out problems, because in my view the whale series has to involve intellectual planning as a result of the phenotypic and physiologic changes demanded by the giant alterations. My God is certain of what happens next, while all this is going on.-> > dhw: I'm afraid I still can't take to the idea that the autonomous inventive mechanism creates complexities for their own sake without any particular function, bearing in mind the fact that all the different species extant and extinct, weird or not weird (by your standards), arose through innovations that must have worked. In the context of your God's “purpose”, diversity for its own sake sounds more feasible to me, as organisms explore the different possibilities of survival/improvement.-Complexities for its own sake best explains the whales to me. That is a weird and difficult series of changes, making the situations more difficult to solve instead of simply better. Of course, what survives today worked. > > dhw; Finally, if your God designed an autonomous inventive mechanism which created all the complexities that resulted in all the diverse species, and if you believe in common descent, that mechanism can only be situated within the cell communities that go to make up each organism. -Yes, within the organisms that existed at some layer of their DNA genomes.
Autonomy and balance
dhw: But the balance is constantly changing! The ecosystems do not maintain balance, they change their balance. That is why 99% of species have gone extinct. The only “full-blown purpose” (if there is/was one) would therefore have to be changing the balance - so you must choose: did your God manipulate every change in organisms and in the environment (and hence in the balance), or did he leave it to the organisms themselves as they interacted with the uncontrolled environment - apart from his occasional dabble? David: You are nitpicking. Of course the balance changes as organisms change, but balance is always adjusting and maintaining. It may be briefly slightly out of balance, but adjusts right back. The balance means food for all, the necessary energy life requires. Since 99% of all species are extinct, who do you mean by “all”? Life means living organisms, and what you are saying in effect is that so long as life continues and there is food for whatever species happen to be around, nature is balanced. If every organism on earth except bacteria were to die, nature would therefore still be balanced, because life continues! DAVID: …We've seen balance out of adjustment, but it is due to human clumsiness with Australia as a prime example. […] We don't know how new species arise, but that is not your question.-It is very much my question, since "balance of nature" is so important to your concept of God's planning. Did he do it all, or did he leave it (mainly) to the organisms? When you say balance is out of adjustment, you presumably mean that human interference is causing mass extinction of species. Before humans, it was nature that caused the mass extinctions. But there was/is still food for the survivors, so how do you know what constitutes balance and imbalance? (See above)-DAVID: I'm agreeing with you. I like the idea of complexity for complexity's sake, with God's dabbling after the complexity appears, as He sees necessary. Dhw: If you agree that your God gave organisms the freedom to create their own complexities, as opposed to his preprogramming or dabbling every change, you have a clear explanation for the higgledy-piggledy bush, in which the balance of nature is constantly changing through the work of the organisms themselves, following no “full-blown purpose” other perhaps than your God's “let's see what happens next”.-DAVID: Once again contorting my thoughts. Certainly a complexifying mechanism running on its own gets to the h-p bush, and God can then step in to help iron out problems […] My God is certain of what happens next, while all this is going on. -“Running on its own” means the organisms themselves and not God are responsible for the higgledy-piggledy bush. That is not a contortion. If you insist that your God is clairvoyant, that is your personal reading of his mind and has nothing to do with the autonomy of the organisms. -dhw: I'm afraid I still can't take to the idea that the autonomous inventive mechanism creates complexities for their own sake without any particular function, bearing in mind the fact that all the different species extant and extinct [..] arose through innovations that must have worked. In the context of your God's “purpose”, diversity for its own sake sounds more feasible to me, as organisms explore the different possibilities of survival/improvement. DAVID: Complexities for its own sake best explains the whales to me. That is a weird and difficult series of changes, making the situations more difficult to solve instead of simply better. Of course, what survives today worked.	-And what survived yesterday also worked. You don't get fossils of organisms that didn't live! I can't remember now what website you referred us to in relation to whales, but this one seems to me to offer a very clear account of their evolution, with explanations of the changes. 	The evolution of whales - Understanding Evolution http://www. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03-But if you think your God had to dabble to fix it all, that's OK with me. It is the autonomy of the mechanism with the bush spreading “as it wishes” that is my point of focus.-dhw; Finally, if your God designed an autonomous inventive mechanism which created all the complexities that resulted in all the diverse species, and if you believe in common descent, that mechanism can only be situated within the cell communities that go to make up each organism. DAVID: Yes, within the organisms that existed at some layer of their DNA genomes. -Thank you for your agreement. For further discussion, see “protozoa”.
Autonomy and balance
by David Turell , Saturday, June 04, 2016, 15:33 (3092 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Since 99% of all species are extinct, who do you mean by “all”? Life means living organisms, and what you are saying in effect is that so long as life continues and there is food for whatever species happen to be around, nature is balanced. If every organism on earth except bacteria were to die, nature would therefore still be balanced, because life continues!-Yes. Even bacteria need food for survival. Life is continuous organization against entropy (2nd law)-> dhw; since "balance of nature" is so important to your concept of God's planning. Did he do it all, or did he leave it (mainly) to the organisms?-Balance is what results from animals' adaptations to their locality. They have epigenetics but s you know I don't know how much God steps in.-> dhw: When you say balance is out of adjustment, you presumably mean that human interference is causing mass extinction of species. Before humans, it was nature that caused the mass extinctions. But there was/is still food for the survivors, so how do you know what constitutes balance and imbalance? -If life continues nature is balanced or attains balance after an extinction.-> > DAVID: Once again contorting my thoughts. Certainly a complexifying mechanism running on its own gets to the h-p bush, and God can then step in to help iron out problems […] My God is certain of what happens next, while all this is going on. > > > dhw; “Running on its own” means the organisms themselves and not God are responsible for the higgledy-piggledy bush. That is not a contortion. If you insist that your God is clairvoyant, that is your personal reading of his mind and has nothing to do with the autonomy of the organisms. -You are contorting. God gives the organisms the mechanisms to use and the bush appears. I would assume that He knows the bush is coming with the help of his mechanism. 	 > > dhw:And what survived yesterday also worked. You don't get fossils of organisms that didn't live! I can't remember now what website you referred us to in relation to whales, but this one seems to me to offer a very clear account of their evolution, with explanations of the changes.-Of course the explanations are clear! Everything works with survival. I'm referring to the advanced planning required to move a nose to a blow hole, conceive, birth, and nurse under water when it has never been done before. Look at the required planning, not the survival results. This is true saltation and the point of my discussion.! > > But if you think your God had to dabble to fix it all, that's OK with me. It is the autonomy of the mechanism with the bush spreading “as it wishes” that is my point of focus.-It may have worked that way
Autonomy and balance
dhw: Since 99% of all species are extinct, who do you mean by “all”? Life means living organisms, and what you are saying in effect is that so long as life continues and there is food for whatever species happen to be around, nature is balanced. If every organism on earth except bacteria were to die, nature would therefore still be balanced, because life continues! DAVID: Yes. Even bacteria need food for survival. Life is continuous organization against entropy (2nd law).-I take “yes” to be your agreement that the “balance of nature” simply means life continues in no matter what form. -dhw: When you say balance is out of adjustment, you presumably mean that human interference is causing mass extinction of species. Before humans, it was nature that caused the mass extinctions. But there was/is still food for the survivors, so how do you know what constitutes balance and imbalance? DAVID: If life continues nature is balanced or attains balance after an extinction.-After an extinction it changes its balance. If balance = life continues, it is pointless to claim that balance is “out of adjustment” so long as there are still living organisms - as there are, for instance, in Australia. You have constantly given “balance of nature” as a reason for your God dabbling in order to create innovations and natural wonders, but life would continue without the whale's blowhole and the weaverbird's nest. I suggest that if there is any purpose at all, it would appear to be diversity and change, and since you now accept the possibility that your God gave organisms the intelligence - though you still refuse to use that word - to organize their own innovations (and of course I also include the natural wonders), we have a clear explanation for the seemingly random history of the bush. Your God may occasionally dabble, but the rest is worked out by the organisms themselves in conjunction with the ever changing environment - which (theistic version) he may also have designed to come up with its own higgledy-piggledy comings and goings, apart perhaps from his occasional dabble. (“Let's do a Chicxulub!”) -DAVID: Once again contorting my thoughts. Certainly a complexifying mechanism running on its own gets to the h-p bush, and God can then step in to help iron out problems […] My God is certain of what happens next, while all this is going on.-dhw; “Running on its own” means the organisms themselves and not God are responsible for the higgledy-piggledy bush. That is not a contortion. If you insist that your God is clairvoyant, that is your personal reading of his mind and has nothing to do with the autonomy of the organisms. DAVID: You are contorting. God gives the organisms the mechanisms to use and the bush appears. I would assume that He knows the bush is coming with the help of his mechanism.-Where is the contortion? I have granted the possibility that your God gave organisms the mechanism. You have granted that the mechanism may run on its own. If so, it is the organisms that create the bush, not God. Yes, he will know that a bush is coming, because that is why he gave organisms the mechanism in the first place. But each twig is the product of the autonomous mechanism, and he will not know what each twig will be unless he is clairvoyant. Whereas in your hypothesis of preprogramming plus dabbles, your God had to specially design every single innovation and natural wonder.-dhw: I can't remember now what website you referred us to in relation to whales, but this one seems to me to offer a very clear account of their evolution, with explanations of the changes. DAVID: Of course the explanations are clear! Everything works with survival. I'm referring to the advanced planning required to move a nose to a blow hole, conceive, birth, and nurse under water when it has never been done before. Look at the required planning, not the survival results. This is true saltation and the point of my discussion.!-We have long since agreed on saltation! We are discussing the autonomy of the inventive mechanism, as below. dhw: But if you think your God had to dabble to fix it all [the whale], that's OK with me. It is the autonomy of the mechanism with the bush spreading “as it wishes” that is my point of focus. DAVID: It may have worked that way.-And that is the concession I have been pleading for. Thank you.
Autonomy and balance
by David Turell , Sunday, June 05, 2016, 15:29 (3091 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Yes. Even bacteria need food for survival. Life is continuous organization against entropy (2nd law). > > dhw: I take “yes” to be your agreement that the “balance of nature” simply means life continues in no matter what form. - Evolution of life is continuous, although interrupted by six great extinctions. > > dhw: After an extinction it changes its balance. If balance = life continues, it is pointless to claim that balance is “out of adjustment” so long as there are still living organisms - as there are, for instance, in Australia. You have constantly given “balance of nature” as a reason for your God dabbling in order to create innovations and natural wonders, but life would continue without the whale's blowhole and the weaverbird's nest. I suggest that if there is any purpose at all, it would appear to be diversity and change, and since you now accept the possibility that your God gave organisms the intelligence - though you still refuse to use that word - to organize their own innovations (and of course I also include the natural wonders), we have a clear explanation for the seemingly random history of the bush. Your God may occasionally dabble, but the rest is worked out by the organisms themselves in conjunction with the ever changing environment - which (theistic version) he may also have designed to come up with its own higgledy-piggledy comings and goings, apart perhaps from his occasional dabble. (“Let's do a Chicxulub!”) - A very acceptable summary, aside from the fact you do not understand Australia. They know what proper balance should be, but feral foreign species are damaging severely the original species balance. > > dhw: Where is the contortion? I have granted the possibility that your God gave organisms the mechanism. You have granted that the mechanism may run on its own. If so, it is the organisms that create the bush, not God. Yes, he will know that a bush is coming, because that is why he gave organisms the mechanism in the first place. But each twig is the product of the autonomous mechanism, and he will not know what each twig will be unless he is clairvoyant. - God is still the prime mover. Presuming He gave organisms a complexification mechanism (CM) He can probably anticipate the outcomes. - > We have long since agreed on saltation! We are discussing the autonomy of the inventive mechanism, as below. > > dhw: But if you think your God had to dabble to fix it all [the whale], that's OK with me. It is the autonomy of the mechanism with the bush spreading “as it wishes” that is my point of focus. > DAVID: It may have worked that way. > > dhw: And that is the concession I have been pleading for. Thank you. - Agreed
Autonomy and balance
dhw: After an extinction it [Nature] changes its balance. If balance = life continues, it is pointless to claim that balance is “out of adjustment” so long as there are still living organisms - as there are, for instance, in Australia. You have constantly given “balance of nature” as a reason for your God dabbling in order to create innovations and natural wonders, but life would continue without the whale's blowhole and the weaverbird's nest. I suggest that if there is any purpose at all, it would appear to be diversity and change, and since you now accept the possibility that your God gave organisms the intelligence - though you still refuse to use that word - to organize their own innovations (and of course I also include the natural wonders), we have a clear explanation for the seemingly random history of the bush. Your God may occasionally dabble, but the rest is worked out by the organisms themselves in conjunction with the ever changing environment - which (theistic version) he may also have designed to come up with its own higgledy-piggledy comings and goings, apart perhaps from his occasional dabble. (“Let's do a Chicxulub!”) - DAVID: A very acceptable summary, aside from the fact you do not understand Australia. They know what proper balance should be, but feral foreign species are damaging severely the original species balance. - Thank you, but if “balance of nature” only means that life continues in no matter what form, there is no such thing as “proper balance”. The feral foreign species are just as much living organisms as the original species, and so we simply have yet another change of balance. - dhw: Where is the contortion? I have granted the possibility that your God gave organisms the mechanism. You have granted that the mechanism may run on its own. If so, it is the organisms that create the bush, not God. DAVID: God is still the prime mover. Presuming He gave organisms a complexification mechanism (CM) - If he gave the organisms the mechanism, it is clear that he is the prime mover. Our long, long, long discussion has been about the existence of the autonomous inventive mechanism, not about whether God designed it. - dhw: But if you think your God had to dabble to fix it all [the whale], that's OK with me. It is the autonomy of the mechanism with the bush spreading “as it wishes” that is my point of focus. DAVID: It may have worked that way. dhw: And that is the concession I have been pleading for. Thank you. DAVID: Agreed. - Bring out the champagne!
Autonomy and balance
by David Turell , Monday, June 06, 2016, 18:25 (3090 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: A very acceptable summary, aside from the fact you do not understand Australia. They know what proper balance should be, but feral foreign species are damaging severely the original species balance. > > dhw: Thank you, but if “balance of nature” only means that life continues in no matter what form, there is no such thing as “proper balance”. The feral foreign species are just as much living organisms as the original species, and so we simply have yet another change of balance.-I understand that the feral foreign animals created a new balance, but the Aussies want to return to the original 'proper balance' to protect their unusual indigenous animals. > > dhw: If he gave the organisms the mechanism, it is clear that he is the prime mover. Our long, long, long discussion has been about the existence of the autonomous inventive mechanism, not about whether God designed it.-Agreed. There must be some sort of speciation mechanism, unless God directly dabbles.
Autonomy and balance
dhw: If “balance of nature” only means that life continues in no matter what form, there is no such thing as “proper balance”. The feral foreign species are just as much living organisms as the original species, and so we simply have yet another change of balance.-DAVID: I understand that the feral foreign animals created a new balance, but the Aussies want to return to the original 'proper balance' to protect their unusual indigenous animals.-Fine, but cut the word “proper”. There is no such thing as ”proper” balance if balance simply means the continuation of life. The Aussies want to return to the original balance.-dhw: If he gave the organisms the mechanism, it is clear that he is the prime mover. Our long, long, long discussion has been about the existence of the autonomous inventive mechanism, not about whether God designed it.-DAVID: Agreed. There must be some sort of speciation mechanism, unless God directly dabbles.-I would like to make the hypothesis a little clearer: if we believe in common descent, speciation can only take place through some sort of autonomous inventive intelligence within the cell communities themselves, unless there is a God who directly dabbles.
Autonomy and balance
by David Turell , Tuesday, June 07, 2016, 15:50 (3089 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: Agreed. There must be some sort of speciation mechanism, unless God directly dabbles. > > dhw: I would like to make the hypothesis a little clearer: if we believe in common descent, speciation can only take place through some sort of autonomous inventive intelligence within the cell communities themselves, unless there is a God who directly dabbles.-You have your version, I have mine: 'an autonomous inventive mechanism' (aim) or a 'complexification mechanism' (cm) is provided by God who may have to dabble in the future to correct problem solutions of the mechanisms. Alternatively God may be hands on all the way along in evolution. This latter alternative is not as compatible as aim or cm with the h-p bush of life. I think this is a good summary of where we are in discussion.
Autonomy and balance
DAVID: Agreed. There must be some sort of speciation mechanism, unless God directly dabbles.-dhw: I would like to make the hypothesis a little clearer: if we believe in common descent, speciation can only take place through some sort of autonomous inventive intelligence within the cell communities themselves, unless there is a God who directly dabbles.-DAVID: You have your version, I have mine: 'an autonomous inventive mechanism' (aim) or a 'complexification mechanism' (cm) is provided by God who may have to dabble in the future to correct problem solutions of the mechanisms. Alternatively God may be hands on all the way along in evolution. This latter alternative is not as compatible as aim or cm with the h-p bush of life. I think this is a good summary of where we are in discussion.-An interesting exercise, with a very pleasing recognition of the fact that the hands-on version is less compatible with the bush. I like it. But I would also like a version that both of us can accept. Bearing in mind that not even you can state categorically that God exists, may I try again?-If we believe in common descent, speciation may have taken place through an autonomous inventive mechanism (AIM) or complexification mechanism (CM) within the cell communities. If God exists, he would have provided the mechanism, and may have dabbled to correct problems. Alternatively, he may have guided evolution all the way. The latter hypothesis is not as compatible as an AIM or CM with the higgledy-piggledy bush of life.
Autonomy and balance
by David Turell , Thursday, June 09, 2016, 22:31 (3087 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: If we believe in common descent, speciation may have taken place through an autonomous inventive mechanism (AIM) or complexification mechanism (CM) within the cell communities. If God exists, he would have provided the mechanism, and may have dabbled to correct problems. Alternatively, he may have guided evolution all the way. The latter hypothesis is not as compatible as an AIM or CM with the higgledy-piggledy bush of life. - I agree.