Innovation and Speciation: whale changes (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, May 24, 2017, 18:24 (2738 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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!

I did not say Cambrian animals first, then oxygen rose. Oxygen was about 10% at the start of the Cambrian, much more than previously, and certainly enough to allow the Cambrian to appear, but NOT REQUIRE it.

dhw: Whether the innate drive to improve (or complexify) stems from God or not has no bearing on the link between speciation and environment.

I agree. I was just pointing out the need to propose a cause of the 'drive' for complexity.

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.
dhw: Apology accepted, though I hope it is for your accusation of intellectual dishonesty rather than the errors of fact concerning the animation.

It is.

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

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

They didn't just jump in and reproduce. It is obvious changes had to come first. Again the gaps in form and physiology are huge.

DAVID: The implication of saltation for me implies prior design and God.

dhw: That doesn’t make it true.

Complex saltation doesn't come out of this air. It requires design.

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

dhw: “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.

Yes, it is my argument. The environment change in this discussion is mammals going from land to water to live. They can't simply jump into salt water, orally scoop up plankton and survive. It requires kidney change in handling the excess salt, as one tiny example. Do I need to point our every physiologic problem presented? I've mentioned reproductive and birthing issues.

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.

dhw: 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.

Wrong use of the word 'initiate'. Environmental change in O2 allowed for changes in the Cambrian to appear, but did not cause (initiate) them. As for whales I've made a case above as to why design of speciation had to come first.