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

by dhw, Wednesday, December 22, 2021, 22:05 (1065 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE
DAVID: Really silly expansion-stop theory. There is no evidence that 200cc more would have caused anatomic problems for our neck and shoulders.

dhw: I have no idea what the tipping point would be. It is, however, a fact that the brain stopped expanding and complexity took over. What is your explanation?

DAVID: 300,000+ years ago the unused brain was big enough for future anticipated use in God's mind.

And I propose that all past brains would have remained the same size and would presumably have complexified, until unknown new requirements (lots of possibilities ranging from new artefacts to new ideas or discoveries to new conditions to new ways of living) necessitated additional cells (= expansion). Our “mainly unused giant brain” reached its current size 300,000 years ago to meet unknown new requirements, but instead of expanding (possibly because further expansion would have necessitated major changes to the rest of the anatomy), the human brain subsequently responded to new requirements by complexifying, and complexification has proved so efficient that the brain has shrunk. You have never come up with any reason for rejecting this theory.

dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

So you stick to the idea that your God operated on pre-whale legs to change them into flippers before they entered the water, although the fossil record shows that there were transitional forms.

DAVID: [re "NEANDERTHALS"] You forget/ignore all the material presented here as to how interbreeding gave us advantages.

dhw: I have asked why your all-powerful God needed to design all these different homos and hominins when according to you he is perfectly capable of designing species “de novo” (see Cambrian), but in any case your theory does not stop with homos and hominins. According to you EVERY extinct life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc, was “part of the goal to evolve [= design] humans” and their food. According to you, he only WANTED us plus food, yet you say he also WANTED all those life forms and foods that had no connection with us.

DAVID: The bold is your constant distortion of my thoughts about God's desires. God wanted all of the evolutionary tree with us arriving at the end, and evolved us by the process of evolution. You twist my God into a tunnel-visioned character to try to damage my theory. It won't/doesn't work to any rational person viewing.

What doesn’t work to any rational person viewing is your rigid belief that all life forms are/were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. You even emphasize this in your comment on ecosystems. (“Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.”) That is YOUR tunnel-vision. I cannot follow the logic of an all-powerful God, whose one and only goal is to produce humans plus food, deliberately designing all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with humans plus food.

DAVID: All ID'ers think God designed evolution.

dhw: But apparently you can’t find even one who supports the theory I have bolded!

DAVID: All ID folks do is prove a designer exists, my theory is not their point of attack.

So please stop pretending that they support your illogical theory of evolution!

DAVID: You have favorite folks you bring up over and over who have an opinion cells are intelligent. Do they ever declare, as you do, that this is how speciation happens?

Shapiro does. But it is you who constantly harp on about support – even to the extent of claiming that cellular intelligence has no supporters now. That is why I challenged you to name supporters of your own theory. The discussion on who supports what is pointless. We should simply focus on the arguments themselves.

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

dhw: What have I distorted?

DAVID: You have ignored Adler constantly. His thoughts and proofs of God are mine also. A leading philosopher of religion in the 20th century. I easily follow him and reject your approach. And both he and I accept the history of evolution as what God did. He created humans and their food by that method.

dhw: I have agreed ad nauseam that Adler’s theory, as you have explained it, provides a logical reason for believing in the existence of God. But you have always maintained that he does not cover your theory of evolution. Please make up your mind. And please tell me what I have distorted in the paragraph you criticised.

DAVID: My whole view of God as discussed above in red.

Your comment in red does not explain why he wanted ALL of the evolutionary tree, or do you now wish to disown your constantly repeated view that he designed ALL life forms etc. “as part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food?