Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2 (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, July 10, 2022, 16:08 (865 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The only generational adaptations we know about are very small changes within species. Using your now bold theory. Generations occur in specific timed periods so time does apply and must be considered.

dhw: You are repeating what I have said. We KNOW that generations can adapt quickly,

Don't you read what I write? Generational quick adaptations 'are very small changes'.

dhw: I am also arguing for design, but it doesn’t seem to register with you that if your God exists, he might be capable of endowing cells with the intelligence to do their own designing – just as he has endowed humans to do their own designing. […]

DAVID: Back you go to inefficient secondhand design.

dhw: Why do you call it inefficient? You have agreed that all my alternative theories fit in perfectly with the history of life as we know it. Only your own theory defies all logic.

More distorted propaganda. Like Goebel's point, if repeated often enough it can become truth. I agreed that only if we accepted your humanized god would your theories reach logical.

DAVID: A new complex sea monster described in the Cambrian with eyes to see, brains to interpret:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2327909-three-eyed-predator-stalked-the-seas-500-m...
And today:
DAVID: Note the advanced complexity of this very large arthropod fossil:
http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/balhuticaris-voltae-10983.html?utm_source=feedburn...

DAVID: All of this complexity appeared only 410,000 years removed from the very simple Ediacaran frond-like sessile forms. And dhw proposes 30,000 generational adaptations could do this. Really?

dhw: A central nervous system (see yesterday’s quote) is a start – but I’m not going to pretend that I can solve a mystery which nobody in the world has solved! I can only look at alternative theories. The fact is that these creatures DID emerge from approx. 30,000 generations! My proposal that organisms/cell communities, whose intelligence may have been designed by your God and who responded generation by generation to new opportunities provided by an extra-special change in the environment, seems to me at least as credible as your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme or ad hoc dabble to produce balhuticaris voltae plus countless other organisms in countless other econiches as preparation and an “absolute requirement” for him to design the only species he wanted to design: H. sapiens (plus food).

As usual, lots of verbal supposings. Your alterative theories are anything but God, or a weakend secondhand for God mechanism.

Humanization

DAVID: My thoughts about how God' emotions and thought patterns mirror ours are guesswork answers to your previous questions. They in no way change my view of a very purposeful God who know exactly what he is doing and exactly how to reach His goals, no experimentation ever involved.

dhw: Of course if God exists he would know what he is doing. Why have you changed your one and only goal (sapiens plus food) into goals? What are the other goals? If his goal was to design sapiens, why should he not experiment (that would explain all the discarded designs)? Or why can’t he have enjoyed designing all kinds of life, and had new ideas as he went along? Or decided to design an autonomous mechanism which would produce the ever changing history which he would – as you put it – watch with interest (and perhaps dabble when he felt like it)? In all cases, he would have known what he was doing and why!

Again we must consider your very humanized God. Not my version a very organized purposeful God who knows exactly how to proceed without deviations.

dhw: […] why are your guesses less “human” than mine?

DAVID: All human guesses are human. I read everything you write and ignore senseless repetition of your illogical theories about mine, especially my views of how to think about God.

dhw: I really don’t know what you mean by “how to think about God”, unless it’s that I must accept your view of what he does and why, regardless of the fact that it “makes sense only to God” – which can only mean that it does not make sense to you.

God makes perfect sense to me if not you. The point of your website.