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

by David Turell , Tuesday, April 12, 2022, 16:03 (744 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: These discussions have become increasingly drawn out and repetitive. I’ll try to summarize them, together with the contradictions I see in your theories, David, and you can correct whatever you think is inaccurate.

dhw: 1)David’s theory of evolution: God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design humans and their food. He proceeded to design countless life forms and foods which did not lead to humans and their food, and instead of designing humans directly, he evolved them step by step. Your explanation for all the life forms that did not lead to humans: God designed them so that they could eat one another: “food for all”. Past foods for the past, present for the present. This somehow means that all past life forms and foods were specially designed as preparation for humans and their foods.

Bold is my view but in your biased way: Evolution of humans was a design method God used to arrive at His goal. Just take evolution at face value. Simple to complex. Everything is connected from Archaea to now. Underlying basic biochemistry in Archaea to very complex biochemistry in specialized organs now. Only other alternative is direct creation, which is not supported by history:

dhw: Your "explanation" for God choosing evolution of humans over direct creation is that you cannot explain it, and “why can’t you accept that explanation?”

How can I explain God's choice between the two available? Perhaps He had no choice and only evolution was the way He had to go.

dhw: 2)There is a continuous line from bacteria to us. God created new animals (Cambrian) which had no precursors and from which we are descended. The line from bacteria is continuous because although speciation is discontinuous, all living creatures share biochemistry. The fact that all species share biochemistry somehow confirms that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us.

Agreed

dhw: 3) Your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but he cannot possibly have been motivated to create life because he wanted to enjoy creating things that would interest him.

No!!! Your bias again. God is not human. He is a pure creator, who knows exactly what He wishes to create. His own emotional reactions, if any exist, are secondary and like ours.

dhw: 4)Enjoyment and interest as a purpose must be rejected, along with any logical explanation of 1) that entails human traits such as experimentation, or getting new ideas, because “God makes sense only to Himself”, and although he probably has thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours, he does not have thought patterns that are different from those that you approve of (such as kindness, a desire for his works to be admired, and for us to have a relationship with him).

God never requires experimentation. He designs directly .

dhw: 5) Your God created a system which produced errors he did not want, and he tried – sometimes in vain - to remedy the errors. This makes him stronger than a God who deliberately creates a free-for-all.

This is your strangest alternative. Any animal in a free-for-all has the same biochemistry of life that will have errors!

dhw: 6) He also created a system whereby organisms could only survive by killing one another.

True

dhw: 7)5) and 6) were the only systems that would work, and so he had no choice, although he chose to design them that way.

dhw: Do please correct any errors and supply any points that I may have left out.

Done!

dhw: Two unanswered questions that are still of interest:
dhw: You wrote that Shapiro’s theory was based on “bacteria editing their DNA” and he “has only proved bacteria and none else have this ability”. I assumed you meant your God had given them the ability (i.e. the intelligence) to edit their own DNA. Now you say they run on his programmes, but that is what you say of every other cell and cell community. So did he give them the autonomous ability or not, and if he did, why couldn’t he have given the same ability to their descendants?

Not autonomous, all programmed. Bacteria must have this ability as one-cell free-living organisms. Note they do not speciate! Which makes Shapiro's evolution theory as dead in the water. But his bacterial work is brilliant.

dhw: Don’t you think it is of vital significance for evolution that some cells (i.e. stem cells) are able to change their form and function?

DAVID: Any existing stem cells are the result of previous speciation. They help run embryology as one item.

dhw: But we know they can change their form and function. Would this not have been a vital factor in the process of speciation?

Germ cells must be the source of speciation. Only they make the new embryonic forms which will contain stem cells to run fetal development