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

by dhw, Monday, October 26, 2020, 10:56 (1487 days ago) @ David Turell

I’m combining threads, as they’re all related to David’s theory of evolution.

DAVID: More on the genetics and stem cell changes:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02914-0

QUOTE: "The placenta is a defining feature of being a mammal, and its formation is one of the first steps in mammalian development. The embryo begins to make its placenta without direct guidance from its mother — rather, it follows a set of molecularly encoded, do-it-yourself assembly instructions. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Note the reference to informative instructions in my bold in the first paragraph. Only a designer could supply them.

You persistently miss the point that once a new system works, it will repeat itself indefinitely. That is how organs remain organs, and species remain species! You say each one was designed by your God, and I propose cellular intelligence as the originator.
This is also the difference between my proposal (plus Shapiro's and Talbott's) and yours.

DAVID: We all do not differ except I believe God provided the intelligent instructions.

dhw: Then we are poles apart. Talbott and I are arguing for the autonomous intelligence of cells, not for robots obeying God’s instructions.

You now repeat this discrepancy:
dhw: Talbott argues the case for cellular intelligence. So do I. He doesn’t know the source of that intelligence. Nor do I. And so where do Talbott and I differ?

DAVID: You don't and neither do I. Only I give an answer. The cells act intelligently and I point to God as designer.

Your "act intelligently" = following God’s instructions, and ours = autonomously. Poles apart. I acknowledge the possibility that your God designed cellular intelligence, whereas Shapiro and Talbott apparently don't discuss the source.

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.

dhw: 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 [= directly designing] sapiens”. You have said of the brontosaurus: “There is no direct connection to humans, and “extinct life plays no role in current time”. Why don’t you agree with yourself? 99% of past organisms and food supplies have no connection with humans! […]

DAVID: The only dodge is my rejecting your version of evolution. Humans are related to all past organisms through their similar DNA genes. My quotes you offer relate to time relationships and you fully know that while you distort my theory by inferring to them out of the actual context. I always see the issue is you refuse to accept God as the required designer and chop up evolution into unrelated time segments.

All past organisms are related if we accept common descent! Time is a continuum and is irrelevant to our discussion, which concerns your attempt to establish a continuum between every extinct species plus econiche, and the human species plus econiche. What other meaning and context can you have for your statement that every life form is “part of the goal of evolving (= directly designing) humans”? I do not refuse to accept God as the designer, but remain agnostic.

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[/b]

dhw: 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???

DAVID: Again chopping up evolution into unconnected parts. Remember God is the designer of evolution. but never in your approach, where everything is disconnected and running helter-skelter by chance. Always back to Darwin, it seems.

Again you dodge my bolded question. You have agreed that the parts are unconnected! In my proposal, evolution does not progress by chance, and Darwin never proposed cellular intelligence as the driver of speciation.

Under “Defining life”:
DAVID: Ecosystems and food supply explain why the bush of life is so big.

dhw: […] the fact that there were millions of ecosystems that came and went explains why the whole bush of life past and present was/is so big. Or do you mean the current bush? Yes, the current bush is big, but as you have so rightly said, “extinct life plays no role in current time”.

DAVID: Finally presenting my statement about time relationships in the proper context.

We are dealing with SPECIES relationships (extinct LIFE)! So please settle the issue once and for all. Bearing in mind that there is “no direct connection” between the brontosaurus and humans, econiches supply food only for the organisms alive at the time, “extinct life plays no role in current time”, and your belief that your God directly designed every species, what part did the brontosaurus play in the direct design of humans? If the answer is “none”, we can at last move on.