Sea water salts and blood (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, February 16, 2015, 19:24 (3567 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: ...unless you are prepared to reject the theory of common descent, I think you should distinguish between evolution and the various hypotheses devised (not necessarily by Darwin) to explain where and how evolution started and how it works.
-DAVID: My viewpoint is that it is hard to deny an evolutionary process. But clearly Darwin's view of it doesn't work, as you point out. So what should Darwin be credited with? A minimal idea: taking a evolutionary proposal current in his lifetime and turning it into an acceptable theory for that time in human history.-Why do you think his book caused such a kerfuffle then, and why do you think his theory is still the source of so much discussion and research now? Yes, others had the same idea, but he articulated and researched it in such a way that he turned evolution into an acceptable theory for the last 150 years. Even you still accept that the process has taken place, with different forms of life having evolved from earlier forms. And even the Christian church, which for years resisted the theory in favour of separate creation, now accepts it with similar reservations to your own.-DAVID: Now his proposed mechanisms have been picked apart and his worry that gradualism would fail has failed. He was not mistaken. His theory doesn't work. I don't know why you can't see that, or perhaps you can. I don't think pure naturalism works either as an explanation. Therefore, if evolution occurred as it appears to have occurred, it was guided.-Evolution entails a collection of theories / hypotheses, and that is why I complain about your refusal to distinguish between its separate parts. Common descent and natural selection still stand; gradualism and random mutations are under fire; whether God started it all and/or guided it all is a separate issue, as is the origin of life. “I don't know why you can't see that, or perhaps you can.”