Evidence is not something absolute. It is what you are able to observe and put together at any point of time. There are lots of things for which the evidence is not yet apparent which would get uncovered by and by.
That is true and we develop theories which represent the best explanation for phenomena based on the evidence available at that time. And of course we need to continue to strive to get more evidence - often the new evidence cements the solid of the theory, but sometimes new evidence radically changes our understanding.
Sometimes we merely have to make up our mind to see the evidence. It depends on basic assumptions and perspectives.
Which is, of course, what science and scientists are all about - we are ablated to take account of all the evidence, and trust me if you don't one of your peers will pull you up over your failure to see the evidence.
You on the other hand seem serially to actively choose to ignore evidence, where it doesn't fit with you prejudged view - that is exactly the opposite of
make up our mind to see the evidence, you seem to have made up your mind to ignore the evidence (see below as an example).
You talk of control processes induced by environmental cues and also of .... random variations.... in the same breath. Obviously they don't go together.
Yes they do - did you even bother to read what I have written in earlier posts?
The random variation (e.g. gene mutation that results in a slight change in the configuration of a protein, meaning its active site becomes hidden and inactive under certain osmotic conditions) leads to a situation where the activity of that protein becomes under the control of an environmental cue (in this case osmotic conditions, which relate to hydration state). Prior to that random gene mutation that protein would not change configuration in response to osmotic change in a manner that altered its activity.
Not all internal processes are like temp changes.
True, but you would be surprised at the number of biological processes that are mediated by a very small number of elements of fundamental chemistry - specifically temperature, water content (osmotic), concentration of ions, pH and of course these are all interlinked.
Take a chameleon for example. It changes colour within minutes of stepping on to a different surface. Sometimes it is even half brown and half green at the same time as it moves, very slowly, from one coloured surface to the other.
Really poor example to choose as the colour change in chameleons is linked to both thermal processes and osmosis - their dual layered skin and pigmentation is a common adaptation for thermal regulation in lizards, however, of course most lizard do not demonstrate the ability to change colour in the manner of the chameleon. That process is controlled osmotically, in a layer of the skin that contains nano-crystals - a change in the osmotic environment (see above) alters the spacing of the crystals resulting in changes in light scattering and reflection - producing the perceived colour change. The chameleon controls this through sensor/control/feedback systems involving their own detection of surrounding colour patterns.
There is obviously some internal process (I am not interested in details of this process...pl note) that communicates the outside colour and some mechanism that makes the changes take place suitably.
Yes there is some internal process - I've explained it.
You claim not to be
interested in details of this process which effectively means you aren't interested in the evidence - you are clearly doing the reverse of
make up our mind to see the evidence you have made up your mind to ignore the evidence (as you don't even want to hear it). And of course you need to understand the evidence and the process - otherwise it is the equivalent of discussing thunder and lightning without understanding how they occur (down that route lies Thor and the evidence tells us thunder and lightning are purely natural processes).
It is this sort of a specific responsive process that I call Intelligence. While all animals and plants may not be as immediately responsive as a chameleon, they all must have other processes by which such changes happen over time. All these are intelligent responses and not random variations that just happen to coincide with the environment.
Survival is clearly an objective of life (this is a philosophical point...not a scientific point) and organisms are clearly meant to survive and develop. Suitable mechanisms will naturally be present to enable these objectives to be met.
No you have it entirely the wrong way around.
The oak tree in my garden doesn't have survival as an objective, it is clearly not meant to survive. It is simply well adapted to its environment so will survive - so survival is an outcome not an objective. Some species and individual organisms will be better adapted to survive in a particular environment - those will be more likely to serve and reproduce and therefore will be selected for. Others which are poorly adapted to the environment will not survive and will disappear from that environment.
And there are countless traits that may enhance or reduce the likelihood of survival (e.g. resistance to drought or other environmental extremes etc etc). I fully accept that in higher conscious animals a 'survival instinct' may also be a trait that develops which enhances the likelihood of survival, but that is merely another evolutionary trait seen in a small number of species rather than a global unifying objective.
