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

by dhw, Sunday, April 10, 2022, 13:26 (739 days ago) @ David Turell

You have blithely skipped over your self-contradictions, so I will highlight them:

DAVID (now): […] simply, following genes and biochemistry, there are too many changes to find a steady pattern of simple steps, one following the other[[/b].

DAVID (March 16): …the whole process is one continuous process with every future step built on the past.

DAVID (March 19): The gap is phenotypical not biochemical which is continuous[/b]!

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.

dhw: It is you who try to have it both ways! Continuity is the direct opposite of “with gaps”![..] 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.

DAVID: Still struggling to understand a designer can design gaps if he wishes. The entire point is the Cambrian is a God-designed jump ahead. The gap is part of the design. […] The Cambrian gap confounded Darwin. Gaps require design! Your confusion continues.

The designer can design whatever he wants, but you cannot claim at one moment that there is a direct line from bacteria to us if, at the same time, you claim that we are descended from animals that had no precursor. Your previous argument was that there was biochemical continuity, but you have now said there was no such thing. If we are descended from animals with no precursors, your belief that every preceding life form and econiche was “preparation for humans” plus our food, clearly makes even less sense than it did before, when you insisted on continuity from bacteria to us but kept leaving out all the other life forms and foods that did not lead to us and our foods.