Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2 (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, April 09, 2022, 08:42 (747 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution as a web

DAVID: Do we see a directionality to evolution or not? See today's entry on evolution and biochemical analysis not findings common ancestor

And:

DAVID: Does common descent come from a single ancestor. No support from biochemistry:

dhw: You quoted the web article as if it supported your belief in directionality, but it doesn’t. I wish you would at least acknowledge what I have written, but instead you blithely change the subject to one that has nothing to do with directionality.

DAVID: I assumed you understood my view of directionality in evolution, mentioned many times. I'll stop assuming.

You quoted the article claiming that it supported directionality. It didn’t.

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/04/sara-walker-and-her-crew-publish-the-most-interesting...

QUOTE: "For Dobzhansky, as for all neo-Darwinians (by definition), the apparent molecular universality of life on Earth confirmed Darwin’s prediction that all organisms “have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed” (1859, 494) — an entity now known as the Last Universal Common Ancestor, or LUCA.

dhw:In later editions Darwin exercised his right to make changes. He wrote that life had “been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” So that’s one objection out of the way. (dhw's bold)

DAVID: A late sop to cover the criticisms.

If Darwin corrected himself, why should later critics ignore his correction?

dhw: The authors conclude that there are too many gaps in the biochemistry for there to have been a LUCA. Your conclusion:

DAVID: Simply, following genes and biochemistry there are too many changes to find a steady pattern of simple steps, one following the other. A designer at work would explain all the jumps and discontinuities.

dhw: This is how you tie yourself in knots. Now read the following:
March 16:
DAVID: You split evolution into differing eras but the whole process is one continuous process with every future step built on the past.[/b](dhw’s bold)

dhw: Firstly, you are the one who insists that it is discontinuous, since you harp on and on about the gaps. [David believes that we are descended from Cambrian animals which had no precursors.]

DAVID: The continuous view is we can trace us back to bacteria. Your non-God view confuses you about the Cambrian gap.

March 19:
DAVID: Again, God as designer caused the gap. […]

dhw: Why have you changed the subject? In one breath you tell us that there are gaps, and God designed our Cambrian ancestors with no precursors, and the next moment there is a continuous line from bacteria to us. I am the one who upholds the theory of continuity, which means that all the different branches of life’s bush – including all those that had no connection with humans plus food – are descended from bacteria.

DAVID: The gaps are in God's control. […] The gap is phenotypical bbbnot biochemical which is continuous!(dhw’s bold)

dhw: So three weeks ago, we had biochemical continuity and every step built on past steps, and now we have biochemical discontinuity and no steady pattern of step by step. But no matter which it is, apparently it all adds up to God designing it. In the article itself, I see no disagreement with Darwin’s revised prediction as quoted above.

DAVID: You can't have it both ways. There is continuity with gaps. The past always leads to the future. Darwinism obviously doesn't work. Only a designer can arrange gaps.

It is you who try to have it both ways! Continuity is the direct opposite of “with gaps”!The article contradicts your previous belief that there is biochemical continuity, and yet you embrace it as if it supported you. The fact that the past always leads to the future does not explain any of the above blatant contradictions in your thinking, and you should be specific about what aspects of Darwinism don’t work. Neither of us accepts random mutations as the source of innovation, but we have both accepted the principle of common descent, except that you contradict yourself when you claim that the Cambrian animals from which we descended had no precursors.