Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, November 30, 2022, 11:01 (507 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Of course dead ends can be considered failures, but evolutions advance from failed experiments in form and function and then new attempts at success. […] (dhw’s bold)

dhw: […] Thank you for again accepting one of my theistic answers, which is that the dead ends might be the result of your God experimenting. The last time I pointed this out to you (16th November), you replied: “God is direct and knows exactly how to proceed with no alternative experimentations.” I’m glad you’ve changed your mind.

DAVID: God knows exactly what He is doing. He can design forms which He intends to fail, when no longer needed in a particular ecosystem as evolution moves to the next stage.

So in order to fulfil what you believe has been his one and only purpose (us and our food) he deliberately designs not only those lines of descent and ecosystems that will lead to us and our food, but also those many, many lines and systems that he knows will fail because they have nothing to do with his one only purpose. This apparently is logical because he knows he’s designing failures. And although all evolutions “advance from failed experiments”, God’s failures are not experiments. (See below.)

You went on to provide us with a successful line of descent from one small clade of dinosaurs to present-day birds (the only known dinosaur group alive today), ignoring the hundreds and hundreds of specially designed dead-end dinosaurs.

dhw: Hence my repeated question to you: why did your God design the brontosaurus (a sauropod) – plus every other dead end in the history of evolution? Quoting an example of a continued line does not explain all the dead ends! Please stop dodging!!!

DAVID: God knows exactly what He is doing. He can design forms which He intends to fail, when no longer needed in a particular ecosystem as evolution moves to the next stage. He does not experiment. He plans the dead ends which are purposeful endings. He does not give up design control.

As above. Please stop dodging.

dhw: Please stop hiding from the logic by pretending I’m a would-be atheist.

DAVID: All of your answers offer a smidgeon of grudging possibility of God.

The theories that your God may have been experimenting, or may have had new ideas as he went along, presuppose the existence of your God! You present illogical theories about your God’s possible purpose and method, and I present alternative theistic theories, which you agree are logical. So once more: please stop hiding from the logic by pretending I’m a would-be atheist.

The Cambrian

dhw: The gap in forms is not in dispute, and a possible reason for that is the lack of fossils from species that would have died out 550+ million years ago. But since “form” is not the only criterion for descent, it makes no sense to claim that the Cambrian organisms had no predecessors and yet at the same time to claim that modern research shows that they were descended from Archaea.

DAVID: They had no predecessors in form so in Darwin-speak following only forms, there are no predecessors.

His whole theory is based on common descent, and he had no doubt that there were predecessors. In “Darwin-speak” the best explanation for the gap was the lack of fossils, and so he would no doubt have been delighted that the gap has been filled by new research into genomics, which proves that there WERE predecessors.

"Genome complexity: a new fungal family found”

DAVID: Please rethink your Darwinian approach to evolution. It is now dependent upon genome studies.

dhw: You keep talking as if genome studies invalidated Darwin’s theory of common descent! They CONFIRM it. Yes, yes, yes, we are descended from Archaea. And the Cambrian organisms were also descended from Archaea. Ergo, the Cambrian organisms had predecessors.

DAVID: But following the use of phenotypical analysis Darwin used, the Cambrian gap is a huge gap in forms. Genome studies correct relationships mistaken by using form only. I agree.

Thank you. Modern research has proved Darwin right: there were predecessors. I trust that will put an end to this particular discussion.