Evolution took a long time (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, February 01, 2017, 14:12 (2640 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: …You theorize that he controlled the mechanism (by preprogramming or dabbling) so that he could have a relationship with humans. So why do you think your God wants a relationship with humans?
DAVID: Because He gave us the mental ability to communicate with Him.

My fault for not phrasing my question more clearly! I suggested that he produced an autonomous mechanism so that he could enjoy watching what it came up with. Now please tell us what you think is his reason or motive for wanting to have a relationship with us.

dhw: According to you, God dabbled in order to produce our enhanced consciousness, so why did he need to design the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch’s migratory lifestyle, the cuttlefish’s camouflage and the duckbilled platypus if he could dabble humans anyway?
DAVID: For the balance of nature to give evolutionary life the energy it needs.

Yes, all living organisms need energy. How does that make the weaverbird’s nest etc. relevant to the production of humans?

dhw: “Everyone” does not have an energy supply. 99% of species went extinct. You have already agreed that the balance of nature merely means that life goes on in whatever form: what survives survives, and what doesn’t survive doesn’t survive. And so there will still be a “balance of nature” even if bacteria are the only creatures left on earth.

DAVID: The balance of nature guarantees that life will go on. Evolution requires that species advance in complexity and success in living. Therefore of course, 99% go extinct! If they didn't disappear there would not be room for the rest of us.

And so the balance of nature argument merely refers to whatever organisms happen to be in existence at any particular time. It has absolutely nothing to do with the targeted production of humans, who in any case according to you had to be specially dabbled.

David’s comment (under "Balance of nature"): Once again we see the scientific approach to how beneficial a proper balance is to areas of the Earth. If you think this is unimportant, ask yourself why are these efforts being tried in this instance and in New Zealand where there are removing foreign feral species, brought there in a recognized mistaken way.
dhw: Once again the “balance” you are talking about here is restricted to what humans consider to be the most beneficial combinations of plant and animal life.
[...] In the context of evolutionary history, you have already agreed that all you mean by it is that life goes on.
DAVID: Not all I mean and you know it. Balance is studied scientifically and the best balance can be restored: Wolves in Yellowstone has returned everything back to the way it was in the 19th century.

I don’t think any of us would dispute that harmful invaders damage the environment and destroy what we humans consider to be a healthy “balance” for ourselves and for wildlife. However, this has nothing to do with your hypothesis that God specially designed the nest, the migratory lifestyle, the camouflage etc. in order to “balance nature” in order to produce humans. And so the “invader” argument, and hence the “balance of nature” argument, is irrelevant to your anthropocentric interpretation of the whole of evolutionary history, where its meaning is nothing more than that life goes on.