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

by David Turell , Monday, June 27, 2022, 16:20 (878 days ago) @ dhw

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.

DAVID: 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.
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-dna-technology-is-shaking-up-the-branches-of-the-evolu...

QUOTE: “While Darwin (1859) showed that all life on Earth is related in a single evolutionary tree, he did little to map out its branches.”

dhw: The article does not question the concept of the tree of common descent! It tells us that the branches of the tree are related in different ways from those that Darwin would have imagined, because it is not always comparative anatomy and geography that determine relationships. There is not even the tiniest hint that common descent means anything other than my definition that “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”.

DAVID: I have no disagreement, except you lose my emphasis on newly available biochemistry allowing for gap changes in phenotypical forms, which biochemistry includes the common code of DNA. The common DNA code underlies common descent.

dhw: Presumably “gap changes in phenotypical forms” means species without precursors. The “common code of DNA” changes the lines of descent from preceding forms, but it does not refute my definition of “common descent”, and the theory that your God designed every single life form individually, including some that had no precursors, is creationist not evolutionist.

I agree. God's method is evolution by designed creation.

Octopus
DAVID: The 410,000-year Cambrian gap is like none other in history. It is based on fossils, not absence of them.

dhw: Of course this is based on the absence of fossils! If there were fossils of transitional forms, there would be no mystery!

You miss the mystery. How did so much change in form occur in such a short time? Especially when compared to other time gaps in speciation? Think Whale series as one esample.

dhw: I have found an ID site which inadvertently puts the same case:
Cambrian Explosion and Darwin's Doubt - Geoscience Research In…
www.grisda.org/cambrian-explosion-and-darwins-doubt-1

QUOTE: An intelligent being could generate the genetic information needed for a diversity of body types in a short time. There is no need for random mutations, natural selection, or long periods of time. The theory of intelligent design provides an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion.

dhw: If we espouse the theory – which you regard as 50% possible – that cells are intelligent beings, we have an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion.

I do not think the intelligent cell theory is at all possible!!! And you know it. The appearance of the cells from the outside has a 50/50 probability of cause! I've picked my 50% side of the equation.

DAVID: All based on God's powers of design and His choice to create stepwise by a system that has the appearance of evolution as envisioned by Darwin. Why should God think like you do?

dhw: And now you dodge from the gaps and species with no predecessors to God’s choice to “create stepwise”. Darwin’s theory of common descent – as I have defined it – remains totally unchanged by the shift from comparative anatomy to DNA as the criterion for which branch is which. And, of course, if God exists, he would have designed evolution. But that does not mean he designed it for the purpose or by the method you impose on him. Your question to me is equally valid for you: “Why should God think like you do?”

I've agreed God's form of evolution is designed creation. Again, you act ignorant of Adler's position which is mine: humans, as a result of natural evolution, are so unusual, we should not expect a natural cause, but accept humans are a proof of God.