autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 03, 2018, 00:46 (168 days ago) @ dhw


dhw" I am perfectly aware of the uniqueness of the weaverbird’s nest. The human brain is vastly more complex than a single cell, but that does not mean the single cell is simple. Have you ever examined the construction of what you call “simple” cups? They are intricately interwoven and firmly attached, and even some of the weak little birds that make them have survived without sacks and knots. So now perhaps you will tell us a) whether you think your God left other birds to use their autonomous intelligence to build their nests, and (b) why you think he specially selected the weaverbird for private lessons in knot-tying.

The open simple cupped nests might well have been developed by the birds who wanted a soft spot to lay eggs and became instinctual. The weaver woven sack appears to be beyond the bird's design ability.


DAVID: And the balance of nature provided the energy as you state.

dhw: That’s not what I stated at all. All organisms provide energy and depend on energy to exist. The balance of nature changes according to which organisms are able to get enough energy to survive. This has no connection whatsoever with the argument that the ever changing balance of nature was designed to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. There has been and will continue to be a “balance of nature” so long as there is life on the planet, with or without humans.

I agree that balance of nature does not require human existence, as you state. Which is why I think they are the goal of God's evolution, and supports my point exactly, which you also support by agreeing life needs energy to live and take time to evolve. Our brain is the last important step to arrive! Thanks for your support.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum