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

by dhw, Friday, June 24, 2022, 09:17 (881 days ago) @ David Turell

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”.

DAVID: 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.

If God exists, of course it makes total sense to assume that he knows what he is doing. That doesn’t mean that what he is doing is what you say he is doing, or his purpose is what you say is his purpose, or that what he is doing has to be incomprehensible to us humans! If you find your own theories senseless, maybe they are wrong.

dhw: […] 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.

DAVID: I emphatically do not.

Thank you for this confirmation. Since you believe that your God individually designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, it would appear that you are a creationist rather than an evolutionist. Nothing wrong with that, if you are happy with your beliefs, but it makes a mockery of your next comment.

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.

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

This is not a definition of common descent! All “evolutionary changes” must be biochemical, regardless of whether they evolved from generation to generation, were designed by intelligent cells, or were separately programmed/dabbled by your God, and if “gaps in form” means separate creation (as above), then there is nothing left of the theory of common descent!

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?

DAVID: Did Darwin worry about Cambrian or not?

Yes, he did. But you are discussing the subject with me and not with Darwin, and I reject Darwin’s rigid gradualism.

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.

DAVID: Red inserted again.

And changes within a single generation (from one generation to the next) could hardly be more opposed to the theory of itty-bitty steps! So what are you objecting to?