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

by dhw, Thursday, July 07, 2022, 08:43 (656 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.
Do you or do you not accept that the three theories above represent your beliefs concerning his purpose and his methods?

DAVID: 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.

Bearing in mind that you have made it clear that the “endpoint” (sapiens plus food) represents your God’s one and only purpose, you are simply confirming my point that when you try to combine what you call the three “divisions” into one theory, they defy all logic, as you agree in the next exchange:

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?

DAVID: 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.

Trusting in God does not alter the fact that YOUR “invented” theory does not make sense to YOU. So maybe it’s wrong.

Sea anemone stinger

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.

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

All forms of life, extant and extinct, are/were part of their own ecosystem, in which they either eat or are eaten. How does that make them all an “absolute requirement” for your God’s sole purpose of designing sapiens plus 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.

DAVID: How do you know what ID accepts?

I’m not sure what you mean by “assured of my views” etc., but I assume you think they all accept your illogical theory of evolution, which “makes sense only to God”. Same question to you: how do you know they all accept your illogical theory?

Cellular intelligence

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

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?

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

If you are equal, how does that prove they know less than you? And in what way is my theory more prejudicial than your own?

Human only networks

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. […]

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

All the networks are “specialized”. Do you or do you not agree that the ability of cells and their networks to change (plasticity) is essential for speciation?

Sea cucumber

QUOTE: "...since sea cucumbers lack any adaptive immunity and must rely on their innate defenses to survive, “it’s not so surprising that sea cucumbers evolved something special” to defend themselves.

DAVID: another example of an irreducibly complex mechanism with so many interlocking requirements, it must be created all at once, not step by step by chance. This must be designed.

As usual, I also reject chance. The obvious implication of the quote is that if sea cucumbers hadn’t worked out a way to defend themselves, they would not have survived. And as usual, my question to you is why your God regarded self-defending sea cucumbers as an “absolute requirement” to enable him to design sapiens and our food.

Hornets distribute agarwood seeds

DAVID: using attractive scents to lure hornets to disperse the seeds is a neat trick, not likely to develop by chance mutations.

Same as above. Thank you for these examples of Nature’s wonders. Regardless of one’s beliefs, one can only gasp at the ingenuity with which different forms of life pursue the quest for survival.