Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 14, 2021, 15:01 (864 days ago)

PART ONE
dhw (transferred from “Insect migration”): We are not talking about your fixed belief in God, which I accept has a logical base (design), but about your illogical theory that your God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc., and he did so for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food, although the majority of life forms etc. had no connection with humans and their food

DAVID: Same tired illogical complaint. I'll stick with Adler's approach, that the evolution of humans is the best proof of God we've got.

Once again: the issue here is not the EXISTENCE of God but your theory concerning his purpose and method! Stop dodging!

DAVID: […] your main concern is that God gave organisms more latitude in their own futuristic designs.

dhw: […] My main concern is the illogicality of the above bolded theory, which you constantly avoid discussing. “Latitude” or freedom is only one of my alternatives (see below), and designs are responses to changing conditions in the present, not “futuristic”.

DAVID: The gaps are leaps into the future, aren't they(?), which you continue to dodge by a hopeless prayer for more fossils which are not found. The Cambrian gap is 200 years old, isn't it?

I don’t know what your 200 years refers to. The Cambrian lasted for over 55 million years. The gaps relate to new life forms which do not appear to have had any predecessors, i.e. any links to past forms. How does that invalidate the theory that new species come into being in RESPONSE to changing conditions, as opposed to in ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

Transferred from “cellular intelligence”
DAVID: 'Adaptations' imply tiny steps, not the way to speciation which are giant steps into the future requiring major design.

dhw: It’s sometimes difficult to draw a borderline between adaptations and innovations (leg turning into flipper might be one example) but as usual you are missing or avoiding the point. We KNOW that small changes are a RESPONSE to new conditions. Why do you insist that large changes can only be made by anticipation of new conditions? Is it not far more logical to assume that all changes, large and small, will be a response rather than an act of clairvoyance? Why change something that is working perfectly well in the present?

DAVID: We are discussing God, aren't we? How did evolution work, but by introducing new forms into their new future which I pose as designed by God.

“Introducing new forms into their new future” is a neat obfuscation! Of course once a new form has arisen through its RESPONSE to new conditions it will then have a future under those conditions. And it will go on reproducing itself automatically for thousands of years until new conditions arise. Then it will RESPOND, change accordingly, and again have a new future under the new conditions. We are discussing the ORIGIN of species. So why do you think it is more logical for organisms to be changed BEFORE new conditions demand or allow for the changes? Do you really imagine your pre-whales sitting on the seashore with their new flippers, waiting for the moment when there is water for them to dive into?

DAVID: God obviously designed what He wished to design, pure history.

Obviously God, if he exists, would have done what he wanted to do! And yet again, it makes no sense for him to WANT only one species plus its food, and yet to design millions of life forms and natural wonders that had no connection with humans and their food.

Dhw (transferred from “insect migration”): Obvious possible theistic alternatives: 1) humans plus food were NOT his only goal; 2) he did NOT design each and every life form and natural wonder; 3) he allowed a free-for-all; 4) he was experimenting; 5) he kept getting new ideas.

DAVID: So we go back to a fantastically humanized God who is not sure of what He is doing. Some God!

You have left out 1), 2) and 3), and you stick to a God who has one goal but inexplicably designs millions of life forms and natural wonders that have no relation to his goal. Some theory!

DAVID: I follow just as highly trained folks as your experts, but they believe in God and see evolution as I do. […]

dhw: How many of your scientists believe every life form, natural wonder etc., including all those unconnected with humans, was specially designed by your god “as part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. Apparently not even Adler does so.

DAVID: Not part of his book, which you probably never knew about, copyright 1967.

Right. And who are all the other scientists who see evolution as you do, with every life form and natural wonder specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans” and their food, including all those that had no connection with humans and their food?