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

by David Turell , Friday, June 24, 2022, 16:21 (672 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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.

Please remember I don't find my theories senseless. Our views of God totally differ. WE are arguing past each other as past discussons show.

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.

dhw: 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!

But it is common descent as we now see it to be. Aside from the Cambrian we still see comparative anatomy as evidence of common descent from ancestral forms. Most speciation has past form as part of it.

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.

dhw: 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?

Remember, what the gaps show us is not generational change, which by definition must be tiny steps of change. Generational change means an adaptation within the same species.