Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, March 05, 2023, 11:23 (627 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Your theory that he designed our ancestors – his only purpose - from scratch (the Cambrian gap) makes “pure nonsense” of your theory that first he had to design earlier life forms (“mistakes”, “failures”) which had no connection with us, regardless of the fact that they all use the same biochemistry.

DAVID: Not nonsense. Early forms required less complex biochemistry. As biochemistry advanced, forms advanced. The final form is our brain which is based upon the highly complex biochemistry of neurons. Pre-Cambrian forms developed the necessary complex biochemistry to allow the Cambrian animals with brains!

What you’ve written is exactly right as a description of evolution. And you have completely forgotten about your God! Not one mention of him. Because you know that it makes no sense to argue that your God knew all along what biochemistry was needed, and therefore he designed all the preceding forms that did not have the complexity he knew he needed, because he believed it was essential to create 99% of mistakes and failed experiments if he wanted to produce the life forms he finally produced without any predecessors.

DAVID: God knew completely organisms would fail. To repeat for the nth time: He designed limited adaptability and designed new species as needed.

dhw: Thank you for confirming your belief that he knew his design would lead to 99% mistakes/failures, and that the reason they died was his faulty design which prevented them from adapting to new conditions outside his control. This process was repeated until the Cambrian allowed him to design new species which were not even based on the 1% of survivors since he designed them from scratch. Some of these survived the great “mess”, and evolved (through his dabbling) into us and our food. Please indicate any points you wish to reject.

DAVID: Not stated as I would but it fits my thinking.

And you regard this as brilliant design, whereas you think a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes is a blunderer.

DAVID: Failure to survive by brilliant designs making room for new designed species.

dhw: So now your God clutters up the planet with 99% of life forms he designed so that chance changes in conditions would get rid of them and make room for another 99% of mistakes until the right conditions happened to arrive etc., as bolded above. And this is brilliant.

DAVID: It is evolution not based on the struggle for survival.

Agreed. Your form of evolution is based on your God making countless mistakes and depending on luck to provide him with the conditions he needs in order to fulfil his one and only purpose.

DAVID: As for conditions, not adversely acting, the increase in oxygen allowed the Cambrian. Are we here or not? Is our creation brilliant or not?

Yes, sheer luck provided your God with the necessary conditions for his one and only purpose, and then he created our ancestors from scratch, so he needn’t have bothered with all the preceding mistakes and failed experiments. Yes, we are here, and all forms of life are/were brilliant, and there is no need at all for you to denigrate your God with your accusations of mistakes and failed experiments.

DAVID: Darwin theory of survival driving evolution tells us we shouldn't be here. Our somewhat equivalent ape cousins have done just fine for six million years with simple brains.

And bacteria have been here for billions of years with their form of intelligence. By that reckoning, nothing else “should be” here. But single cells joined up with one another to create new ways of surviving, and our ancestors followed the same pattern. We don’t know origins, but it makes perfect sense to suppose that a particular colony of anthropoids was forced by conditions (or possibly even by curiosity) to explore life out of the trees, and since this proved to be advantageous (maybe parallel to pre-whales exploring life in the water), the cells gradually changed their bodies to adapt to the new conditions. Meanwhile, elsewhere, other colonies survived perfectly happily as they were. For what purpose other than improving their chances of survival do you think our ancestors might have decided to stay on the ground?