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

by dhw, Sunday, February 13, 2022, 12:10 (1012 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your reasoning about God's actions is purely from a 'what a thinking human would logically do'. God is not required to be humanly logical.

dhw: And so your ultimate defence of your illogical theory is that you are firmly convinced that your God would act in a way which you as a human being would regard as illogical. […]

DAVID: I am describing how you view God as a human. That doesn't mean I view Him that way. Your full misinterpretation of my point shows your hardened bias. I've bolded above to show you what you slid by. I am not you.

I’m sorry, but since you can find no logical reason why your God would pursue his only goal in such a “roundabout” way (your word) but he is “not required to be humanly logical”, I assume you agree that your theory has him acting in a way you as a human being regard as illogical. Personally, I’d be more inclined to believe a theory that I as a human being find logical than one which goes against all my human reason.

dhw (re absence of fossils): Absence of evidence proves nothing (see Bertrand Russell’s teapot orbiting the sun), and so we can only speculate on what seems reasonable or logical, given the facts [..]. And I don’t think it’s unnatural for us humans to base beliefs on what seems logical to us (e.g. the design argument for your God's existence) rather than to assume that God – if he exists – must think illogically by our standards.

DAVID: It's your God's standards that are eschew, not mine.

It is you who do not require human logic when defending a theory that makes your God behave illogically by your standards and mine.

Oxygen and the Cambrian: gills appeared

DAVID: I would reason flippers appeared while mammals were paddling around in water.

dhw: [...] I would have thought the legs would have turned into flippers when pre-whales actually swam in the water. Paddling only requires legs, not flippers, and it is clear from all the examples you have given that bodies change IN RESPONSE to new conditions, not in anticipation of them.

DAVID: The anatomic changes from paddling legs to flippers require enormous redesign. You skip over how bodies are changed.

Nobody knows how bodies are changed. That’s why we have different theories: e.g. your God performing operations on groups of individuals in anticipation of changing conditions, or cell communities using their intelligence (perhaps designed by your God) to work out how best to respond to changing conditions. But I would suggest that bodies changing in response to new conditions is infinitely more likely than bodies changing in anticipation of new conditions.

Anticipation of use
A paywalled article offers support for this view in its abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01656-0

QUOTE: [..] However, persistent life-habit evolution throughout the early Palaeozoic, combined with iterative functional convergence within adaptive strategies, results in major expansion of ecospace and functional diversity. The interactions between tempo, divergence and convergence demonstrate not only that anatomical novelty precedes ecological success, but also that ecological innovation is constrained, even during a phylum’s origin. (David's bold)

DAVID: This clearly states that new organisms arise and then adapt to their environments. It clearly states morphology first, adaptive functions later. Assuming a designer at work, he is obviously assuming anticipation of future use.

You can’t have adaptation before you have a body to adapt! You agree that the Cambrian innovations appeared AFTER the increase in oxygen. Once life forms exist, they “expand their ecospace” and adapt to different environments. If your God exists, he will have designed the mechanisms enabling life forms to adapt to different environments or to exploit them through innovation. Back to our favourite example: The pre-whale – I suggest to you – was not given flippers before it entered the water, but legs changed into flippers and there were various other changes IN RESPONSE to the pre-whale’s new way of life in a different environment. The same process would apply to ALL species: first the changing conditions, then the new species (constrained by those conditions), and then expansion of “eco-space”, adaptations and functional diversity. Always in response, never in anticipation.

DAVID (under “More Miscellany”): Don't you believe evolution is stepwise?

Yes.

DAVID: Doesn't a new stage appear built on the past?

Yes.

DAVID: Humans are a result of all those past stages, aren't they?

dhw: No. Humans are the result of one line or branch of past stages, not “all”. Thousands of other branches led to thousands of other life forms, most of which never had any connection with humans or with our food. Hence the illogicality of your theory […]

DAVID: The connection is the huge requirement for a food supply. You admit it must exist and then try to diminish its importance. All the ecosystems layer one upon the next to support the need for consuming energy.

The fact that ALL life forms need food does not prove that humans are the result of ALL past stages of ALL life forms and econiches in the history of life, including ALL those that had no connection with humans!!!!!