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

by dhw, Thursday, January 06, 2022, 11:52 (15 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE
(I am gradually trying to telescope threads.)

Geckos
DAVID: same old. All ecosystems are complex and required by all living organisms for food energy. This clearly explains the huge branched bush of life that evolution created, a point dhw disputes when he laughs at the theory that God wanted to create humans and their food. We are here. Of course He did.

There is absolutely no connection between your two points. All life forms need food. That does not mean all life forms and foods, including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, were “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food. I do not laugh at your theory. The more you dodge this blatant illogicality, the more I squirm on your behalf. I wish you wouldn’t keep doing it.

DAVID: God evolves in steps, basing each new designed forms on the past. Bacteria start with many basic biochemical processes to be used by all future forms, so form can change but the biochemistry is already in place for much of the requirements for living, with new systems added as necessary to fit with the new phenotypical changes. All prepared for future .

dhw: Yes, evolution proceeds in steps, and common descent means new forms arise out of past forms. Yes, the single cell is the basis of all multicellular organisms, and works biochemically as new systems (combinations of different forms of cell) are added to transform the comparatively simple into the ultimately vastly complex. How on earth does this come to mean that your God changed the structure of every predecessor BEFORE conditions changed instead of in RESPONSE to the new conditions in which the new species was to live?

DAVID: Proof is clearly in our large brain as a precise example: 315,000 years ago the first sapiens with a 1,500 cc barely used brain for requirements of daily living at the time that became 1,350 cc as civilization appeared with many new requirements of understanding by the brain. Volume bigger allowed the future use and complexification by neurons caused the brain to become smaller from so many new uses the early brain was prepared for in advance.

This now seems to be the only example you can think of, and we have dealt with it over and over again. It is NOT an example of a structural change to anticipate future conditions if you accept the known fact that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements. Yet again, the theory: earlier expansions occurred when new ideas, conditions, inventions, lifestyles required additional capacity. Complexification then took over until the next lot of new ideas etc. demanded the next expansion. The pre-sapiens brain would also have expanded to meet new requirements, but from then on there was no further expansion, complexification took over, and it was so efficient that the brain shrank. You have never found any logical flaw in this theory, which is supported by the fact that we KNOW the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements, and no one has ever recorded a brain changing IN ADVANCE of the requirement that the brain has to meet.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum