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

by dhw, Monday, January 28, 2019, 13:52 (21 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We are close together, but there is a major nuance of difference. Survival is required but does not drive evolution to force new advances in complexity.

dhw: I did not say it forced advances in complexity – I do not regard fins as more complex than legs. But I believe that if the pre-whale’s legs turned into fins, that was because fins improved its chances of survival in water.

DAVID: It seems you have just agreed survival does not drive evolution.

How do you reach that conclusion? If the reason for legs turning into fins is to improve chances of survival, then the evolution of fins is driven by the drive to survive or to improve chances of survival!

dhw: I repeat: (a) none of our hypotheses about God or about evolution are “proven”, and (b) if you think the purpose of or motive for an invention is not a driving force, then I don’t know what is. And if God exists, of course he has a purpose, but you are in no better a position than I am to identify it or to read the thoughts behind his method for achieving his purpose.

DAVID: I'm not reading more than He desired to create humans. And I accept His choice in evolving us.

You keep telling us that his desire to create humans was his one and only purpose, and his method was to spend 3.5+ billion years not creating humans. You “accept” that he follows your own non-logic. And you still haven’t told me why you think the motive or purpose for doing something is not a driving force.

dhw: The fact that we don’t know why Neanderthals as such did not survive has absolutely nothing to do with the reason why new organs, lifestyles and natural wonders have originated throughout the history of evolution. Superiority or inferiority are not the point either. As you yourself keep emphasizing, all econiches depend on a hierarchy. For the econiche to survive, the “inferior” organisms must also survive or the “superior” ones will perish. You simply refuse to recognize the obvious fact that if innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders help organisms to survive, then survival is the obvious reason for their existence, no matter how they came into being. And it is patently absurd to say that the reason for something coming into existence is not a driving force.

DAVID: Old material. Obviously survival must occur or nothing will evolve. Of course thre is a driving force. God the designer.

And you persist in ignoring the point that I keep making over and over again: yes, if God exists he must have created life and evolution and in that sense he is the driving force. But the purpose of means of survival is to enable organisms to survive, so even if he designed every single one, their purpose was survival. Now please tell us at last why you think the purpose or motive for designing something is not a driving force.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum