The Dodo Problem (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, November 28, 2010, 20:33 (5107 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You miss my point. I believe that the genome is marvelously designed to take life into any region, to respond to any environmental change, geologic alteration, temperature change, atmospheric change, etc. Once set up there is no direct evidence of experimentation. The genome in the amoeba shows the same basic steps as human genomes. Branches in the evolutionary tree would show some tampering in the genomes, some odd directionality, if your proposal of experimentation existed. The genomes are built to experiment on their own from the beginning, to adapt as necessary. Chance is involved only in the chance appearance of challenges. God sits and watches.-But if change depends on the chance appearance of challenges, that is not "only", that is a huge factor. What guarantee could there be that chance environmental changes would lead to adaptations and above all INNOVATIONS, which would in turn lead to humans? (If you wish to argue that God built into the original molecules a separate programme for innovations such as sexual organs, eyes, legs, livers etc. purely in order to make humans, did he know they would lead to my friend the dodo? If so, what was the point of the dodo? If he didn't know, then why should he know they would lead to humans?)
 
dhw: Both alternatives "fit what we know now". There is no gap in either of them, they explain precisely how God might have arrived at us humans through "branching", and therefore they require no unknown reason. They merely require an adjustment to your insistence that God had everything worked out from the very beginning. My apologies for being as stubborn as you!-DAVID: Just as stubborn: No they don't both fit. Chance cannot arrive at the complexity of life we now see. The molecular machines of life, I presented one recently here, are beyond chance, IMHO, and I am not humble about it.-For the sake of our discussion, I'm accepting the UI premise and am arguing AGAINST chance. Here are two human scenarios parallel to my two divine evolutionary scenarios: 1) Man invents the wheel. He has no idea what it will lead to, but as time goes by, he works out more and more sophisticated ways of using it. (God invents life, and as time goes by, he works out... etc.). Lots of branches, no chance. 2) Man sets out to find a way to fly. He tries all sorts of experiments, and comes up with the biplane, which he then works on until it becomes the jet. (God sets out to create an intelligent being, tries all sorts of experiments, and comes up with hominids, which he then works on until they become us.) Lots of branches, no chance. I can imagine him intervening only when he felt it necessary, but what I can't imagine is your scenario that he knew from the very outset that the first molecules would evolve into humans without his doing a damn thing. You've admitted that this process would depend on the chance appearance of Nature's challenges, you've agreed that our brains tell us there are easier methods, and you're relying on finding "a reason we don't understand as yet". The above is my gallant attempt to show you that we do not need to find an as yet unknown reason for your scenario, because both my scenarios fit the evolutionary facts as we know them, and ELIMINATE chance. Over to you, dear brother mule.