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

by dhw, Friday, July 08, 2022, 13:40 (651 days ago) @ David Turell

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

DAVID: If I invented these theories, which I think is one whole design theory, they must make sense to me!! Your objection is an insult to my thought processes.

Why are you inserting the word design? We are not talking about the theory that life is so complex that it must have been designed. We are talking about your three theories, which you call “divisions”, concerning how and why evolution has taken place. You admit that you don’t know your God’s reasons for “doing it this way” (“this way” being your invented theory) and “it makes sense only to God”. Please stop pretending that this means it makes sense to you.

Sea anemone stinger (and also “sea cucumber")

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

dhw: 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: Your usual illogical complaint. The huge human population requires multiple ecosystems.

Your usual evasion. You can’t explain why every extinct ecosystem was an “absolute requirement” for sapiens plus food, and I doubt if you can even explain why the sea anemone stinger is an “absolute requirement” for us and our food.

Dragonfly migration

QUOTE:"The research leaves numerous other questions unanswered, such as how the dragonflies know when the winds are optimal for the journey, how they navigate to tiny islands in the Indian Ocean along the way and most puzzling of all, how this knowledge is passed from one generation to the next, since the same flight patterns occur every year." (David’s bold)

DAVID: the bold above asks the right questions. It is instinct by definition, but how did it develop by chance? […] It is part of an ecosystem designed by God.

Presumably you think teaching this species of dragonfly how to migrate was also an “absolute requirement” as part of your God’s one and only “goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. Chance may well have played a role when the very first migrants flew off in search of better conditions. The same applies to all migratory creatures. The fact that the knowledge is passed on suggests that there is either communication between generations, or that cellular communities, which pass on genetic information to subsequent generations through reproduction, have memories not just of their composition but also of their experiences. What we call instinct might then be a similar kind of unconscious memory. Just an idea.

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

dhw:[…] how do you know they all accept your illogical theory?

DAVID: Direct conversations at an ID convention.

So all ID-ers believe that 3.8 billion years ago, their God compiled instructions for every evolutionary innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history, or he personally dabbled each one ad hoc, and every single one was an “absolute requirement” for him to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing H.sapiens and our food. I’m surprised. And frankly, deeply disappointed to hear they all believe in a theory that “makes sense only to God”. And there was me, thinking ID-ers wanted to use science to prove that there must be an intelligent designer.

Cellular intelligence

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

dhw: 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?

DAVID: Never said that!!! We are equals as above.

You wrote: “I understand biochemistry equally to your self-chosen experts who happen to fit your rigid Darwinian prejudices.” Initially, you based your rejection of the theory on your “deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life”, dismissed the findings of “my” experts as hyperbole, and then tried to make out that their findings somehow make my theory a prejudice, as if your rigid rejection of a 50/50 possibility was not just that!

Human only networks

DAVID: Again off point of specialized networks in human brains. Pure propaganda. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: 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?

DAVID: Weird: plasticity is at cellular function level. Speciation is at DNA level.

Plasticity is what enables cell communities to create new forms. It is not confined to the brain. What is your point? Are you now telling us that DNA is separate from the cell?