Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1 (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, June 22, 2022, 08:51 (667 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Your combined theories “make sense only to God” – and as far as I know, you are not God.

DAVID: I accept that God knows/knew exactly how to evolve all: your incredulous bold.

dhw: If God exists, of course he does/did. That doesn’t mean his purpose was the one you impose on him, or the totally illogical method you impose on him to fulfil that purpose. Since it “makes sense only to God”, it does not make sense to you, so why do you keep defending it?

DAVID: I cannot be inside God's brain to know His reasoning. I can only see what He produced and therefore this last stage of humans was His purposeful act.

If he exists, then the whole history of life would have been his purposeful act! That does not mean that he specially designed each individual species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, and it does not mean – absurdly! – that all those that had no connection to humans and our food were nevertheless preparation and an “absolute requirement” for humans and our food!

dhw: All we know is that history shows a vast bush of organisms, most of which are extinct and did NOT lead to humans (the latest species) or our food. Hence the illogicality of your belief.

DAVID: But humans are here after all that bushiness development, and is our food, which you ignore.

Of course we are here. And countless species and their foods that had no connection with humans and our food were also here, which you ignore. So if humans and our food were his one and only purpose, why did he – according to you – design them all? You don’t know. You can’t find any logic in your theory. It “makes sense only to God”.

dhw: If you believe in common descent, then your God would take an existing species and introduce an innovation from one generation to the next...Do you believe in common descent, i.e. that all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms.

DAVID: Yes, based on continuous development of ever more complex biochemistry allowing gaps in form by the designer God.

dhw: By “gaps in form” do you mean species with no precursors (the opposite of common descent)? If not, what do you mean?

DAVID: Darwin's common descent meant itty bitty changes by generations. That does not exist in the fossil record. There are gaps. I don't view that definition of common descent as fitting the known record. So you can stick with orthodox Darwin but I don't have to.

I don’t accept that “definition” either, so why do you persist in attacking Darwin instead of responding to my own arguments? I gave you my definition of common descent: “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”. Yes or no? According to you, your God creates species without any precursors. That means they are NOT descended from earlier life forms.

DAVID: In your view this lack of precursors destroys the theory of common descent. No it doesn't! Common descent theory takes a new form. Theories are maleable, but not yours, obviously.

If life forms appear that are not directly descended from earlier life forms (i.e they have no precursors), then there can be no common descent. So please give us your definition of common descent if you disagree with mine. As regards the gaps in the fossil record, I have given you a list of logical reasons why fossils are such a rarity.

DAVID: I know all those theories and fossil facts, just you do. The new discovery of such a short time has fossils on both sides. Nothing is absent! So we have huge phenotypic change opposite to Darwin theory, exactly Darwin's worry about his theory.

I do not subscribe to Darwin’s gradualism. Why do you even mention it when I have set out my alternative, as in the following exchange?
dhw: I also find it perfectly reasonable to suppose that intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) would be able both to adapt and to exploit new conditions extremely rapidly, even from one generation to the next. In some cases, their very survival (adaptation) would depend on their doing so, whereas in others (exploitation leading to innovation) the process might be more gradual, as each generation improves on the work of its predecessor.

DAVID: Sticking with generations making new species in itty-bitty steps.

That is not what I have written. Please reread the bold. But I have suggested that there may be gradual improvements.