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

by dhw, Monday, December 27, 2021, 08:53 (25 days ago) @ David Turell


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.

DAVID: 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.

You don’t seem to be able to make up your mind whether 200 cc was a big leap or a little leap. I suggest it was no different from all the earlier leaps, and happened – like the others – for one of several possible reasons, as listed earlier. You don’t know any more than I do why the brain expanded or why it stopped expanding, but I’m surprised you think it has been fully used. Do you honestly believe that in the next hundred/ thousand/ten thousand/hundred thousand years we shall have no more new ideas or requirements or needs? And do you honestly believe that the brain could simply have gone on expanding indefinitely? At some stage, complexification would have had to take over anyway.

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

"Living style" didn't change much between any of our earlier ancestors. If, for example, the invention of the bow and arrow required brain expansion, it would not have changed "living style". I suggest that all stages in the past were followed by a period of “stasis” until the next new factor required expansion, but with sapiens - as we have agreed over and over again - expansion was replaced by complexification, which proved so efficient that the brain shrank. I keep asking why you find this theory so difficult to accept. Your only answer seems to be that, like all your own theories, it isn’t proven.

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.

And so pre-whales sat on the beach with their brand new flippers waiting for God to provide a reason for them to enter the water (or waiting for him to provide the water).

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?

DAVID: Not discussed by them.

Then please stop pretending that they support your theory!

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!

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

Obviously all ID-ers believe in design, which is fine, but they don’t even mention your anthropocentric theory that your God’s only purpose was to design us and therefore he designed countless life forms that had no connection with us. So please stop leaning on ID-ers for support since you have fallen down each time you’ve tried to lean on them.

DAVID: 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.

DAVID: 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.

Thank you for confirming for the umpteenth time that Adler does not cover your one-man campaign for a God who designed every life form, including all those that had no connection with humans, “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans" plus food. You can’t even lean on Adler.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum