Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, October 26, 2022, 15:28 (757 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is obvious that in any evolutionary process as organisms disappear their supporting ecosystems will also disappear, creating what we are calling dead ends. You are creating a problem when there is none.

dhw; Yes, it is obvious, and it is no problem at all. The problem is your insistence that every one of those dead ends was necessary for your God’s fulfilment of what you say was his one and only purpose (to design us and our food), although by definition not one of them was necessary for the fulfilment of that purpose. Please stop this endless dodging.

The way your argument is stated diminishes the food-need problem. See below for more discussion of the high calorie needs.

The Cambrian Explosion

dhw: Your theory that we are descended from Cambrian organisms that had no predecessors makes nonsense of your theory that your God’s purpose from the very beginning of life was to create us and our food. A God who can do whatever he likes would not have “had to” create all the unnecessary organisms and ecosystems prior to the Cambrian, and even you admit that it makes no sense that even after the Cambrian he went on to design us in stages. (You say your theory “makes sense only to God”.)

It all comes back to the food-need issue. Starting many new phyla which ended at 37, provided the necessary bush of life, which formed the overall ecosystems that provide our current food supply needs. What God did makes perfect sense to me.

dhw: You agree that my alternative theistic explanations (a free-for-all, experimentation, an ongoing creative process in which your God enjoys working on new ideas) all make perfect sense, but you prefer your bumbling version to at least three which genuinely have your God doing what he likes.

DAVID: Your humanized version of God does things that do make sense for Him, is not the God I accept.

dhw: I know you don’t accept any of these explanations, although you agree that they provide logical explanations for the dead ends which you can’t explain.

You obviously don't agree with my clear explanations of dead ends in evolution, but don't distort the issue by stating I 'can't explain'.

DAVID: Again, you are complaining about God's direct creation ability, as shown in the Big Bang and starting life.

dhw: I am not complaining about your God’s ability. I have agreed with you that he could do anything he liked. I complain about your illogical reasoning that dead ends which did not lead to us plus food were necessary for us and our food. And I complain about your self- contradiction in the theory bolded above.

Your same garbled lack of understanding the enormity of the food-need problem.

DAVID: The only explanation for His use of evolution is, it was His choice.

dhw: If he exists, of course it was his choice. But you insist that he only had one purpose, and you insist that he chose to fulfil that purpose by bumbling through countless actions that had nothing to do with that purpose. Why do you insist on your God being so incompetent? In my alternatives, he does what he wants to do.

So does my God who chose to evolve us.

Cannibalism

DAVID: Human caloric need on a daily basis is a vital concept. dhw belittles it in his arguments about God's necessary roles. Note how the author makes it a critical point in studying human behavior in reference to food supply.

dhw: Please stop pretending that I am an idiot. Do you really think I am unaware that humans, just like every other organism, need food? The fact that humans ate one another does not in any way justify your absurd theory that in order to fulfil his sole purpose of designing humans plus food, he found it “necessary” to design countless, now extinct dead-end life forms and foods that were not “necessary” for him to fulfil his sole purpose.

All those dead ends supported the process of evolution. Without them evolution could not continue to advance. Your weird view of evolutionary food-needs is wildly skewed.