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

by dhw, Sunday, October 25, 2020, 13:07 (1488 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You have agreed, if God exists, He ran evolution.

dhw: It depends what you mean by “ran”. I do not agree that he designed every life form etc. My (theistic) proposal is that he set the process in motion by endowing cells with autonomous intelligence, which enabled them to produce all the adaptations and innovations that have led to all the different branches of life’s bush.

DAVID: We will always differ. It is difficult to build a machine that can design for extreme necessary complexity. Think of whales designing their next stage, changing both physiology and form and especially nursing under water. Direct design is more feasible.

It is your opinion that cells do not have the intelligence to design major changes to their structure. You have a perfect right, of course, to hold that opinion. Some folk will agree and others disagree. No problem, so long as you do not try to state your opinion as fact.

DAVID: My conclusions include what you ignore. Evolution is a continuous process from simple to complex.

dhw: Evolution encompasses a vast range of organisms, some of which are more complex than others, and although the human brain is no doubt the most complex mechanism of all, I’m not convinced that dinosaurs were less complex than all the life forms that followed. But I agree that there is a general progression from simple to complex, since it all began with single cells. That does not mean every life form in the history of life was bb“part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans”, and that is the point at issue.

DAVID: I firmly believe God is the designer who finally formed sapiens. That dinosaurs were more complex than some latter forms is of no issue.

Dodging again. The problem here is NOT simply your firm belief that your God designed sapiens. But the process from simple to complex does not mean that he designed every other life form and every other food supply in life’s history, or that he did so “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] sapiens”. You have said it yourself, with the example of the brontosaurus: “There is no direct connection to humans”, and “extinct life plays no role in current life”. Why don’t you agree with yourself? 99% of past organisms and food supplies have no connection with humans! That should mark the end of the discussion.[…]

DAVID: Again slicing and dicing evolution. There is a time continuum which you like to ignore. Of course brontosaurus diet is not our diet. The only diet we need is current supplied diet. Answering your usual silly distortions.

Of course there is a TIME continuum! But there is no continuum from brontosaurus to sapiens. And there is no continuum, as you rightly say, from the brontosaurus food supply to the human food supply. So how could the brontosaurus and his food supply have been part of the goal to evolve (design) humans and their food supply? You are agreeing with me! Look at this statement of yours under “ironclad beetle”:

DAVID:Again forgetting my reasonable theory about ecosystems offering food supply for all, in all the branches of the bush not just humans in their branch.

That is indeed the reasonable theory I have been trying to put across! Every extinct ecosystem offered food to its OWN forms and not in any way, shape or form, to humans! So how could they ALL have been part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans???