David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, November 06, 2019, 08:33 (11 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Please accept that I view God in change and running the show as He wishes. That is the faith you cannot accept. Remember faith jumps a chasm.

dhw: Of course if he exists he would run the show as he wishes. No faith required for that reasoning. What I cannot accept is the 3-point combination of your beliefs regarding how and why he runs the show – an explanation which in your own words requires “nothing illogical if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”. Yes, your faith in that illogical and unreasonable theory does indeed jump a chasm.

DAVID: The bold above shows your illogical thinking. God in charge produced what He wanted to appear.

Of course he did. What is illogical about my agreement with your statement? The illogicality which you yourself acknowledge is your interpretation of his wishes and how he runs the show! According to you, His wish was to produce H. sapiens, and he ran the show by deciding (you have "no idea why") not to produce H. sapiens for 3.X billion years, which meant he “had to” produce the rest of the non-human bush in order to cover the time he’d decide to take before fulfilling his wish.

DAVID: How does a new species survive if problems are not prepared for in advance? The predators would have a feast and the newly arrived guys would be gone.

dhw: The new species is the RESULT of the old species finding solutions to the new problems. Millions of bacteria die when we invent a new killer, but they don’t all die, and the survivors eventually find a solution. [..]

DAVID: I found an article which said earless moths did exist, but our discussion started with an article that said eared moths predated bats by many years, as if planned:

It does not say “as if planned”, by which you mean your God gave some moths ears in preparation for when they would become nocturnal and then have to cope with bats. What makes you think that a sense of hearing would not have been useful for diurnal moths?

dhw: Is the transformation of an existing leg into a flipper an unexplained new feature or an adaptation? That is why I say the borderlines are not clear. And once again: nobody can explain how the changes happened, but why is it “totally illogical” to suggest that organisms change in response to new conditions and not in anticipation of them, when we know for a fact that minor adaptations respond to changes and do not precede them? And why is cellular intelligence (possibly divinely designed) as a theoretical “how” less logical than your theory of 3.8-billion-year-old computer programmes and/or divine dabbling for every innovation, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder?

DAVID: That is no answer as to why moths have ears well before bats appeared…

Because maybe a sense of hearing was useful even in daytime, for instance to hear approaching predators. Why do you think your God would have given them ears well before he produced bats? “Wow,” said God, gazing into his crystal ball, “I’ve got them damn bats comin’ in a million years’ time. I’d better give them there moths ears now before...um...before I forget.(?)”

DAVID: ...or why our huge brains predated much of its latter use. A flipper is distantly related to a leg, both of which have markedly different functions, as both provide different forms of locomotion. That both provide locomotion does not make the changes a simple adaptation.

Why do you think early H. sapiens should have known everything we know today? Of course it predated much of its latter use! That does not mean your God gave pre-sapiens a huge brain and the new sapiens sat around for centuries acting just like pre-sapiens. I have suggested that the expanded brain was caused by the pre-sapiens brain cells responding to new concepts and/or conditions that exceeded the capacity of the existing brain.

I did not say the whale leg was a “simple” adaptation. Do you believe or not believe that the whale’s ancestors had legs, and do you believe that in due course those legs became flippers? Such transformations may be complex, which is why I have said it is sometimes difficult to draw a borderline between adaptation and innovation. I note that you have not responded to the rest of my comment.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum