Hi there,
So it seems like forever, since I have set out to understand this, but now it is finally in sight. The advantage of design, is species wide. Why? Because design implies that the optimum for the species, can be achieved no matter what state the species is in. A newly conceived giraffe, is able to reach for the higher branches once born, simply because the nuance given to the newly conceived giraffe, takes into account, that branches that were once lower, are now higher - the only thing that has changed is the interpretation of the height aspect of the giraffe's design. The same goes for all other species, but for those whose design is contingent.
For species whose design is contingent, for example predators, the availability of prey to the species, is something the species can hunt, on the assumption that design for its own sake, is outmoded - say because multiplying indefinitely detracts from the "ripeness" of the nuance passed on, in conjunction with information about the species' design. This contingency then applies a more aggressive evolution, on species that waste the opportunity, to grow in optimum ways around their design; the contingency that a species will struggle to perfect its optimum, simply enhances the efficacy of design, once the difference needed is found.
This back and forth is able to continue, near indefinitely, because there is always more motive to be optimum, when contingent pressures are applied to the perfection of the result. It really isn't any more complicated, than you might think. Design simply enhances the optimum, whereever the optimum can be nuanced, moreso if it can be nuanced in relation to contingent pressures. The whole argument that a species has to fight it out, no matter how much they evolve: doesn't hold water. If a predator is not able to apply a contingent pressure, design ensures that the optimum will be spread, more easily and more lightly, as long as it is able to. Without design, this would just collapse.
This requires diligence and application, but it is not undoable and for species that are only ever contingent, the loss against design, is pronounced. This is a resurrection of the idea of survival, to a designed degree, that where design is lost, to predation, yet it can come back in even more strength, if the accord between optimum and design is found.
I leave it to you, to decide, whether you are on the side of contingency or design or the impasse between both (if you can simply subsist irrespective of both) - the test that Evolution poses to this ecology, is simpy that (in principle): a test of one's ability to understand design and contingency on it, is not trumped by anything short of extinction, as indeed the soul may transcend the impasse between species, to readvent (in principle) with greater nuance (to design) yet (a successful cat, may come back the soul of a rhinoceros, for example - not that the soul hunts a host, but that by design, accord can be found between them, for which greater optimum across species is achieveable).
You could argue "optimum for optimum" as a justification of predation regardless of a particular design - but Creation as a whole, answers that the more pacified contention of designs in general, overcome the familiarity of contingent predation (in a specific case) - because specific predation is irrelevant, across numbers of optimums (as throwbacks to established optimums demonstrates).
So it seems like forever, since I have set out to understand this, but now it is finally in sight. The advantage of design, is species wide. Why? Because design implies that the optimum for the species, can be achieved no matter what state the species is in. A newly conceived giraffe, is able to reach for the higher branches once born, simply because the nuance given to the newly conceived giraffe, takes into account, that branches that were once lower, are now higher - the only thing that has changed is the interpretation of the height aspect of the giraffe's design. The same goes for all other species, but for those whose design is contingent.
For species whose design is contingent, for example predators, the availability of prey to the species, is something the species can hunt, on the assumption that design for its own sake, is outmoded - say because multiplying indefinitely detracts from the "ripeness" of the nuance passed on, in conjunction with information about the species' design. This contingency then applies a more aggressive evolution, on species that waste the opportunity, to grow in optimum ways around their design; the contingency that a species will struggle to perfect its optimum, simply enhances the efficacy of design, once the difference needed is found.
This back and forth is able to continue, near indefinitely, because there is always more motive to be optimum, when contingent pressures are applied to the perfection of the result. It really isn't any more complicated, than you might think. Design simply enhances the optimum, whereever the optimum can be nuanced, moreso if it can be nuanced in relation to contingent pressures. The whole argument that a species has to fight it out, no matter how much they evolve: doesn't hold water. If a predator is not able to apply a contingent pressure, design ensures that the optimum will be spread, more easily and more lightly, as long as it is able to. Without design, this would just collapse.
This requires diligence and application, but it is not undoable and for species that are only ever contingent, the loss against design, is pronounced. This is a resurrection of the idea of survival, to a designed degree, that where design is lost, to predation, yet it can come back in even more strength, if the accord between optimum and design is found.
I leave it to you, to decide, whether you are on the side of contingency or design or the impasse between both (if you can simply subsist irrespective of both) - the test that Evolution poses to this ecology, is simpy that (in principle): a test of one's ability to understand design and contingency on it, is not trumped by anything short of extinction, as indeed the soul may transcend the impasse between species, to readvent (in principle) with greater nuance (to design) yet (a successful cat, may come back the soul of a rhinoceros, for example - not that the soul hunts a host, but that by design, accord can be found between them, for which greater optimum across species is achieveable).
You could argue "optimum for optimum" as a justification of predation regardless of a particular design - but Creation as a whole, answers that the more pacified contention of designs in general, overcome the familiarity of contingent predation (in a specific case) - because specific predation is irrelevant, across numbers of optimums (as throwbacks to established optimums demonstrates).