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

by dhw, Saturday, January 22, 2022, 13:12 (819 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID (transferred from “Cellular intelligence”, to replace other comments on the same subject): His one and only goal followed a prelude of preparation for an Earth rich with resources for us: oil and gas, metal deposits, a a huge variety of food source. You just can't see it that way.

No, I can’t see why he would have specially designed countless life forms and natural wonders that had no connection with humans and their food, if his "one and only goal" was to create humans and their food. Nor can you, as you keep confessing. I have no idea why you think human exploitation of natural resources explains why he designed all those other life forms and natural wonders that had no connection with "his one and only goal".

SURVIVAL
DAVID: So you agree, survival is for survivals sake, nothing more.

dhw: I don’t know what you mean. Do you or do you not agree that the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation are designed (by intelligent cells or by God) to improve chances of survival? If you do, and your large number of scientists do, then what are we arguing about? If you want to talk about the purpose of life itself, then we’re on different ground – but you don’t even want to talk about that, except to say that the purpose of every single organism that ever lived was to enable your God to design H. sapiens. Any other purpose, according to you, is “humanizing”, which is only acceptable if we choose human thought patterns and emotions you approve of.

DAVID: We are not arguing if we agree, as we seem to, that survival does not drive evolution.

We do not “seem to agree” on any such thing, because your wording is wrong! You don’t seem to read what I write: “Survival is the state of continuing to live. It is the RESULT of the changes, not the cause. The cause of the changes which lead to adaptation, innovation and speciation is the quest to improve the organism’s chances of survival.” Once more, do you or do you not agree that the adaptations and innovations which lead to speciation serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival? Please answer.

The missing fossils argument
QUOTES: "A time window for the Cambrian explosion briefer than 410,000 years is far too brief for any conceivable naturalistic model for the history of life. It would be far too brief even for the appearance of just one new phylum, let alone 30+ phyla.

Bechley: The most popular attempt to resolve this discrepancy is the so-called “artifact hypothesis,” which proposes that the Cambrian animal phyla had ancestors, but that those ancestors either left no fossil record or have not yet been found, because of the incompleteness of the fossil record.

DAVID: So I might add, without fossils, imagining lost fossils disappears.

dhw: Without concrete evidence, theories remain theories. Has anyone found your God's 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all species and natural wonders, or is there a video of him performing operations on whales and camels and small-brained humans? By “naturalistic” I presume the authors are referring to Darwin’s random mutations. If – as I presume – they are telling us that their all-powerful, all-knowing God did it, and there was no “evolution” but simply straight “de novo” design, I’m frankly surprised that it took him so long. There is, of course, an alternative: that he might have designed an intelligent mechanism which was able to exploit the new conditions. 410,000 years is one helluva long time in terms of thousands and thousands of generations of intelligent organisms working out ways of using new conditions. [dhw's bold - see below.]

DAVID: You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

What “off-hand dismissal”? I’m not disputing the maths. I’m disputing the claim that 410,000 years is not long enough for intelligent cells to produce new species in response to new conditions. Your question raises the obvious question why, if your all-powerful God’s "one and only goal" was to design humans and their food, he didn’t “do it before then”??? Meanwhile, thank you for the next eye-opening article on genetic complexity:

QUOTE: Mirouze says TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.

Dictionary definition: Transposons cause mutations of various kinds and have important applications in genetic engineering.

DAVID: Perhaps transposons are God's dabble mechanism.

“Rapid evolution measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.” I have bolded the relevant sentence in my own comment. Thank you as always for your integrity in reproducing articles that support my proposals.