Innovation and Speciation: aquatic mammals avoid bends (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, December 13, 2020, 22:02 (1439 days ago) @ dhw

“Fine tuning of water” and “new extremophiles”

DAVID: I simply see we differ in many ways. Why not?

dhw: I know we differ. That doesn’t explain why you think the free-for-all theory (unlike the satisfaction theory) is not feasible.

It creates a concept of God I do not accept.

Sea turtles

dhw: Nobody knows whether God exists, let alone what his reasons might have been. However, your theory that he taught the turtles to navigate so that they could provide food for the humans who would arrive millions and millions of years later is not part of the known history of evolution.

DAVID: Agreed, but a good way for God to handle things.

dhw: Since you agree, perhaps you will now stop pretending that your God’s direct design of every life form as part of the goal of evolving humans and their food supply “follows known history of evolution”. I don’t know by what criteria millions of long dead life forms and food supplies unconnected with humans are a “good” way to handle the purpose of designing H. sapiens and his food supply.

Your same old complaint. For me God creates all. History tells us what He did, and I've told you why I think His results have logical reasons.

Egnor’s latest
dhw:...please stop pretending that evolution involves gazing into a crystal ball. The theory I have proposed involves REACTING to conditions, not forecasting them. The problem of fossil gaps would be solved if there were a continuous fossil record of every creature that ever lived.

DAVID: The crystal ball is required for animals to jump into aquatic life. They are my strongest argument for design being required.

dhw: I would suggest this is your weakest argument – complexity being your strongest. If an animal sees that there is more food in the water than there is on the land, and it has a better chance of surviving in the water, then it will enter the water. The necessary adaptations will then follow.

DAVID: The problem unsolved is how does that happen. I'll stick with God designing.

dhw: Of course nobody knows how the process of adaptation/innovation works. That is why we have theories. My closing comment on your theory was: “I find it quite absurd to picture an animal happily munching its supper on the seashore, dozing off, and then finding that its legs have turned into fins, and a voice says “Go thou into the water!” What other way do you think he might have designed the process?

DAVID: We know the whale series has nine stages, so it wasn't after one long dream, but a series of dramatic changes requiring design. You cannot escape the need for design and you haven't, sitting on your fence.

dhw: So now you have your God conducting nine lots of operations on pre-whales instead of just the one, and you think this makes your theory more feasible. I suggest that each change was designed by the intelligent cell communities finding new ways of adapting to life in the water and thereby improving the pre-whale’s chances of surviving. Nothing to do with sitting on my agnostic’s fence. Just a process I find considerably more likely than your God stepping in to perform nine different operations before he gets the whale he wanted, although actually he only wanted humans anyway.

Each step required complicated designs. I'll stick with the obvious need for a designer God.