Innovation and Speciation: whale changes (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, May 24, 2017, 13:21 (2739 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your interpretation of my statement is a stretch. Once again, more oxygen allows for more energy consumption in more complex animals, but in no way guarantees that such animals should evolve. That requires, as you note, another input into the process. Innate drive from '?' or God.

The issue is whether, as you have been claiming, speciation precedes environmental change or is initiated by it. If you think your God created all the Cambrian species first and then raised oxygen levels to accommodate them, you are welcome to your beliefs, but then you can’t say environmental change, which must have come last in your version of the process, played a role in initiating speciation! Whether the innate drive to improve (or complexify) stems from God or not has no bearing on the link between speciation and environment.

DAVID: I apologize for yesterday's statements, but your 'in tiny steps' irritated me. The animation was to re-introduce the magnitude of the eight/nine steps of change from air to water.
Apology accepted, though I hope it is for your accusation of intellectual dishonesty rather than the errors of fact concerning the animation.

DAVID: The fossils indicate nothing gradual. The phenotypic gaps are huge. The whale series is very important to my reasoning about God and evolution. Putting mammals in water makes no sense on the face of it. But neither does the strange retina in humans until it is carefully studied. In that eco-niche they are not top predators, other than Orcas. Sharks are. So on one hand I don't know why, but I suspect there is a reason that research might find.

So far so good. You can find no way of fitting whale evolution into your personal theory, but just like Dawkins you hope research will prove you right.

DAVID: On the other hand the series clearly demonstrate the need for advanced planning and design, since the aquatic mammals need to breathe air.

No it doesn’t. Clearly aquatic mammals need to breathe air, but that does not mean the changes preceded the need!

DAVID: The implication of saltation for me implies prior design and God.
That doesn’t make it true.

DAVID: To me it is logical that the changes preceded full use of aquatic life, since the requirements are so complex.

“Full”, presumably to cover the oddity of your God doing it all in different stages over millions of years. Yes, complexity is a powerful argument for design, but no argument whatsoever for speciation preceding environmental change.

DAVID: I accept God is in charge as a result of all the studying I have done. Whales did not happen by chance. They were designed, as were porpoises, manatees, etc.

And you have come up with a theory that is riddled with contradictions and illogicalities, such as speciation being separate from environment and preceding environmental change although environmental change initiates speciation. And you don't know why your God – who is in total control and whose one and only purpose was to produce humans - designed the whale, let alone why he designed it in 8/9 different stages.