Innovation and Speciation: aquatic mammals avoid bends (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 15, 2020, 15:03 (1229 days ago) @ David Turell

Fine tuning
dhw: I know we differ. That doesn’t explain why you think the free-for-all theory (unlike the satisfaction theory) is not feasible.

DAVID: It creates a concept of God I do not accept.

dhw: Your non-acceptance does not explain why the theory is not feasible.

DAVID: It is feasible with a weak human, as I've told you before.

Why wanting a free-for-all and creating it should make your God into a weak human I really don’t know. It makes me wonder how you can then go on to champion the idea of free will, if your God is such a control freak.

Sea turtles
DAVID: Your same old complaint. For me God creates all. History tells us what He did, and I've told you why I think His results have logical reasons.

dhw: No you haven’t. When asked why your God would have directly designed all those non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc., you replied that you had no idea.

DAVID: My 'no idea' only applies to God's obvious choice to evolve us, rather than direct creation.

See my post of December 10 under “Evolution: fish to land animals transition”, in which I repeated the questions you couldn’t answer concerning your God’s method of designing humans by first designing millions of life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans. It was this problem which finally elicited from you the response: “You are correct. I have no idea why he uses that method.”

Egnor’s latest
DAVID: We know the whale series has nine stages, so it wasn't after one long dream, but a series of dramatic changes requiring design. You cannot escape the need for design and you haven't, sitting on your fence.

dhw: ...Just a process I find considerably more likely than your God stepping in to perform nine different operations before he gets the whale he wanted, although actually he only wanted humans anyway.

DAVID: Each step required complicated designs. I'll stick with the obvious need for a designer God.

dhw: So your God stepped in nine times to perform operations, even after the animal had entered the water. Sounds like he’s making it up as he goes along. And all this because he wanted to design H. sapiens – another series of operations, with a leggy twiddle here, and a pelvis twiddle there, and brain surgery over and over again. I’m not surprised that you have no idea why an always-in-total-control God would have used such methods.

DAVID: He didn't tell me.

I'm not surprised. Why in heaven's name would he own up to using such a roundabout way of fulfilling his one and only purpose?

Venus fly trap
QUOTES: Based on the number of action potentials triggered by the prey animal during its attempts to free itself, the carnivorous plant estimates whether the prey is big enough—whether it is worth setting the elaborate digestion in motion.
"'In the process, we noticed that the fingerprint of the genes active in the hair differs from that of the other cell types in the trap," says Schulz.

DAVID:: A highly complex system that must have been designed. The insect is digested by powerful enzymes. This means when the enzymes were developed a protection for the tissues of the trap must have been designed also. Not by chance.

dhw: There is clearly no end to the versatility of the cell. It could have been designed to create the countless number of life forms that have come and gone, or still exist, in a constantly changing free-for-all,

dhw: Under God's designing mind.

This is your comment, not mine. But I have always accepted the possibility that your God designed the original cells.