Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, March 10, 2023, 12:45 (406 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Evolution would stop if there was a 100% loss of organisms. It is the 1% of survivors that enable evolution to continue. [...[

But see below for the "mistakes" that preceded the Cambrian.

DAVID: Without failure to survive, how does evolution advance under Darwin theory?

You agreed to the answer under “slime mold”:

dhw: 1% of the past evolved into the present.99% consisted of dead ends (your God’s “mistakes” and “failed experiments”) that did NOT evolve into the present!

DAVID: We agree!! 0.1% survival advanced evolution!!

So will you please stop all this nonsense about evolution advancing through failure to survive!

DAVID: Your ridiculous God comment ignores the point that He can choose any mechanism of creation He wishes to use. Have you forgotten your former agreement?

Of course he can. And that is what makes your theory ridiculous: if your all-powerful God had only wished to create us (plus food), he could have done so directly. He didn’t – according to you he deliberately created 99% mistakes and failed experiments. Daft! So if he deliberately created all the life forms that did not lead to us and our food, HE MUST HAVE HAD A DIFFERENT GOAL, or…No need to repeat my alternatives.

DAVID: Yes, I'm sure He wants to create, because He did!!

dhw: You used the word “enjoy”. So why do you think it’s not possible for him to have created all these 99.9% per cent of what you call “mistakes” because he enjoyed creating them, which means they were not “mistakes”?

DAVID: Again envisioning God from a totally human standpoint. God is too purposeful to create just to create. Each step is purposeful.

Not “just to create”. To enjoy creating is a possible purpose in itself. What is the purpose of creating 99% mistakes that have nothing to do with what you say is your God’s purpose? Don’t forget your agreement that only the 1% advanced evolution.

dhw: You simply can’t make up your mind whether your God did or did not control the environmental changes that dictate which species survive.

DAVID: […] Environmental changes are uncontrolled.

Thank you. And this means he could only design species that could survive under the new conditions, which explains why in your theory 99% were “mistakes” that were irrelevant to his purpose.

dhw: […] now you have him deliberately guiding cyanobacteria and algae to change the degree of oxygen in the environment. After which he starts creating our ancestors from scratch, so he needn’t have bothered with all the preceding organisms anyway.

DAVID: If God hadn't 'bothered' where would evolution go? GOD CHOSE TO EVOLVE US IN STAGES!!!!

But according to you, he did not start evolving us in all our stages until the Cambrian, when he created our ancestors (plus food) de novo, from scratch, without any predecessors! So all previous organisms were unnecessary.

Bipedalism

DAVID: The bipedal body is not fit to stay in trees. They were forced by their new design to be terrestrial. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: So one morning a group of anthropoids woke up to find themselves with straightened backs and legs […]

DAVID: Your fanciful just-so story fills a gap in my theory. I have no idea how God does any speciation.

dhw: I’m glad you now consider your design-in-advance theory to be a just-so story. And you seem to have forgotten your two theories concerning your God’s method of speciation: 1) a 3.8-billion-year-old compendium of instructions for every evolutionary change, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. for the whole history of life, and/or 2) ad hoc dabbling. Darwin proposes random mutations and natural selection. Shapiro proposes cellular intelligence.

DAVID: And I propose God. Not just-so!! I never forget anything. God speciates by editing the genome. Darwin's ancient propositions are not based in current facts.

The just-so story was your God operating on our ancestors’ back and legs BEFORE they left the trees. You have no idea how God does any speciation, but you have two ideas (see 1) and 2) above). We both reject Darwin’s random mutations. You refuse to consider Shapiro’s intelligent cells.

Transferred from “More miscellany”:
Bacterial controls in horizontal transfer

DAVID: an advance in Shapiro's work on how bacteria handle additions to their DNA.

dhw: And he sees their “immune system”, which enables them constantly to outwit human attempts to destroy them, as evidence of their autonomous intelligence. And if they can be intelligent, why can’t other types of cell be intelligent too, and also – like bacteria – form intelligent communities?

DAVID: When evolution advanced into multicellular forms the bacterial abilities disappeared. Humans do not transfer DNA like they do.

So single-cell bacteria – our first ancestors – had and presumably still have autonomous intelligence, enabling them to make changes to themselves. But when their descendants combined to form different multicellular structures, which evolved into us and our fellow animals, somehow these lost their intelligence (i.e. couldn’t make changes to themselves). They only seem to be intelligent, but you can tell the difference.