Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2 (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 11, 2022, 16:05 (211 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: Exactly: the bold is correct. The complexification is there in advance to handle new uses.

dhw: The bold says that each complexification takes place IN RESPONSE, not in advance.

If the mechanism is not already there, it couldn't respond to new uses.

DAVID: No wiggle. Environmental/changed conditions allow new advances. More oxygen allowed God to now design Cambrians.

dhw: So even in your own theistic scenario, the oxygen comes first and “now” God designs the new species. He does not design them in anticipation of the oxygen arriving.

In evolution everything in its time. He designs as new conditions He provides arrive. Each step is a function of many factors. New organisms need oxygen, food, and need new parts to breathe and eat.

DAVID: Not worth doing until His complex quantum-process-using photosynthesis developed enough oxygen.

dhw: Absolutely crazy to design an animal that needs oxygen if the oxygen isn’t there. I have no objection to your logic if you say that God first created the new conditions and then designed the new species.

dhw: You say you cannot design an organism dependent on new conditions (oxygen) if the new conditions oxygen) aren’t already present, so what is it that God designs in advance? Did oxygen-breathing animals appear before there was oxygen? Once more, what exists in advance can only be the MECHANISM which makes new changes when conditions require or allow them – not in advance of the change in conditions.

DAVID: The MECHANISM is God working is stepwise evolutionary fashion!

dhw: If you want to call your God a mechanism, that’s up to you. It’s true that one of the two methods you allow him is a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme which switches itself on at every pre-planned moment to carry out the requisite changes to the cells, but even then, it would only be switched on IN RESPONSE to new conditions and not before they existed. And the same applies to his dabbling: not much point in dabbling with the cells to create a new species BEFORE the right conditions exist, is there? My proposal has him giving the cells the intelligence to RESPOND to new conditions by changing themselves. In all our theories, speciation takes place in RESPONSE to new conditions, and not beforehand.

You have never explained our huge brains mainly unused for 300,000 years, or how Cambrians appeared prepared for their conditions with no precursors. And don't fall back on negativity. Darwin knew it 160 years ago, and no change with lots of new shale fields uncovered.

dhw: PART TWO simply repeats points already dealt with under “Cellular Intelligence” concerning ecosystems, and “slicing and dicing”, as attempts to dodge the question of why your God would design countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, if his one and only purpose was to design humans plus food.

DAVID: You recognize the need for a huge bush of food and then deny it totally illogically.

dhw: You simply refuse to put the pieces together. All organisms need food. What I deny is your theory that your God only wanted to design humans plus our food, and therefore designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and foods, the majority of which had no connection with humans. THAT is what is illogical, you admit it, can’t explain it, and so you continue to edit out all the parts of your theory that make it illogical!

Nothing is illogical about God choosing to evolve us. You accept the idea and then ignore it.

DAVID: So God is still not allowed to create us from bacteria in a stepwise fashion creating a huge bush of ecosystems for food?

dhw: If God exists, he created us (or allowed his invention to create us) plus every other life form and food, extant and extinct, in a stepwise fashion from bacteria! The huge bush of ecosystems provided food for every life form, extant and extinct. That does not mean that every life form extant and extinct and every branch of every bush that existed and perished for 3.X billion years was “PART OF THE GOAL OF EVOLVING [DESIGNING] HUMANS” AND THEIR FOOD! Please stop editing out the illogical bits of your theory and then pretending it’s logical! :-(

Same old, same old: same reply, "Nothing is illogical about God choosing to evolve us. You accept the idea and then ignore it." History is God's history of action. Adler's philosophy/theology depends upon it, as I do. ;-)

As usual the logical interpretation of your illogical complaint is why not God directly creating us as Genesis ancient interpretations imply, but really doesn't mean in modern translations? We know God evolved us, don't we? :-)

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum