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

by David Turell , Wednesday, July 06, 2022, 16:41 (869 days ago) @ dhw

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.

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.

DAVID: For me the theories are not separate but involve one designing God choosing His methods for His own reasons. I have never understood your thinking.

dhw: For the sake of this discussion, I am accepting the theory that your God exists, and so of course I accept that he would have had a purpose (you’ve left that out), and for his own reasons he would have chosen evolution as his method of achieving that purpose. Do you or do you not accept that the three theories above represent your beliefs concerning his purpose and his methods?

They are not three theories, but your illogical divisions. 1) is God's endpoint for his designed evolution process. 2 & 3) are both descriptions of His one design process

dhw: If so, do you accept that when you say you can’t explain the combination of these theories, and it “makes sense only to God”, this can only mean it makes no sense to you?

God is doing it this way for his own unknown reasons, which of course make sense to Him, and it makes perfect sense to me to trust in Him.

Sea anemone stinger
QUOTE: Each stinger is good for just one shot. “It’s a one-hit wonder,” Karabulut says. “Once Nematostella uses it, it’s gone.”

DAVID: Another example of an irreducibly complex organ, which is so complex it had to appear all at once in complete form. This shows a designer is required.

dhw: Please tell us why you think this anemone had to be specially designed by your God as an “absolute requirement” and part of your God’s goal (theories 1 and 2 combined) of evolving [=designing] sapiens and our food.

The sea anemone is part of the necessary ecosystem in which it exists to provide food.

DAVID: I am assured of my views by the ID folks with my thinking.

dhw: You are “assured” of your view that God exists by everyone who believes in God. That does not mean they all accept your combined theories of how and why your God designed every species etc. (see above) in a combination that makes no sense to you.

How do you know what ID accepts?

Cellular intelligence

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

dhw: 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”...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.

DAVID: Not objective science, but an interpretation of how God might have created His form of designed evolution.

dhw: Your interpretation of how and why your God might have created evolution (see the list of theories above) makes no sense to you, as only God can understand it. How does that make my logical theory prejudicial, and how does it prove that “my" scientists know less than you about biochemistry?

Your experts and I know the same biochemistry. We can equally interpret.

Human only networks

DAVID: Cells do not have plasticity, only neuron networks do.

dhw: 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?

DAVID: Once again you run off point. The plasticity of the brain is required so it can learn to handle new uses. You want to again introduce your brilliant cell committees wherever you can. Cell networks are changed in speciation. There is no proof the cells do it themselves.

dhw: I have not denied that the brain has to be plastic! You wrote that only neuron networks have plasticity. I’ve reminded you that neurons are cells, that the brain consists of cell communities, and so does the rest of the body. Plasticity (the ability to change) is essential for speciation, as you have just confirmed. How is this “off point”? There is no “proof” for any of our theories – including yours – otherwise they would be facts.

Again off point of specialized networks in human brains. Pure propaganda.