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

by David Turell , Saturday, June 25, 2022, 16:45 (671 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Please remember I don't find my theories senseless. […]

dhw: When you tell me you can’t explain your combination of evolutionary theories and I should go and ask God, and your theories “make sense only to God”, I’m afraid the inevitable conclusion is that they don’t make sense to you – unless you happen to be God in disguise, which I very much doubt. (See “mud” in Part Two for more details.)

That I cannot satisfy your strange objections to the way I see God does not mean my theories make no sense to me. Don't transpose your problems in logic to me.

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!

DAVID: 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: Thank you for confirming Darwin’s theory as supported by the evidence of comparative anatomy. But you have your God designing every species individually (not to mention every econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder), and you have him designing Cambrian species with no precursors. The latter is the exact opposite of common descent. The former might just as well be the belief of a creationist.

Common descent from Darwin was based totally on comparative anatomy and geography of neighboring forms. We are way beyond that now with DNA analysis. The DNA bush is not Darwin's tree of life. See my new entry.

Octopus
DAVID: this study shows the availability of certain genes for direct use can create convergence. My point is simple: once useful biochemistry is developed/evolved, it can then be used in many new parallel developments, and certainly gaps in phenotypes.

dhw: Parallel developments would refer to convergence. Otherwise, you are repeating my own argument: evolution progresses through new uses of existing materials. “Common descent”, however, does not mean “gaps in phenotypes”.

Darwin knew the gaps but never abandoned common descent. What is your point ?

DAVID: This view of common descent is not Darwinian, since he knew nothing about biochemistry. Remember, comparative anatomy shows common descent.

dhw: Comparative anatomy was precisely the bedrock of Darwin’s theory, which you keep pooh-poohing, all because we do not have a complete fossil record of every species and every transition. Convergence makes perfect sense, as intelligent organisms will find similar solutions to similar problems. Once again, if you do not accept my definition of common descent as “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”, please give us your own definition.

Defined: From biochemistry as the basis of evolution. With DNA relationships, we don't need fossils for relationships. We have a common code.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: Nobody knows how speciation happens. I have no idea where you get your definition of “generational change” from. According to you, your God performs operations on existing organisms to give them flippers instead of legs, or bigger brains than they had before they went to sleep. If a generation can change its structure in order to adapt, how do you know it can’t do the same in order to innovate? The gaps don’t show us anything. That’s why they are gaps. Some would say there are gaps because fossilization is the exception, not the rule.

You can't sweep the gaps away. They tell us there must be a designer, just as complex designs do.