autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, February 04, 2018, 10:48 (560 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Your lack of appreciation of the balance of nature is something I have pointed out to you many times by bringing up many instances where humans (think of Australia and New Zealand especially) have introduced foreign species to an active balance and totally upset it. Balance is balance and requires a top predator, as shown when wolves were taken out of Yellowstone. For some reason weavers required special protection in their ecosystem. The reasearch to show it is not done, so I can 't quote anything but I fully believe that. I see the reason for the weaver knots. You don't with yhour blinkers on.

You have indeed used this diversionary tactic many times, and I keep giving you the same answer. When you say the balance is upset, you assume there is a right and a wrong balance. No, the balance simply changes. And if humans don’t like it, we say it’s been upset. And if the weaverbird and its nest and humans disappeared from the planet, you would simply have a different balance of nature. The give-away is your sentence “for some reason weavers required special protection in their ecosystem”. Then you say you see the reason. “For some reason” is not a reason. And “for some reason” gives not one iota of support to the hypothesis I am disputing, which is your claim that every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder including the weaverbird’s nest was specially designed by your God in order to provide energy to keep life going until he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum