Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bluesdave
I was generalising, but you clearly don't understand evolution. You being a "believer" makes that understandable. Evolution is constantly experimenting. The general trend is towards a more efficiently running organism. Some species don't work out, and so drop off the tree. Others either continue with little or moderate change (eg. sharks, crocodiles), or evolve into something completely different (eg. whales).
I think this particular debate has been done to death in other threads, so I'll leave it at that.
|
First I will point out that this debate - the one we are having - has, to my knowledge never taken place before in the Cellar. To clarify, I frame our debate by challenging your assertion that evolution is efficient.
Secondly I will clarify that my belief in God in no way compromises my ability to look at the same evidence as you and and draw a more accurate conclusion. I'm not presupposing that my conclusion is more correct than yours - only that believing in God does not preclude it from being so. Einstien believed in God. I will also point out that I am not a creationist but fully embrace the idea of evolution.
So, here's the thing. You indicate that evolution is "efficient." You support your position by pointing out that we have fewer species today than we did "yesterday." I'll even point out that it is generally believed by those in the know that over 90% of all species that ever existed no longer exist. So, your definition of efficiency appears to be little more than a restatement of Darwin's position. The species that adapt better remain on the planet longer.
I would argue that evolution is neither efficient nor inefficient but merely an unstable chaotic system that tends toward an equilibrium that it will never reach. Weather changes, random mutations that continue to occur at a relatively constant rate, climate changes, terrestial catastrophes (volcanoes/earthquakes/floods, polarity shifts, etc.), extraterrestial bombardment and lastly - mankind itself are continually changing the landscape to which all organisms must adapt. These exogenous shocks to the system keep the rules governing which species is more fit to survive in continuous flux. All evolution is doing is constantly creating new species some of which stick around and some of which do not. To imply that evolution is "efficient" is to suggest that evolution cranks out "better" species today than it did yesterday. Not so. The ongoing creation of new species is entirely random.
In my mind, evolution is nothing more than two chaotic systems with one (life) constantly reacting to the other (earth).
For example, there is nothing to prevent evolution from cranking out a bacteria tomorrow that will kill every shark in the ocean and every pollinating honeybee on earth and then vanish from the planet (having exhausted its own food source). Would the outcome of such an event be a more efficient and stable ecosystem or a less efficient and less stable ecosystem? History is littered with examples of the ecosystem destabilizing itself through its own mechanism.
And it may turn out to be the case that the latest incarnation of evolution - the human race - will be the undoing of the entire system. Any system that spawns a creature capable of making the system less stable (if not destroying the system itself) can hardly be thought of as efficient. However, such a possibility fits very well in a model of evolution as a random process.