Innovation, Speciation: strange DNA finding (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, November 28, 2018, 05:30 (2186 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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.

I've never said species were never created separately. You read my words thru Darwin's eyes. All along I have discussed a pre-programmed or dabbled control by God of evolution's total progress. The latest DNA findings tip me to being more insistent. My version of common descent is each step is related to a past step as more and more complex organisms appear. Remember my 'drive to complexity' built in to the process. Just God in action. There has never been any evidence that an earlier species can evolve itself into the next stage. I'll stick with the evidence we have from the gaps, which become more permanent as time and searching for fossils continues.

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.

dhw: Nothing here that runs counter to common descent.

Of course not.

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.

dhw: 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?

They did descend stepwise under God's guidance.

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

dhw: 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?

I've always really been with Tony. Pre-pregramming steps or dabbling is really the same concept .

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.

dhw: 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.

When did you think that 99% survival would leave any room on Earth for the new arrivals?

dhw: 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.

It is possible God experimented on the way. Religions claim God is totally omniscient but I have no proof of that, so experimentation is a consideration.