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

by dhw, Monday, January 17, 2022, 13:16 (1039 days ago) @ David Turell

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”.

DAVID: 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.

I must confess I'm surprised that there are lots of scientists who believe that the adaptations and innovations which result in speciation do NOT improve organisms’ chances of survival. So why did you say "not proven” was your “only point”? I stand by my response above. Goodbye, God, if “not proven” is enough for you to dismiss a theory.

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.

DAVID: Still pure Darwin. Survival does not speciate.

Of course survival doesn’t speciate. Improving chances of survival is the MOTIVE for the adaptations and innovations that result in speciation. The motive leads to the activation of the biochemical mechanisms which create the necessary changes. And if your God exists, he must have invented those mechanisms.

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: 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, which you constantly try to edit out of your posts.

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

You have agreed that only ONE of the vast number of branches led to humans. As for food, you have agreed that “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. So how could ALL branches and food bushes have been “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food? Please stop backtracking.

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”.

DAVID: You always want an uncertain God in your imagination…..

I don’t “always” want anything. I offer what you agree are LOGICAL alternative theories to explain the diversity of life. If your God’s purpose was humans plus food, you cannot explain why he deliberately created all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. Experimenting would give us an explanation.

DAVID…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.

Why plural “endpoints” when you insist that he only had one? If he did design every single life form and econiche, then he must have wanted to design every single life form and econiche, but if from the beginning he only wanted to create humans and their econiches, why did he create those that had no connection with humans and their econiches? You admit you can’t explain it (“I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is His choice for His reasons, unknown to us”), but still you reject the logical explanation of experimentation, or alternative purposes, such as an unpredictable free-for-all, or an on-going learning process. I shan’t bother to comment on your silly “humanization” argument, since you have agreed unequivocally that your God may have thought patterns etc. similar to ours.

DAVID: My theory is illogical only to you, so I view it as your problem.

If you can’t explain it, how can you claim that it is logical?

DAVID: 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.

You have not yet told me of anyone who explicitly believes that every single life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. was individually designed by your God as part of his one and only goal to create humans and their food. Unfortunately, I cannot avoid bringing it up every time you tell us a particular life form etc. must have been designed by your God.