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

by dhw, Sunday, January 16, 2022, 13:29 (1040 days ago) @ David Turell

Mutations random or not
DAVID: …do you recognize the problem with the [survival] theory?

dhw: […] I have no idea why you think that organisms which undergo changes that will help them to get food to eat, to protect themselves from harm, to adapt to new conditions etc. do not undergo these changes for the sake of survival […] No, I don’t recognize the problem. Please tell me.

DAVID: Darwin's theory is that survival adaptations make speciation. Not proven is my only point.

The theory is that the motive for the adaptations and innovations that result in speciation is to improve chances of survival. “Not proven” is not a reason for rejecting an argument. If it were, then out goes God. Please tell us the “problem”.

Pathogens fight hosts
DAVID: its eat or die out there. This is another example of the war over food supply. It has been and will be continuous in every ecosystem. [...]

dhw: Surprise, surprise. Yes, it’s eat or die. And yet you do not see survival as a key motive for evolutionary developments.

DAVID: Back to pure Darwin support.

You seem to think that by mentioning Darwin, you render any proposal invalid. Please explain why hosts and pathogens keep coming up with new strategies to fight one another but their motive is not survival.

DAVID: You agree food for all and then withdraw it. Your complaint is empty rhetoric.

And elsewhere:

DAVID: The vast variety of life is food for all. You agree and then ignore as you know it negates your illogical objection. Humans are in the endpoint branch of development.

Yes, every ecosystem provides/provided food for every life form in that system, and I’m glad you now agree that humans are just one branch of evolution. But I do not agree that every ecosystem and every branch of life forms and foods that ever existed was specially designed by God as “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. THAT is the illogical basis of your theory of evolution.

dhw (re environmental conditions): I realize now, however, that your new decision changes the argument. If God preprogrammed every single environmental change, global and local, and every single species 3.8 billion years ago, then of course you could argue that he designed all species in advance. We should simply forget your agreement that "you cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn't present", and "more oxygen allowed God to now design Cambrians". The "now" certainly doesn't fit if you're going to tell us that it was all designed 3.8 billion years ago.

DAVID: God designed photosynthesis to make the proper conditions for future complex Cambrians is a reasonable view. Throwing Chixculub is a questionable issue. As for timing of planned events both in initial and dabbles are reasonable.

I have no objection to God planning or dabbling. This discussion revolves around your insistence that speciation precedes the changes in conditions, whereas I find it only logical than the conditions will change before the new species appears. My proposal, yet again, is that it is the changing conditions that trigger the mechanism for the changes that lead to speciation. That mechanism may have been designed by your God.

dhw: If God exists, then I accept that he must have evolved the Earth so that it could be conducive to life. However, I find it difficult to believe that 3.8 billion years ago he preprogrammed every environmental change, every innovation, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. - especially when you say it was all for the sake of humans.

DAVID: So I guess you think God didn't want humans in the beginning.

You have never understood that I offer alternative theories to explain the vast bush of life extant and extinct. Experimentation would explain your theory: he wanted humans (i.e. organisms that might mimic him) , and experimented with different life forms before hitting on the right “formula”.

DAVID: When He did what in planning is not settled in my mind. [dhw: I’m not surprised, since all your imaginings lead to such confusion.] At the start He knew exactly what the outcomes should be. [dhw: What plural “outcomes”? According to you, the only “outcome” he wanted was humans plus food, so you can’t explain why he planned or dabbled all those life forms and foods that were not on the human branch.] Planning in advance or dabbles actions are both probable. [dhw: Agreed, if God exists. Not “proven”.]

dhw: [referring to David’s theory that his God designed every single life form etc., and did so for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food]: You admit that you cannot explain this theory (you tell me to go and ask God to explain it), and that should be the end of this discussion.

DAVID: Don't pout. I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is His choice for His reasons, unknown to us.

Thank you for yet again agreeing that you haven’t a clue why your God should choose your interpretation of his method to achieve your interpretation of his goal. There is no point in repeating your beliefs, or in referring to Adler’s evidence for the existence of God. Your theory is illogical, but you believe it. That should end the discussion.