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

by dhw, Monday, May 02, 2022, 11:05 (934 days ago) @ David Turell

I have combined the two evolutionary threads.

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

dhw: 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”?

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

What twist? First you say that all past species and econiches were designed as preparation for us humans and our econiches, and then you agree that they were only designed for the past, not the present, and had no role to play in the present. Even your article on ID today emphasizes gaps, not continuity! (See below.)

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.

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

Moving in “totally new directions” is not minor modification! Are you now withdrawing your comment about the dinosaur extinction?

dhw: […] 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.

DAVID: Yes, I can. See the new ID entry.

Dealt with below.

Biochemical controls

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.

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

I have always agreed that cellular intelligence could have been designed by your God, and I have always emphasized that I totally accept the logic of intelligent design, which is a major factor in my rejection of atheism.

Importance of enzymes

DAVID: […] they are irreducibly complex and cannot have evolved naturally. Enzymes had to be present when life started. One conclusion fits this. Design is required. Note humans had to start with living bacteria to reach this designed enzyme.

Thank you for yet another highly educational article, putting the case for design. This is where you excel, as in your books. However, the case for design is applicable to the question of God’s existence, but not to your anthropocentric theory of evolution. All forms of life depend on enzymes. For the umpteenth time, that does not provide evidence that all forms of life were individually designed as preparation for and “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food.

Gaps by design

DAVID: A few days ago, I mentioned the design gap with the appearance of the radio following the telegraph. dhw commented his usual illogical thinking about a designer in action. The whole point is above. God, as an intelligent agent can make any gap He wishes. dhw's dismay about the Cambrian gap is logic down a rabbit hole. God's design of evolution is a God design, never related to Darwin's thinking. Therefore. obviously, can be different forms of the meaning of common descent. God can wish to evolve humans in His own way over time.

Of course God could make any gap he wished. He could do whatever he wanted. And so you have two problems: 1) both you and this author emphasize the designer’s ability to produce novelty that has no precursor, and since you stress that our species is descended from species that had no precursors, it makes no sense to claim that there is a direct line from bacteria to humans. Secondly, if he only wanted us and our food and can create species directly with no precursors, why didn’t he do so? Hence your extraordinary defence of your theory: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” Coupled with: “God makes sense only to Himself”, which denotes that your theory does not make sense to you. If a theory does not make sense to you, then perhaps you should consider alternatives that do make sense to you. In our discussion above, you agree that your God makes adjustments as he goes along, even to the extent of going in “totally new directions”. This could hardly be a clearer endorsement of the theory that he was experimenting, or that he kept getting new ideas as he went along.