Convoluted human evolution: a branch is missing (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, August 14, 2017, 17:17 (2659 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Yes it fits evolution as we see the history. Your views simply leaves out the possibility of a purpose driving evolution. […]
dhw: It does not leave out the possibility of a purpose – it merely challenges your own particular concept of a purpose, which does NOT fit the history of evolution (see above). I have offered you a purpose that fits in perfectly with the history, and even incorporates the possibility of your God setting the process in motion: namely, evolution is driven by the twin purposes of survival and improvement. Humans embody both “drives”, and are themselves motivated by them.
DAVID: The whale series we have been discussing does not fit 'survival and improvement'. Why choose survival by going into a hostile environment for mammals with complications like birth under water?

Perhaps because the environment they were leaving was even more hostile, or perhaps the environment they were entering offered a greater abundance of food. Nobody knows why they entered the water, so we can only speculate. Why would your God have engineered all these complex stage-by-stage restructurings and sent these creatures into a “hostile environment” if all he wanted to do was produce the human brain?

DAVID: It is not even clear that survival and competition are major factors in evolution. The drive to complexity, I often discuss, seems much more to the point, again by looking at the whales.

dhw: I didn’t mention competition, but it’s pretty obvious that if resources are limited, those organisms which can develop better means of acquiring them, or better means of protecting themselves, will have a better chance of survival. “Better” this and that = improvement. Cooperation, however, is another vital factor in the evolutionary process. As repeated many times over, I don’t see the point in complexity for complexity’s sake, but it makes no difference to the fact that I am NOT leaving out the possibility of purpose driving evolution – I am simply disagreeing with your idea of what that purpose is.

But it is complexity that developed. And remember my example that the human line developed and the ape line remained unchanged. Why? Chance? The apes, until recently with humans encroaching, survived just fine with no problems. The human line, leaving the trees, introduced more dangers to their survival than if they had stayed there. In a way just like the whales, why change habitat? I see it all as driven by purpose.

dhw: Every non-believing scientist will claim the same for his beliefs. Think Dawkins. My point is that science provides as little support for your religious beliefs as for his belief in materialism and for the idea of autonomous cellular intelligence - which can be theistic or atheistic, and in my case is not a belief but a hypothesis.

It is all in the interpretation. I have mine. You have yours