Innovation, Speciation: strange DNA finding (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, November 27, 2018, 15:30 (1976 days ago) @ David Turell

TONY: The last question is this. On what grounds do we claim to know more than our ancestors, those wonderful minds that formulated the ancient writings that have endured for thousands of years? What do we think we have, and know, that they didn't, and by what objective measure do we make that claim?

DAVID: I'm with Tony. I do not agree with Darwin's concept of common descent in which each stage of life somehow makes the next more complex stage. Darwin does not explain the fossil gaps, which he knew were a major problem, that he expected to be filled. On the opposite the gaps are much more obvious and much worse for Darwin.

Until now you have said that common descent is all that remains of Darwin’s theory, and have suggested that your God either preprogrammed all the innovations from the beginning (which would mean they had to be passed on – not newly created) or personally dabbled them (e.g. fiddling with existing pre-whales, as opposed to creating whales from scratch). Now apparently you are with Tony, who believes that each species (broad sense – see below) was created separately.

DAVID: I view God as starting life with single cells, and after bacteria were perfected/programmed to have 'reasonable' responses to changing stimuli, moved on to develop multicellular forms with sexual production, which allowed for more complex advances.

Nothing here that runs counter to common descent.

DAVID: Species appear and disappear with no truly minor transitions. Each species may modify a bit but each is still the same species. […] A teacup Doberman can breed with a wolf. Dogs are still wolves!

A problem of definition. Species (broad sense) are organisms which are able to reproduce with one another. I agree with you. It is misleading to say that dogs and wolves are different species. But this does not run counter to common descent. A lot can happen in 3.X thousand million years!

DAVID: But we still have bacteria, from the beginning, but 99% of all species are gone. Now we know why as the microbiome is studied. They perform necessary biomechanical services to all organisms as everything reaches a more advanced state. Bacteria have purpose!

The fact that 99% of all species are gone and that bacteria have survived and perform all kinds of important functions for all forms of life, including themselves and us, has nothing whatsoever to do with common descent versus separate creation.

DAVID: I view Darwin as totally dead: survival is aided by species adaptation while they exist, but nothing more. 99% disappear without creating the next step. They did not survive to make the new species. They existed as an advance in complexity or especially in diversity since life must eat to live.

If an organism disappears, then of course it has nothing to do with the next step. It is only those that survive that can produce the next step! In other words, if 100% of species were wiped out, there would be no more life and no more evolution. How does this prove that life forms did not descend from earlier life forms?

DAVID: My view of Darwin's common descent is not his common descent or DHW's version.

The only relevant piece of information you have given us in this post is the gaps in the fossil records, which as you say Darwin himself acknowledged. The problem has not been solved, which is why speciation (broad sense) remains a mystery (and why atheists call your hypothetical solution God of the Gaps). Since you are “with Tony”, are you now arguing for separate creation of species and jettisoning the 3.X-billion-year-old computer programme and/or dabble theory?

dhw: I also find it logical that changing environmental conditions could be a determining factor in old species dying out and new species emerging. In the light of the above, I would like to ask David why he thinks his God kept changing the environment, killing off one lot of species and designing another lot, if he was always in full control but all he really wanted was to produce H. sapiens.

DAVID: The question answers itself. God arranged for each stage of development and complexity according to plan. And now we know why bacteria are still here! Sorry you can't follow the reasoning and constantly see God as primarily human.

If God exists, of course he is not “primarily human”. That does not mean he does not share characteristics and logic with the beings he is supposed to have made “in his image”. (See the “Neanderthal" thread). I’m afraid the idea that your God planned every evolutionary change and used bacteria in the process (plus the fact that evolution has gone on for 3.X billion years) does not provide a logical reason for him constantly changing the environment, and designing and killing off 99% of species, lifestyles and natural wonders if his purpose was to produce H. sapiens. You did once suggest that he was experimenting. Yes, that would be a logical link – but you quickly withdrew it when I pointed out that it could only mean he didn’t know what he wanted, or he didn’t know how to get what he wanted, i.e. wasn’t in full control. That doesn't fit in with your fixed image of your God.