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

by dhw, Friday, February 04, 2022, 07:58 (812 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Again, misunderstanding how to view God, you use Him as tunnel-visioned.

dhw: You allow him one purpose for the fulfilment of which he designs countless life forms that have no connection with that purpose, and you don’t think that is tunnel-visioned! I offer a variety of alternatives, and apparently that makes me tunnel-visioned!

DAVID: Your human mind entered into God's mind, with no alterations, and arrived at human complaints about God's indirection in achieving a desired endpoint to evolution.

I haven’t uttered a word of complaint about your God! Tunnel vision = seeing only part of something and not seeing the rest. Your human mind sees nothing but humans and our food and comes up with the conclusion that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design us. You refuse to look at the rest of life’s history, which according to you includes his deliberate design of countless life forms that had no connection with humans and our food, i.e. with his one and only purpose. A classic example of tunnel vision, as a result of which you have come up with a theory of two parts that contradict each other.

DAVID: If you were God, how would you do it differently?

dhw: [...] if I were an all-powerful God and my only purpose was to design humans and their food, I would design humans and their food. I would not design and kill off countless life forms that had nothing to do with my one and only purpose. And frankly, if I were God, I would object very strongly to a human being attributing such illogical behaviour to me, and I would suggest that he should rethink his theory to make it fit in logically with the history of life.

DAVID: Analyzed like a true human, not like a true theistic view of the real God.

Yes, I am human. I thought you were too. But no, apparently you know the true theistic view of the real God. But unfortunately, he has never explained to you why he designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although all he wanted to do was design humans plus food.

Evidence of non-random mutation

QUOTE: "The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival.”

DAVID: It seems chance mutations can be protected from affecting plants. Was this designed or a natural event? I'll stick with design.

dhw: I’ve only quoted this to reinforce two points: 1) some genes must act automatically to preserve the species, while some genes must be flexible to allow for speciation; 2) the purpose of all these mechanisms – whether designed by God or not – is to improve chances of survival.

DAVID: Survival is required to advance evolution in stages. It does not drive new designs.

I thought we’d finished with these silly quibbles. What you are saying now is that if life forms don’t survive, there can be no evolution, which is pretty obvious. What I am saying is that the purpose of all the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation is to improve chances of survival. A land based animal does not have its legs turn into flippers so that evolution can advance in stages. The legs turn into flippers so that it can have a better chance of survival. Organs/organisms changing into something new = evolution. Therefore the purpose of the changes (or “new designs”) which constitute the evolution of species is survival.

Hummingbird torpor and sea spiders

dhw: Thank you as always for the natural wonder articles. They are a delight to read. Shame about the comments, though.

QUOTE: "At night, hummingbirds lower their body temperature and metabolism drastically by dropping into an energy-saving state of inactivity called torpor.”

DAVID: how did this evolve. It all obviously goes together purposefully, and like all irreducible complex systems it must be designed.

dhw: Why would God specially design an energy-saving mechanism just for hummingbirds when all he apparently ever wanted to do was design humans and their food? Would we really not be here, or would we starve, if it weren’t for the hummingbird’s torpor?

DAVID: Each organism fits an ecosystem providing food for all.

Yes indeed. But each ecosystem provides only for the organisms that are part of it. I do not believe, and nor do you, that every organism and every ecosystem that ever existed was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their ecosystems.