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

by David Turell , Saturday, May 21, 2022, 16:25 (696 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: 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?

I described a long winding course overtime in the other thread: necessary ecosystems for food for all.

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???

dhw: 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.

What you do not seem to grasp is I simply accept what God did, and that makes perfect sense to me, knowing He did it from His own reasoning.

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.

dhw: 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.

Yes, beliefs come in a variety of forms. My form of belief was perfectly comfortable with IDer's I met. The way you propose to think about God has always been foreign to me, probing, doubting, and always conceiving of Him as partially human in thought.

Gene continuity

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

dhw: 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.

Even Darwin saw both continuity and the Cambrian gap. In this case I agree with Darwin and you don't

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.

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

Think about how Darwin handled the gap.

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.

dhw: 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.

The same as always: biochemical continuity with phenotypical gaps, which fits the current science. As an example, we use mouse brains to explain ours. Both mammals from an ancestor who lived with dinosaurs. Fits your theory perfectly.