Natures wonders: walking fish have not evolved (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, January 26, 2020, 19:29 (1761 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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 existingspecies can do it.

dhw: Then let me clarify: by “trigger” I mean that the environmental change begins the process of organismal change, which is a REACTION to the new conditions. I do not believe organisms change (or your God changes them) in anticipation of new conditions. What “resides” in species is the ability to RESPOND to new conditions by changing their structure, i.e. adapting and/or innovating. You asked why changes might take place even if there is no danger. I have given you an answer: improving chances of survival. I don’t know why you can’t accept that.

You are still struggling. Note the bold. An environmental change may invite change in organisms or adaptation, but no response is required as shown by the ancient scorpion fossils from 437 mya that show virtually no change until now. (Saturday, January 18, 2020, 20:15). Dangers to survival may cause extinction (Raup) or the proper response to continue on. We know epigenetics allows minor adaptations, nothing more, so how species evolve is still totally unknown to science. If there is no present danger, there is no reason for changes to appear in advance of survival requirements. Your final statement implies organisms can foresee troubles ahead since you think they can speciate on their own. Really? I certainly don't accept it. 'Improving chances for survival' is pure Darwin-speak, bringing up the old saw of survival of the fittest.

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).

DAVID: 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.

dhw: A person like no other person can only be a person if he has personal attributes, but I don’t think many people would say there are lots of persons who can create universes and life. I am also sure that your God would think logically, and since your interpretation of his purpose and method are illogical to your humanly logical mind, I am suggesting that maybe your humanly illogical interpretation could be wrong.

Your complaint of illogicality is due to your human view of God, nothing more. I think my God has acted totally logically . Stop abusing and misstating my opinions, which I have fully explained rationally.