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

by David Turell , Monday, July 11, 2022, 17:13 (864 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,

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

dhw: Yes, those are the changes we KNOW. And I am suggesting that the same mechanism may be responsible for the large changes we call innovations.

You are twisting away from the issue of speciation. We agree adaptations within species are small changes, not innovations. The rest for your point is pure theory with underlying factual support.

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).

DAVID: As usual, lots of verbal supposings.

All our theories are “verbal supposing”. How else can we formulate them?

DAVID: 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: Your version is precisely the opposite: he has one goal (sapiens plus food), and proceeds to design countless life forms and foods that have no connection with sapiens plus food. That’s what I would call “deviations”, and you can’t explain them!

You don't seem to absorb what I write: see other thread for my reply. " The process of evolution presents a series of discarded forms and many branches which do not lead specifically to humans, but necessarily form the ecosystems which provide food for life to continue."

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.

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

dhw: The existence of God makes perfect sense to you, and I accept that the design argument makes perfect sense. It is your theory concerning his one and only goal and illogical way of achieving it that according to you “makes sense only to God”, and therefore can’t possibly make sense to anyone else, including you. Please stop dodging.

I'm sorry you are so confused about the issue of now to think about God as I do.