Logic and evolution (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Friday, July 15, 2016, 23:26 (612 days ago) @ dhw

dhw:But this does not explain why he needed to design the weaverbird's nest in order to fulfil his purpose of producing homo sapiens. See below as regards your various dislocated arguments.

You keep equating two facts that are not necessarily related to any great degree. Complexity for complexity's sake may be a method God used to drive evolutionary complexity so that it reached the end result of humans.

dhw: All I ask is that you acknowledge the possibility that the inventive mechanism is autonomous, and so it is possible that God DID give the weaverbird the intelligence to design its own nest. Thank you.

Not at all likely in my view.

dhw: You keep switching your focus from humans as God's purpose to complexity for its own sake. Yes, the evolutionary mechanism, whatever may be its nature and source, entails a drive from simple to complex, which explains the existence of every single multicellular creature that ever lived: there was no requirement for ANY of them, so there is no point in saying there was no requirement for humans as if that supported your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution.

But you are basically agreeing with me in the beginning of your comment. Humans are logical endpoint of the drive to complexity.

dhw: I find it perfectly logical that if conditions change, any adaptation will entail internal incorporation of and adjustment to the new external information, and so what would be the point of retaining the old, out-of-date internal information? I find it perfectly conceivable that the same process might occur when there is innovation (essential for speciation) - there have to be gains for the organism to perpetuate the new structure, but there may well be losses as parts of the old structure become redundant. This would be the RESULT of the changes, and not the cause.

You still have no evidence whatsoever for your claim that speciation may occur “solely from a loss of information, which means all the info needed for evolution was present from the beginning,” (my bold) and you still haven't explained what you mean by “all the info”. External info is info, and some of the new internal info required for innovation may eventually become old info that can be discarded when organisms need to adapt.

The evidence I have is that I read over and over again from all researchers, Darwin-types and ID folks that innovation is the result of a loss of genes. If I run into another article I'll give its source.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum