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

by dhw, Sunday, July 10, 2022, 11:57 (865 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your non-belief confuses our view of my approach to God. I trust He knows what He is doing, and I am not pretending as you insist.

dhw: If God exists, I have no doubt that he would know what he was doing and why he was doing it. Please stop messing about with vague generalizations. You say his only reason for creating life was to design sapiens plus food, and so what he did was design countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food. You “trust” that this is true, even if it “makes sense only to God”, which means it doesn’t make sense to you. What else can it possibly mean?

DAVID: The fact that my thoughts seem senseless to you shows how you have no understanding of how to think about God as I do. Why can't you accept the above? "I trust He knows what He is doing."

We are descending into farce. Once more: if God exists, I have no doubt he knows what he is doing. But when you tell me that you can’t find any logical explanation for YOUR theory bolded above, and it “makes sense only to God”, how can that mean it makes sense to you?

Ecosystems

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

dhw: Your usual evasion. You can’t explain why every extinct ecosystem was an “absolute requirement” for sapiens plus food, […]

DAVID: No evasion. All life must eat in every ecosystem.

dhw: Correct. That does not mean that all extinct life and all extinct ecosystems were an absolute requirement in preparation for sapiens plus food!

DAVID: The major point: without delicate ecosystems at all stages of evolution to support life evolution would not have progressed. The bold is your usual illogical complaint.

If life hadn’t continued, then obviously there would be no life now! So back to the bold. Please explain why every extinct life form and ecosystem – including all those that did not lead to us and our food – had to be specially designed as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food.

ID and David’s theory of evolution

DAVID: Surprising isn't it, all ID thinks as I do.

dhw: I’m sure they think as you do about intelligent design. I’m amazed to hear that all of them even know, let alone believe your inexplicable theory of evolution, which “makes sense only to God”, and therefore not to you or to them.

DAVID: Same nonsensical views of how to not think about God.

According to you, then, all ID-ers agree with your illogical theory of evolution, and believe that we must think of God as acting in a manner that makes no sense to us.

Cellular intelligence

dhw: […] My not being a biochemist does not mean that scientists such as McClintock, Margulis, Bühler and Shapiro have no knowledge of biochemistry, and far from my theory being based on prejudice, it was this proposal that gave rise to it, as it provides a very logical explanation why there has been such a huge variety of life forms that have come and gone as conditions have changed. You can’t even begin to explain this because you stick rigidly to your belief that your God designed every one of them, although most had no connection with what you say was the only life he wanted to design – that of sapiens and our food. I’d say that such rigid adherence to a theory that makes no sense to you sounds rather like prejudice.

DAVID: What you call prejudice I call belief as in your now bold statement.

You have confirmed your belief in the bolded theory, which “makes sense only to God” and therefore not to you. Because of this rigid belief, you reject any alternative, no matter how logical it may be. And yet you accuse me of prejudice!

Human only networks
dhw: 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?

DAVID: The plasticity code is in the cell DNA.

dhw: Thank you for telling us which part of the cell is responsible for its plasticity. How does that come to mean that the plasticity of cells and their networks all over the body is not essential for speciation?

DAVID: You are introducing a tortured interpretation of brain plasticity to explain the enigma of speciation. Why?

We are getting nowhere. My point is that plasticity is not confined to the brain, and if other cells were not plastic, evolution could never have happened. Perhaps you could remind us of the point you are trying to prove.