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

by David Turell , Monday, April 04, 2022, 15:53 (745 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I am convinced God is not doing it out of self-interest. That is all part of my belief system.

dhw: And yet at one time you were sure he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. Being “convinced” is not, I’m afraid, much of an argument.

You are again using my guesses as fact. Belief is convinced!!! You are outside looking in.

DAVID: My theory is Adler's. God produced humans purposely and our extremely unusual result is a proof of God. Your twisted views of God force you to conclude Adler and I are illogical.

dhw: This is a tiresome dodge. I keep repeating that I accept the logic of the design argument for God’s existence. It is your theistic theory of evolution bolded above that is illogical, which is why you tell me to go and ask God for an explanation, because “God makes sense only to Himself”.

Your view of my theistic belief system is illogical. I'll stick with Adler while you stick with Shapiro,

God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: My answer stands: God's freely-acting organisms can be passive or aggressive. Horses eat grass and stallions fight. Same with deer, ram sheep, etc. Why does God need to tranquilize all? Many don't eat each other, many do.

dhw: You are slowly moving in the right direction. You have described reality as a “constant war to survive by eating”. Now you give examples of peace and war! So I’ll ask you why you think he chose to design war when obviously he was perfectly capable of designing peace.

God designed a mixture. Free-living organisms have a choice with free will. God would have to pacific everyone in you scheme. It may be that God realized a freedom to chose energy sources might allow more adequate intake of energy. You ignore how vital that is.

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: You've lost the point as USUAL. A tiny bush in the past has become a giant bush of food now. The past creates the now. Slicing it up as you always do.

dhw: I’m afraid I haven’t been able to count the number of species and econiches that have gone extinct over the last 3.X billion years, but I wait in vain for you to explain how every one of them could have been “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans” and our food, although the majority did not lead to humans and our food. Dodging the issue, “as you always do”, except when you admit you can’t see the logic either, and “God makes sense only to Himself.”

Your usual illogical splitting of evolution into unconnected eras. Evolution is progressive with each new stage following from the last.

Shapiro

dhw: […]Will you please not tell me that I have inflated and misused his theory when I have reproduced it word for word.

DAVID: Don't pout. Quoting Shapiro's words are simply quoting his suggestion as to how evolution might advance.

dhw: Yes, I have quoted his theory in his own words.

DAVID: All based on free-living bacteria who must have the abilities they have to survive. Still here with those abilities helping us live.

dhw: He refers to cells in general, not just bacteria, and I quoted his own words, e.g. “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modificaton and cell fusions.” I have neither inflated nor abused his theory. By confining it to bacteria, you have deflated and abused it yourself. Ts ts!

Wake up. His entire research career was on bacteria!! From that great work he theorized it can be applied to other entirely new cells (evolutionary novelty). If 'in general' applying it to a cause for speciation, it must mean germ cells can modify themselves. That is not seen, except methylation, so we are back to reviewing his work as limited to a theory as to how evolution might have advanced. He is not discussing how your 'cells' operate daily!!! Pleaser remember the title of his book: Evolution. Stop extrapolating illogically.