Back to David's theory of evolution: God's error corrections (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, August 27, 2020, 14:33 (99 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You did not always have God in charge of speciation, because you had him “allowing” (not designing) random errors that changed the course of evolution, and removing the rest, as per Darwin’s natural selection.

DAVID: The bold is a distinct error in your memory. I've have always said a minor variation which did not alter the course of God's planned evolution was allowed!!!

Herewith some quotes:
DAVID: During evolution a DNA mistake can change the course of evolution.
DAVID: A mutational error favoured by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution.
dhw: Please explain how God “allowing” random mutations to change the course of evolution is consistent with God directly designing all life forms, including us.
DAVID: I am amazed at your statement. God is the final editor of what genomes pass on to each new level of evolution. What is wrong with a random chance mutation, if it fits God’s plan to be allowed to pass through??? Chance can play a role!!!

I don’t think you should blame me for pointing out your contradictions, or accusE me of making them up.

dhw:…do you believe that the first cells contained models for hands, wings and fins, and when one model took over, the others were deleted?

DAVID: I am quoting Behe's published work. Evolution advances through deletion of code in DNA!

This discussion originated with an article describing evolution of fins to hands, and you wrote: “Devolving per Behe means that all the future organism models might be present in the original DNA/genome.” If you think the example supports your theory and his, I have every right to ask my question, so please answer it.

As an alternative to your theory, I proposed that your God produced exactly what he wanted: a mechanism allowing cells to work out their own designs etc., including all the beneficial and deleterious ones that have produced the vast variety of life’s history and the death he “required”.

DAVID: As usual you have reintroduced you God who concedes control over evolution to the organisms themselves, as if they could understand design for future purpose.

dhw: You keep going on about design for future purposes, when I have explained over and over again that my theory does NOT involve foreseeing the future and is entirely based on organisms reacting to current conditions.

DAVID: I know your belief which is completely opposite to mine. God speciates and designs for future problems.

Repeating your belief is no excuse for attacking my proposal because organisms must foretell the future when I keep repeating that my theory ONLY requires responses to their present.

DAVID: Under your system it is highly doubtful we would have appeared, since our brain power is not necessary for life surviving as our ancestor apes clearly show.

dhw: No multicellular organism was necessary for life to survive, since bacteria have done very nicely, thank you. […] Whether the above system would have produced humans is irrelevant. You can argue that it was lucky for us that it did, but if it hadn’t, so what?

DAVID: We wouldn't be here to do battle on this site.

Understood.

DAVID: Your bold leads to conclusions I have always expressed but you don't consider. If it all was a natural process, why did it go beyond bacteria? You and I can point to NO reason for that advance if we only consider the organismal response to situational pressures. Bacteria have survived all the pressures unchanged. There has to be an agency to force evolutionary advances. That conclusion cannot be avoided based on the argument you have just presented using bacteria.

We have discussed this over and over again. Yes, we CAN think of a reason for the advances of evolution, glanced at in the article on the theoretical fusion of archaea and bacteria. Yet again, my proposal: advances took place after intelligent cells had begun to cooperate in finding methods of dealing with ever changing conditions and increasingly varied econiches. This particular “fusion” may have enabled the combined organism to survive without oxygen, while their buddies carried on quite happily WITH oxygen. So we already have diversity, leading over billions of years to the huge variety of ways in which organisms cope with changing conditions, finding food, and avoiding becoming food. There is nothing mysterious about the concept of cooperation between living organisms or about progressive advances as changing conditions require or allow an ever great variety of methods. The mystery lies in the origin of life itself and of the mechanisms that have enabled cells to reproduce, vary, and act with the intelligence so evident in all their actions. I agree with you that in terms of intelligence, H. sapiens is the culmination (at least so far) of the whole process, but you asked why evolution advanced beyond bacteria. None of it was “necessary” in the great scheme of things – the original life forms survived, but when some of these were exposed to different conditions, they began the whole process. In time, I would say the agency that drove (rather than “forced”) advances became a mixture of pressures and opportunities for survival in response to changing conditions.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum