Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2 (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, June 27, 2022, 09:31 (668 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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.

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

dhw: Not needing fossils for relationships etc. is not a definition of “common descent”! But three cheers if you no longer care about fossils. Please tell us where the DNA record of extinct life forms comes from, and does it show that in the new tree of life all life forms are NOT directly descended from earlier forms?

DAVID: The bold about DNA is a strange question. DNA was in the starting forms of life, which I claim God started. All evolution is related through common DNA. All branches can be related in the tree/bush of life.

I have always allowed for God as the designer of the first cells. All branches are related in so far as they all spring from the first cells (Darwin’s few forms or one). However, this theory precludes the concept of species coming into being without any precursors, and so I have listed possible reasons for the Cambrian “gap”, the foremost being Shapiro’s proposal that intelligent cells are responsible for evolutionary innovation. And the fact that all branches spring from the earliest cells does not mean that all branches lead to humans and our food, let alone that they were individually designed as “absolute requirements” for us and our food. See Part One.

DAVID: From an evidentiary standpoint a designer God is not a silly concept. That species adapt to changes is obvious, but they stay the same species.

dhw: Your dodging technique is becoming painfully obvious and out of order. Nowhere have I said that a designer God is a silly concept! I am an agnostic! I have asked why you consider my concept of intelligent organisms (perhaps designed by your God) RESPONDING to new conditions to be sillier than your concept of God preprogramming or dabbling changes BEFORE the new conditions have come into existence. And yes, we know that adaptation means preservation of the species, but since nobody knows how one species turns into another, it is not unreasonable to propose that maybe the same mechanism for adaptive structural changes also enables intelligent organisms to innovate.

DAVID: You still want brilliant cells to get together and design future forms to handle future conditions.

How many more times? In my theory, CELLS DO NOT DESIGN FUTURE FORMS TO HANDLE FUTURE CONDITIONS. They design new forms IN RESPONSE to changes in conditions. For example, I regard it as absurd to imagine pre-whale legs turning into flippers before there is any water for them to swim in.

DAVID: All based on the observation cells act as if intelligent, when it is equally possible, they act on intelligent instructions they have been given by design.

If you give cellular intelligence an equal chance of being the truth, then it is absurd to reject the possibility. As an agnostic, I find that there is a 50/50 chance of God existing. All my theories must therefore include that possibility. Unlike you, I regard 50/50 as possible, and not as grounds for rejection.

DAVID: Your unproven theory extrapolates from observations by many scientists that cells act intelligently, which certainly is true.

dhw: Thank you. Observation by many scientists that cells act intelligently sounds like quite a good reason for scientists to believe that cells are intelligent.

DAVID: Depends on the observer, doesn't it? The cells could contain a beautifully coded set of proper responses.

dhw: Yes. So how does that come to mean that you are right and other observers are wrong?

DAVID: Because I believe there MUST BE a designer, based logically on the complex sign of irreducible complexity requiring design over natural evolution theory.

How does this disqualify the theory that the designer designed intelligent cells to design the complexities of all future life forms? Did he not, according to you, design human brains capable of designing all the complexities of modern technology?