Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, October 23, 2022, 17:24 (551 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've explained the dead ends as no longer necessary ecosystems. My God maintains control of evolution, not your humanized God's free-for-all.

dhw: Yet again: no longer necessary for what?

Remember? All explained as ecosystems required for a given period/stage of evolution.

dhw: Still not thinking. All life forms except the very first were evolved. Some ecosystems supported those life forms that eventually evolved into us and our current ecosystems (although you deny this – see below re the Cambrian). Other ecosystems and organisms (the vast majority) from 3.8 billion years ago did NOT evolve into us and our ecosystems, and yet you insist that your God designed them all as “absolute requirements” for us and our ecosystems.

DAVID: What I have colored red is your imagination at work. With the current human population size, everything evolved from the past became all the ecosystems present today and necessary for human survival.

dhw: More silly obfuscation. Yes, current ecosystems evolved from the past. But current ecosystems did not evolve from the dead ends of the past. If they had evolved from the dead ends, the dead ends would not have been dead. And you cannot explain why your God would have designed the dead ends which did NOT evolve into the ecosystems present today and necessary for our survival.

Yes, current ecosystems evolved from the past but not from dead ends which are no longer necessary since their usefulness is over as evolution moves on to new stages. Your straw man of dead ends is an irrational manufactured complaint distorting the very meaning of evolution.

DAVID: ...Fine. Let's imagine direct creation of humans. They must have food you'll agree. The giant bush of evolution would need to be produced in a Big Bang of immediate creation for the proper supporting ecosystem.

dhw: According to you, that is precisely what he did during the Cambrian Explosion, and you even go so far as to specify that we ourselves and the animals we eat descended from those life forms, which had no predecessors. Your view of the Cambrian completely contradicts your theory that every pre-Cambrian life form and ecosystem was “necessary” to produce us (plus our food).

DAVID: You don't understand the Cambrian shows the best evidence for a designer we have, other than the designed complexity of any living biochemistry.

dhw: I understand your use of your theory as evidence for the existence of God, and I understand your desire to divert attention from the contradiction I’ve just pointed out.

DAVID: Not a contradiction. A designer creates a point where basic biochemistry and Earth's progressive evolution provide the necessary substrate to allow the gap. Note phosphorous levels in sea water…

dhw: How phosphorus came to be present does not explain why your God, whose one and only purpose - according to you - from the very beginning of life was to design us (plus our food), did not – according to you – even begin to design the first steps in our evolution until he had first designed countless organisms and ecosystems, throughout thousands of millions of years, that had no connection with us! Because according to you, we are descended from Cambrian organisms which had no predecessors. Please stop dodging!

I've fully answered your illogical complaint. A designer God can create gaps is evolutionary progressions.

DAVID: Your pretense is dead ends make my God a bumbling muddled mess. As your God theoretically manages evolution, He produce the same dead ends. All evolution produces dead ends, an intrinsic result.

dhw: I don’t know how many evolutions of life you have experienced. We agree that there were dead ends, but you insist that your God specially designed them, although they had no connection with the only things he wanted to design (us and our food). You can’t explain why he would have done so, and that is how YOU make your God a bumbler. I offer alternative explanations for the dead ends (a free-for-all, experimentation, new ideas), all of which you agree are perfectly logical, but they do not conform to your fixed and inexplicable interpretation of your God’s purpose and method.

Yes, I have my God and you have your imagined humanized god.