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

by dhw, Saturday, February 05, 2022, 08:33 (1020 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: You have expressed your exact problem. We have to accept what God did and try to understand it from a developmental view of His creation which God does not explain.

Assuming God exists, the only thing we agree he did is invent life. We do not “have to” accept your theory that his one and only goal was to design humans plus food, that he designed every life form, or that every life form he designed was part of his one and only goal even though most of them had no connection with his one and only goal. If you propose a theory, it is for you to explain it, and you can’t, because you have no idea why your God would choose such a method to achieve such a goal. The obvious implication is not that God works in mysterious ways, but that your theory is wrong.

DAVID: I've given you my explanation which you refuse to accept, since God did it in a round-about way over lots of time, in comparison to an efficient human approach who would have gotten it done straight away. Thus your humanized God appears to solve your problem.

It’s not MY problem. It’s yours if you think your God is less “efficient” than us humans!

Evidence of non-random mutation

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Fine. We have been agreeing all along.

At last. I’ll remind you of your agreement next time you raise the subject.

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Yes, no other way to explain God's actions. I accept them, not complain about His methods.

What do you “accept”? You are proposing a theory about your God’s actions, and it doesn’t make sense. And I am complaining about your theory, not about your God’s actions!