Innovation and Speciation: whale changes (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, May 25, 2017, 13:40 (2738 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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.

If one thing precedes another, it comes first. If speciation preceded environmental change, then animals must have come before the increase in oxygen. It is not REQUIRED, which is why there has to be a drive for improvement, which you call complexity. There are three phases: oxygen first; this activates the drive for improvement which you call complexity, and then comes speciation: opportunity created, opportunity taken, outcome speciation. If oxygen comes first, it initiates the process. To deal with a point you raise later, initiate means to begin, take the first step, set something in motion. You wrote: “Does environment play a role in initiating new species? Yes, it allowed the Cambrian to appear as oxygen levels rose.” So which comes first: environment change or speciation?

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

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!
DAVID: 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.

I note you have switched from breathing air to reproducing. It is obvious that some of the changes, as shown in the video, could have been gradual adaptations, but you are quite right to focus on the major changes. This raises the general problem of saltation in speciation, which I have never disputed. You are understandably sceptical about my (perhaps God-given) cellular intelligence hypothesis because there is no evidence that this ability stretches beyond minor adaptations. Fair enough. I am sceptical about your divine preprogramming/dabbling, anthropocentric hypothesis, not only because it leads to contradictions and illogicalities, but also because there is no more evidence for it than there is for my cellular intelligence hypothesis. Fair enough?