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

by dhw, Thursday, May 19, 2022, 08:27 (917 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Correction: you cannot explain your interpretation of God’s works, and the quote is that your interpretation “makes sense only to God”, which means it does not make sense to you.

DAVID: Wow!! What a scrambled-up interpretation. Finally, I can understand your problem. It makes perfect sense to me. I accept what God did for His own reasons, while not needing to understand His reasoning, which is obviously impossible. I've written this before, and don't understand your obtuse interpretation, excpet to point out you do not think about God as I do.

dhw: If God exists, we both accept that he would have produced life and evolution. You then go on to theorize that his one and only purpose was to produce us and our food, but first of all he produced countless life forms and foods that did not lead to us and our food, and although he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors, he designed us in stages. You cannot find any sense in this theory (it “makes sense only to God”), but you reject any logical alternatives. Please stop assuming that your illogical theory is an objective truth, and claiming that it makes sense to you because only your God can understand it! (my bold)

DAVID: My view of God is 'not an objective proof', but your obtuse rejection of my simple acceptance of God's work from my belief in God shows the huge gap in your understanding of how we, who believe, actually think. I accept what God did and choses to do for His own reasons. You don't have to. I'm on the other side of the chasm. "Makes sense to God" makes perfect sense to me.

Why do you persist in misquoting yourself, and in removing the whole context of that quote? Do all believers support your illogical theory of evolution, which you cannot explain and which “makes sense only to God”? Do all believers reject the view that God might have thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours? They certainly don’t, and you pride yourself on ignoring such believers. The only thing you have in common with ALL those who believe in God is your belief in God.

Continuity
Mainly covered on the other thread.

DAVID: The endpoint of evolution is inexplicable US. Adler demolishes your point. And the 'countless organisms' currently existing because of evolution are our food!

All life forms are “inexplicable”, and you and your fellow IDers understandably use the inexplicable complexities as proof of design, and hence the existence of God. According to you, Adler does not deal with your theory that every life form and econiche, including all those that did not lead to humans plus food, was individually designed as “part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans” and our food. And you know perfectly well that the countless organisms I am referring to are those of the past which had no connection with us or our food. Please stop dodging.

Gene continuity

QUOTE: "'Hmx has been shown to be a central gene that has been conserved across evolution. It has retained its original function and structure and was probably found in this form in the common ancestor of vertebrates and tunicates," Pennati explains. Cranial sensory ganglia and bipolar tail neurons thus have the same evolutionary origin; Hmx was probably crucially involved in the formation of highly specialized head sensory organs in vertebrates."

DAVID: There is full evidence in evolutionary continuity, both in conserved genes and in comparable biochemistry. dhw's blinkered view of phenotypical gaps causing discontinuity is strangely lacking in understanding how evolution works continuously beneath organismal forms.

Evolutionary continuity lies at the very heart of Darwin’s theory of common descent, which I accept, i.e. every species is descended from preceding species. This article fits in perfectly with Darwin’s theory, illustrated by its emphasis on “the common ancestor”. It is you who keep harping on about the gaps, which deny continuity as you have your God designing new species with no predecessors (using the gaps as proof of your God’s existence). You use the same technique in all our discussions on evolution: you focus on ONE of your theories, and leave out the others which contradict it. And then you accuse me of being blinkered!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx