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

by dhw, Tuesday, July 05, 2022, 09:24 (870 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We are arguing about the incompatibility of the three evolutionary theories I listed earlier: 1) your God’s one and only purpose for creating life was to design sapiens plus food; 2) your God individually designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with sapiens plus food; 3) your God directly designed some species without any precursors, but designed the only species he wanted to design (plus food) in stages. Each of these is credible in itself but when combined, they do not make sense, as you have acknowledged again and again because you cannot find any logical link, and together they “make sense only to God”. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: I do not have three theories. They are your strange divisions. God chose to evolve us by designing stages of life leading to us as the endpoint. His design method does not require precursors. After all He knew how to invent life. One theory, design theory.

You are making a mockery of this discussion. If your God exists, then of course he designed evolution. The discussion concerns why and how he designed it, and each of the above is a separate theory. You admit that you cannot explain their combination, which “makes sense only to God”. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: His logic is obviously not your logic, and I fully accept His logic from His own reasoning.

dhw: How can you fully accept his logic when you don’t know what it is?

DAVID: You seem to miss the point, no one can know God's logic! If you knew it would you leave agnosticism?

If he exists, no one can know his purpose either, and no one knows how evolution works. So please stop pretending that you know both, and that your theories make sense to you although they make sense only to God. I would leave agnosticism if I was convinced that God exists. And then I would challenge your absurdly illogical combination of evolutionary theories just as I do now.

dhw: What gives you the authority to claim that he has your illogical human thought processes (which make no sense to you) rather than my logical ones?

DAVID: If God made sense to you, would you accept Him?

This tactic of avoiding my questions by asking your own is another tiresome dodge. I’ve answered your pointless question above. Now please answer my question.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: I understand biochemistry equally to your self-chosen experts who happen to fit your rigid Darwinian prejudices.

If you are their equal, then they are your equal, 50/50. The theory of cellular intelligence has nothing to do with “rigid Darwinian prejudices”. It never occurred to Darwin that evolutionary innovations might be the result of cellular intelligence – he opted for random mutations, which I find unconvincing. But he declared that his theory did not exclude God as the creator. I have no idea why you see my theory as prejudice, while you apparently regard your 3.8-billion-year old book of divine instructions, or non-stop ad hoc divine dabbling, as objective science.

Recovery from brain damage

dhw: I would suggest that maybe he designed cells to work out their own way of autonomously reconfiguring and rewiring themselves.

DAVID: The brain obviously requires that exact ability, so God provided it. It doesn't support your brilliant cell theory.

dhw: The brain is a community of cells, and if the cells of the brain have the autonomous ability to reconfigure and rewire themselves, and God provided them with that ability, you have just accepted the theory of cellular intelligence. Congratulations.

DAVID: Your innate cell intelligence theory is pure extrapolation. God instructed the brain cells in how to have required plasticity.

Since the cells of the brain have the “exact ability” to “work out their own way of autonomously reconfiguring and rewiring themselves”, and you agree that God provided it, then you agree that they are intelligent! And yes, he would have given them the plasticity as well as the ability to use it. And yes, the theory is an extrapolation proposed by people whose knowledge of biochemistry is just as deep as yours.

Human only networks

DAVID: The study only shows us how the brain uses its plasticity, a process no other organ has or needs.

dhw: Once again, you don’t seem to realize that the brain is a community of cells. It is therefore cells that use their plasticity, which is not confined to the brain. If some cells did not have plasticity, evolution would never have happened.

DAVID: Nice try! The brain requires this ability. You couldn't learn anything if it didn't.

I am not denying that the brain cells have this ability!

DAVID: Interesting tortured twist of evolutionary fact: Cells do not have plasticity, only neuron networks do.

Stem cells can take on any form, but in any case neurons are cells, and their networks cover the whole body, not just the brain! How could evolution have taken place if these cellular networks did not have the ability to change?