autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, February 03, 2018, 11:22 (2483 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] 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.

DAVID: 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.

We don’t know to what extent nest-building is instinctual or learned, but everything has to have an origin. I’m glad you think the birds that first designed their far-from-simple open cupped nests might well have done so using their own autonomous intelligence. However, you think the weaverbird’s nest plus every other natural wonder you have treated us to is beyond the design ability of the various organisms concerned. I have more respect for their abilities than you do, and I have no doubt that if God exists he would be perfectly capable of endowing them with the intelligence to work out their own methods of coping with the environment. And you still haven’t told us why your God would specially select the weaverbird for classes in knot-tying, leaving all the other birds to use their autonomous intelligence.

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.

DAVID: 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.

Stop kidding yourself. The balance of nature does not require the existence of ANY particular species. According to your logic, then, the balance of nature does not require the duck-billed platypus, and so the duck-billed platypus must be the goal of God’s evolution! We know that life needs energy, and evolution takes time. That proves nothing except that life needs energy and evolution takes time. The argument that our brain is the latest important step to arrive proves nothing except that our brain is the latest important step to arrive. (I prefer "latest” to “last”, since unlike you I have no idea what will develop in the next two or three thousand million years.) It does not prove that your God designed the weaverbird’s nest so that he could produce the human brain.