autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 06, 2018, 15:49 (2271 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have presented information from Yellowstone studies to show how human intervention spoils ecosystems and reduce s food supply. You just don't want to see the importance of balance.

dhw: We all know human intervention is changing the balance of nature! But that has absolutely nothing to do with your hypothesis that your God created the weaverbird’s nest and billions of other innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders in order to keep life going just for the sake of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. That is why I complain, when I challenge your “balance of nature” defence of this hypothesis, that you use the obvious truth about human interference as a diversionary tactic.

DAVID: No diversion. I use the damage we do to balance as an example of showing in a reverse way the importance of continuing balance. Sorry you don't see that. Yellowstone shows it.

There is no such thing as continuing balance! Throughout the history of life, the balance has changed. 99% of species have gone extinct. That means that with each change the new balance has been bad for them and good for the survivors. It has no connection whatsoever with your hypothesis that your God designed the weaver’s nest (plus billions of other natural wonders extant and extinct) in order to provide energy to keep life going until he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens.

DAVID: For me the complex weaver nest offers special protection for young weavers. Therefore it is obvious to conclude weavers are important to the ecosystem in which they belong, and therefore God helped.

All nests provide protection for all young birds. The 99% of species that are now extinct were also important to their ecosystem until their ecosystem changed and they died out and the balance of nature changed. Now apparently God’s purpose is to preserve one particular ecosystem, although all he actually wanted was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, which can survive all types of ecosystems, with or without weaverbirds’ nests.

DAVID: I given you weaver reasoning above. Your problem is the only way you will accept God is if you understand His exact reasoning, which I view as impossible. I'll stick with Adler: reasoning beyond a reasonable doubt. You can keep on doubting.

Another diversionary tactic. It is not a matter of “accepting God”. The subject under discussion is your personal interpretation of your God’s motives and methods. I offer a different interpretation which you agree fits in with the history of life. Out of interest, does Adler support your hypothesis that God designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to produce the brain of Homo sapiens? And does he regard that hypothesis as being “beyond a reasonable doubt”?