Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, August 18, 2022, 17:22 (617 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: All of the current bush supplies our food for our huge population.

dhw: Yes, the current bush supplies our food, and as you said yourself, past bushes supplied food for past forms of life, and the majority of these had no connection with us and our food, which makes nonsense of the theory that your God designed every extinct life form and bush, all of which were preparation and an “absolute requirement” for us and our food!

DAVID: Evolution developed a hugh bush of food as you describe. How did it get so hugh if the past didn't happen? Your objection makes no sense.
And later:
DAVID: Your constant dodge is the past has no place in the present. Totally illogical.

dhw: Where, oh where have you found a statement to the effect that the past didn’t happen???

I simply said the past leads to the future as you admit:

dhw: The past contained some branches that led to us and our food, but it also contained countless branches that did NOT lead to us and our food.

Opposite my contention that the entire set of ecosystems on Earth are interconnected and required for our food.

DAVID: You've never understood How I view your God. I grant His very human form, but only then do your proposals make sense.

dhw: Thank you for granting his very human form and for agreeing that my proposals make sense.

You are welcome

DAVID: My God makes perfect sense to me if not to you. You seem to think I cannot think logically, and only you can.

dhw: But your very human God’s actions do not make sense to you, because your theories concerning his purpose and method of achieving that purpose “make sense only to God”. You think extremely logically when you argue the case for design, but you explicitly turn your back on logic when you propose a theory which you yourself cannot explain.

My very purposeful God is not at all human although He has logical thought and in His own special way has our emotions of love and enjoyment.

dhw: The subject is your theory of evolution. You dismiss the theory of cellular intelligence because you claim there are no known facts to support it. I am pointing out that there are no known facts to support your own theories (see above), so why don’t you dismiss them too?

DAVID: I'll stick to my theories, and you can stick to yours.

dhw: As you have every right to do. But please don’t dismiss mine on the grounds that there are no known facts to support my theories, when the same criticism can be levelled at your own.

The cell intelligence theory is based purely on hyperbolic descriptions of cells actions. Since DNA is a recognized code and the whole genome is seen as a multilayer of controls, the instructions/information in DNA simply run the processes in the cell.