autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, February 07, 2018, 13:21 (2479 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

DAVID: 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.

All of this is true, and none of it has the slightest connection with your hypothesis that your God designed every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, and did so in order to keep life going until he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens. So please stop using “balance of nature” as a defence of the hypothesis.

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.
DAVID: Simple cup nests offer no protection

So the eggs and new born birds can perch on the branches all day and all night, can they? And most nests are built high up, to provide protection from predators. Your answers make it sound as if it’s a miracle any bird other than the weaver manages to survive!

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

Your reason for God’s special design of the weaverbird’s nest was that it must be “important to the ecosytem in which they belong, and therefore God helped.” So God singled out the weaverbird’s ecosystem for special protection. But you are right. If he designed every innovation and lifestyle and natural wonder, he must have singled out every member of every ecosystem for special protection. Except those members that he didn’t specially protect, which = 99%. I can’t help wondering why he bothered if all he wanted was...

dhw: ...to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, which can survive all types of ecosystems, with or without weaverbirds’ nests.
DAVID: Yes, we humans are most unusual.

But that doesn’t mean he had to design the nest in order for us to evolve.

DAVID: 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”?

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

Yes, you view your God as being in total control except when he is not in control, as having no human attributes apart from the human attributes you think he has, as having a single purpose which raises questions you can’t answer except by saying that he must have good reasons though you can’t think what they are. As for Adler, I presume you have read his books, since you are so devoted to him, and so I would have thought he would have mentioned your hypothesis if he had believed in it.