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

by dhw, Thursday, February 10, 2022, 13:10 (1015 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: There are none so blind as those who will not see. For the thousandth time, this dispute is not over the existence of God, but over your illogical belief that bbbalthough your God’s one and only intention was to design humans plus food, he deliberately and individually designed countless species and econiches that had no connection with humans plus food.bbb
There is no point in your constantly calling on Adler’s “proof of God” to defend this theory, which you yourself admit you cannot explain. The nearest you have come is to point out that efficient humans, if they have just one purpose, will try to achieve it directly, which suggests that they are more efficient than your "roundabout" God!

DAVID: There is nothing roundabout a God who does nothing but what He wishes to do. That is your blindness.

I totally agree - apart from your idea of blindness! God would do what he wishes to do. And if he had only one purpose, then he would naturally focus on that one purpose, not devote himself to designing life forms which had no connection with that purpose. Hence YOUR description of his actions as “roundabout”, with the astonishing implication that we are more efficient than he is. You wrote:
“I’ve given you my explanation which you refuse to accept, since God did it in a roundabout way over lots of time, in comparison to an efficient human approach who would have gotten it done straight away.”

You have said over and over again that you have no idea why, if your God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food, he would have designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Why can’t you leave it at that?

Another illogical part of your theory is the claim that speciation takes place IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions. You have, however, proceeded to give us plenty of examples that show the converse is true. Here’s another one:

Oxygen and the Cambrian: gills appeared

A new Chinese find, early gills from 520 million years ago:

QUOTES: “'When it came to arthropods, however, we just weren’t sure where these gills came from.”
“Thanks to this new fossil, Erratus sperare, we now have a much clearer idea,” he added.
“'These gills also probably went on to evolve into the wings of insects and the lungs of terrestrial arthropods like spiders so were a very important innovation.'”

DAVID: These animals had to utilize oxygen somehow. This is probably the beginning.

You’ve got it. Oxygen first, innovations in response. What’s more, new finds are being made all the time, and some of them fill in gaps . You expect to find one fossil per link in the chain. It’s almost a miracle that we can find any fossils at all from 520 million years ago!

Cambrian explosion: A new study of a late branch
DAVID: Helps explain the steps in its evolution:
and
DAVID: please note lots of fossil samples are lying around waiting for further study to place them in the right order.

Yes, even those we have can yield more information about the steps, i.e. fill in the gaps.

Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

DAVID: These complex animals could not exist without lots of oxygen prepared first.

dhw: For I don’t know how long, you have been touting the theory that your God designs species in advance of changing conditions. It would be gracious if you would now agree that speciation takes place IN RESPONSE to new conditions, and not in ANTICIPATION of them. I’m not sure what you’re referring to with the “cause”. You have agreed that the purpose of the changes which result in new species is to improve their chances of survival. But perhaps you simply mean the process by which the changes take place: Darwinists say random mutations, Shapiro says intelligent cells, and you say direct design by your God. Of the three, I favour Shapiro’s theory, bearing in mind that it allows for a possible God as the designer.

DAVID: Good summary.

dhw: So let’s hear no more of this theory of yours that speciation anticipates changing conditions, as opposed to responding to them.

DAVID: It stays my full theory.

As with your theory that your God pursues his only purpose by not pursuing his only purpose, and you don’t know why but you won’t budge, here you agree that conditions must change before these new species can appear, but you stick to your theory that species appear before conditions change.