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

by dhw, Wednesday, January 26, 2022, 12:24 (1030 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I tell you what Adler covers and you say he doesn't. Read Adler to see I am correct in my interpretation. Again, accepting that God evolved humans the highly unusual human result is the way Adler proves God.

dhw: But proving God is not the point at issue!!!

DAVID: I know that. My point is Adler accepts that God caused evolution in creating his proof.

We both agree that evolution happened, and if God exists, he caused it to happen. So please stick to the issue.

dhw: You have told us yourself that Adler does NOT deal with your theory. Nor do your ID-ers. In any case, the point at issue is not what other people say or don't say, but the fact that you yourself can find no logical explanation for your theory that your God fulfilled his one and only purpose by not fulfilling his one and only purpose until he had designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with his one and only purpose!

DAVID: You want either direct creation or evolution from God. Which is it? You view of God is so skewed! God can bring us about in any way He wishes, and history tells us hw He did it. Why do you want Him comparable to a tunnel-versioned human? It is your problem of your own creation. I accept what God did. Try it.

For the hundredth time: I do not “want” anything. It is you who make him tunnel-visioned because you say his one and only goal was to design humans plus food. You also say he individually designed countless species that had no connection with humans. Why would he choose such a method to achieve such a purpose? You admit that you have no idea, and I must ask God.

SURVIVAL
DAVID: Of course designed innovations help survival. I've admitted that many times.

dhw: So if your God designed the innovations that lead to speciation in order to “help” survival, why is it wrong to say that the purpose of the innovations that lead to speciation is to improve chances of survival?

DAVID: Word salad. I agree, but the point is still survival needs don't drive speciation. Your Darwin brain is all twisted as usual.

You agree that the purpose of the innovations that lead to speciation is to improve chances of survival, but their purpose is not the reason for speciation. So when you're hungry and cook a meal, you don't cook the meal because you're hungry. And my brain is twisted! Out of my deep respect and affection for a dear friend, I shall refrain from further comment!

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: The ability to be alive anywhere is amazing.

Yes indeed. You might even call it the ability to survive which seems to be common to all species and, I suggest, is the purpose that leads to adaptations, and also to the innovations that cause specification.

A new source of water
DAVID: A clear-thinking God can evolve anything. Not dhw's muddled-headed form, who didn't do it the right humanized way.

I agree that God, if he exists, could evolve anything any way he wanted. That is why I am so sceptical of theories that have him, for instance, specially designing countless life forms that have no connection to his one and only purpose (humans plus food). Or despite his omnipotence and omniscience, having to design a system with errors which he cannot control or correct. I can’t imagine such a “muddle-headed” God, and can’t help wondering if the inventor of such illogical theories might not himself be m…..No, I don’t want to be rude.

The missing fossils argument
DAVID: The maths dispute your point!!

dhw: They obviously don’t “dispute” my point that 410,000 years is enough for thousands of generations of intelligent organisms to produce rapid evolution, as proposed by Mirouze: : “TEs are likely major drivers of bbbrapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.” The fact that you disagree does not mean he is wrong and you are right.[dhw's bold]

DAVID: Nirouze's thought is pure Darwinian. The ID math folks agree with me.

And so surprise, surprise, there are different opinions. However, your statement that the maths “dispute” my point is obviously wrong, since the maths can be used to confirm my point.

DAVID: Your theist hat is interesting. God’s cells are as brilliant as he is.

I wrote a detailed reply to show that this was nonsense.

DAVID: So you have concluded all living forms must die. Long ago I noted death is built in.

dhw: You claimed that my theory made cells as brilliant as your God. I have tried to demonstrate that if your God exists, he deliberately made them considerably less brilliant than himself, and my conclusion – to put it frankly – is that your point was ridiculous.

DAVID: Your cell brilliance theory is based on observation of how cells act so well as seen from the outside. No facts involved, and primarily from somewhat ancient scientists who have not seen the current molecule by molecule elucidation of intracellular reactions design.

We know that you disagree with the theory, ignore all the modern scientists who support it, and ignore the point that intelligence is shown when actions cease to be automatic. But none of this makes your comment about my cells being “as brilliant as” your God any less ridiculous, which is the point you made and are now trying to dodge.