Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, January 25, 2020, 19:12 (1762 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I have answered: you have made my point. No one knows what triggers innovation, and any change in environment does not mean it must happen, unless it is a dangerous change requiring protective mutations. Offering opportunity is a neat subterfuge statement. Changes or advances can also be spontaneous for no obvious reason.

dhw: There is no subterfuge. and nobody said it MUST happen! I am pointing out that environmental change is a trigger not only for adaptation but also possibly for innovation. If, for some reason, a new mass of water appears, it may be that some bold creature reckons it will find more food in than out, so into the water it goes, and its body may undergo such radical changes that we then have a new species. Some experts think an increase in oxygen triggered the Cambrian Explosion. Maybe the extra oxygen allowed existing creatures to do things that had never been done before, and the body changed accordingly. We don’t know, but I have given you a possible answer to your question why changes might take place even if there is no danger.

You are misusing the word 'trigger', which has extended this discussion. A trigger causes something, as in a gun firing a bullet. A trigger is a direct cause or precipitater of action. The nuance is that environmental change allows for new possibilities or demands them if threatening, but is never a direct cause, as you imply regarding the Cambrian. The cause of a new species has to reside in that species, which is why I have God dabbling, since I don't think existing species can do it.

DAVID: Your view of God thinks He wanted to set everything up and just watch, with no further participation, a sort of a Deist view.

dhw: Do I really need to keep repeating that your God may have done the implanting? I don’t have a fixed view of God, but yes, Deism is one possible view that fits in perfectly with the history of life. Even you have told us that your God is hidden. Do you have any logical grounds for rejecting the Deist theory?

DAVID: To be honest, yes. I assume if He did all that creating He'd like to follow the results and as I view God as supremely purposeful, it is most likely He is still actively interested in what He produced. To do it and leave seems odd.

dhw: He might be watching the show unfold, but not wishing to interfere. Not logical?

DAVID: We don't know that do we? Humanly logical, yes.

dhw: We don't "know" anything! But what other logic can you apply? If you mean watching a show is human, how about this: “I agree He probably does have some of our attributes” (D.Turell) to reinforce: He “very well could think like us” (D. Turell).

These quotes of mine pertain to his personal attributes, never guesses as to his exact thoughts or reasoning, remembering He is a person like no other person. Note I did not specify which specific attributes. The second quote has been explained many times. I'm quite sure He thinks logically as we try to do.