autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 20, 2018, 14:35 (153 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your question requires research into the particular econiche in which the weaver plays a role. Such research has answered the question like this, as I have shared before.

dhw: So what is your theory about other birds? Did they autonomously work out how to build their inferior, egg-endangering nests, or did your God give them instructions too? I can’t remember why the weaverbird’s econiche was of special significance in the evolution of the human brain, so perhaps you can remind me?

DAVID: All econiches are important to the balance of nature, the importance of which you like to downplay.

dhw: So did non-weavers autonomously work out how to build their inferior, egg-endangering nests, or did your God give them instructions? The balance of nature has constantly changed, in accordance with which organisms and econiches have survived and which have disappeared. How does the ever changing balance of nature support the hypothesis that the weaverbird’s nest was specially designed to enable life to continue until God could fulfil his one and only purpose of producing the human brain? David, it doesn’t make sense.

It always makes perfect sense to me. The brain is the pinnacle purpose of his accomplishments in creation.


dhw: NB: The historically changing balance of nature has nothing to do with trying to stop some humans from wrecking the environment to such a degree that other species and large numbers of their fellow humans become endangered. You have frequently and quite rightly drawn our attention to these ecological issues, but one should not conflate the two uses of “balance of nature”.

Good point. My point in presentation of human nature errors was always to show the importance of the proper balance.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum