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

by David Turell , Sunday, May 01, 2022, 16:09 (935 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw: […] 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.

DAVID: What precursor does the very earliest radio have? We humans can produce something entirely new. Note the gap in horse drawn carriage and first autos. The underlying common thread in evolution is living biochemistry, not phenotypes. But phenotypical patterns are obvious.

dhw: Yes, all life is biochemical. That does not mean that all past lives and foods were preparation for humans and our food! I love it when you draw parallels between your God’s activities and ours, while dismissing as “humanizing” any of my theories that draw parallels between God’s activities and ours. And as usual you have completely missed the point. Of course your God could produce something entirely new if he wanted to. And that is the dilemma which leaves you floundering, because if his only purpose was to produce us – as is your fixed belief – why the heck didn’t he just go ahead and do it? Your classic answer is: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?”

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

dhw: 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 don't follow that view of yours. I have presented all of my reasoning in books and here.

dhw: You have presented good reasons for believing in the existence of God. You cannot find any reason at all behind the theory I keep attacking – hence the non-explanation above and the statement that “God makes sense only to Himself.”

DAVID: […]. 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.

dhw: 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: And to me.

dhw:But when I attack your illogical theories, you can’t explain them, and “God makes sense only to Himself.” Unless…oh good heavens…unless you are God in disguise...

The answer is in the ID entry today. I am on firm ground. dhw is not!