Innovation and Speciation: whale changes (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, May 26, 2017, 13:43 (2737 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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.
DAVID: You have made a huge jump in logic. The presence of oxygen doesn't initiate anything. It presents an opportunity, but nothing is required to happen.

I defined “initiate” as begin, take the first step, set something in motion, but only later do you say: “I am using the more active form of 'initiate' as to cause”. The nearest to your definition that I can find is “cause to begin”. You have quoted me saying it is not REQUIRED, but the drive for improvement leads to exploiting the opportunity, so why do you keep repeating the point I have already explained umpteen times?

DAVID: You are assuming your drive for improvement (dfi) is triggered by the appearance of more oxygen. We do not have any evidence this is the case.

It is a theory which you quoted: “Does environment play a role in initiating new species? Yes, it allowed the Cambrian to appear as oxygen levels rose.” You used the word “initiate” (so you meant “cause” instead of set in motion, did you?) but in any case, if it allowed the Cambrian to appear, it is logical to call it the first step that set the process in motion. There is no way that it can mean speciation took place before the change in the environment.

DAVID: Which brings us back to whales. Environment did not change to trigger any dfi. They had to choose a new environment to force a dfi, which logically had to precede it.

A neat wriggle away from your Cambrian contradictions! We do not know why whales chose a new environment, but it is not unreasonable to suggest it was for improvement (maybe more food in the water), and once they found the environment was favourable, the changes took place to help them exploit this new opportunity to the full. I find this more convincing than the hypothesis that God only wanted to produce humans, and therefore he redesigned the pre-whale in eight different stages over millions of years before sending it into the water for no particular reason.

DAVID: As for environment/speciation, I see strong evidence for speciation preceding environmental change (whales), but I also see that environmental change (Chicxulub) can change the course of speciation.

I'll stick with the Cambrian, since you agree that environmental change is an initiator (you go even further and say it's a cause!) of speciation.

DAVID: As for the human form, they changed, apes didn't in the same environment, therefore speciation first.

Maybe in one particular location (or more than one, leading to convergent evolution of hominins) millions of years ago, the environment changed, leading a particular group of anthropoids to restructure themselves? You always talk as if environmental change and speciation had to be global.

dhw: 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.
DAVID: You keep hoping for gradual adaptations, but the whale series only shows giant steps. That is why I see speciation first here.

You edited my text to distort it. I have restored the sentence about saltations (giant steps) to its rightful place. The video of the whale series shows gradual adaptations, but I am not disputing that there must also have been saltations.

dhw: 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?
DAVID: Agreed. We both lack direct evidence.
Thank you.