Ron, I've already listened to your music by going to your website and I am impressed! It is beautiful music.
ThanksÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. By the way, that was shameless self promotion on my part!
Just kidding, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t sell my music; I pretty much give it away. The point was analogous to the conversation.
The point was an analogy, though, of course.
Yes you adapted to be able to learn, but the mechanism of hard work, learning, practicing etc was what made the adaption happen.
All driven by a force, analogues to intelligence and a designed plan bent on achieving the goal of that plan. Adaptation via intelligence and desire.
Species adapt, and I would say NS drives the adaption.
From where then, does NS derive this drive? Or are we into a tautology here? Everything that has a drive, has a desire behind that drive. And nature doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t drive that desire, because nature is just a word. Or, are you suggesting that nature is something more?
If that isn't the mechansim that drives the adaption, what is?
The design built into all of this, governed by the laws written into all of this, is a series of mechanisms that cooperate in the drives that motivate adaptation.
You are hungry- you desire to eat.
You are cold-you desire heat.
You are threatened- you desire to defend yourself
A certain location no longer supports the sustenance to give you nourishment, or becomes too dangerous for you and yours, so you move on to an area that can provide what you need.
To use the example from another thread, some guppies become brightly coloured, some become camoflagued. These are both adaptions but it is NS that pushes them to adapt (by the difference in predation levels).
But they are both still guppies, nothing has changed that. Being a retired soldier, I understand camouflage and survival. But Ã¢â‚¬Å“natureÃ¢â‚¬Â had nothing to do with it, because nature is nothing more than a insubstantial and intangible word. Or, are you suggesting that nature is something more?