Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, March 02, 2023, 16:49 (630 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, March 02, 2023, 16:59

DAVID: We assume He could create us outright since He made direct creation of life.

dhw: You have omitted your belief that we and our foods are descended from Cambrian species that had no precursors.

DAVID: The Cambrian gap has existed since its discovery before Darwin moaned about it. It is not belief but fact that every animal here descended from it.

dhw: As usual, you dodge the issue. You claim that your God’s sole purpose right from the start was to create us and our food, but that he created our ancestors and our foods de novo during the Cambrian. Therefore all the life forms which preceded the Cambrian, and which you call his “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong decisions”, were totally unnecessary. Your explanation?

You don't understand evolution at the biochemical level. That biochemistry developed until the Cambrian and afterward. Biochemistry underlies, and therefore allows all phenotypical changes. If it ain't there, you can't do it is the rule. And you've forgotten all those lovely bacteria, started life, still here helping.

DAVID: I've purposely overstated how messy evolution of life actually is. But God used it. Successfully, we are here.

dhw: What was your purpose? Are you now saying that when you called his efforts “mistakes” and “failed experiments” etc, you didn’t actually mean they were mistakes and failed experiments?

DAVID: I've certainly got your attention. You initially raised the question of the indirect way evolution produced what God wanted to produce.

dhw: Correction: The question concerns the indirect and error-strewn way in which your God produced what he wanted to produce.

DAVID: […] I've got you defending my God with your extrapolations of pure initial theory. based on looking at cells and noting they operate intelligently. At the biochemical level current research shows how automatic their actions are.

dhw: More dodging! The intelligent cell theory only concerns the mechanisms by which evolution advances - nothing to do with your God’s blunders in pursuit of his only goal! Once more: are you now telling us that when you accused him of mistakes etc., you didn’t mean to accuse him of mistakes etc., and when you tell us he knew he was making mistakes, you didn’t mean he knew he was making mistakes?

DAVID: God knew in any evolutionary process each step to the present would depend on past performances.

dhw: And so he kept making mistakes until the Cambrian, when he started all over again de novo, and then carried on making mistakes, but finally succeeded in designing us and our food although he could have done it without all the mess if he had wanted to.

This disaster of mistaken and muddled misunderstanding of how pre-Cambrian forms contributed to the Cambrian handled above.

DAVID: Raup analyzed the system.

dhw: Well done, Raup.

You know nothing of Raup's short, brilliant book. Remember, no failures but bad luck when circumstances changed. See below: God never needed to experiment as all-knowing brilliant mind. Designed limited adaptability required later designed speciation.

DAVID: I assume God invented it. He knew how it would work.

dhw: If God exists, of course he would have invented it. And thank you for confirming your belief that he knew the system he invented would lead to all his blunders.

Blunders is your perverted view of God handling evolution with all its loss of forms that ended up with us.

DAVID: Once again going to your usual extremes only to defend my God!! I love it.

dhw: Then maybe you should take my proposals more seriously before you opt for an inefficient, cumbersome bumbler who invents a method that forces him into making the mess you have criticized him for.

DAVID: Your theories are totally unreasonable based on current biochemical research on living organisms.

dhw: The theories that 1) your God experimented in his quest to create a being like himself – and did so by means of countless successful experiments until he hit on the best formula – and 2) that his successful experiments resulted in more and more new ideas on what to do with his invention of life, both fit in with the history of life, have nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of cellular intelligence or current biochemical research, and mercifully free your God from the image you present of an inefficient, incompetent, cumbersome bungler, who depends on luck to allow him the chance to do what he wants to do.

I love it. Back to defending a God you don't believe in, my God, any God. God never needed to experiment as all-knowing brilliant mind. Designed limited adaptability required later designed speciation.