autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 06, 2018, 17:53 (14 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: No diversion. I use the damage we do to balance as an example of showing in a reverse way the importance of continuing balance. Sorry you don't see that. Yellowstone shows it.

dhw: There is no such thing as continuing balance! Throughout the history of life, the balance has changed. 99% of species have gone extinct. That means that with each change the new balance has been bad for them and good for the survivors.

Of course balance changes but it can be for the good or for the bad, as I have presented.

dhw: It has no connection whatsoever with your hypothesis that your God designed the weaver’s nest (plus billions of other natural wonders extant and extinct) in order to provide energy to keep life going until he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

Out of original balance generally reduces the food supply for some species in a specific econiche, which can interfere with the balance in related econiches, leading to loss of energy supply in a more general way. You cannot avoid the need for energy for life to survive long enough to evolve.

DAVID: For me the complex weaver nest offers special protection for young weavers. Therefore it is obvious to conclude weavers are important to the ecosystem in which they belong, and therefore God helped.

dhw: All nests provide protection for all young birds.

Simple cup nests offer no protection

dhw; The 99% of species that are now extinct were also important to their ecosystem until their ecosystem changed and they died out and the balance of nature changed. Now apparently God’s purpose is to preserve one particular ecosystem,

I'm sure God protected many systems. I'm not singling out one as you imply!

dhw: although all he actually wanted was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, which can survive all types of ecosystems, with or without weaverbirds’ nests.

Yes, we humans are most unusual.

DAVID: I given you weaver reasoning above. Your problem is the only way you will accept God is if you understand His exact reasoning, which I view as impossible. I'll stick with Adler: reasoning beyond a reasonable doubt. You can keep on doubting.

dhw: Another diversionary tactic. It is not a matter of “accepting God”. The subject under discussion is your personal interpretation of your God’s motives and methods. I offer a different interpretation which you agree fits in with the history of life. Out of interest, does Adler support your hypothesis that God designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to produce the brain of Homo sapiens? And does he regard that hypothesis as being “beyond a reasonable doubt”?

My interpretation always differs from yours because I view God differently. As for Adler, he is dead and I can't ask him.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum