Evolution: mutational clocks don't fit Darwin theory (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, April 30, 2022, 08:45 (937 days ago) @ David Turell

This thread now overlaps with “Return to David’s theory”, but I feel obliged to answer all David’s criticisms.

DAVID: You salivate over experts like Shapiro and live by their opinions. Bechly is just as much as expert and his previous entries here explain his thinking about the current state of the fossil record. Simply, over time the finding of helpful new fossils dwindles to a trickle. That is where we are now. As a result the gaps remain. Try and ditch your underlying biases and learn current science! I try to show you; should I stop?

I have not disputed any of the current science – including the gaps! But current science has not discovered how speciation works, or proved that God exists, that his only purpose was to design humans plus food, or that he designed each species individually. I am always grateful for the current science you show me, but I have every right to question your inexplicable conclusions. I don’t “live by” Shapiro but find his theory more convincing than Darwin’s random mutations and your own theory that your God specially designed every species and food as preparation for humans plus food although most of them did not lead to humans plus food.

DAVID: I accept God does as He wishes, so He jumps ahead as desired. Your definition of common descent is Darwinian. Mine is not. I see a path from bacteria to humans with many gaps as shown by Bechly. But each more complex stage is a form of evolution, but not the way you think about it because you are stuck with Darwin-think.

My definition of common descent is Darwinian, as meaning that all life forms except the first evolved from preceding life forms, and of course each more complex stage is a form of evolution! I agree that the gaps are a problem, but I think Shapiro’s theory provides a possible explanation, as well as the fact that we cannot expect a complete fossil record over such a huge expanse of time. His theory – just like Darwin’s – allows for the existence of God. I do believe there’s a path from bacteria to humans and to every other life form, but I see no logic in your argument that there is such a path if you insist that humans are descended from species that were specially designed without any precursors.

dhw: […] history does NOT show us that God created all species and econiches individually.

DAVID: But I accept that God did create that history!!! How would you have Him do it?

Many scientists still accept Darwin’s theory of random mutations, but I don’t. I’m surprised you’ve forgotten my various theistic alternatives: 1) perhaps God-given cellular intelligence, leading to a free-for-all with possible dabbles; 2) your own separate creation, anthropocentric theory, with experimentation to explain the bush of life forms and foods unconnected with humans; 3) getting new ideas as he went along, with humans as the latest. I do not cling as you do to one inexplicable theory which you regard as fact.

dhw: […] This website exists to discuss all facets of the subject, and if your only defence of your theories is that I and others should accept your inability to explain them as an explanation, I fear you are unlikely to make many converts!

DAVID: I am unable to tell you how God reasons.

So are we all. But you are also unable to tell us how YOU reason. Hence your remarkable wish that I should take your inability to explain your theory as an explanation of your theory.

DAVID: I look at reality and the results from God's creations and reach conclusions you can't seem to understand or accept.

I understand your conclusions but cannot accept them because in combination (see earlier bold) even you can’t make sense of them.

DAVID: I see God's purposes, as a start in my thought, and do not overlay it with emotional needs as you do.

My theories do not make God “needy”. The only emotional needs proposed in our discussions have been your suggestion that he wants us to admire his work, and he wants to have a relationship with us.

DAVID: In a sense our view of God is so different we always talk past each other. My experience with you is that I present many points from ID that I feel are perfectly reasonable like Bechly's views and opinions, and you immediately attack, because your underlying biases are jostled.

I have total respect for the ID view that life’s complexities (and in Adler’s case, human uniqueness) denote intelligent design, and it’s one of the main reasons why I remain open-minded (undecided) about God’s existence. My attacks are exclusively on your own personal theories about evolution, which apparently only make sense to God.

DAVID: I've been wide open to new thoughts and theories since I decided to study Darwin's form of evolutionary theory 40-plus years ago. Most of the time in presenting new material here it feels like it bounces off a stone wall.

The material is hugely appreciated, but sometimes your conclusions are so illogical that I dispute them. But when I point out the logical flaws which you can’t explain, it “feels like it bounces off a stone wall” because “your underlying prejudices are jostled”.