Darwinist ignorance, confusion & epigenetics (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, November 21, 2010, 15:45 (4904 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Your scenario leaves unexplained the need for all the extinct species, for all the long periods of stasis, and indeed for evolution itself, because if man was the goal right from the start, all the intervening stages were clearly superfluous. (What was the point of all those dead dinosaurs?) Since "we can only imagine His reasoning, based on what we see as factual information" (DT), what do you imagine was His reason for the delay and the wastefulness covering so many billion years?-If one sets into motion an evolutionary process that (in my view) works by fits and starts, punctuated equilibrium, it will take time and it will pass through all sorts of species 'attempts'.
> 
> DAVID: One has to analyze backwards: we know what happened, not exactly how, but since it happened (we are here with our giant brains) what are the possible scenarios?
> 
> I'm examining the possible scenarios, following your instructions, and imagining his reasoning, based on what we see as factual information. You have informed us that the UI "coded progress through evolution (into DNA) for one-celled beginners to end up as humans and added epigenetic abilities to make sure the process arrived at humans", and you presented a scenario in which "the UI gave DNA and epigenetics the power to do this so all He need do is sit and watch." Why is your scenario NOT human reasoning, whereas mine (that he improvised as he went along) IS ... even though you have acknowledged that it fits in perfectly well with all the facts as we know them? I demand equal rights for agnostics when it comes to interpreting the UI's intentions and reasoning! But I acknowledge that you are far closer to the UI than I shall ever be. Therefore I would be grateful if you would analyse backwards from us to dinosaurs to bacteria and give me what you imagine to be the reason for what I see (do you disagree?) as the UI's extremely messy, wasteful and roundabout way of achieving the purpose which, with your human reasoning, you have attributed to him.-I doubt He thinks it is messy. It happened and it worked. Your imagination about God's choices doesn't want to accept the pattern that happened. We don't need to analyze each step. It is the pattern that counts. From one-celled guys, splitting in two (binary fission), to the joys of love making within giant brains. You are judging an evolutionary design, just as atheists judge the backwards retina, as we find the actual purposes for the backwardness.-You are overanalytical and critical of what you see.For humans the whole thing worked beautifully. I know Darwin didn't like the strong eating the weak, but the game is played as it is played. The rules are there. Ah!, brainstorm, why cricket when baseball is so much more logical, and evolved from cricket, a simpler form?