Divine purposes and methods (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 16, 2018, 15:25 (212 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: As usual you note that whale evolution as irrational, which is exactly why I brought it up initially. A totally irrational unnatural series of changes. Requires a designer.

dhw: No, no, and no again! What is irrational is your insistence that your God changed legs into fins, and extracted teeth and inserted baleens before there was any need for pre-whales to enter the water, or pre-baleen whales to suction-feed and then filter-feed. What is rational is that pre-whales found more food in the water than on the land, and their bodies changed to improve their survivability in the water; and pre-baleen whales’ jaws changed when a changing environment (as proposed in the article) proved more conducive to suction-feeding and then to filter-feeding.

You are forgetting that the whale series shows a series (8 or 9)of intermediate changes. They didn't just jump into water. it was a series of changes in form and then function, as I view designed by God.

Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

QUOTE: "Interpreted as a theory of species survival, the theory that the fittest species survive is undermined by evidence that while direct competition is observed between individuals, populations and species, there is little evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large groups such as, for example, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals.

dhw: The article is devoted entirely to debunking the theory that competition has been the driving force. Firstly, you have clearly forgotten Margulis’s emphasis on cooperation as a major driving force. Secondly, competition is not a synonym for survivability! Survival depends on the ability to cope with existing environmental conditions. Herbivores do not compete with carnivores to find food […] Finally, it is clearly absurd to say that “humans survive better than any other animal on earth with the modifications as they came out of the trees” and then argue that evolutionary change has little or nothing to do with survivability.

DAVID: Back to the same old point: why evolve from bacteria, if bacterial life didn't need to? Pure survival without a need to become more complex. Survival did not push complexity. A designer did.

dhw: Absolutely not back to the same old point. The point we are discussing here is your insistence that survivability played little or no part in evolution. The Wikipedia article debunks competition as the driving force, but competition is not a synonym for survivability (see above). You yourself say that “humans survive better...with the modifications...” (also above), and do you really think your God taught monarch butterflies to migrate, cuttlefish to camouflage themselves, spiders to spin 50,000 different webs, changed legs into fins etc. for the sake of complexity? Your own illogical hypothesis claims that your God designed them all to provide food so that life could go on. Life going on = survival. So how can you say survivability played little or no role even in your concept of evolution?

The bold can also mean 'life going on = continued existence' so evolution can proceed over time. About survival 99% are gone! Some survival rate! If survivability drives evolution that doesn't explain bacteria. They haven't needed to survive by evolving..


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum