David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 19, 2019, 15:29 (285 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: But you cling to the only guess that defies all human logic.

My logic is just fine. Yours is skewed.


DAVID: I strongly feel we are the endpoint, since as top predator we control the flow of life on Earth. There are rare minor reversals in evolution when devolution has been noted. Yet the strong flow of evolution is more and more complexity Note this article about the future:
David's theory of evolution Part Two; more support

dhw: Already a misleading sub-heading. The only support for your theory that you have offered so far is Adler’s emphasis on our uniqueness, which I have never disputed. Nor do I dispute any of the following:

A poor analysis of Adler's point: Our presence on Earth means God exists!!! You pick and choose what you would like to accept. Read his book.


https://phys.org/news/2019-12-fossils-future-humans-domestic-animals.html
QUOTES: "As the number and technology of humans has grown, their impact on the natural world now equals or exceeds those of natural processes, according to scientists."
"He and Karen Koy of Missouri Western State University report that the number of humans and their animals greatly exceeds that of wild animals.”

DAVID: Evolution is over, unless we change a bit. You may want to alter your view in bold.

dhw: Why should I change my view that the process gave rise to a huge variety of non-human species extant and extinct? It is blatantly obvious that we are the dominant species. That has nothing to do with your theory…off we go again…that your all-powerful, all-knowing God started out with the sole purpose of producing us, but inexplicably decided to delay doing so for 3.X billion years and therefore had to design 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human forms, econiches etc. in order to cover the time he had decided to take before pursuing his one and only goal. If you persist in focusing on only one aspect of your theory, I shall have to persist in repeating the WHOLE theory in order to show its illogicality.

God chose to evolve. He knew it would take time. You want an impatient humanized God to jump to it.


DAVID: God uses logic as we do. But we cannot know for sure His motives and purposes.

dhw: Of course we can’t, but your view of his purpose and method requires nothing illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”.

I have applied my human reason to what history presents: A God in charge evolved H. Sapiens over the time it took.


DAVID: You constantly humanize God as you try to analyze His thoughts.

dhw: You have agreed that your God “very well could think like us”, and once again you are claiming that he uses logic as we do, but his logic is incomprehensible to us, and so we mustn’t question your interpretation of his purpose and method because if we do, we will humanize him. So your God uses logic as we do, but his logic cannot have anything in common with our human logic! You are tying yourself in knots.

His purposes, not logic, are not known to us. We can on ly gu ess at them. Your usual distortion of my thoughts.


DAVID (under “Human evolution”): Like the Hobbits, isolation seems to have helped them to exist until more recent times. For me it calls into question Gould's punc-inc theory that isolation produces evolution. And think, they lived in the time of H. habilis, Neanderthal, and early H. sapiens. A bush of Homos, just like the bush of life. Evolution follows a bushy pattern.

dhw: As usual, you ignore the whole problem of why your all-powerful, all-knowing God, whose sole purpose was to produce H.sapiens, should have produced a bush of Homos, especially those that lived in isolation!

Your problem, not mine. God in running evolution preferred branches of development, not single twigs. History declares that fact.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum