David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, November 08, 2019, 15:03 (1840 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Remember a God in charge does what He wants to and history tells us the real story. You forget my view of God is that He chose to evolve humans.

dhw: Of course if he exists he does what he wants to, and I cannot possibly forget that you have no idea why he would have chosen to delay “evolving” H. sapiens, his sole purpose, for 3.X billion years, and that your theory that he therefore had to design every non-human life form, lifestyle etc. in order to cover the time he had decided to take is only logical if we do “not apply human reasoning to the actual history”.

The bold is the only logical part of your statement. The rest wants a humanized God.

DAVID: What neither of us discussed is that it is possible God gave these apes human legs 11.6 myo and they migrated to Africa and hybridized with apes into early hominins about 6-8 myo. Makes more sense than apes jumped to the ground and self-invented the legs through necessity ( from the Darwin viewpoint). God is a clever evolution maker.

dhw: How would bipedal apes mating with ordinary apes make them into hominins? They would simply be apes with human legs, ape legs, or indescribable legs! Your other comment is dealt with above.

Hybridization is an accepted form of evolution.

QUOTE: “the discovery of D. guggenmosi is important even if it turns out not to represent a staging post on the path to hominin bipedalism, he says, because that would suggest BBBapes evolved bipedalism more than once. D. guggenmosi could then provide clues about BBBthe kinds of conditions that encourage apes to walk on two feet."

DAVID: this fits my thought that evolution demonstrates drives toward goals, and in my view conducted by God. Bipedalism was a driven goal.

dhw: It directly demonstrates my thought that different groups of apes evolved bipedalism according to the different conditions that encouraged them to walk on two legs. Of course evolution is driven by goals: all organisms share the goal of survival, which means coping with or exploiting the conditions as efficiently as possible: hence flippers, moth ears, human legs, and every other adaptation/innovation you can think of.

You still fail to see adaptation is not speciation. Gould's gaps are real.

QUOTES (from “Complexity of mammalian backbones”: As part of our study, we found that modern mammals with the most complex backbones also usually have the highest activity levels,” says co-author Stephanie Pierce, also from Harvard.
“'And some changes in backbone complexity evolved at about the same time that other features associated with a more active lifestyle evolved, like fur or specialised muscles for breathing.”
“This study helps us answer an age-old question – how did life become so complex?” says Jones.

DAVID: this article certainly shows my theory that there is a drive to increased complexity that controls evolution. The authors are using Darwin-think but there is no evidence in their study as to how it happened or why it happened. They just assumed it naturally happened, and chance nature simply chose to be more complex. The need for design is obvious. As God controlled evolution, these were necessary steps to create humans.

dhw: I see no mention of chance. They are simply giving us the facts, and what they say here supports my theory that anatomical changes are linked to activity. The statement “as God controlled evolution” is an assumption (a) that God exists, and (b) that he preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation etc. not just along the human line of descent but for every single species that ever lived. And of course it begs the still unanswered question asked at the beginning of this post.

Of course new activities are allowed by new body parts. That doesn't explain how the new body abilities and forms appeared. You are still pure Darwin in thought. Who or what designed the new forms or parts? A designing mind is required.