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

by David Turell , Thursday, December 23, 2021, 15:34 (1064 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

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

dhw: 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.

Complexification caused shrinkage, as you know, so the size of our given brain was more than adequate 315,000 years ago, and when finally fully used lost size. It is the quality and quantity of neurons, not size, if we compare ourselves theoretically to bigger Neanderthal brains.

dhw: 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.

Compare living style requirements of Erectus to sapiens to see the use difference.

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.

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

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

Not discussed by them.

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

dhw: So stop pretending that he supports your theory!

He supports design theory and believes in God all part of how I view evolution. ID doesn't go into the details I do.

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

dhw: 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.

Adler and I see no discrepancy as you imagine it. Adler simply accepts, as I do, God evolved use from the beginning of the life God invented. In his view the appearance of humans proved God.