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

by dhw, Sunday, January 23, 2022, 12:26 (816 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: You are simply questioning God's choice of creation method. We obviously arrived by being evolved. And you get your panties all in a twist about it.

And every other species also arrived by being evolved, including all those that had no connection with humans – his one and only goal – though you keep forgetting to mention them!

DAVID: I start with the belief God made history. From that Adler proves the most unusual animal result proves God. Try thinking like Adler. I do.

Of course if you believe in God, you believe he made history. And how many more times do you want me to repeat that I have no quarrel with design as evidence of God’s existence? The dispute – as if you didn’t know it – is over your belief that your God designed every single life form as part of his one and only goal to design humans plus our food, although most life forms had no connection with humans or our food. You admit that you don’t know why. This silly dodging game should end now.

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?

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: You are arguing. I'm not. The quest for survival produces minor adaptation in existing species. Not the cause of speciation, about which we differ, as I believe God designs them.

Still not answering. Do you believe that the innovations which lead to speciation were designed to serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival?

The missing fossils argument
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.???

dhw: 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”???

DAVID: All of Cambrians by your brilliant cells' designs. Fairy tale. As for God's method, His created history easily reveals the story of His methods.

If I put on my theist’s hat, it’s all of Cambrians by God’s brilliant design of brilliant cells. The history is a vast, ever changing bush of life forms (including Cambrians) - most of which had no connection with humans – that have come and gone. Humans are the last known species – the brilliant culmination perhaps of God’s brilliant invention rather than a fairytale, 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme or endless individual operations to create new species irrelevant to his one and only purpose.

dhw: 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. […][dhw's bold]

dhw: […] Thank you as always for your integrity in reproducing articles that support my proposals.

DAVID: The author's appraisal of gaps mimics yours. Both have great imaginations.

Yes, it’s good to have support from scientists who work in the field. I don’t know why you regard this as more “imaginative” than an unknown, all-powerful, sourceless being who took billions of years to create every life form and natural wonder you can think of, although he only wanted to programme/dabble one particular life form and its food.