Contingent evolution (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, June 28, 2014, 10:08 (3598 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: We may be talking at cross purposes here, as the discussion clearly depends on what we are referring to with (a) "random chance", and (b) "purpose". For me the theory can only "fail" if someone proves that there are organisms which have not descended from earlier organisms. Otherwise, there is no getting round the process whereby existing organisms have adapted and innovated. Personally, I don't believe in the creative talents of random mutations and have suggested an alternative whereby "intelligent cells" do the inventing, whereas David thinks God planned innovations, but even without that element of chance, we still accept that evolution happened. On the other hand, we both believe there is a link between innovation and environmental change, and so unless David's God planned all the environmental changes, there is still an element of random chance. Atheists quite rightly point out that Natural Selection is not a random process (see below), but some of them do believe in random mutations, and of course there remains the question of how "cellular intelligence" came into being (chance, God, or many "panpsychist" intelligences). However, no matter what explanation we offer, I believe the theory itself will still stand, with or without those elements of chance, and with or without divine participation, until common descent is disproved.
> -"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. " ~ Evolution101-What kind of modification? Genetic modification. How are those genes modified? -"The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation." - Berkley-
So logically, by evolution's own definition, if there are no random mutations, then there is no 'descent with modification' in the context in which evolutionary theory uses it. That only leaves the possibilities of:-

• Descent with guided modification. (David Turrel)

• Special creation

• Blended theory of special creation followed by descent with guided modifications within pre-defined parameters and limits.(Tony)


-Note: I am using a 'Text Book' definition of evolution here. However, it is a well established fact that evolutionist will change the meaning and wording on a whim in order to slip out of an argument.- 
>DHW: ... I'll quote only the end, because I agree with virtually everything else you say (very beautifully) about Nature's balance and the extraordinary complexity of organs and codes. I think folk like Dawkins would agree too. Natural Selection ... the process whereby in general the fit and the useful survive and the unfit and the useless perish ... sees to it that Nature remains balanced. Once life and the mechanisms of evolution (origin unknown) began to work, the rest followed on logically. But to what purpose?
> -Balancing something as complex as 'Nature' would require either perfect pre-planning or complete knowledge of the system. Additionally, the fact that the ecosystems are so easily thrown out of balance is itself a natural argument against that statement.--> TONY: .... From laws to the stars to our genetic code to the tiniest building blocks of physics, everything exists in the ONLY POSSIBLE COMBINATION that would allow life to exist.[/i]
> 
>DHW: This is a huge assumption. We simply do not know if other forms of life might exist in other conditions, and I'm not talking just about life elsewhere in the universe. Discoveries of life forms in the most hostile conditions here on Earth already present many different possibilities. -
No, as of yet, I have seen nothing but gross speculation and wishful thinking to indicate that there is life anywhere else or that any other type of life form exist. While I concede the remote possibility, until some evidence is presented, it is little more than science fiction. Yes, we have extremophiles on Earth, but they all fall within the normal confines of the life forms that we are already aware of. -
>DHW: The other is what you mean by "purpose". If you say that the purpose of evolution (the subject of my question) is to enable life to continue ... I used the word "survival" ... I doubt if even an atheist would disagree with you. But you don't need God for that, and you don't need humans to be the goal.-
I think you downplay the balancing act that has to be maintained in order for life to exist at all, much less to thrive and grow. Human's are the goal for David. I personally think there are other goals, but for the most part I have been trying to leave my particular religious beliefs out of the discussion.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.