Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, March 23, 2023, 15:56 (609 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: dhw and I are in a discussion of God's actions in evolving advancing life forms. Our separate views of God are obvious. Mine is a purpose driven God wo knows exactly what to do and does it.

dhw: We have the SAME view! We disagree, however, on the possible nature of the purpose and on the way your God might have achieved his purpose.

DAVID: dhw has three humanized forms as previously described by him. In discussing evolution dhw has no concept of how I imagine my God in action. This is shown in preparing for a necessary oxygen level by evolving cyanobacteria well in advance of the Cambrian era. Here is another example, nitrogen levels: […]

There is no need for me to comment on the article. If God exists, I’m perfectly happy to believe that he used scientific methods to change the course of evolution this way and that. It fits in with two of my three alternative theories. It is you who insisted that he had no control over the environment, and now you are going out of your way to show how he controlled the environment. I will skip to your extraordinary diatribe at the end of an article which does absolutely nothing to undermine any of the alternative theistic theories I have proposed.

DAVID: in my view God is in total control of what has to be controlled for God to continue evolving more and more life. Snowball Earth is proof enough.

dhw: So let’s forget about your theory that he did not control the environmental changes which limited his range of design and forced him to create new species, 99% of which were irrelevant to what you say was his purpose.

DAVID: dhw, because of his Darwinist training does not understand my approach. God's designed evolution mimics Darwin's common descent but is God's common descent.

dhw: They would be the same if your God used the 1% of survivors for his further experiments in creating new life forms. But if he created life forms with no predecessors, there is no common descent. You can’t make up your mind, and your insistence that our own ancestors were designed de novo makes nonsense of your theory that every preceding species was designed as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food. (Or have you dropped that theory now?)

The development of advanced biochemistry and phenotypes were designed using previous stages. The biochemistry in the Ediacaran was the basis of Cambrian biochemistry. Thus, the stages were 'required'. Darwin's 'common descent' had the same Cambrian gap!!! No predecessors!

DAVID: Because of varying climate and environmental conditions dhw somehow thinks luck is involved!! How is that possible with a God in total control, described above. Darwin's contribution is shoving evolution down everyone's throat.

dhw: It’s not possible, and that is why his lack of control over the environment (= reliance on luck) makes total nonsense of your theory that your God is in total control! It only makes sense if your God deliberately created a system which functioned independently of his control.

Exactly my point about Earth's weather and environment.

DAVID: As before dhw is totally confused as to how to think about my God. In his thinking, dhw keeps trying to drag into the equation natural Darwinian evolution to challenge God's evolutionary designs. Darwin blew it. Natural selection is not a proven concept, and it is a passive mechanism.

dhw: An astonishing misrepresentation of my proposals. It is always you who drag Darwin into it. All my theories allow for God the designer, as does Darwin’s theory. Hence his various references in later editions to the “Creator”. I have always agreed with you that natural selection is a passive mechanism, and I regard it as pure common sense: any change that is advantageous to the organism is likely to survive. I disagree with Darwin’s proposal that random mutations drive the changes. On the other hand, I find Shapiro’s proposal of cellular intelligence as the driving force – developing the findings of other prominent experts in the field – far more convincing, and of course I accept that such complexity could be used as an argument for the existence of a designer God.

DAVID: Accepting that we evolved, my view is God CHOSE to evolve us from Archaea.

dhw: Absolutely no problem for me. If he exists, he also CHOSE to evolve millions of other life forms from Archaea, and 99% of them had no connection with what you insist was his one and only purpose – us and our food. That is the starting point of our disagreement, which you have blatantly avoided even mentioning in your efforts to make out that your incomprehensible theory (only your God can understand it) is incomprehensible because I am confused. See PART ONE for details.

Your confusion is obvious. The giant bush of life for food is obvious. Eight million humans and growing. You usually grudgingly admit we must eat. When will you see that evolution produces that sort of survival rate as part of the process, as Raup shows?