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

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 23, 2022, 15:47 (6 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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”.

What that means is I trust that God knows what He is doing. That makes total sense since I fully believe God created the history we have.

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.

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

I emphatically do not.

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 malleable, 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.

Evolution is based on advancing biochemistry with gaps in form by the designer of evolution.

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?

Did Darwin worry about Cambrian or not?

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!

dhw: 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.

Red inserted again.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum