Darwinist ignorance, confusion & epigenetics (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, November 23, 2010, 14:50 (4902 days ago) @ dhw

David and I are having fun imagining a UI's evolutionary thinking. If I believed in a UI, I would favour the view that either he didn't know where life was heading when he invented it, and experimented as he went along, or he had a plan in mind but didn't know how to achieve it, and so again experimented as he went along. Both scenarios cover the fits and starts, the complex innovations, the extinction of species. David believes that God set the complete evolutionary mechanism in motion, intending it to culminate in humans, and then sat back and watched it happen.
> 
> DAVID (November 22 at 20.10): Your method uses chance exclusively, and the time is short. With directed DNA, chance is a side issue. That is the underlying reason I like my theory over yours.
> 
> DAVID (November 12 at 18.57): Extinction is due to BAD LUCK.
> 
> DAVID (November 16 at 23.26): In my faith he set forward an evolutionary process, but evolving means change and both life and geology were changing at the same time. There would have to be good and bad luck in that scenario.
> 
> There is no luck involved in either of my scenarios, unlike the above. In both instances, the UI keeps building on what he has learned, just as our scientists have developed all the machines they have invented. He's had enough of the dinosaurs, the dodos and the diddymen, because he thinks he can do better. We've had enough of the biplane, and we move on to the turbo-prop, the jet, the rocket. But in your scenario, the evolution of man depends entirely on the vagaries of environmental change and epigenetics, and if extinction is due to BAD LUCK, survival must be due to GOOD LUCK. Your method is absolutely dependent on chance, and the time is short. With directed experimentation, chance is not even a side issue. That is the underlying reason I like my theory over yours.