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

by dhw, Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 11:23 (1037 days ago) @ David Turell

SURVIVAL
DAVID: The only point under discussion is does striving for survival cause speciation? Don't twist the point out of shape.

dhw: That is precisely what I mean when I say that the motive for the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation is the quest to improve chances of survival. I’m surprised that large groups of scientists disagree. Do they argue that the adaptations and innovations do NOT improve chances of survival? If that is the case, what do they say is the purpose of, say, flippers replacing legs?

DAVID: Survival is required for ecosystems to work and feed all, nothing more.

Well yes, if organisms don’t survive, the ecosystem won’t survive, but on the other hand if the food isn’t there, the organisms won’t survive! The organisms eat and are eaten, and that is why ecosystems must be balanced for all the organisms to survive. Now please tell us why large groups of scientists believe that adaptations and innovations do not serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival.

Pathogens fight hosts
DAVID: Evolution is one continuous process or it isn't. Your choice is not mine as you slice it up into unrelated parts.

dhw: Evolution is not one continuous process from bacteria to humans plus their econiches! It branches out into countless unrelated branches and econiches. That is why it is absurd to argue that the goal of every past branch and every past econiche was to produce humans and their econiches.

DAVID:Yes, the humans are in one branch, which goes back to bacteria as all branches do.

You’ve got it. And yet you still believe, illogically, that even though most of the other extinct branches had no connection with humans and their food, they were part of your God’s goal to produce humans and their food.

DAVID: I remember the illogic of humans without food.

Who said anything about humans without food??? Here we go again: bbb you tell us your God's sole purpose was to design humans plus their food, and yet he specially designed countless forms of life and foods that had no connection with humans.bbb You agree that you can’t explain it. You wrote:
DAVID “I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is his choice for His reasons, unknown to us.”

dhw: Can you or can’t you explain why God evolves [= specially designs] ALL his creations, even though the ONLY creations he wants to evolve are us and our food?

DAVID: That I cannot know God's reasons for using evolution is explanation enough. The others are our food. Back to illogical humans without food.

Most of the “others” were not OUR food. How many more times? You wrote: 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”. Please stick to your confession that you can’t explain your theory and leave it at that. There is no point in repeatedly trying to dodge the issue with the same old contradictions.

DAVID: My cohort of IDer's are with me. I have an army of folks.

dhw: Then do please tell me why they all think your God evolved (= individually designed) ALL the life forms etc which had no connection with humans and their food, although his only purpose was to evolve humans and their food[/b].

DAVID: Your illogical complaint never enters their minds. They think just like Adler.

You mean your illogical theory never enters their minds, just as you say it never entered Adler’s.