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

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 16, 2022, 16:24 (133 days ago) @ dhw

Mutations random or not

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

dhw: 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”.

We are back to a supposition with no proof after 160 years, disputed by a large group of trained scientists that carries some force of important consideration.


Pathogens fight hosts

DAVID: Back to pure Darwin support.

dhw: 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.

Still pure Darwin. Survival does not speciate.

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.

dhw: 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.

There you go again slicing away the past evolution from the present forms, as if never connected.


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.

dhw: 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”.

You always want an uncertain God in your imagination, and complain when I tell you He is humanized. Your God has no relation to mine. We see what He wanted from the beginning of His creations, and think He always was certain of His endpoints.


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.

dhw: 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.

My theory is illogical only to you, so I view it as your problem. Lot's of folks I've quoted are with me. The end from my viewpoint. Don't bring it up again as you constantly have done.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum