David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, April 23, 2020, 20:31 (1673 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Hold on. Even Darwin referred to him as the Creator! But the theory of evolution opposes the idea of separate creation of the species, and instead proposes that all forms of life descended from earlier forms. You advocate not only the separate creation of species, but also the direct design of all econiches, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders and bacterial reactions throughout the history of life.

All I have decided is God created all of life by evolving it, step by step under His direction. What resulted is the history of evolution we have to view.

DAVID: Your obvious derision of 'fellow Creationists' is unseemingly strange for your usual well argued comments. The six days are a foolish Greek translation because they didn't fully understand the early Hebrew.

dhw: Why do you call it derision? I used the term “fellow” to emphasize that you are not an evolutionist! I have even gone so far as to offer two explanations of life’s history that allow for your Creationism (God experimenting, or not thinking of humans till late on in his designing career).

I'm the same person you met years ago. I still think God ran the process of common descent.

Xxxxxxx

Under "Human pregnancy":
QUOTE: "Their research finds that while the progesterone receptor gene evolved rapidly in humans, there's no evidence to support the idea that this happened because those changes were advantageous. In fact, the evolutionary force of selection was so weak that the gene accumulated many harmful mutations as it evolved in humans, Lynch says." (DAVID'S bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. We are very different. These Darwinists should accept that and accept the differences.

dhw: I doubt if any Darwinist would reject the differences. But an atheist might well ask why your God would directly design such a disadvantageous mechanism.

DAVID: You missed the point. The scientist's confusion is a result of their thinking only from a Darwinist point of view as in my bold above. Must everything be advantageous always at the exact moment? It can be part of a future plan.

dhw: If human pregnancy is seen as disadvantageous, and if humans are what you call the endpoint of evolution, what future plan are you talking about? Please explain why you think your God designed a disadvantageous form of pregnancy for humans.

It is obvious delivery for us is a major problem. Because of upright posture, we can 't just spit the kids out. But look at the other advantages we have over apes. The point is the Darwinists authors try to fit our arrival into Darwin theory and it has never worked. We are an obvious exception. You still think in pure Darwin terms, if you don't understand why I presented this really poking fun at non-thinking Darwinists

Under "origin of bats unknown":
DAVID: Probably came from gliding animals, but didn't require the changes whales had to have created. Whales still defy reasonable Darwinian survival explanations.

dhw: If each different phase of whale was an aid to survival, it’s no problem for Darwinian survival. But it’s certainly a problem for anyone who believes in a totally-in-control God and is therefore hunting in vain for his God’s purpose in designing all the different phases of whale, especially if his God's one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens.

DAVID: Easily explained as in the past. Part of a giant econiche system to supply food energy for life to continue. I don't hunt in vain, as I try to make some sense of your critical thinking about theism and God..

dhw: According to you, he directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct life forms and econiches, although he only wanted to design humans and their econiches. But the question was why he designed whales in so many different phases. I suggested that if each phase was an aid to survival, you could hardly attack Darwin. Now please explain why you think your God designed the whale in so many phases.

Taking a land mammal and making it aquatic took many small and large steps both
phenotypically and physiologically. We've been over all this in the past