Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, October 27, 2022, 15:47 (756 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: All forms of life need food, and some need more calories than others. How does this prove that for 3.X billion years your God specially designed every life form, ecosystem, lifestyle, strategy as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food, although the vast majority led neither to us nor to our food? Over and over again you have told us that we can’t know your God’s reasons. In other words, quite understandably, you can’t make any sense of your theory,

The fact that I cannot know God's reasons for evolving us does not keep me from intelligently analyzing the history. Long ago we agreed Darwin's sketch of a simple tree of life was really a giant bush. That giant bush is the current set of ecosystems for our food supply. All evolved by God's design

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”.)

DAVID: 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: So now you are telling us that 500+ million years ago your God created not only the human line of life, but also those of our foods, without any predecessors. So all the life forms etc that he designed before the Cambrian had no connection with us or with our food supplies! They were all dead ends. Once more, why would your God, who can do what he likes, have designed all those dead ends?

Previously explained: the substrate of evolutionary advances involves advancing biochemical complexity in living forms and environmental changes offering a better environment (for the Cambrian more oxygen) for more complex forms. Evolution is the present built from the past.

DAVID […]: 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'.

dhw: You have not explained them. Most of the time you tell us they were necessary, but it turns out they were only necessary for the organisms which lived at that time. NOT for us and our food supply! In your own words: “past ecosystems fed past animals. With advances to new forms new ecosystems appeared and old ones faded away as dead ends.” A dead end leads nowhere – and your Cambrian theory tells us that all preceding life forms and ecosystems were irrelevant to the evolution of us and our food! […]

Your usual distortion of slicing up evolution into disconnected parts as answered above and also below:

DAVID: 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.

dhw: What do you mean by “supported the process of evolution”? Your argument has always been that the dead ends were “necessary” for your God to be able to design us and our food. If we and our food were his only purpose and he could do what he liked, then all that was “necessary” was the lines of evolution that did lead to us and our food, and according to you, these lines only began during the Cambrian! And even after that, you have never been able to explain why your God “had to” design the brontosaurus (not to mention the rest of the dinosaurs who ruled the earth for 180 million years), and you can’t explain why he had to design us in stages. It “makes sense only to God”. So maybe, just maybe, there is something wrong with your theories?

What is wrong is your weird interpretation of the evolutionary process. No point repeating points from above.