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

by dhw, Sunday, December 19, 2021, 12:52 (1068 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: Wrong brain example. Our brains thicken tiny areas, but don't get bigger. Extrapolating from the same design theory you accept, the designer designs in advance. You can't use areas of design theories you like and skip over others.

dhw: I was more specific earlier. Most parts of our modern brain complexify, but one or two sections expand. In both cases, the change is due to their RESPONSE to new requirements. “Extrapolating” from these known facts, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that in earlier times, the same process took place, with the brain RESPONDING to new requirements, whether by complexification or by expansion.

DAVID:In regard to the whole brain the percentage enlargement is minuscule. You are once again making a mountain out of a molehill. We only know our brain's capacities but can infer only that previous brains could also enlarge tiny areas with heavier use.

You persist in ignoring my suggestion that the human brain reached its maximum capacity, as further expansion would have required major anatomical changes, and therefore expansion generally gave way to complexification (which proved so efficient that the brain actually shrank). Since we KNOW that earlier brains expanded, and we KNOW that brains change in response to new requirements, I don’t understand why you have a problem acknowledging the logic of my proposal.

dhw: I do not deny that evolution occurred and produced humans! It also produced millions of life forms, lifestyles, econiches and natural wonders that had no connection with humans! If God exists, he did it, but that does not mean he designed every single life form etc, and did so for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food. This is the illogicality you keep dodging!

DAVID: I don't dodge if I believe God designed all!!

dhw: No, you don’t. The dodge is that you also insist that the only species he WANTED to design were humans and their food, in which case why did he design all the species and foods that had no connection with humans?

DAVID: God chose to evolve us and obviously WANTED all of the other forms on the way to us. You constantly distort my theory, which is a poor way to debate honestly.

There is no distortion. If he did indeed WANT all the other forms that had no connection with humans, it makes no sense to argue that the only species he WANTED were humans plus their food! And yet you insist that they were all part of the “goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. You constantly twist your own theory in order to escape from the discrepancy between what you think was his purpose and what you think were his actions.

dhw: I have no doubt that Stephen C. Meyer believes in intelligent design, and in God the designer. Please save me some more time and just tell me whether he also believes that your God specially designed every life form and lifestyle and natural wonder, including all the extinct ones that had no connection with humans, for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food.[/b]

DAVID: Meyer believes God is the designer of all, published it, and changed ID rules about mentioning God.

dhw: So he did not promote the bolded theory above.

I had asked you to name scientists who support your bolded theory. None of the three nominees do so.

dhw: Frankly, I doubt if any scientist would propose a theory that is so manifestly illogical. Design, yes. Existence of God, yes. Humans vastly more intelligent than other species, yes. But a God who only wants one species plus food, but spends 3.x billion years specially designing countless species that have no connection with humans plus food? No. That doesn’t even make sense to you, which is why you either dodge it or you tell me go and ask God.

DAVID: Same inadequate distortion. Makes perfect sense to me. Move on.

What have I distorted?