Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, September 13, 2022, 11:20 (584 days ago) @ David Turell

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: I view the way you cling to cell intelligence as a means of reducing God's direct control of evolution.

Of course. One possible explanation for the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of life forms and ecosystems is that this is what your God wanted: a free-for-all (though with the option of dabbling if he felt like it). It is your obsession with the idea that God wanted total control that leads to most of the contradictions in your theories of evolution.

DAVID: […] the giant interlocking ecosystems today are God's deliberate plan to provide food for all living organisms. All developed from past branches!!! Those are the reasons you say I cannot think of!

dhw: Once again you are editing evolution. Yes, all organisms eat/ate food and are/were eaten in their own ecosystems, and all current living things are developed from past branches. But you are deliberately editing out all the past branches that did NOT lead to all the things that are alive today but which you claim were “absolute requirements” for us and our food!

DAVID: I have always said all branches lead to current ecosystems.

dhw: You recently offered us a quote (re New Zealand): “Evolutionary history is full of strange twists and turns, but also dead ends” which I bolded and which you ignored. Your dodges include the fact that ecosystems provide “food for all” (which includes all extinct organisms that lived in them and had no connection with us or our food), and all our current ecosystems are descended from past ecosystems (bolded above), which again is true for us evolutionists, but does NOT mean that all extinct branches led to us and our ecosystems. […]

DAVID: Let's understand belief: every organism on Earth is here because God desired to put it here. Even dead ends were desired, and how proven is it as dead ends they didn't play an advancing role?

Let’s understand your beliefs: your God’s one and only aim was to design H. sapiens and our foods, and so he individually designed countless organisms and foods that did not lead to us (dead ends), “extinct life has no role in current life”, but every dead end was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for H. sapiens plus food. “How proven is it” that every single dead end played an advancing role in the individual design of H. sapiens plus food?

dhw: (re Neanderthals): If his one and only purpose was to create H. sapiens plus food, as you claim, and if he had the power to create species without any precursors, as you claim, it makes no sense for him to design umpteen hominins and homos in itsy-bitsy stages. So I look for a logical theory to explain the stages.[…]

DAVID: […] Your thinking is so twisted: you accept all the stages of hominins arriving finally in us and you can't see us as his purpose!

If God exists, I accept all the stages of every organism that ever lived, and you can’t see that in your own theory, your purposeful God must have had a purpose in designing every one of them, including all those “dead ends” that had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: Adler is rolling over!! And what are your logical alternatives to the series of hominins/homos? Do you challenge that God builds in stages, and so it be said He evolves everything He creates?

How many times must I repeat that I do not challenge the theory of evolution, which has all organisms evolving in stages? I challenge your absurd conclusion that every organism that came to a dead end was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our food. I also point out that if your God had wanted to design H. sapiens directly, you demonstrate that he could have done so, since you believe he created some species without any precursors (Cambrian). These are the logical flaws in your theories which “make sense only to God”, and therefore not to you. Two of my theistic alternatives do allow for us humans and our food as a goal (not the goal), and you recognize their logic but try to wriggle out of it by insisting that your God has to correspond to your personal image of him.

DAVID: The entire Earth contains our ecosystems for food. How many more articles do I have to produce to crack your cemented mind?

dhw: Still dodging. The entire Earth contains ecosystems for food. That does not mean every single extinct ecosystem led to our current ecosystems and current foods, because vast numbers of extinct life forms and ecosystems came to a dead end. Please explain how the brontosaurus was an “absolute requirement” for us and our food.

DASVID: Narrowness again. Every organism put on Earth was a desired result by God. You can't analyze God down to the last dot and tittle.

A free-for-all, or humans arrived at through experimentation, or arrived at as a new idea after all the preceding dead ends, could also be a “desired result by God”, and it is you who try to “analyze to the last dot and tittle” by insisting that every extinct, dead-end dot and tittle (trilobite, brontosaurus, moa) was specially designed for the one and only purpose of preparing the way for us and our food.