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

by dhw, Thursday, June 23, 2022, 10:49 (7 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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!

DAVID: If God created all of history how did all species in evolution appear?

As always, you dodge the illogicality of your combined theories. I’ve answered your question a hundred times with alternative theories, each of which you have agreed fits in logically with the higgledy-piggledy nature of evolution’s comings and goings. If God exists, he may have designed cellular intelligence to create a free-for-all, he may have designed all species because he enjoyed creating things that would interest him, he may have wanted to create a being like himself and experimented until he got the right formula, he may have had new ideas as he went along. Your only objection to all of these is that they entail human thought patterns, although you agree that he probably has human thought patterns. Meanwhile, your own combination of theories remains as illogical as ever. Please stop dodging!

dhw: 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”.

DAVID: You can't find the logic of my view of God, the designer.

I accept the logic of God as designer, which is totally different from the illogicality of your theories about his motives and methods, which you regard as senseless, since they “make sense only to 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.

dhw: 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: Correct!! God designs them using the latest biochemistry. Thus the Cambrians in only 410,000 years.

And so you do not believe in common descent, as I have defined it.

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.

dhw: 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.

Request ignored.

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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.

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

DAVID: The red quote is exactly what you wrote!

There is no red, but if you are referring to my bold, there are no itty-bitty steps: I am proposing extremely rapid adaptation AND exploitation (=innovation), even from one generation to the next.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum