It is reasonable enough but not a necessary conclusion by any means. It is just as possible that God creates everything from His own being but then stands back to let each being discover its own nature. God is involved in everything but not in the way of a puppet master. God the becomer along with all the beings He has become resolve conflicts collectively. God isn’t primarily a thinker or even a doer. God is what He will be and discovers what that is by becoming.
Your second sentence states a claim about evolution, but your first sentence isn’t about evolution at all.
1 Like
Really?
Everything in ToE revolves around human conceptualisation and intelligence.
Why should anything leave the water where it was born, and lives? Why should anything just climb up high and jump?
What is gravity? It was only defined by Newton.
What is flight?
What is adaption? (If you cannot diagnose or understand environment, or population)
What is develop? It would seem that the universe only understands decay.
How does nature know there is an opportunity? How does nature know that if you leave the water you will not die?
How does nature know that if you jump off a high point you will fall (ask lemmings!)
How does nature know that if it jumos it will fly? (see above, what is flight?)
everything in ToE is based on human concepts and intelligence. We describe it using human concets. we understand it with human concepts
The ongoing argument against Survival of the fittest is “How does the creature know what to develop to beat it?” It doesn’t. It can’t
There is no good reason for a creature to leave the water. It cannot know that living on on land is viable let alone that it can do it.
A creature cannot just learn to fly. There is no reason to do so. It cannot see the advantages we can. it cannot diagnose, or conceptualise.
TOE only works because we see the advantages of change. Nature as no intelligence. it cannot see “advantages”
If a “development” (human concept) happens then survival can decide if it is viable. But there is no reason for the development. Nature cannot tell if the climate has changed and “adapt” it is reactionary at best. It cannot just produce a white coat because it works on snow, but if a white coat occurs then survival in a white environment will keep it.
Throughout ToE we hear this “development”, that “adaption” those words involve conceptualisation and understanding, IOW intelligence.
ToE relies on human understanding of both the “problem” and the “solution” neither of which Nature can “know”. It has no knowledge or corporate intelligence.
Richard
That you think of diagnosing and/or understanding shows that you aren’t talking about evolution, where neither is required.
We have observed the development of new, beneficial genetic information in both plants and animals – are you counting that as “decay”?
That doesn’t even address SotF.
Creatures didn’t – populations did.
And if you’ve ever observed rocky tide pools then you should understand how the process of leaving the water could happen – and why.
You’ve never heard of chemicals? radiation? pressure?
You’re limiting your thinking to just one of Aristotle’s four categories of “cause” and insisting that evolution has to meet it. But Aristotle’s “final cause” doesn’t even work that way; a particular form isn’t required, just the goal of survival.
You’re demonstrating ignorance of evolution again when you put common meanings to technical terms. Development and adaptation don’t require intelligence; no understanding or planning is needed. Maybe biologists should have used Latin or Greek words; then people would realize that these are technical terms that don’t mean what they would at a company board meeting.
1 Like
In terms of a species living in a tidal zone, they have already “left the water” every time the tide goes out far enough. Those on the edge require a means to survive while the water is gone, and the closer to the edge the better the means required. So the ones that live highest only get in the water because waves reach them at high tide. But higher up where only spray from the waves reaches it’s only a little drier, so some individuals will move into that area.
Thus it’s a progression from submerged zone to mostly submerged to partly submerged to the wave zone and then to the spray zone. But since those in the spray zone have very, very good means of surviving the dry times, they are very very close to not needing the seawater at all – and meanwhile there are things living on land that have the opposite system: ways to live while submerged, or in the wave zone, or in the spray zone or beyond it. And since those species span those zones, they qualify as food for water-based creatures.
And there’s your reason for a population leaving the water: food. In the water they are competing with their fellow creatures for food, but there in the spray zone and just above it there is the same or very similar food that their fellows are mostly ignoring. Think of a potluck buffet where two rows of tables have all the same food, which makes four lines of people waiting to fill their plates: if you arrive and see that one line is right at the table so if you join it you can fill your plate almost immediately, are you going to ignore that line and join one that has twenty people between you and the table?
So one generation may live submerged, a later one only intermittently submerged, one even later in the wave zone, one later still in the spray zone, and a yet later one above the spray zone – and once a species is no longer bound even to the spray zone, there aren’t just two “rows” of “tables”, there are many.
Ever seen a badger go after a squirrel? Usually just climbing a tree means safety, but a really hungry badger will climb anyway. The squirrel can keep going higher until it reaches branches that won’t support the badger, but then what is it to do? It’s either wait out the badger . . . or jump to the next tree.
In the matter of jumping, a squirrel that can glide even a little has a higher chance of survival, so those squirrels will slowly come to dominate the population. And when a new squirrel is born with a better ability to glide, its descendants will dominate. Continue this process and eventually you get a squirrel that can glide at a very shallow angle, making it able to escape the pesky badgers even if the nearest tree is thirty meters away. It’s not quite flying, but it’s enough that while a badger may occasionally catch an unwary squirrel overall the squirrels survive nicely.
And here’s where you jump off the rails: among that squirrel population there may be a mutation that would make it possible for a squirrel to actually fly, but that mutation won’t come to dominate since gliding is enough to escape the badgers, plus it won’t be much of an advantage given that there are hawks that like squirrels for lunch. Thus even though a mutation may bring an “improvement”, that improvement can actually be a detriment depending on the situation (ecology) – which is why there aren’t any flying squirrels, and in fact there aren’t any that will glide long enough for a hawk to catch them mid-glide.
Now think of lizards and their predators: the same sort of process can occur, where broader forelimbs mean greater success in escape. Then a mutation occurs so the scales on these lizards get longer, which isn’t an immediate advantage but when another mutation results in fibers growing along the edges of the scales two things happen: this new version of a lizard will be able to survive colder temperatures since those fibers help retain heat, and the forelimbs will provide a greater gliding range by giving a grater surface area to catch air. After that, these new fiber-lined scales on forelimbs will get longer and longer because they provide ever-improved insulation and ever-longer glide distances.
From that it’s an easy step to full flight since those forelimbs can move.
3 Likes
There you go again. competing?
They have no concept of rivalry or competition.
It doesn’t know what gliding means.
The only way a squirrel could learn is if it tried to jump and…
Yes well, most squirrels that miss their jump plummet I guess. it would be sheer fluke if it glided.
You just don’t get it. You conceptualise automatically.
You cannot imagine being ignorant or naive.
Have you read Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy? When two missiles are turned into a plant and a whale respectively? Read the whale’s thoughts, and then think
Richard
Merriam-Webster - “compete” verb
to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective (such as position, profit, or a prize)
Throughout nature, more offspring are produced than can be sustained by available resources. Compete they must. Territoriality is pervasive, so there is probably some level of competative awareness happening.
1 Like
You are making a huge assumption.about self awareness and cognition. That they are in competition is not an issue. That they understand that competition is. The instinct is only for self survival, it does not rely on understanding the existence of competitors.
Competition involves understanding, not only on an individual level but a corporate one also. There is no evidence to suggest that all individuals have an awareness of anything other than themselves or even of themselves. Communication is on an activity basis Protection of family, is thought of as instinct not cognitive and involves protection or feeding of the distinct family. “Rivals” are in the same species, not others unless the prey is the same. A Dingo will see a Lion as a rival, but only in terms of the immediate prey. There is no evidence that the rivalry is taken any further than that in terms of cohabitation.
Just because we see and understand ecology does not mean any other creature actually does.
However, for evolutio to actually work , there has to be full awareness , not only of self, but of otherrs and the environment… Animalls will bolt or panic at the sign of fire, but that des not mean they find safety. They can run inti other dangers while fleeing the ne they have identified, or get trapped by obstacles they have not anticipated (because they cannot anticipate, they do not have that ability)
Evolution relies on knowing the problem and being able to answer it. The answer, by definition, is a fluke, not a conscious one. An animal cannot force a deviation, only utilise it, assuming they realise they actually have it. .“What on earth are these feathered things?” We know they are wings, but does the bird? Flying would appear to be instinctive, but where des that instinct come from?
Richard
.
Then competition is valid diction.
1 Like
Don’t be dim – competition occurs whether they have a “concept” or not.
It doesn’t have to – it leaps for safety; those that can leap better survive, and an ability to glide makes for better leaps.
It’s called “thinking”, as opposed to the reacting that you’re always doing.
I can’t tell if you’re deliberately anthropomorphizing, doing it without thinking, or deliberately assigning erroneous meanings to scientific terms, but whatever it is it shows that you don’t even have a middle school grasp of evolution.
1 Like
Did you even read the post you responded to? Awareness isn’t even required, let alone understanding.
Nope – that would be the Bambi version of things, but it isn’t the science version.
Stop anthropomorphizing.
From the millions of years of use of proto-wings to full-fledged ones.
1 Like
I am not being dim, you are.
Yu just don’t get it.
Nature can’t think.
You are imposing your intelligent understanding onto nature (evolution)
I am claiming that ToE is anthropomorphising and that it can’t because Nature has no intelligence.
IOW you have it backwards/
Yo still don’t get it.
There has to be a first time… It doesn’t matter whether it was yesterday or how ever many million years ago. There was a first time. And there was no one to teach it and no instinct to control it. .Instinct has to come from somewhere. Unconscious automation still has to come from somewhere. Where?
Richard
> It doesn’t matter whether the change is caused by climatic or ecological pressure Nature cannot diagnose or solve it. Nature (evolution) has no guiding intelligence.
Richard, you are right in saying that nature cannot think and therefore cannot act independently. Nature is not a person. God is a Person and humans created in God’s Image are persons. We have a nasty of thinking of natural and animals as persons when they are not.
Also, Nature is much more than evolution. Actually, ecology is more than evolution.
The position of MarkD is a compromise. God created the beginning of the universe, while somehow Nature finishes the job, but if Nature cannot think and it can’t, this doesn’t work .
One thing it does seem to solve is the question of freedom. If God created us out of nothing, how can it be that God does not control us? Humans have done a poor job of solving some of the most basic questions of life.
God did give Nature a purpose, which is akin to intelligence. Nature, the world was created with the purpose of being the “home.” for humanity. It is up to us to make the most of this without destroying it and ourselves by our selfishness. To do this we need all the help we can get from God.
1 Like
Nature does not think , but Nature is guided by God its Creator, Who does think.
Unfortunately that is not ToE.
But it is where I am
Richard
Exactly – which is why your insistence that for evolution to occur nature has to be able to think shows that your understanding of evolution isn’t even up to middle-school level.
Yes – it’s called “thinking” (as opposed to subjective reactions).
ToE isn’t – that’s only in your imagination and in your insistent anthropomorphizing of nature. Nature doesn’t need to think any more than ChatGPT needs to think; both churn out order without needing thought.
No, there doesn’t. You’re stuck in a pre-middle school anthropomorphizing view of things. Wings didn’t just appear; the “first time” only came along after millions of years of tiny incremental improvements in jumping, then gliding, then boosting the glide by moving wings. By the time full flight was possible the species had so much prior experience that it had become instinct and the only change was a tiny difference in how muscles got controlled, one so small an individual of the species didn’t have to think about it, but just did it. Indeed those individuals who might have had to think about it would have been easier for predators to catch; thinking can be contrary to survival.
I already explained it.
Stop anthropomorphizing nature! We might have to think to be able to adjust to some new situation, but that’s a matter of individuals over short time spans; nature has no such need, it just utilizes whatever structures come along that grant an advantage.
This is why I call yours a “Bambi view” of nature: you picture animals as thinking beings so you can’t imagine how any improvement can happen without thought. But evolution is not about individuals, nor about short time-spans, nor about radical changes for the most part, it’s about incremental changes that no observer would even notice because all healthy offspring resemble their parents.
1 Like
That is pure wild imagination, or, maybe, wishful thinking to make it work. There is no data or anything to support it.
Do you know how complicated the wing movements of birds is? And that it varies with the size and shape of the wings?
Even just feathering out to land involves skill and precision.
And you are claiming this is just learned by trial and error? Or, even worse, just automatic?
I am not. I am just claiming that nature can’t do it without an intelligence.
Why?
Because of your intellectual need? Why should nature be able to see and react to change? Where is that coming from? How does it know? It can not!
No! That is impossible. Some changes cannot happen slowly and incrementally. That is the whole point of IC!
There has to be a point where the changes are incomplete and therefore inviable or are incompatible with the parent and therefore cannot nurture, and / or breed. There is a reason even some mammals cannot mate, let alone across wider divisions.
That is circular reasoning.
Nature can’t think therefore it can’t have to!
Richard
The god of the gaps error, so popular in young-earth, ID, and atheistic bad arguments, might be more precisely described as punctuated deism. It assumes that God is not at work in those processes that have a scientific explanation. But the biblical perspective is that God is at work in both the miraculous and non-miraculous. Ironically, the modern young-earth movement has its roots in the Deistic tradition of trusting one’s personal reason. The classic Deism of the “Enlightenment” (which included the generic deistic belief of a deity creating the universe but not actively involved in day to day events along with many other beliefs) saw itself as rational, not carefully questioning its own presuppositions. Coming from a Western, Christian culture, they treated their own selective borrowing of Christian principles as self-evident truths. When William Miller, a New England Deist, realized the conflict between the Deism he had adopted in line with fashionable intellectual elite views and biblical teaching, along with his own experiences suggesting greater involvement by God in current events, he took the Deistic approach of relying on his personal intellectual judgement in going through the Bible. Unlike Jefferson, he did not impose his own views with scissors, but Miller did not recognize the importance of testing one’s own ideas with the wisdom of others. He decided that Daniel indicated that the second coming would happen within a couple of decades. The “I can interpret the Bible for myself without paying attention to anyone else’s learning and insight” approach, already popularized by Thomas and Alexander Campbell, among others, was widely received on both sides of the Atlantic. But the failure of more specific predictions of the date of the second coming in the early 1840’s led to followers either returning to more conventional churches, dropping out, or developing their own systems. Out of the latter category came Ellen White, whose founding of Seventh-Day Adventism included affirmation of a young-earth position. George McCready Price’s efforts to build a scientifically and historically ill-informed “common-sense” model of young-earth creationism was the major source plagiarized for Whitcomb and Morris’ The Genesis Flood.
5 Likes
Get out of your pre-middle school understanding and catch up with modern science – there is most certainly data to support it.
Yeah, did some stuff with them in calculus class and in physics.
Over thousands of generations? Sure – trial and error that became instinct.
You know how we learn to walk? Trial and error. We don’t think about it, we just repeatedly try until the muscles get it right, and then it’s a matter of trial and error – all unconscious – to get it optimal, after which it’s muscle memory.
That’s anthropomorphizing: you’re projecting human experience onto the non-human. People learn to walk without thinking about it, so why can’t nature accomplish things without intelligence? Your argument boils down to presuming that God is incompetent at designing systems.
It doesn’t have to – that’s just your projection: you need to see and react to change, so you think nature has to be as limited as you are.
We don’t lean to walk, or even to talk, by thinking about it, so why should nature have to think about it to change?
Now your next fallacy: incredulity – you can’t imagine it, therefore it can’t be so.
Nope – again, argument from incredulity.
No, it’s called observing and thinking, both of which you are great at rejecting. By observation, Nature can’t think; by observation, all these incremental changes have occurred in Nature; therefore Nature doesn’t have to think.
1 Like
Interesting. I trace it to scientific materialism infecting the church, but this goes to something more basic, the application of one’s own worldview without even being aware that one has a worldview. YEC claims a biblical worldview, but they never stop to ask whether their definition of truth or their view of how things are known even fit with those of the Bible, they just assume that their views must be the same as those of the Bible. That’s an arrogance that leads to ignorance.
Excellent way of putting it! No need to do one’s homework if one is already somewhat omniscient.
1 Like