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

by David Turell , Saturday, July 02, 2022, 16:52 (873 days ago) @ dhw

David’s theory of evolution

DAVID: All the 'countless life forms' form the history of evolution which led to us. Your objections simply throws all of that out as if it never happened. That is part of your weird thought process.

dhw: Your objections simply throw out all the life forms etc. which you say your God designed individually and which did NOT lead to us or our food, although you tell us that they were preparation for and an “absolute requirement” for us and our food. And this is part of your combination of theories which you yourself regard as senseless, since you cannot find any rational explanation and it “makes sense only to God”.

Same weird thought process, how to go from bacteria to humans without all the in-between forms? All of this makes sense to God and to me, if not you.

The Krebs cycle

DAVID: I've been long convinced that deep-sea vents were involved in the origin of life. The Kreb's cycle is at the heart of living biochemistry. That is runs backward and forward is a strong indication of a designer at work. How could that have happened by chance? I haven't read this book, but it obviously would help anyone to understand how to look at life through its biochemistry.

dhw: Back we go to the origin of life, and I agree that this is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of a designer. But the existence of a sourceless, immaterial, all-powerful mind which can create a whole universe and living material beings out of its own immateriality is just as great a mystery as the origin of life, and no amount of blather about “first cause” can solve it.

First cause is a reasonable issue, not blather. You prefer design without the designer. Logical?

The Cambrian Gap

dhw: I have pointed out that “gaps” are caused by the fact that conditions remain the same for long periods of “stasis”, and the comparatively short period of time covered by the Cambrian would be sufficient for 30,000 or so generations of intelligent organisms to design new responses to the new conditions. The number is theoretical -I don’t mind how many generations you think would fill that period - but do you really believe that the generations themselves are theoretical? That there weren’t generations after generations of organisms during the 410,000 years?

DAVID: What you have obviously ignored yet again, is the obvious point: in all of evolutionary history there is no other gap like the Cambrian. All you do is theorize bloviated generations when how speciation happens is not known, and only you raise that issue desperately to save your Darwinian prejudices.

dhw: Of course, nobody knows how speciation happens, and of course I accept that the Cambrian is a mystery, and so I look for possible answers to the relevant questions...You accept that there is a 50/50 chance that cells are intelligent, and offer no reason for rejecting my proposal that evolutionary changes take place between generations, regardless of the amount of time between bursts of innovation. So please explain why you think it is impossible for your God to have designed intelligent cells which, given the right conditions, might have produced the same changes within the same period of time that you say he took to produce them?

Alot of talk around the main point I present, so I'll try again to nail it and you down. A 410,000-year gap in which very complex animals appeared from simple forms was measured from existing fossils. Wholly new organ systems and eyes appeared. Now look at other known fossil series such as the whales. Millions of years from one earlier form to the next, not with such a massive invention as the Cambrian animals, but a species modification of all the existing complex systems and eyes.

And your newly minted, invented theory, to save your prejudices, is some generations can do it. Any authoritative source?

As for second-hand design mechanisms, I have given you my objections, not worth repeating, many times.