Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2 (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, May 23, 2022, 09:02 (913 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

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

dhw: Please identify any passage in Darwin which states that the Cambrian gaps denote God’s intervention by designing new species without any precursors. The gaps remain a mystery, but Darwin expressly states: “I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally proposed.” (Difficulties of Theory) You disagree with Darwin, and once again you gloss over the contradiction between your belief in continuity and your belief in gaps.

DAVID: Of course there is biochemical continuity.

Please tell us where Darwin states that the gaps are due to God’s intervention by designing species with no precursors.

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.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: Yes, we and mice are believed to have evolved from a common ancestor about 75 million years ago, which fits Darwin’s theory perfectly. What does that have to do with the appearance of brains and vertebrates about 500 million years ago – according to you, in species which had no precursors and from which we and mice are descended. You seem to think that by adding the tag “phenotypical” you can gloss over the fact that gaps break continuity. And if there is no continuity, you can hardly claim that humans were God’s one and only goal from the very beginning. (One might also ask why mice – like maple seed pods - were “an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process [i.e. God] to finally produce humans”.)

DAVID: The gaps are phenotypical, but jumps in form can only indicate the design of an active designer, no matter how you attempt to distort the point.

I am not distorting the point! You use the gaps here to prove your God’s existence, but if there are gaps and humans are descended from species designed without precursors, then you cannot claim that there is an unbroken line between bacteria and humans, in which case it makes no sense to say that God’s purpose from the beginning was to create humans.

God and evolution of the universe

DAVID: Look at this opinion from dhw:

dhw: So apparently your God designed all the billions of heavenly bodies extant and extinct because every one of them was and is necessary to create and support life on Planet Earth. I don’t buy it.

DAVID:The universe is even stranger:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/05/220520181234.htm

QUOTE: "Mysterious fast radio bursts release as much energy in one second as the Sun pours out in a year and are among the most puzzling phenomena in the universe.”

DAVID: just more confusion for dhw. We live in a very strange universe that I believe God gave us. I don't question it. We live in a very safe spot in our Milky Way. The other stuff that is so dangerous doesn't bother us. We are trying to understand it as we should, but why question why it must exist as dhw does? We have been provided for. We are living peacefully here when from a natural occurrence standpoint there is no reason we should be here. Just ask Adler.

I do not question why all these mysterious goings-on must exist! I question your theory that your God designed all of them, because all of them were an "absolute requirement" for him to fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans. Yes, you try to understand it, but you can’t. So maybe, just maybe, God didn’t design it all, or God’s purpose was not confined to creating humans (after all, there is no reason why ANY life should be here). My comment at the start of this discussion still stands, and you have not given me a single reason why I should “buy” your theory, which you yourself find inexplicable, I am simply supposed to accept it. The only change in your “explanation” here is that I should ask Adler, whereas previously I was told to ask God.