Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, August 28, 2022, 11:58 (599 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: All of the branches from the beginning lead to the present. Why is that forgotten??? With God's designs all the branches arrived here producing us and a hugh bush of ecosystems but in trouble (see the entries).

dhw: We and our huge bush of ecosystems descend from past life forms and past ecosystems, but in the course of history, many of the branches have led to extinction and NOT to humans and our food. Why is that forgotten? Ecosystems throughout history have got into trouble. Otherwise none of them would have become extinct. What has that got to do with your illogical theories of evolution?

DAVID: The huge food webs as shown in those entries have degraded under our control, but were originally precisely designed for us:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-phys-org-reconstructing-ice-age-diets...

QUOTE: "Research published this week in Science offers the clearest picture yet of the reverberating consequences of land mammal declines on food webs over the past 130,000 years. It’s not a pretty picture."

https://phys.org/news/2022-08-reconstructing-ice-age-diets-reveals.html

QUOTE: "While about 6% of land mammals have gone extinct in that time, we estimate that more than 50% of mammal food web links have disappeared," said ecologist Evan Fricke, lead author of the study. "And the mammals most likely to decline, both in the past and now, are key for mammal food web complexity."

There is no dispute over the fact that ecosystems are a kind of web, or that they can and do decline! You are focusing on something indisputable in order to distract attention from your illogical theory that your God designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and ecosystems, most of which did not lead to sapiens and our current ecosystems, although you believe every single one of them was an “absolute requirement” designed in preparation for sapiens and our current ecosystems.

dhw: […]. Your assertion that I distort the importance of the damage we are causing to our own ecosystems is just plain daft!

DAVID: Not daft as the studies show, not by IDer's, but in Science Mag!!! Quoted in Phys. Org. Your distortion is in not recognizing the food web originally designed for us is damaged. The key is it was there, I say by God's design. The web came from past evolution!!!

It is your accusation that I “distort” the importance of human damage to our ecosystems that is daft. And yes, our webs came from past evolution, but that does not mean that every single extinct web in the history of evolution was preparation for and “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: I simply think my form of God comports with what I was taught in "How to think about God".

dhw: So your teacher taught you that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but could not possibly have created life because he wanted to enjoy creating things that would interest him. And may I ask where your teacher got his information from?

DAVID: Adler made the one observation, as a philosopher of religion, the probability God cares about us is 50/50%. The above is your imagination gone wild.

And so the bold above does not comport with what your teacher taught you. Please stop involving Adler in your illogical theories.

Secondhand design (taken from “Savannah theory fading”)

DAVID: Secondhand design is a cumbersome mess, that you don't seem to understand. You've never tried it and I have with firsthand experience. […]

dhw: You are comparing your method of design to God’s, and it is a total mismatch. You have one plan, and you implement it directly. Then you say that is the efficient way to do it, and so he would not have “delegated” design to other minds (intelligent cells). But although you say that like you, your God had one plan, he did NOT implement it directly! He designed countless life forms that had no connection with his “plan”, and he did not even design his “endpoint” (sapiens) directly, but did countless twiddles before finally getting rid of all the irrelevant twiddles and hominins and homos that were not sapiens. It is all the diversions from your proposed “plan” that (a) you cannot explain, and (b) suggest he is not a Turell, and (c) are logically explained by my alternative theories.

DAVID: God's creation pattern is to evolve all forms stepwise: the universe from the BB, the Earth from its origin, life from its start to final sapiens from Erectus, etc. It is perfectly obvious pattern.

I’m not disputing stepwise evolution! I’m disputing your equation of your own single-minded, “firsthand” design of a single plan with what you believe to be your God’s countless “firsthand” designs which had no connection with what you believe to have been his single plan but which can be explained by my alternative theories.

DAVID: Your point now bolded is refuted by the studies I have quoted.

Those studies deal with the interconnectedness of ecosystems and the damage we are causing. They do NOT tell us that every extinct life form and ecosystem led to H. sapiens and our ecosystems, and THAT is the basis of your theories that “make sense only to God”. If you disagree, please tell us which of them “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you.