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

by dhw, Saturday, May 21, 2022, 07:38 (698 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: Without the diversity of forms, necessary ecosystems cannot form. Without ecosystems no one eats!! When will dhw recognize it with its true implications?

Usual question: necessary for what? How were 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct organisms and ecosystems “necessary” for current humans and our current food?

DAVID: When will dhw accept what God did and stop complaining He should have done it in other so-called beter ways that appeal to your weak human reasoning compared to His? You know better than God???

Over and over again, you claim that your theory of what God did and how and why he did it is some kind of objective truth. I do not complain about the vast diversity of forms or the fact that humans evolved in stages. I complain that these facts do not fit in with the theory that every individual form was preparation for humans plus food, or with the theory that your God was capable of designing species with no precursors, and yet he opted to design his one and only “goal” in stages. You can’t explain it, and it “makes sense only to God”, but you expect me to accept a theory that doesn’t even make sense to you.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Instead of pontificating about belief, read what believers believe or talk to some. You'll be surprised. As an armchair agnostic you are isolated from some realities. When I decided to research, I read, I ended up at an ID convention listening to their various views and talks. I don't tell you about belief from an armchair.

This is the silliest of all your dodges. Do you think I have spent my whole life in an armchair talking only to agnostics? Please stick to the arguments, and stop pretending that all believers agree with all your beliefs.

Gene continuity

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.

dhw: 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!

DAVID: I will simply repeat, only a designed evolution by a designer can produce the gaps we see.

Yes, you use the gaps to prove the existence of a designer. But gaps by definition are the very opposite of continuity, which you also claim to believe in. And you can’t see any contradiction.

DAVID: Darwin knew nothing of today's knowledge and if He were alive today I wonder what his form of Darwinism would be. You and I have thrown out chance mutation. The discussion about the Cambrian gap has not changed and the gap is better defined. And you still defend Darwin's guesses. Illogical.

I defend his “guess” concerning common descent, and so do you when you support continuity, but you attack it when you support gaps.

DAVID: My definition of common descent and yours are not the same. Mine fits the current knowledge of the biochemistry of the genome. I have no idea what yours really is or how it fits into current knowledge.

I have told you mine: that all species (except the very first cells) are descended from preceding species. The article appears to confirm this theory. Now please tell us your own definition.