Evolution took a long time (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, December 28, 2016, 19:23 (2887 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Once again, what is your criterion for right and wrong? (Please answer.) If it’s that life should continue, any old balance will do. If it’s what is good for individual species, then history reveals a balance that was 99% wrong.

What I am presenting as wrong is when humans arrive in a new area of the Earth and change the balance from the original form, i.e., Australia, Yellowstone, New Zealand as prime examples. In each case the introduction of improper new species or the destruction of an existing species made an ecological mess of things. What was naturally wrong for 99% of extinct species was a change in ecosystem balances they could not adapt to, which is a part of the evolutionary spectrum of activity, not a fault of the system. We've agreed the balanced is in constant change throughout history. Please note that I am discussing the current balances only (!) which have only two important attributes: they can easily be messed up by humans, and natures balance is important as a food supply.

DAVID: Research may well show why whales, monarch migration, and weaverbird nests are necessary.
dhw: Necessary for what? […] I sincerely believe humans would also survive without the weaverbird’s nest. Don't you?

DAVID: That is your belief. we don't know that as factual. I believe that every organism is there for a reason, not necessarily apparent to us.

dhw: I know this is your belief, which is why I pick on the weaverbird’s nest to show how unreasonable it is. So do you honestly believe that life would end or humans would perish without the nest?

Of course not. But there may be long term effects we cannot understand now.

DAVID: You missed my point. I am discussing God as a perfect designer, with the human retina in mind. It is atheists who complain about it, while science shows how perfect it is.

dhw:We were discussing whales, monarchs and the weaverbird's nest in the context of my possibly God-given autonomous inventive mechanism hypothesis, and I don’t see how atheists complaining about the retina make my hypothesis illogical and atheistic.

Because whatever is complex in current evolution must have God's input, as in the retina. Not ever autonomous, semi-autonomous. See my entry today about the human living complexity.

DAVID: Our concepts disagree as usual. I see evolution as directional toward increased complexity at all times. If organisms are free-wheeling in producing new complexity, if that drifts off course toward humans, God will guide it back. Inventiveness and guided all at the same time.

I have no idea, and nor do you, how the weaverbird’s nest can be on course towards humans, and yet you insist that God had to guide it. By freewheeling, I understand that organisms organize their own evolution, lifestyle and wonders, which means they have an AUTONOMOUS inventive mechanism. To be precise, the weaverbird designed its own nest. Perhaps you should tell us next what you understand by freewheeling.

Free-wheeling means the organisms are possibly free to invent and try out modifications, perhaps though epigenetic mechanisms, but God reviews and exerts final design formation. The pattern of evolution is to become more and more complex finally arriving at humans.