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

by dhw, Tuesday, November 17, 2020, 12:29 (255 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your confusion about my beliefs comes from the logic that starts from my conclusion God is in charge and created all the historical events we know. Therefore He created the process of evolution, and designed each new stage. I view your complaints as complaining about what God obviously did!!

dhw: Round we go. Your conclusion that God personally designed every life form, econiche and natural wonder in the history of life makes sense on its own. What does not make sense is that every life form, econiche and natural wonder was “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans”, although 99% of them had no connection with humans.

DAVID: Makes perfect sense if you accept God created evolution, which means what we know about the process is what He did!

We do not know that he directly designed every life form and food supply, and we do not know that if he did so, his goal was to directly design H. sapiens. We only know that there was a great big bush of life forms and food supplies which you agree had no connection with humans. Hence the illogicality bolded above and which you continue to dodge.

DAVID: I don't deny or dodge. I don't know why He chose to evolve us, stated over and over. But as He chose that method, I view your objection as a complaint against God's choice.

Another dodge. By evolve you mean directly design, but we are not talking about why he designed humans. We are talking about why, if his only purpose was to design humans, he first of all designed million of life forms etc., 99% of which had nothing to do with humans. My objection is not against God’s choice, but against the sheer illogicality of the choice you have imposed on him.

DAVID: Your God wants to relinquish tight control over advances in evolution. I think He follows His purposes very directly with strict controls. We differ, as I have constantly noted, on God's personality. Assuming your God's personality you are logical. We will still differ.

You think that directly designing millions of life forms that have nothing to do with humans constitutes a very direct, strictly controlled method of achieving his purpose of directly designing humans. This has nothing to do with differences concerning God’s “personality”.

Under “The Triassic extinction

QUOTE: "Delicate marine ecosystems collapsed, and a sweep of prehistoric creatures such as conodonts and phytosaurs went extinct – though somehow, plants, dinosaurs, pterosaurs and mammals scraped through. This new world allowed dinosaurs to expand their ecological niche and reign supreme for the next 135 million years.

DAVID: The big extinctions certainly allowed marked shifts in the course of evolution. It is obvious that tectonic plate activity played a major role and is a requirement for a planet to host life.

They also raise the question of why your God would have designed all these ecosystems and all these life forms which had no connection with humans, if all he wanted were humans.

Under “Junk DNA”:

DAVID: How new genes appear when necessary:

QUOTE: “About a decade ago, researchers discovered that new genes don’t just confer new functions; some may actually be necessary for survival. […] The discovery overturned a long-held belief that important genes don’t really change much over the course of evolution.”

DAVID: This study suggests much support for my theory that God dabbles as evolution proceeds. And. of course, more 'junk DNA' disappears.

This study confirms my proposal that “the process of evolution entails the acquisition of new genes (or new functions for old genes) and loss of unwanted genes, which will be weeded out by natural selection”. Initially you supported a proposal that evolution advances always result from loss of genes. This study emphasizes that new genes appear when necessary, i.e. IN RESPONSE to changing conditions, and not in anticipation of them.

QUOTE: "In a new study published in Science, we found that humans, mice, zebrafish — and most likely the entire animal kingdom — share enhancer regions with a sea sponge that comes from the Great Barrier Reef…

DAVID: Complete proof of common descent, if we ever needed it. More junk DNA gone, and more complexity understood. Genes primarily code for protein but networks of other DNA regions perform lots of the organizational work making phenotypes and physiological systems.

Yes indeed, all the cell communities (networks) cooperate in organizing new organs and new species.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum