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

by David Turell , Sunday, May 01, 2022, 16:25 (719 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: In any evolutionary process, by definition, the past prepares for the future.

In common descent, one past species leads to (not the same as “prepares for”) a future species....in your own words, “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time”?

Perfectly fits my view from ID. I stand by my interpretations as quoted, not as dhw attempts strangely to twist the interpretations.

DAVID: God's eyes are always on His final intent. I can accept dabbles/adjustments along the way.

dhw: And you can accept him moving in “totally new directions”. If his eyes are always on his final attempt, and he keeps “adjusting”, that is experimentation. Thank you for repeating your support for this theory.

In goal-oriented processes adjustments in design are minor modifications, not experimentation.

DAVID: Now you try to deny first life was bacterial, and bacterial processes in biochemistry are not represented in our biochemistry?

dhw: How can I be denying that first life was bacterial when I have specifically stated that “I do believe there’s a path from bacteria to humans” which is “the basic tenet of common descent”? And of course all life is biochemical. My point is that your claim that the gaps and species without precursors, from which you say we are descended, provide evidence for your God’s existence, simultaneously contradicts the theory of common descent, i.e. a direct line from bacteria to the species “homo sapiens”. You can’t have it both ways.

Yes, I can. See the new ID entry.

Biochemical controls

DAVID:The directionality of evolution from simple life forms to very complex life forms is obvious.

dhw: Agreed.

DAVID: My view of God would not have a free-for-all form of directionless evolution.

dhw: In two of my alternative theories, I have accepted the idea of your God having humans in mind as THE purpose (experimentation) or as A later purpose (new ideas).

DAVID: You have the cells themselves producing a direction of evolution. All the evidence of cell activity we see is automatic, nothing more.

dhw: Yes, their direction would be survival. Many scientists would disagree with you that all cellular behaviour is automatic, but I accept that the concept of cells producing their own innovations remains a theory as unproven as your own.

Agreed, from your standpoint. I think the evidence for a designer is beyond rejection.