Human evolution; "Little foot's" balance mechanism (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, January 19, 2019, 13:06 (562 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I'm concerned with analyzing God's works and methods. The little steps are adaptations within species and the big steps are speciation. Little Foot is a definite new species compared to previous forms and the cochlea is one of changes in the new species.

dhw: And so you have your God separately designing Little Foot’s cochlea, and then separately designing your cochlea, although he only wanted to design your cochlea and could have done so if he’d wanted to because he is always in full control. The reason why he separately designed the two cochleas is that his method was to separately design two cochleas.

DAVID: His method I have constantly stated is to gradually create new species by evolving the parts of previous species. Make fun of it if you wish, but it is perfectly understandable.

I am not making fun of his method, but of your interpretation of his method. You keep sneering at Darwin’s concept of gradual speciation, but now suddenly species are created gradually. I don’t know what you mean by “evolving” the parts, since you have told us that Little Foot is a new species, God specially designed its cochlea, and he creates every species de novo (the opposite of gradually). There is simply no consistency here or in your interpretation of your God’s purpose (to create H. sapiens), your belief that he is in full control, and that his method of creating the one thing he wants to create is to create lots of different things, including Little Foot and its cochlea, and eight stages of whale – see below.

DAVID: And that response to natural demands for survival is pure Darwin.

dhw: Firstly, why do you think your God specially changed pre-whale legs into fins and then made them go into the water if the fins were not designed to improve their chances of survival in the water? Secondly, you seem to think that the name Darwin automatically negates any argument. What do you find so unthinkable in the proposal that organisms change in accordance with the requirements of their surroundings, and that these changes are made because they might improve their chances of survival?

DAVID: He evolves these parts in advance to assure survival. The driving force is design and survival has to be a necessary byproduct so each stage of evolution can continue. Obvious.

Design is not a driving force! The driving force is the purpose of the design! And if something is designed for the purpose of ensuring survival – whether the designing anticipates a threat to survival or takes place in response to the threat – it is obvious that survival is the motive for the design. It is therefore absurd to argue that the motive for the design is not a driving force. (In both scenarios, you and I agree that the change has been designed, i.e. does not occur by chance).

Under “Lichens”:

QUOTE: The very notion of different organisms living so closely with—or within—each other was unheard of. That they should coexist to their mutual benefit was more ludicrous still. This was a mere decade after Charles Darwin had published his masterpiece, On the Origin of Species, and many biologists were gripped by the idea of nature as a gladiatorial arena, shaped by conflict.[/b] (David’s bold)

DAVID: The major point of this article is that Darwin championed the idea of evolution through conflict, struggle, and the ability to survive. The point of the article is that much of life shows cooperation and that conflict may not be that important.

How often do you have to be reminded that Lynn Margulis – following on from other authors who had posited symbiosis as a a vital part of the evolutionary process – specifically repudiated Darwin’s idea of conflict as the major driving force. Here is a quote: “The view of evolution as a chronic bloody competition among individuals and species, a popular distortion of Darwin's notion of "survival of the fittest," dissolves before a new view of continual cooperation, strong interaction, and mutual dependence among life forms. Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by networking. Life forms multiplied and complexified by co-opting others, not just by killing them.”

We have long since agreed on this. But why do you bracket it with the ability to survive? Why do you think organisms cooperate if it’s not in order to improve their chances of survival?

DAVID: Evolution can certainly mean each step is designed for survival as obviously must happen or there would be no evolution. Viewed this way, since there is no proof survival is the driving force…

If something is designed for survival, to make sure life continues, how can you say the motive for each design is not the driving force?

DAVID….it must be taken as a weak argument. And puts natural selection as a concept in a tenuous position. It can only exert its influence on what is presented by evolving forms. Like survival, it cannot be seen as driving evolution.

We have long since agreed that natural selection does not create anything and is not a driving force. Why do you keep roasting these old chestnuts?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum