David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 12, 2019, 15:45 (348 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Talbott is brilliant and is beloved by ID folks, where I found this reference. Environment does not make new species, though it might demand them as he notes. And why shouldn't we accept agency outside biology? The entire chapter is worth a read.

dhw: I have never claimed that environment makes species, but am delighted to read that Talbott confirms the proposal that the environment might demand new species ā€“ rejected by you, since you believe that your God makes all the changes in advance of environmental change. Of course it is perfectly acceptable to take into account the possibility of agency outside biology ā€“ as I myself do when allowing for a God to have designed the intelligent cell. There is absolutely nothing here that I would disagree with or that contradicts my own views of evolution.

DAVID: I don't think you have read all Talbott proposes. What he says is we know new species fit new requirements and we have no idea how that might happen. Talbott literally demands that we include agency on an equal basis.

dhw: And I am delighted to hear that the environment might demand new species, as bolded. I keep emphasizing that nobody knows how it happens, and as an agnostic I have always included agency on an equal basis. You try to argue even when I agree with you and Talbott!

DAVID: My contention and Talbott's is the amazing purposefulness that new species show in their new adaptations. And yes we all do not have proof of how it happens.

dhw: Of course new species show purposefulness in their new adaptations, and Iā€™m so pleased that you continue to use the word adaptations (see also my post on Part Two), thereby confirming my argument that we cannot always distinguish between adaptation and innovation, and so the mechanism which produces small adaptations may well be the same mechanism that produces the large adaptations which lead to speciation. And yes again, the obvious purpose is to enable the organism to improve its chances of survival. And yes again, nobody knows how it happens. Hallelujah, we are all in agreement.:-)

Not so fast. Purposefulness suggests purposeful design, and you still blur the line between between adaptations within species and designed changed that form new species. You never comment on Gould's gaps do you? Ignoring their importance is not a good debate form.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum