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

by dhw, Monday, July 11, 2022, 09:08 (864 days ago) @ David Turell

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."

dhw: 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?

DAVID: Your farce alone. What is logical is I trust God knew how to do it. My analysis of God and evolution tells Adler and I God had a goal of producing humans by evolving them.

Why do you say “a” goal? At the very centre of our disagreement is your insistence that your God’s one and only goal was to evolve (by which you mean design) H. sapiens and our food, and so he proceeded to design countless life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc., the vast majority of which are extinct and did NOT lead to sapiens and our food. What is logical is that your God, if he exists, would have known what he wanted to do and would have known how to do it. That does not mean he only wanted to produce us and our food, but two of my alternative theistic theories actually allow for the possibility that we were or became “a” goal and also explain what you can’t explain: why he may indeed have designed and then discarded all the unconnected life forms etc. (experimentation, or new ideas as he went along). However, you reject these on the grounds that they entail human patterns of thought, although in the past you have agreed that he certainly/probably/possibly has patterns of thought similar to ours.

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Why can't you accept God CHOSE to evolve us from bacteria, as His created history shows.

If he exists, I do accept it. I do not, however, accept the theory that we were his one and only goal from the very beginning, and therefore he individually designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with us. I find this illogical, and so do you, because you say you can’t think of any reason why he would have chosen such a method.

ID
dhw: 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.

DAVID: What makes perfect sense to us, if not you, is accepting God as the designer of evolution.

Yes, that is what I have always thought was the point of the ID movement: to show that life is too complex to have arisen by chance, and therefore there must be an intelligent designer. And I accept that this makes perfect sense. But you claim that they all believe the theory bolded above, which you say “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you or them. Do you now wish to withdraw that claim?

Human only networks
dhw: 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.

DAVID: The word plasticity, as applied to the brain, has very specific meaning. I'm not trying to prove anything except to point out your tortured attempt to bring the issue of speciation into a brain discussion.

I didn’t think there was any possible disagreement over the plasticity of the brain. And I don’t know why there should be any disagreement over the fact that for evolution to take place, there must be a degree of plasticity in all cell communities. Perhaps we can leave it at that.