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

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 19, 2019, 19:33 (493 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: Design is not a driving force! The driving force is the purpose of the design!

Exactly. Design implies a designer with a purpose

dhw: 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.

If the purpose is a goal through evolution to create a specific life form, survival is necessary but not a primary force. The purpose is! Design for survival is a byproduct of the purposeful design of teh designer.

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.

dhw: 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…

dhw: 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?

See above.

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.

dhw: 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?

I simply presented the essay as view with which I agree, and it shows how Darwin's concepts poisoned future reasoning. I think your reasoning uses the concept of struggle for survival far beyond its usefulness.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum