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

by dhw, Friday, January 14, 2022, 09:23 (209 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Even if your God does the designing, you have agreed that he does not design new species in advance of changing conditions. The oxygen must already be present for him to produce the new species which requires the oxygen.

DAVID: God changes the conditions. He is in control of all steps in evolution.

For a long time you dithered over whether God changed all the conditions, so it’s good to hear that you’ve now made up your mind. This does not alter the fact that you yourself agree that he changes the conditions before he designs the new species, and our dispute is over your previous claim that he designed new species in anticipation of changing conditions.

DAVID: Designing complexity requires deep mentation, which your cells cannot possibly do. They can create tiny modifications, no more.

dhw: Back to your prejudice as a way of dodging the issue we are debating, which is your theory that your God creates new species IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions, although you have now agreed that the changes in conditions must precede the new species.

DAVID: forgetting God manages everything, climate and speciation.

This is your new fixed belief, but it still leaves you with your God changing the conditions before he “manages” the species that will cope with or exploit the new conditions. Oxygen first, oxygen-breathing animals second. Remember?

dhw: I have proposed that the mechanism that makes new changes when new conditions require or allow them is the flexible, intelligent cell. I don’t think you will disagree that every change requires changes to the cells of every individual organism that makes up the new species.

DAVID: Some cells are changed, some new parts with news cells are created, but most use biochemical processes developed long ago in advance.

dhw: Agreed. If cells are intelligent, they would have been using the same methods right from the start: working out what to do with themselves under changing conditions.

DAVID: Now it is "if cells are intelligent". Big IF.

It has always been “if”. It’s a theory, not a proven fact. The same applies to your God. No one has any proven answers to any of our big questions, and that is the reason why we theorize!

dhw: You continue to try and prove that your God changes organisms in advance of new requirements by flogging your example of the brain:

DAVID: Yes, our giant brain didn't change much (stasis) until we learned to use it. It obviously appeared in anticipation of future use.

dhw: We didn’t “learn to use it”. We used it, just as our ancestors did. And I suggest that when they came up with new ideas, their brains eventually expanded. When we came up with new ideas, our brains complexified, as they continue to do even today.

DAVID: 'Learning to use it" involves developing new concepts like maths, language, etc., none of which existed 315,000 years ago with the first sapiens.

Of course they didn’t. Developing new concepts is the CAUSE of complexification, and I propose that the same applied in the past, when new concepts would have CAUSED expansion when the capacity for complexification had been exhausted. You have agreed that what preceded all these new concepts was the MECHANISM for complexification. I don’t know why you keep going back over the same discussion, unless it’s to distract attention from the fact that you now acknowledge that species are not designed in anticipation of new conditions but in response to them.

dhw: It is totally illogical for an all-powerful God with one purpose (humans plus food) to deliberately create countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one purpose. That is why you constantly dodge the issue.

DAVID: My dodge is I do not accept any of your illogical premise that my God is tunnel-visioned.

If he only has one goal (you say that all his designs are “part of the goal to evolve [=design] humans” and their food), then of course he’s tunnel-visioned. But your theory that he designed countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with humans is the exact opposite of tunnel-visioned, which is why your theory is illogical.

DAVID: God recognized all the many necessary steps in evolution to reach humans, and did them. Adler would be as puzzled as I am.

If your Adler is as logical a thinker as you say, I expect he would be just as puzzled as I am by a theory that has an all-powerful God pursuing his one solitary purpose of designing humans plus food by designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. However, you have told us that he does not even discuss your theory. Good for him.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum