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

by dhw, Thursday, December 23, 2021, 09:20 (1064 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: I'll remind you, 200 cc of more brain is not anatomic problem.

I’m delighted that this is the only objection you can find to my theory. Please tell us your own theory as to why sapiens’ brain stopped expanding and gave precedence to complexification.

DAVID: No new requirements appeared from erectus to sapiens of any larger amount.

How large is a “larger” amount? And how do you know?

DAVID: Lots of unused brain for no good reason, except it appeared in advance prepared for future use.

How do you know it was not used? Do you think our ancestors were zombies? If they did encounter any new conditions or requirements, their brains would have complexified instead of expanding. That is the only process we know: the brain changes in RESPONSE to new requirements.

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.

dhw: 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: We do not know in the fossil gaps when they formed. Swimming mammals could have been redesigned in the water.

So your all-powerful, all-knowing God had to keep dabbling, making corrections as and when he realized that conditions required more changes. If they were already in the water, wouldn’t this have been IN RESPONSE to conditions?

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.

dhw: 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: I think my logic fits God's intentions. God chose to evolve us. Deny that.

The usual dodge. If God exists, he chose to evolve every life form that ever lived (or he gave them the freedom to evolve), including all those that had no connection with humans and their food.

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

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

DAVID: No pretend. They think God designed all forms in evolution

But do they believe that all forms served his one and only goal of designing sapiens plus food?

DAVID (in PART TWO): Behe believes God designed all of evolution. We didn't discuss any further.

So stop pretending that he supports your theory!

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?

dhw: Shapiro does.

DAVID: It is a theoretical proposal he barely supported at the Royal Society, remember?

What does “barely supported” mean? Has he expressly rejected his own theory? In any case, this is a silly discussion. The focus should be on the feasibility of the theory, not on who does or doesn’t support the theory.

dhw: ...please tell me what I have distorted in the paragraph you criticised.

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

dhw: 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?

DAVID: Never. God chose to design all steps of evolution to form us, per Adler.

So please tell us how Adler explains the discrepancy between God’s one and only purpose (to “form us”) and God’s individual design of all the extinct life forms that had no connection with us.