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

by dhw, Tuesday, December 14, 2021, 15:01 (197 days ago)

PART ONE
dhw (transferred from “Insect migration”): We are not talking about your fixed belief in God, which I accept has a logical base (design), but about your illogical theory that your God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc., and he did so for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food, although the majority of life forms etc. had no connection with humans and their food

DAVID: Same tired illogical complaint. I'll stick with Adler's approach, that the evolution of humans is the best proof of God we've got.

Once again: the issue here is not the EXISTENCE of God but your theory concerning his purpose and method! Stop dodging!

DAVID: […] your main concern is that God gave organisms more latitude in their own futuristic designs.

dhw: […] My main concern is the illogicality of the above bolded theory, which you constantly avoid discussing. “Latitude” or freedom is only one of my alternatives (see below), and designs are responses to changing conditions in the present, not “futuristic”.

DAVID: The gaps are leaps into the future, aren't they(?), which you continue to dodge by a hopeless prayer for more fossils which are not found. The Cambrian gap is 200 years old, isn't it?

I don’t know what your 200 years refers to. The Cambrian lasted for over 55 million years. The gaps relate to new life forms which do not appear to have had any predecessors, i.e. any links to past forms. How does that invalidate the theory that new species come into being in RESPONSE to changing conditions, as opposed to in ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

Transferred from “cellular intelligence”
DAVID: 'Adaptations' imply tiny steps, not the way to speciation which are giant steps into the future requiring major design.

dhw: It’s sometimes difficult to draw a borderline between adaptations and innovations (leg turning into flipper might be one example) but as usual you are missing or avoiding the point. We KNOW that small changes are a RESPONSE to new conditions. Why do you insist that large changes can only be made by anticipation of new conditions? Is it not far more logical to assume that all changes, large and small, will be a response rather than an act of clairvoyance? Why change something that is working perfectly well in the present?

DAVID: We are discussing God, aren't we? How did evolution work, but by introducing new forms into their new future which I pose as designed by God.

“Introducing new forms into their new future” is a neat obfuscation! Of course once a new form has arisen through its RESPONSE to new conditions it will then have a future under those conditions. And it will go on reproducing itself automatically for thousands of years until new conditions arise. Then it will RESPOND, change accordingly, and again have a new future under the new conditions. We are discussing the ORIGIN of species. So why do you think it is more logical for organisms to be changed BEFORE new conditions demand or allow for the changes? Do you really imagine your pre-whales sitting on the seashore with their new flippers, waiting for the moment when there is water for them to dive into?

DAVID: God obviously designed what He wished to design, pure history.

Obviously God, if he exists, would have done what he wanted to do! And yet again, it makes no sense for him to WANT only one species plus its food, and yet to design millions of life forms and natural wonders that had no connection with humans and their food.

Dhw (transferred from “insect migration”): Obvious possible theistic alternatives: 1) humans plus food were NOT his only goal; 2) he did NOT design each and every life form and natural wonder; 3) he allowed a free-for-all; 4) he was experimenting; 5) he kept getting new ideas.

DAVID: So we go back to a fantastically humanized God who is not sure of what He is doing. Some God!

You have left out 1), 2) and 3), and you stick to a God who has one goal but inexplicably designs millions of life forms and natural wonders that have no relation to his goal. Some theory!

DAVID: I follow just as highly trained folks as your experts, but they believe in God and see evolution as I do. […]

dhw: How many of your scientists believe every life form, natural wonder etc., including all those unconnected with humans, was specially designed by your god “as part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. Apparently not even Adler does so.

DAVID: Not part of his book, which you probably never knew about, copyright 1967.

Right. And who are all the other scientists who see evolution as you do, with every life form and natural wonder specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans” and their food, including all those that had no connection with humans and their food?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Tuesday, December 14, 2021, 15:07 (197 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO
dhw (transferred from “ more miscellany”): The rest of your post simply ignores all the arguments against your theories:

DAVID: It is your illogical thought constantly misinterpreting God's actions.

dhw?????? My anthropocentric theory is entirely comprehensible to clear thinking.
Stop bringing up your objections to my pure logic.

These are quotes from you, not from me!!!

DAVID: Logic which fits the personality of a severely humanized God.

It is you who claim that your theory is pure logic – even though you can’t understand it yourself! As before, why do think a laissez-faire God or an experimental scientist God is more “severely humanized” than a control freak who keeps digressing from his one and only purpose, and who is forced by circumstances beyond his control to create a system containing errors which he tries but often fails to correct?

DAVID: You don't realize how differently we approach thinking about God. I'll repeat, I fully accept history as telling us what God's choices of creation were.

I also accept that if God exists, history tells us his choice, which is the vast bush of life forms that we know exists and existed. The difference between us lies in our interpretation of how and why he produced the vast bush.

DAVID: Creating the underlying basic living process came first, then the design of new forms, some as in the Cambrian completely new. Other partial new design as adaptations of old ones. All God's choice at the time.

Alternatively, he created the mechanism whereby these forms were able to design themselves.

DAVID: You look for a humanly consistent God which is not logical. God can do what he wants when He wants not following human reason for His reasons only. Why should He be at all like any human you know?

And off you go again, leaving out the fact that according to you all these designs served only one purpose, which was to design H. sapiens and his food. Yes, I look for logic in your God’s actions. You yourself, in your more enlightened moments, have agreed that we mimic him, and that he probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours. And I find it totally logical that if God exists as first cause, whatever he creates will reflect some aspect of himself, since it never existed until he thought of it. Do you really think your God has no idea what it means to love, hate, enjoy, be bored, be sad, be happy? Are we that much more advanced than he is? If he exists.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 14, 2021, 15:41 (197 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: It is you who claim that your theory is pure logic – even though you can’t understand it yourself! As before, why do think a laissez-faire God or an experimental scientist God is more “severely humanized” than a control freak who keeps digressing from his one and only purpose, and who is forced by circumstances beyond his control to create a system containing errors which he tries but often fails to correct?

Calling a purposeful God a 'control-freak' is a purposeful distortion, something you do all the time. It is shown in your final 'forced by circumstances' comment. The fact is God created life with the only system that works, warts and all, and edited for warts because He knew exactly what He was doing.

DAVID: You don't realize how differently we approach thinking about God. I'll repeat, I fully accept history as telling us what God's choices of creation were.

dhw: I also accept that if God exists, history tells us his choice, which is the vast bush of life forms that we know exists and existed. The difference between us lies in our interpretation of how and why he produced the vast bush.

Your interpretation is not mine.


DAVID: Creating the underlying basic living process came first, then the design of new forms, some as in the Cambrian completely new. Other partial new design as adaptations of old ones. All God's choice at the time.

dhw: Alternatively, he created the mechanism whereby these forms were able to design themselves.

Back we go to a weak, humanized God who hands off a major part of His job.


DAVID: You look for a humanly consistent God which is not logical. God can do what he wants when He wants not following human reason for His reasons only. Why should He be at all like any human you know?

dhw: And off you go again, leaving out the fact that according to you all these designs served only one purpose, which was to design H. sapiens and his food. Yes, I look for logic in your God’s actions. You yourself, in your more enlightened moments, have agreed that we mimic him, and that he probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours. And I find it totally logical that if God exists as first cause, whatever he creates will reflect some aspect of himself, since it never existed until he thought of it. Do you really think your God has no idea what it means to love, hate, enjoy, be bored, be sad, be happy? Are we that much more advanced than he is? If he exists.

Same problem: God is so advanced you completely misunderstand the concept of God. He knows all we know and so much more. It doesn't take 'enlightenment' to know we mimic Him slightly. Your imagined humanized God I see as Him mimicking us!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Wednesday, December 15, 2021, 17:26 (196 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO
dhw: […] who are all the other scientists who see evolution as you do, with every life form and natural wonder specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans” and their food, including all those that had no connection with humans and their food?

DAVID: All of ID feels God designed evolution and humans through 3.8 billion years of evolution, after He designed life itself.

Yes I know. How many of them believe thathe individually designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., including all those that had no connection with humans, as “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans and their food”?

DAVID: You avoid reading ID as well as Adler, while defending your position. How well-rounded is your background of research studying thoughts of all great minds? I even follow Larry Moran!!

Yes, yes, you have read lots of books that I haven’t read. Now please save me years and years of research and let me into the great secret: name, say, three scientists who believe that your God individually designed every life form etc. as bolded above.

dhw: It is you who claim that your theory is pure logic – even though you can’t understand it yourself! As before, why do think a laissez-faire God or an experimental scientist God is more “severely humanized” than a control freak who keeps digressing from his one and only purpose, and who is forced by circumstances beyond his control to create a system containing errors which he tries but often fails to correct?

DAVID: Calling a purposeful God a 'control-freak' is a purposeful distortion, something you do all the time. It is shown in your final 'forced by circumstances' comment. The fact is God created life with the only system that works, warts and all, and edited for warts because He knew exactly what He was doing.

Suddenly your theory has become a fact. I used “control freak” as a counter to your dismissal of an experimenting God as weak, purposeless, bumbling etc. And since your God is supposed to have created everything from the beginning, and is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing, I find it somewhat belittling to claim that he could only find one way of creating life, knew there would be errors, and tried but frequently failed to correct them, leaving it to us humans to find a solution. I suggest that instead, the system devised by your all-powerful God – if he exists – was precisely the one he wanted, in which all life forms were given the freedom to find their own ways of survival. Hence the “good” and the “bad” which create the problem of theodicy for theologians. Why are you so opposed to the idea that your all-powerful God might have WANTED the existing system with its so-called “errors” instead of “having to” (you have used those words before) design it that way?

DAVID: Creating the underlying basic living process came first, then the design of new forms, some as in the Cambrian completely new. Other partial new design as adaptations of old ones. All God's choice at the time.

dhw: Alternatively, he created the mechanism whereby these forms were able to design themselves.

DAVID: Back we go to a weak, humanized God who hands off a major part of His job.

How do you know what his “job” was? It’s you who insist that his job was to design humans plus food! And why is it “weak” to create autonomous life? And why is your all-powerful though not all-powerful (see above re errors) puppet master or control freak less human than my laissez-faire creator?

DAVID: Why should He be at all like any human you know?

dhw: […] I find it totally logical that if God exists as first cause, whatever he creates will reflect some aspect of himself, since it never existed until he thought of it. Do you really think your God has no idea what it means to love, hate, enjoy, be bored, be sad, be happy? Are we that much more advanced than he is? If he exists.

DAVID: Same problem: God is so advanced you completely misunderstand the concept of God. He knows all we know and so much more. It doesn't take 'enlightenment' to know we mimic Him slightly. Your imagined humanized God I see as Him mimicking us!

I am not disputing the fact that if a being can create universes and life itself, he must know much more than we know! Thank you for yet again agreeing that we “mimic” him. I have no idea what “slightly” means in this context, since you have avoided answering my question directly. You can only mimic something that already exists, and so it is totally absurd to imagine that God mimicked us when he created us!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 15, 2021, 18:52 (196 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: All of ID feels God designed evolution and humans through 3.8 billion years of evolution, after He designed life itself.

dhw: Yes I know. How many of them believe thathe individually designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., including all those that had no connection with humans, as “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans and their food”?

I think they all do.


DAVID: You avoid reading ID as well as Adler, while defending your position. How well-rounded is your background of research studying thoughts of all great minds? I even follow Larry Moran!!

dhw: Yes, yes, you have read lots of books that I haven’t read. Now please save me years and years of research and let me into the great secret: name, say, three scientists who believe that your God individually designed every life form etc. as bolded above.

Behe, Meyer, Demski.


DAVID: Calling a purposeful God a 'control-freak' is a purposeful distortion, something you do all the time. It is shown in your final 'forced by circumstances' comment. The fact is God created life with the only system that works, warts and all, and edited for warts because He knew exactly what He was doing.

dhw: Suddenly your theory has become a fact. I used “control freak” as a counter to your dismissal of an experimenting God as weak, purposeless, bumbling etc. And since your God is supposed to have created everything from the beginning, and is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing, I find it somewhat belittling to claim that he could only find one way of creating life, knew there would be errors, and tried but frequently failed to correct them, leaving it to us humans to find a solution. I suggest that instead, the system devised by your all-powerful God – if he exists – was precisely the one he wanted, in which all life forms were given the freedom to find their own ways of survival. Hence the “good” and the “bad” which create the problem of theodicy for theologians. Why are you so opposed to the idea that your all-powerful God might have WANTED the existing system with its so-called “errors” instead of “having to” (you have used those words before) design it that way?

My God had to have this system of life as the only one that will work at the speeds necessary. So, yes, this is what He wanted. But not from the weak humanized God you always imply. I repeat, we see very different Gods in characterizing God's personality.


DAVID: Creating the underlying basic living process came first, then the design of new forms, some as in the Cambrian completely new. Other partial new design as adaptations of old ones. All God's choice at the time.

dhw: Alternatively, he created the mechanism whereby these forms were able to design themselves.

DAVID: Back we go to a weak, humanized God who hands off a major part of His job.

dhw: How do you know what his “job” was? It’s you who insist that his job was to design humans plus food! And why is it “weak” to create autonomous life? And why is your all-powerful though not all-powerful (see above re errors) puppet master or control freak less human than my laissez-faire creator?

DAVID: Why should He be at all like any human you know?

dhw: […] I find it totally logical that if God exists as first cause, whatever he creates will reflect some aspect of himself, since it never existed until he thought of it. Do you really think your God has no idea what it means to love, hate, enjoy, be bored, be sad, be happy? Are we that much more advanced than he is? If he exists.

We see very different Gods. Of course He knows all of our emotions.


DAVID: Same problem: God is so advanced you completely misunderstand the concept of God. He knows all we know and so much more. It doesn't take 'enlightenment' to know we mimic Him slightly. Your imagined humanized God I see as Him mimicking us!

dhw: I am not disputing the fact that if a being can create universes and life itself, he must know much more than we know! Thank you for yet again agreeing that we “mimic” him. I have no idea what “slightly” means in this context, since you have avoided answering my question directly. You can only mimic something that already exists, and so it is totally absurd to imagine that God mimicked us when he created us!

Since God is so powerful, our mimicking can only be in a small degree.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Thursday, December 16, 2021, 11:22 (196 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO
dhw: Why are you so opposed to the idea that your all-powerful God might have WANTED the existing system with its so-called “errors” instead of “having to” (you have used those words before) design it that way?

DAVID: My God had to have this system of life as the only one that will work at the speeds necessary.

There you are: he “had to”. Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was compelled by conditions of his own making to create a system with errors which he did not want, and tried – often unsuccessfully – to correct.

DAVID: So, yes, this is what He wanted. But not from the weak humanized God you always imply. I repeat, we see very different Gods in characterizing God's personality.

It is you who make him weak! I propose that his powers (if he exists) are unlimited, and the system with its capacity for all life forms from molecules upwards to do their own thing was what he WANTED to create, and not what he “had to” create.

DAVID: Creating the underlying basic living process came first, then the design of new forms, some as in the Cambrian completely new. Other partial new design as adaptations of old ones. All God's choice at the time.

dhw: Alternatively, he created the mechanism whereby these forms were able to design themselves.

DAVID: Back we go to a weak, humanized God who hands off a major part of His job.

dhw: How do you know what his “job” was? It’s you who insist that his job was to design humans plus food! And why is it “weak” to create autonomous life? And why is your all-powerful though not all-powerful (see above re errors) puppet master or control freak less human than my laissez-faire creator?

DAVID: Why should He be at all like any human you know?

dhw: […] I find it totally logical that if God exists as first cause, whatever he creates will reflect some aspect of himself, since it never existed until he thought of it. Do you really think your God has no idea what it means to love, hate, enjoy, be bored, be sad, be happy? Are we that much more advanced than he is? If he exists.

DAVID: We see very different Gods. Of course He knows all of our emotions.

Then we see the same God, since if he exists, according to you only he could have created them!

DAVID: Same problem: God is so advanced you completely misunderstand the concept of God. He knows all we know and so much more. It doesn't take 'enlightenment' to know we mimic Him slightly. Your imagined humanized God I see as Him mimicking us!

dhw: I am not disputing the fact that if a being can create universes and life itself, he must know much more than we know! Thank you for yet again agreeing that we “mimic” him. I have no idea what “slightly” means in this context, since you have avoided answering my question directly. You can only mimic something that already exists, and so it is totally absurd to imagine that God mimicked us when he created us!

DAVID: Since God is so powerful, our mimicking can only be in a small degree.

Yes, yes, we are minuscule compared to his almightiness. But that still leaves plenty of room for him to want a free-for-all, or to experiment, or to have new ideas as he goes along, and above all in the context of our discussion, it leaves plenty of room for him to act logically and, if he has a single purpose, to fulfil it without all the diversions you impose on him (i.e. God’s only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food, and therefore he designed the brontosaurus and the weaverbird’s nest, neither of which had/has any connection to humans.)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 16, 2021, 16:15 (195 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, December 16, 2021, 16:22

PART TWO

DAVID: My God had to have this system of life as the only one that will work at the speeds necessary.

dhw: There you are: he “had to”. Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was compelled by conditions of his own making to create a system with errors which he did not want, and tried – often unsuccessfully – to correct.

Don't you understand the phrase: "the only one that will work" implies that is all there is to pick from. Nothing else will work. God was not stuck. He arrived at the only correct answer to the question of 'how do I create life'. And there is plenty of evidence He recognize the warts in the designed editing systems all over the place. Open your completely closed mind. All presented before, copiously.


DAVID: So, yes, this is what He wanted. But not from the weak humanized God you always imply. I repeat, we see very different Gods in characterizing God's personality.

dhw: It is you who make him weak! I propose that his powers (if he exists) are unlimited, and the system with its capacity for all life forms from molecules upwards to do their own thing was what he WANTED to create, and not what he “had to” create.

Invent the God you need to avoid a belief in God. Yours is illogically very human, not God-like

DAVID: Why should He be at all like any human you know?


dhw: […] I find it totally logical that if God exists as first cause, whatever he creates will reflect some aspect of himself, since it never existed until he thought of it. Do you really think your God has no idea what it means to love, hate, enjoy, be bored, be sad, be happy? Are we that much more advanced than he is? If he exists.

DAVID: We see very different Gods. Of course He knows all of our emotions.

dhw: Then we see the same God, since if he exists, according to you only he could have created them!

He created us so we could have emotions, al of them.


DAVID: Since God is so powerful, our mimicking can only be in a small degree.

dhw: Yes, yes, we are minuscule compared to his almightiness. But that still leaves plenty of room for him to want a free-for-all, or to experiment, or to have new ideas as he goes along, and above all in the context of our discussion, it leaves plenty of room for him to act logically and, if he has a single purpose, to fulfil it without all the diversions you impose on him (i.e. God’s only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food, and therefore he designed the brontosaurus and the weaverbird’s nest, neither of which had/has any connection to humans.)

Evolution required past stages, past ecosystems as part of God's choice of method of creation. Without ecosystems for food we wouldn't be here. Your constantly repeated illogical negative mantra fills space and reminds me of Joe Goebel's belief. Repeating a lie often enough becomes the truth. Adler used the appearance of humans as a proof of God. Are you afraid of read his opinions as developed? No, you must protect your rigidity. And don't complain to me you can't. I was agnostic like you until with open mind I started reading in my 50's. In the other thread you have shown you have no idea of ID's philosophic approach to purposely not using any sniff of religion or God in how they present design as a sole argument.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Friday, December 17, 2021, 15:06 (194 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO
DAVID: My God had to have this system of life as the only one that will work at the speeds necessary.

dhw: There you are: he “had to”. Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was compelled by conditions of his own making to create a system with errors which he did not want, and tried – often unsuccessfully – to correct.

DAVID: Don't you understand the phrase: "the only one that will work" implies that is all there is to pick from. Nothing else will work.

I understand it. I just don’t believe that an all-powerful God is incapable of designing a system that doesn’t make errors, or that he is incapable of correcting some of the errors. And I propose that the system he designed was the system he WANTED to design.

DAVID: So, yes, this is what He wanted. But not from the weak humanized God you always imply. […]

dhw: It is you who make him weak! I propose that his powers (if he exists) are unlimited, and the system with its capacity for all life forms from molecules upwards to do their own thing was what he WANTED to create, and not what he “had to” create.

DAVID: Invent the God you need to avoid a belief in God. Yours is illogically very human, not God-like.

How can a theory about an all-powerful God who knows exactly what he wants and proceeds to design it be an attempt to avoid a belief in God? Why is it more human for your God to design exactly what he wanted to design than for him to try – sometimes in vain – to correct the errors he could not avoid in the system he had designed?

DAVID: Why should He be at all like any human you know?

dhw: […] I find it totally logical that if God exists as first cause, whatever he creates will reflect some aspect of himself, since it never existed until he thought of it. Do you really think your God has no idea what it means to love, hate, enjoy, be bored, be sad, be happy? Are we that much more advanced than he is? If he exists.

DAVID: We see very different Gods. Of course He knows all of our emotions.

dhw: Then we see the same God, since if he exists, according to you only he could have created them!

DAVID: He created us so we could have emotions, all of them.

So how does that come to mean we don’t have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his?

DAVID: Since God is so powerful, our mimicking can only be in a small degree.

dhw: Yes, yes, we are minuscule compared to his almightiness. But that still leaves plenty of room for him to want a free-for-all, or to experiment, or to have new ideas as he goes along, and above all in the context of our discussion, it leaves plenty of room for him to act logically and, if he has a single purpose, to fulfil it without all the diversions you impose on him (i.e. God’s only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food, and therefore he designed the brontosaurus and the weaverbird’s nest, neither of which had/has any connection to humans.)

DAVID: Evolution required past stages, past ecosystems as part of God's choice of method of creation. Without ecosystems for food we wouldn't be here.

Nor would all the other life forms that had/have no connection with humans, so why did he design them if the only species he wanted to design were us and our food? Stop dodging!

DAVID: Your constantly repeated illogical negative mantra fills space and reminds me of Joe Goebel's belief. Repeating a lie often enough becomes the truth.

I’m sorry, but there are no lies here. Your mantra is the illogical premise I have questioned in bold and for which you admit you can find no logical explanation. I have proposed alternative scenarios which you agree are logical. There is no “lying”.

DAVID: Adler used the appearance of humans as a proof of God. Are you afraid of read his opinions as developed? No, you must protect your rigidity.

I have a thousand times accepted the logic of your argument and Adler’s that humans (and indeed all other life forms) are so complex that they must have been designed, and design requires a designer. I have other reasons for my agnosticism, but you know perfectly well that in our discussions on evolution I am, for the sake of argument, speculating on your God’s motives and methods, not in his existence! So please stop dodging!

DAVID: […] In the other thread you have shown you have no idea of ID's philosophic approach to purposely not using any sniff of religion or God in how they present design as a sole argument.

See the other thread for your usual avoidance of the question I asked.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Friday, December 17, 2021, 16:00 (194 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, December 17, 2021, 16:12

PART TWO

DAVID: Don't you understand the phrase: "the only one that will work" implies that is all there is to pick from. Nothing else will work.

dhw: I understand it. I just don’t believe that an all-powerful God is incapable of designing a system that doesn’t make errors, or that he is incapable of correcting some of the errors. And I propose that the system he designed was the system he WANTED to design.

Once again, you do not accept the limitation in life's system design.


DAVID: Invent the God you need to avoid a belief in God. Yours is illogically very human, not God-like.

dhw: How can a theory about an all-powerful God who knows exactly what he wants and proceeds to design it be an attempt to avoid a belief in God? Why is it more human for your God to design exactly what he wanted to design than for him to try – sometimes in vain – to correct the errors he could not avoid in the system he had designed?

My concept of your humanized God is very weakly answered by trying to make my God human. You can't read my mind as to how I view Him. I tell you and you purposely misinterpret.

DAVID: We see very different Gods. Of course He knows all of our emotions.


dhw: Then we see the same God, since if he exists, according to you only he could have created them!

DAVID: He created us so we could have emotions, all of them.

dhw; So how does that come to mean we don’t have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his?

DAVID: We see very different Gods. Of course He knows all of our emotions.>

DAVID: Your constantly repeated illogical negative mantra fills space and reminds me of Joe Goebel's belief. Repeating a lie often enough becomes the truth.

dhw: I'm sorry but there are no lies here. Your mantra is the illogical premise I have questioned in bold and for which you admit you can find no logical explanation. I have proposed alternative scenarios which you agree are logical. There is no “lying”.

Again your fully distorted 'no logical explanation' meaningless response. I cannot know why God chose to evolve all of reality, as history tells us. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Adler used the appearance of humans as a proof of God. Are you afraid of read his opinions as developed? No, you must protect your rigidity.

dhw: have a thousand times accepted the logic of your argument and Adler’s that humans (and indeed all other life forms) are so complex that they must have been designed, and design requires a designer. I have other reasons for my agnosticism, but you know perfectly well that in our discussions on evolution I am, for the sake of argument, speculating on your God’s motives and methods, not in his existence! So please stop dodging!

DAVID: […] In the other thread you have shown you have no idea of ID's philosophic approach to purposely not using any sniff of religion or God in how they present design as a sole argument.

dhw: See the other thread for your usual avoidance of the question I asked.

The other thread explains how ID works, since you have limited your reading to areas that support your agnosticism. If you accept the design argument, why/how can you possibly have other reasons for disbelief? A 'required designer' MUST, therefore, exist.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Saturday, December 18, 2021, 07:56 (194 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

DAVID: Don't you understand the phrase: "the only one that will work" implies that is all there is to pick from. Nothing else will work.

dhw: I understand it. I just don’t believe that an all-powerful God is incapable of designing a system that doesn’t make errors, or that he is incapable of correcting some of the errors. And I propose that the system he designed was the system he WANTED to design.

DAVID: Once again, you do not accept the limitation in life's system design.

Of course I accept that the system keeps breaking down! But once again, I do not accept your theory that your all-powerful, all-knowing God is incapable of designing an error-free system, as well as being incapable of correcting many of its “errors”, and I would find it more logical that being all-powerful and all-knowing, he CHOSE to invent the system – not with errors, but with the freedom to diversify into what we consider to be the “good” and the “bad”.

DAVID: Invent the God you need to avoid a belief in God. Yours is illogically very human, not God-like.

dhw: How can a theory about an all-powerful God who knows exactly what he wants and proceeds to design it be an attempt to avoid a belief in God? Why is it more human for your God to design exactly what he wanted to design than for him to try – sometimes in vain – to correct the errors he could not avoid in the system he had designed?

DAVID: My concept of your humanized God is very weakly answered by trying to make my God human.

Please answer my questions.

DAVID: You can't read my mind as to how I view Him. I tell you and you purposely misinterpret.

You have said explicitly that your God “had to” design the system this way as no other system was possible, and you have said explicitly that he took measures to correct some of the errors, but he could not correct them all. What have I misinterpreted?

DAVID: Your constantly repeated illogical negative mantra fills space and reminds me of Joe Goebel's belief. Repeating a lie often enough becomes the truth.

dhw: I'm sorry but there are no lies here. Your mantra is the illogical premise I have questioned in bold and for which you admit you can find no logical explanation. I have proposed alternative scenarios which you agree are logical. There is no “lying”.

DAVID: Again your fully distorted 'no logical explanation' meaningless response. I cannot know why God chose to evolve all of reality, as history tells us. Stop dodging.

I do not question your belief that God – if he exists – chose to evolve all of reality, because I too believe that evolution happened. I only question your rigid belief that he specially designed every life form, natural wonder etc. (he could equally have chosen to give them the means of designing themselves) for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food although the vast majority of his designs had no connection with humans plus food. You always dodge the illogicality by leaving out one or other of these basic, conflicting premises.

DAVID: […] In the other thread you have shown you have no idea of ID's philosophic approach to purposely not using any sniff of religion or God in how they present design as a sole argument.

dhw: See the other thread for your usual avoidance of the question I asked.

DAVID: The other thread explains how ID works, since you have limited your reading to areas that support your agnosticism. If you accept the design argument, why/how can you possibly have other reasons for disbelief? A 'required designer' MUST, therefore, exist.

I know how ID works, and I have said over and over again that I accept the logic of ID: i.e. I accept that life is too complex to have arisen by chance, and if we believe in design, we should believe there is a designer. But I have also said again and again that if we accept the idea that life and consciousness are too complex NOT to have been designed, how can we possibly believe that there is a form of life and consciousness infinitely more powerful than our own which was NOT designed? The philosophical/theological cop-out is the idea of “first cause”, but that does not answer the question. We might just as well believe in an eternal, impersonal mass of energy and matter which eventually produced the conditions for life and the rudiments of consciousness, which then evolved into all their complexities, as believe in a know-it-all mind that has always simply been there, without a source. I find BOTH hypotheses equally difficult to believe, as I have explained over and over again, and that is why I remain agnostic.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 18, 2021, 19:02 (193 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, December 18, 2021, 19:12

PART TWO

DAVID: Once again, you do not accept the limitation in life's system design.

dhw: Of course I accept that the system keeps breaking down! But once again, I do not accept your theory that your all-powerful, all-knowing God is incapable of designing an error-free system, as well as being incapable of correcting many of its “errors”,

Your imagination about your God runs wild. My contention is this is the only working system available for Him to create. My God created all of our reality and it runs very well. God's editing systems clearly shows He knew errors were possible and editing required.

dhw: and I would find it more logical that being all-powerful and all-knowing, he CHOSE to invent the system – not with errors, but with the freedom to diversify into what we consider to be the “good” and the “bad”.

Your so-called God chooses errors (chance mutations) to advance evolution. Who knows what monsters might be created. As below:


DAVID: Invent the God you need to avoid a belief in God. Yours is illogically very human, not God-like.

dhw: How can a theory about an all-powerful God who knows exactly what he wants and proceeds to design it be an attempt to avoid a belief in God? Why is it more human for your God to design exactly what he wanted to design than for him to try – sometimes in vain – to correct the errors he could not avoid in the system he had designed?

DAVID: My concept of your humanized God is very weakly answered by trying to make my God human.

dhw: Please answer my questions.

Your God invention is purely humanized and makes a real conception of God confused


DAVID: You can't read my mind as to how I view Him. I tell you and you purposely misinterpret.

dhw: You have said explicitly that your God “had to” design the system this way as no other system was possible, and you have said explicitly that he took measures to correct some of the errors, but he could not correct them all. What have I misinterpreted?

Nothing.


dhw: I do not question your belief that God – if he exists – chose to evolve all of reality, because I too believe that evolution happened. I only question your rigid belief that he specially designed every life form, natural wonder etc. (he could equally have chosen to give them the means of designing themselves)

If God designed reality, as you accept, your question is patently illogical. The God I see dos not give out secondhand designing abilities requiring His mind.

dhw: I know how ID works, and I have said over and over again that I accept the logic of ID: i.e. I accept that life is too complex to have arisen by chance, and if we believe in design, we should believe there is a designer.

You did not know ID never mentions God, except now in Meyer's book.

dhw: But I have also said again and again that if we accept the idea that life and consciousness are too complex NOT to have been designed, how can we possibly believe that there is a form of life and consciousness infinitely more powerful than our own which was NOT designed?

There logically must be a powerful designing mind.

dhw: The philosophical/theological cop-out is the idea of “first cause”, but that does not answer the question. We might just as well believe in an eternal, impersonal mass of energy and matter which eventually produced the conditions for life and the rudiments of consciousness, which then evolved into all their complexities, as believe in a know-it-all mind that has always simply been there, without a source. I find BOTH hypotheses equally difficult to believe, as I have explained over and over again, and that is why I remain agnostic.

So you conjure up an 'eternal mass of energy and matter' to do the complex designs. Can this mess think up the designs for reality? How? It still takes brilliant mentation. Something cannot appear without cause except a first cause. Something is eternal. Refute that point if you can. How did your magical rudiments of consciousness evolve themselves further? More magic? Totally illogical.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Sunday, December 19, 2021, 13:01 (192 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

DAVID: Invent the God you need to avoid a belief in God. Yours is illogically very human, not God-like.

dhw: How can a theory about an all-powerful God who knows exactly what he wants and proceeds to design it be an attempt to avoid a belief in God? Why is it more human for your God to design exactly what he wanted to design than for him to try – sometimes in vain – to correct the errors he could not avoid in the system he had designed?

DAVID: My concept of your humanized God is very weakly answered by trying to make my God human.

dhw: Please answer my questions.

DAVID: Your God invention is purely humanized and makes a real conception of God confused.

You still haven’t answered my questions.

DAVID: You can't read my mind as to how I view Him. I tell you and you purposely misinterpret.

dhw: You have said explicitly that your God “had to” design the system this way as no other system was possible, and you have said explicitly that he took measures to correct some of the errors, but he could not correct them all. What have I misinterpreted?

DAVID: Nothing.

So please stop accusing me of misinterpreting your view of God.

dhw: I do not question your belief that God – if he exists – chose to evolve all of reality, because I too believe that evolution happened. I only question your rigid belief that he specially designed every life form, natural wonder etc. (he could equally have chosen to give them the means of designing themselves)

DAVID: If God designed reality, as you accept, your question is patently illogical. The God I see dos not give out secondhand designing abilities requiring His mind.

You have distorted my comment. If God exists, I accept that he chose to EVOLVE reality, because I believe that life evolved! That does not mean he DESIGNED every life form etc., and why have you left out the second part of what I do not believe, which is that he “did so for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food”? My alternative proposal for the “reality” is a free-for-all, as opposed to your puppet show. I do not regard human free will as secondhand designing ability, and I propose that evolution itself depends on a similar autonomous, decision-making ability in cell communities other than our own, possibly designed by your God.

dhw: I know how ID works, and I have said over and over again that I accept the logic of ID: i.e. I accept that life is too complex to have arisen by chance, and if we believe in design, we should believe there is a designer.

DAVID: You did not know ID never mentions God, except now in Meyer's book.

You named Behe, Meyer and Dembski as supporters of your illogical theory. On Thursday 16 December I replied: “I always thought that Behe specifically avoided mentioning God, let alone God’s purpose.” Dembski turned out to be the same. I knew nothing about Meyer, and I’m sorry, but his wonderful achievement in mentioning God has nothing to do with the fact that you cannot name a single scientist who supports your anthropocentric theory of evolution.

dhw: But I have also said again and again that if we accept the idea that life and consciousness are too complex NOT to have been designed, how can we possibly believe that there is a form of life and consciousness infinitely more powerful than our own which was NOT designed?

DAVID: There logically must be a powerful designing mind.

I accept the logic of the argument, just as I accept the logic of my question.

dhw: The philosophical/theological cop-out is the idea of “first cause”, but that does not answer the question. We might just as well believe in an eternal, impersonal mass of energy and matter which eventually produced the conditions for life and the rudiments of consciousness, which then evolved into all their complexities, as believe in a know-it-all mind that has always simply been there, without a source. I find BOTH hypotheses equally difficult to believe, as I have explained over and over again, and that is why I remain agnostic.

DAVID: So you conjure up an 'eternal mass of energy and matter' to do the complex designs. Can this mess think up the designs for reality? How? It still takes brilliant mentation. Something cannot appear without cause except a first cause. Something is eternal. Refute that point if you can. How did your magical rudiments of consciousness evolve themselves further? More magic? Totally illogical.

I do not conjure it up! Once more: “I find BOTH hypotheses equally difficult to believe.” I have not “refuted” the point that there has to be an eternal first cause! I have presented two possible first causes, each of which I find “equally difficult to believe”. Why do you find it so hard to understand or even take in the fact that I find two hypotheses equally difficult to believe? In answer to your questions: If your inferior consciousness must have been designed, how did your magical, all-powerful, all-knowing first-cause consciousness simply exist without being designed? Sheer magic? Totally illogical. But I am wrong one way or the other. Agnosticism is not a boast but a confession.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 19, 2021, 16:26 (192 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: How can a theory about an all-powerful God who knows exactly what he wants and proceeds to design it be an attempt to avoid a belief in God? Why is it more human for your God to design exactly what he wanted to design than for him to try – sometimes in vain – to correct the errors he could not avoid in the system he had designed?

dhw: You still haven’t answered my questions.

My answer is quite clear. He designed the only system that would work, and it allowed errors for which He designed editing systems.


DAVID: You can't read my mind as to how I view Him. I tell you and you purposely misinterpret.

dhw: You have said explicitly that your God “had to” design the system this way as no other system was possible, and you have said explicitly that he took measures to correct some of the errors, but he could not correct them all. What have I misinterpreted?

DAVID: Nothing.

dhw: So please stop accusing me of misinterpreting your view of God.

Only your paragraph above is correct, not the other numerous distorted complaints


dhw: You have distorted my comment. If God exists, I accept that he chose to EVOLVE reality, because I believe that life evolved! That does not mean he DESIGNED every life form etc., and why have you left out the second part of what I do not believe, which is that he “did so for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food”? My alternative proposal for the “reality” is a free-for-all, as opposed to your puppet show. I do not regard human free will as secondhand designing ability, and I propose that evolution itself depends on a similar autonomous, decision-making ability in cell communities other than our own, possibly designed by your God.

Same unproven intelligent cell theory, based on single cell studies in which all reactions act intelligently and appear to be automatic.


dhw: I know how ID works, and I have said over and over again that I accept the logic of ID: i.e. I accept that life is too complex to have arisen by chance, and if we believe in design, we should believe there is a designer.

DAVID: You did not know ID never mentions God, except now in Meyer's book.

dhw: You named Behe, Meyer and Dembski as supporters of your illogical theory. On Thursday 16 December I replied: “I always thought that Behe specifically avoided mentioning God, let alone God’s purpose.” Dembski turned out to be the same. I knew nothing about Meyer, and I’m sorry, but his wonderful achievement in mentioning God has nothing to do with the fact that you cannot name a single scientist who supports your anthropocentric theory of evolution.

ID does and you won't accept it. Read ID. Not my problem. I've personally chatted with Behe!!


dhw: But I have also said again and again that if we accept the idea that life and consciousness are too complex NOT to have been designed, how can we possibly believe that there is a form of life and consciousness infinitely more powerful than our own which was NOT designed?

DAVID: There logically must be a powerful designing mind.

dhw: I accept the logic of the argument, just as I accept the logic of my question.

There must be an eternal first cause.


dhw: The philosophical/theological cop-out is the idea of “first cause”, but that does not answer the question. We might just as well believe in an eternal, impersonal mass of energy and matter which eventually produced the conditions for life and the rudiments of consciousness, which then evolved into all their complexities, as believe in a know-it-all mind that has always simply been there, without a source. I find BOTH hypotheses equally difficult to believe, as I have explained over and over again, and that is why I remain agnostic.

DAVID: So you conjure up an 'eternal mass of energy and matter' to do the complex designs. Can this mess think up the designs for reality? How? It still takes brilliant mentation. Something cannot appear without cause except a first cause. Something is eternal. Refute that point if you can. How did your magical rudiments of consciousness evolve themselves further? More magic? Totally illogical.

dhw: I do not conjure it up! Once more: “I find BOTH hypotheses equally difficult to believe.” I have not “refuted” the point that there has to be an eternal first cause! I have presented two possible first causes, each of which I find “equally difficult to believe”. Why do you find it so hard to understand or even take in the fact that I find two hypotheses equally difficult to believe? In answer to your questions: If your inferior consciousness must have been designed, how did your magical, all-powerful, all-knowing first-cause consciousness simply exist without being designed? Sheer magic? Totally illogical. But I am wrong one way or the other. Agnosticism is not a boast but a confession.

I'll accept it not as confession but confusion. Your 'eternal mass of energy and matter' admits an eternal first cause must exist. You recognize design, so why not a designer?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Monday, December 20, 2021, 07:13 (192 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: How can a theory about an all-powerful God who knows exactly what he wants and proceeds to design it be an attempt to avoid a belief in God? Why is it more human for your God to design exactly what he wanted to design than for him to try – sometimes in vain – to correct the errors he could not avoid in the system he had designed?

dhw: You still haven’t answered my questions.

DAVID: My answer is quite clear. He designed the only system that would work, and it allowed errors for which He designed editing systems.

How does this fixed belief of yours come to mean that a theory about God knowing what he wants and designing it denotes an attempt to avoid a belief in God? And how does your fixed belief in God’s inability to design a system without errors, and his designing editing systems which sometimes don’t work, make him less human than a God who designs exactly what he WANTS to design and designs it?

DAVID: You can't read my mind as to how I view Him. I tell you and you purposely misinterpret.

dhw: You have said explicitly that your God “had to” design the system this way as no other system was possible, and you have said explicitly that he took measures to correct some of the errors, but he could not correct them all. What have I misinterpreted?

DAVID: Nothing.

dhw: So please stop accusing me of misinterpreting your view of God.

DAVID: Only your paragraph above is correct, not the other numerous distorted complaints.

You believe he specially designed every life form, natural wonder etc., including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food. Is that a distortion? Please pinpoint just one of my “distortions”.

dhw: You have distorted my comment. If God exists, I accept that he chose to EVOLVE reality, because I believe that life evolved! That does not mean he DESIGNED every life form etc., and why have you left out the second part of what I do not believe, which is that he “did so for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food”? My alternative proposal for the “reality” is a free-for-all, as opposed to your puppet show. I do not regard human free will as secondhand designing ability, and I propose that evolution itself depends on a similar autonomous, decision-making ability in cell communities other than our own, possibly designed by your God.

DAVID: Same unproven intelligent cell theory, based on single cell studies in which all reactions act intelligently and appear to be automatic.

How can they simultaneously react intelligently and appear to be automatic? If they react intelligently, maybe they ARE intelligent. But yes, all the theories are unproven – otherwise there would be no discussion.

dhw: I know how ID works, and I have said over and over again that I accept the logic of ID: i.e. I accept that life is too complex to have arisen by chance, and if we believe in design, we should believe there is a designer.

DAVID: You did not know ID never mentions God, except now in Meyer's book.

dhw: You named Behe, Meyer and Dembski as supporters of your illogical theory. On Thursday 16 December I replied: “I always thought that Behe specifically avoided mentioning God, let alone God’s purpose.” Dembski turned out to be the same. I knew nothing about Meyer, and I’m sorry, but his wonderful achievement in mentioning God has nothing to do with the fact that you cannot name a single scientist who supports your anthropocentric theory of evolution.

DAVID: ID does and you won't accept it. Read ID. Not my problem. I've personally chatted with Behe!!

Good for you. So did Behe tell you he believed God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc. including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food? Has he ever published this theory?

DAVID: Something is eternal. Refute that point if you can. How did your magical rudiments of consciousness evolve themselves further? More magic? Totally illogical.

dhw: […] I have not “refuted” the point that there has to be an eternal first cause! I have presented two possible first causes, each of which I find “equally difficult to believe”. In answer to your questions: If your inferior consciousness must have been designed, how did your magical, all-powerful, all-knowing first-cause consciousness simply exist without being designed? Sheer magic? Totally illogical. But I am wrong one way or the other. Agnosticism is not a boast but a confession.

DAVID: I'll accept it not as confession but confusion. Your 'eternal mass of energy and matter' admits an eternal first cause must exist. You recognize design, so why not a designer?

I keep saying that there has to be an eternal first cause, and I keep presenting you with two possibilities – your sourceless superconsciousness, i.e. a top-down designer that was not designed, or a sourceless unconscious mass of matter and energy which eventually produces a form of consciousness that evolves into bottom up design. And I find both hypotheses equally difficult to believe, which is why I am an agnostic.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Monday, December 20, 2021, 17:02 (191 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You still haven’t answered my questions.

DAVID: My answer is quite clear. He designed the only system that would work, and it allowed errors for which He designed editing systems.

dhw: How does this fixed belief of yours come to mean that a theory about God knowing what he wants and designing it denotes an attempt to avoid a belief in God? And how does your fixed belief in God’s inability to design a system without errors, and his designing editing systems which sometimes don’t work, make him less human than a God who designs exactly what he WANTS to design and designs it?

DAVID: You can't read my mind as to how I view Him. I tell you and you purposely misinterpret.

See PART ONE in red.

dhw: You believe he specially designed every life form, natural wonder etc., including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food. Is that a distortion? Please pinpoint just one of my “distortions”.

The 'no connection' is a huge distortion, All of evolution is more complex changes following simpler ones. 'Hum ansd plus food" is another And food must be always available, no food, no life.


DAVID: Same unproven intelligent cell theory, based on single cell studies in which all reactions act intelligently and appear to be automatic.

dhw: How can they simultaneously react intelligently and appear to be automatic? If they react intelligently, maybe they ARE intelligent. But yes, all the theories are unproven – otherwise there would be no discussion.

Automatic intelligently functioning cells makes perfect sense. Intelligent design!!!


dhw: You named Behe, Meyer and Dembski as supporters of your illogical theory. On Thursday 16 December I replied: “I always thought that Behe specifically avoided mentioning God, let alone God’s purpose.” Dembski turned out to be the same. I knew nothing about Meyer, and I’m sorry, but his wonderful achievement in mentioning God has nothing to do with the fact that you cannot name a single scientist who supports your anthropocentric theory of evolution.

DAVID: ID does and you won't accept it. Read ID. Not my problem. I've personally chatted with Behe!!

dhw: Good for you. So did Behe tell you he believed God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc. including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food? Has he ever published this theory?

Behe believes God designed all forms of life. My personal thoughts as to God's methods and Adler's thoughts did not come up. Agreeing folks don't need to dissect

DAVID: Something is eternal. Refute that point if you can. How did your magical rudiments of consciousness evolve themselves further? More magic? Totally illogical.

dhw: […] I have not “refuted” the point that there has to be an eternal first cause! I have presented two possible first causes, each of which I find “equally difficult to believe”. In answer to your questions: If your inferior consciousness must have been designed, how did your magical, all-powerful, all-knowing first-cause consciousness simply exist without being designed? Sheer magic? Totally illogical. But I am wrong one way or the other. Agnosticism is not a boast but a confession.

DAVID: I'll accept it not as confession but confusion. Your 'eternal mass of energy and matter' admits an eternal first cause must exist. You recognize design, so why not a designer?

dhw: I keep saying that there has to be an eternal first cause, and I keep presenting you with two possibilities – your sourceless superconsciousness, i.e. a top-down designer that was not designed, or a sourceless unconscious mass of matter and energy which eventually produces a form of consciousness that evolves into bottom up design. And I find both hypotheses equally difficult to believe, which is why I am an agnostic.

It is amazing that you understand first cause, see the complexity of biological design and deny a designing mind must exist. Where is the logic? I must conclude agnosticism is illogical.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Wednesday, December 22, 2021, 22:17 (189 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

dhw: You still haven’t answered my questions.

DAVID: My answer is quite clear. He designed the only system that would work, and it allowed errors for which He designed editing systems.

dhw: How does this fixed belief of yours come to mean that a theory about God knowing what he wants and designing it denotes an attempt to avoid a belief in God? And how does your fixed belief in God’s inability to design a system without errors, and his designing editing systems which sometimes don’t work, make him less human than a God who designs exactly what he WANTS to design and designs it?

DAVID: You can't read my mind as to how I view Him. I tell you and you purposely misinterpret.

You have not yet pinpointed ANY misinterpretation!

DAVID: The 'no connection' is a huge distortion, All of evolution is more complex changes following simpler ones. 'Humans plus food" is another. And food must be always available, no food, no life.

Evolution branched out into all kinds of simple and then more complex life forms, and yes “humans plus food is another”. It is not the only one. There were countless “other” more complex forms that were not on the human branch! And all of them, not just humans, had to have food. There is no distortion – only your constant attempt to justify or digress from your claim that all of them were part of the goal of evolving humans plus our food!

DAVID: Same unproven intelligent cell theory, based on single cell studies in which all reactions act intelligently and appear to be automatic.

Please clarify: do they appear to be automatic, or do they appear to be intelligent? I always thought you thought they appeared to be intelligent but in fact were automatic.In any case, I agree that the theory – like your own – is unproven. We are simply testing the possibility of their being true.

DAVID: I've personally chatted with Behe!!

dhw: Good for you. So did Behe tell you he believed God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc. including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food? Has he ever published this theory?

DAVID: Behe believes God designed all forms of life. My personal thoughts as to God's methods and Adler's thoughts did not come up. Agreeing folks don't need to dissect.

I have no problem with the logic behind Behe’s belief in ID. But if you didn’t discuss your personal theory with him, how do you know he agrees that your God’s one and only purpose was to design sapiens, and all other life forms were designed as part of that goal, including all those that had no connection with humans?

DAVID: Something is eternal. Refute that point if you can. How did your magical rudiments of consciousness evolve themselves further? More magic? Totally illogical.

dhw: […] I have not “refuted” the point that there has to be an eternal first cause! I have presented two possible first causes, each of which I find “equally difficult to believe […] But I am wrong one way or the other. Agnosticism is not a boast but a confession.

DAVID: I'll accept it not as confession but confusion. Your 'eternal mass of energy and matter' admits an eternal first cause must exist. You recognize design, so why not a designer?

dhw: I keep saying that there has to be an eternal first cause, and I offer two possibilities – your sourceless superconsciousness, i.e. a top-down designer that was not designed, or a sourceless unconscious mass of matter and energy which eventually produces a form of consciousness that evolves into bottom up design. And I find both hypotheses equally difficult to believe.

DAVID: It is amazing that you understand first cause, see the complexity of biological design and deny a designing mind must exist. Where is the logic? I must conclude agnosticism is illogical.

It is amazing that you don’t understand that there are TWO possible first causes, each of which I find equally difficult to believe.


Importance of ecosystems

QUOTE: "Coccolithophores are tiny, tiny creatures, but they have such huge impacts on all life that most people are not even aware of," Godrijan said. "It brings me hope for our own lives to see how such small things can have such an influence on the planet.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: all of life on Earth is integrated in the way this study illustrates. All created by God-designed evolution. My bold enhances the point that this is an answer to dhw's complaint that all God wanted was 'humans and food'. The complaint is thoughtless, and points out how incompletely dhw has thought through the issue. Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.

The bold and the whole of your comment reveal either confusion or distortion. The bold emphasizes the importance of small things for the planet. Humans are just one species on the planet. Different forms of life are required for different ecosystems, and throughout history, big and small forms have lived and died – all required to sustain the ecosystems that existed at the time. I’m sorry, but I find it absurd to argue that every extinct ecosystem and every extinct big or small thing for the last 3.X billion years was required “for huge human population”!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 23, 2021, 00:41 (189 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: You still haven’t answered my questions.

DAVID: My answer is quite clear. He designed the only system that would work, and it allowed errors for which He designed editing systems.

dhw: You have not yet pinpointed ANY misinterpretation!

No, look below:


DAVID: The 'no connection' is a huge distortion, All of evolution is more complex changes following simpler ones. 'Humans plus food" is another. And food must be always available, no food, no life.

dhw: Evolution branched out into all kinds of simple and then more complex life forms, and yes “humans plus food is another”. It is not the only one. There were countless “other” more complex forms that were not on the human branch! And all of them, not just humans, had to have food. There is no distortion – only your constant attempt to justify or digress from your claim that all of them were part of the goal of evolving humans plus our food!

Humans as the unusual pinnacle of evolution are proof.


DAVID: I've personally chatted with Behe!!

dhw: Good for you. So did Behe tell you he believed God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc. including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food? Has he ever published this theory?

DAVID: Behe believes God designed all forms of life. My personal thoughts as to God's methods and Adler's thoughts did not come up. Agreeing folks don't need to dissect.

dhw: I have no problem with the logic behind Behe’s belief in ID. But if you didn’t discuss your personal theory with him, how do you know he agrees that your God’s one and only purpose was to design sapiens, and all other life forms were designed as part of that goal, including all those that had no connection with humans?

More word twisting. Behe believes God designed all of evolution. We didn't discuss any further.


DAVID: Something is eternal. Refute that point if you can. How did your magical rudiments of consciousness evolve themselves further? More magic? Totally illogical.

dhw: I keep saying that there has to be an eternal first cause, and I offer two possibilities – your sourceless superconsciousness, i.e. a top-down designer that was not designed, or a sourceless unconscious mass of matter and energy which eventually produces a form of consciousness that evolves into bottom up design. And I find both hypotheses equally difficult to believe.

DAVID: It is amazing that you understand first cause, see the complexity of biological design and deny a designing mind must exist. Where is the logic? I must conclude agnosticism is illogical.

dhw: It is amazing that you don’t understand that there are TWO possible first causes, each of which I find equally difficult to believe.

And I see no equality in the two. God is a vastly more logical cause.

Importance of ecosystems

QUOTE: "Coccolithophores are tiny, tiny creatures, but they have such huge impacts on all life that most people are not even aware of," Godrijan said. "It brings me hope for our own lives to see how such small things can have such an influence on the planet.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: all of life on Earth is integrated in the way this study illustrates. All created by God-designed evolution. My bold enhances the point that this is an answer to dhw's complaint that all God wanted was 'humans and food'. The complaint is thoughtless, and points out how incompletely dhw has thought through the issue. Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.

dhw: The bold and the whole of your comment reveal either confusion or distortion. The bold emphasizes the importance of small things for the planet. Humans are just one species on the planet. Different forms of life are required for different ecosystems, and throughout history, big and small forms have lived and died – all required to sustain the ecosystems that existed at the time. I’m sorry, but I find it absurd to argue that every extinct ecosystem and every extinct big or small thing for the last 3.X billion years was required “for huge human population”!

Silly distortion as usual. Bush before was for 'before'. Bush now for 'now'. All required to support each stage of life of 3.8 billion years of evolution for simple stages to complex stages, finally reaching humans, the most complex of all..

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Thursday, December 23, 2021, 09:26 (189 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

dhw: You still haven’t answered my questions.

DAVID: My answer is quite clear. He designed the only system that would work, and it allowed errors for which He designed editing systems.

dhw: You have not yet pinpointed ANY misinterpretation!

DAVID: No, look below:

DAVID: The 'no connection' is a huge distortion, All of evolution is more complex changes following simpler ones. 'Humans plus food" is another. And food must be always available, no food, no life.

dhw: Evolution branched out into all kinds of simple and then more complex life forms, and yes “humans plus food is another”. It is not the only one. There were countless “other” more complex forms that were not on the human branch! And all of them, not just humans, had to have food. There is no distortion – only your constant attempt to justify or digress from your claim that all of them were part of the goal of evolving humans plus our food!

DAVID: Humans as the unusual pinnacle of evolution are proof.

So humans are the proof that your God designed countless extinct life forms that had no connection with humans for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food! And you think this is logical.

DAVID: Something is eternal. Refute that point if you can. How did your magical rudiments of consciousness evolve themselves further? More magic? Totally illogical.

dhw: I keep saying that there has to be an eternal first cause, and I offer two possibilities – your sourceless superconsciousness, i.e. a top-down designer that was not designed, or a sourceless unconscious mass of matter and energy which eventually produces a form of consciousness that evolves into bottom up design. And I find both hypotheses equally difficult to believe.

DAVID: It is amazing that you understand first cause, see the complexity of biological design and deny a designing mind must exist. Where is the logic? I must conclude agnosticism is illogical.

dhw: It is amazing that you don’t understand that there are TWO possible first causes, each of which I find equally difficult to believe.

DAVID: And I see no equality in the two. God is a vastly more logical cause.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

Importance of ecosystems

QUOTE: "Coccolithophores are tiny, tiny creatures, but they have such huge impacts on all life that most people are not even aware of," Godrijan said. "It brings me hope for our own lives to see how such small things can have such an influence on the planet.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: all of life on Earth is integrated in the way this study illustrates. All created by God-designed evolution. My bold enhances the point that this is an answer to dhw's complaint that all God wanted was 'humans and food'. The complaint is thoughtless, and points out how incompletely dhw has thought through the issue. Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.

dhw: The bold and the whole of your comment reveal either confusion or distortion. The bold emphasizes the importance of small things for the planet. Humans are just one species on the planet. Different forms of life are required for different ecosystems, and throughout history, big and small forms have lived and died – all required to sustain the ecosystems that existed at the time. I’m sorry, but I find it absurd to argue that every extinct ecosystem and every extinct big or small thing for the last 3.X billion years was required “for huge human population”!

DAVID:Silly distortion as usual. Bush before was for 'before'. Bush now for 'now'. All required to support each stage of life of 3.8 billion years of evolution for simple stages to complex stages, finally reaching humans, the most complex of all.

Thank you for repeating my objection to your harping on about every life form etc. being required “for huge human population”. It is indeed silly. All bushes were required for the existence of each set of organisms, most of which had no connection with humans. Yes, humans came last, but that does not explain how each past bush was part of the goal of evolving humans plus food. Please stop dodging!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 23, 2021, 16:04 (188 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: Humans as the unusual pinnacle of evolution are proof.

dhw: So humans are the proof that your God designed countless extinct life forms that had no connection with humans for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food! And you think this is logical.

Adler and I accept historical evolution evolution. Why don't you?


dhw: It is amazing that you don’t understand that there are TWO possible first causes, each of which I find equally difficult to believe.

DAVID: And I see no equality in the two. God is a vastly more logical cause.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

I have more than opinion, since I believe logically.


Importance of ecosystems

QUOTE: "Coccolithophores are tiny, tiny creatures, but they have such huge impacts on all life that most people are not even aware of," Godrijan said. "It brings me hope for our own lives to see how such small things can have such an influence on the planet.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: all of life on Earth is integrated in the way this study illustrates. All created by God-designed evolution. My bold enhances the point that this is an answer to dhw's complaint that all God wanted was 'humans and food'. The complaint is thoughtless, and points out how incompletely dhw has thought through the issue. Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.

dhw: The bold and the whole of your comment reveal either confusion or distortion. The bold emphasizes the importance of small things for the planet. Humans are just one species on the planet. Different forms of life are required for different ecosystems, and throughout history, big and small forms have lived and died – all required to sustain the ecosystems that existed at the time. I’m sorry, but I find it absurd to argue that every extinct ecosystem and every extinct big or small thing for the last 3.X billion years was required “for huge human population”!

DAVID:Silly distortion as usual. Bush before was for 'before'. Bush now for 'now'. All required to support each stage of life of 3.8 billion years of evolution for simple stages to complex stages, finally reaching humans, the most complex of all.

dhw: Thank you for repeating my objection to your harping on about every life form etc. being required “for huge human population”. It is indeed silly. All bushes were required for the existence of each set of organisms, most of which had no connection with humans. Yes, humans came last, but that does not explain how each past bush was part of the goal of evolving humans plus food. Please stop dodging!

Your complaint is so illogical it doesn't create a dodge on my part. The connection you object to in your confusion is evolution involves progressive steps of which we are the last. How can we be the last if the previous rest played no role?? We are the endpoint as a final step in the process unless we evolve or are evolved by design.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Monday, December 27, 2021, 09:08 (185 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

DAVID: Humans as the unusual pinnacle of evolution are proof.

dhw: So you think humans are the proof that your God designed countless extinct life forms that had no connection with humans for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food! And you think this is logical.

DAVID: Adler and I accept historical evolution. Why don't you?

Of course I accept “historical evolution”: it consists of a vast bush of life forms, most of which had no connection with humans, but as far as we know, sapiens were the last species to evolve. “Historical evolution” does not reveal that your God designed every life form, or that he did so for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food. Why don’t you stop dodging?

dhw: It is amazing that you don’t understand that there are TWO possible first causes, each of which I find equally difficult to believe.

DAVID: And I see no equality in the two. God is a vastly more logical cause.

dhw: Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

DAVID: I have more than opinion, since I believe logically.

I accept the “design” logic that underlies your opinion. I also accept the logical argument that if life and consciousness require design, the living, conscious being you call God must have been designed. You opt for the mystery of your first-cause God, and atheists opt for the mystery of how first-cause materials can combine into life and consciousness. I cannot put my faith in either option/opinion.

Importance of ecosystems
QUOTE: "Coccolithophores are tiny, tiny creatures, but they have such huge impacts on all life that most people are not even aware of," Godrijan said. "It brings me hope for our own lives to see how such small things can have such an influence on the planet.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: all of life on Earth is integrated in the way this study illustrates. All created by God-designed evolution. My bold enhances the point that this is an answer to dhw's complaint that all God wanted was 'humans and food'. The complaint is thoughtless, and points out how incompletely dhw has thought through the issue. Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.

dhw: The bold and the whole of your comment reveal either confusion or distortion. The bold emphasizes the importance of small things for the planet. Humans are just one species on the planet. Different forms of life are required for different ecosystems, and throughout history, big and small forms have lived and died – all required to sustain the ecosystems that existed at the time. I’m sorry, but I find it absurd to argue that every extinct ecosystem and every extinct big or small thing for the last 3.X billion years was required “for huge human population”!

DAVID: Silly distortion as usual. Bush before was for 'before'. Bush now for 'now'. All required to support each stage of life of 3.8 billion years of evolution for simple stages to complex stages, finally reaching humans, the most complex of all.

dhw: Thank you for repeating my objection to your silly harping on about every life form etc. being required “for huge human population”. All bushes were required for the existence of each extinct set of organisms, most of which had no connection with humans. Yes, humans came last, but that does not explain how each past bush was "part of the goal of evolving humans" plus food. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: Your complaint is so illogical it doesn't create a dodge on my part. The connection you object to in your confusion is evolution involves progressive steps of which we are the last. How can we be the last if the previous rest played no role??

Evolution does not involve one line of progressive steps from bacteria to humans! It involves countless steps towards countless life forms, the vast majority of which did NOT lead to us! That is why, when I ask you why your God created all those life forms that had no connection with us, you reply that you have no idea and I should go and ask God.

Food as well as oxygen allows a speedy change
DAVID: the food supply controls the speed of evolution to some degree, just as it is assumed oxygen does, but neither substance, causes the speed. but allows it. This is why dhw's complaint about 'humans and their food' is so silly.

I agree that food supply and oxygen were vital conditions for the emergence of new species. ALL new species, including ALL those that had no connection with humans. How does that explain why your God would have specially designed ALL those that had no connection with humans if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food, and if bush before was for ‘before’ and bush now is for ‘now’? Please stop trying to divert attention away from the illogicality of your two combined basic premises.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Monday, December 27, 2021, 15:31 (184 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: Of course I accept “historical evolution”: it consists of a vast bush of life forms, most of which had no connection with humans, but as far as we know, sapiens were the last species to evolve. “Historical evolution” does not reveal that your God designed every life form, or that he did so for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food. Why don’t you stop dodging?

No dodge, since I believe in God, who designed every form in evolution, and finally humans.


dhw: I accept the “design” logic that underlies your opinion. I also accept the logical argument that if life and consciousness require design, the living, conscious being you call God must have been designed. You opt for the mystery of your first-cause God, and atheists opt for the mystery of how first-cause materials can combine into life and consciousness. I cannot put my faith in either option/opinion.

And therefore deny the need for a designing mind.


Importance of ecosystems

DAVID: Your complaint is so illogical it doesn't create a dodge on my part. The connection you object to in your confusion is evolution involves progressive steps of which we are the last. How can we be the last if the previous rest played no role??

dhw: Evolution does not involve one line of progressive steps from bacteria to humans! It involves countless steps towards countless life forms, the vast majority of which did NOT lead to us! That is why, when I ask you why your God created all those life forms that had no connection with us, you reply that you have no idea and I should go and ask God.

But you have had my answer for God's purpose: the bush must exist as a huge food supply for all. My God is not the tunnel-visioned one you imagine but creates logically in His controlled fashion. But I've always challenged your imagined God, unlike one ever described.


Food as well as oxygen allows a speedy change
DAVID: the food supply controls the speed of evolution to some degree, just as it is assumed oxygen does, but neither substance, causes the speed. but allows it. This is why dhw's complaint about 'humans and their food' is so silly.

dhw: I agree that food supply and oxygen were vital conditions for the emergence of new species. ALL new species, including ALL those that had no connection with humans. How does that explain why your God would have specially designed ALL those that had no connection with humans if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food, and if bush before was for ‘before’ and bush now is for ‘now’? Please stop trying to divert attention away from the illogicality of your two combined basic premises.

When you accept God your illogicality dissolves. My basic premise is God designed evolution and once that is accepted all my theories fall into place.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Tuesday, December 28, 2021, 14:18 (183 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

DAVID: All ID folks do is prove a designer exists, my theory is not their point of attack.

dhw: But do they believe that all forms, served his one and only goal of designing sapiens plus food?

DAVID: Not discussed by them.

dhw: Then please stop pretending that they support your theory!

DAVID: Their theory is God designed all of evolution. That is my theory!!

But it is also your theory that his purpose for designing all forms, including all those that had no connection with humans, was to design humans and their food. THAT is what they do not discuss, and THAT is the part of your theory which doesn’t make sense, and you know it […]

dhw: Thank you for confirming for the umpteenth time that Adler does not cover your one-man campaign for a God who designed every life form, including all those that had no connection with humans, “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans" plus food. You can’t even lean on Adler.

DAVID: Your complaint is a total distortion of my logic. Adler says human evolution proves God exists, and ID says God designed all of evolution from bacteria to humans. In that way I see humans as the desired endpoint for God. You can't erase 3.8 billion years of life getting from there to here.

But that is precisely what you do. You try to erase 3.8 billion years of your God individually designing countless forms of life that had no connection with humans plus food although you insist that designing humans plus food was his only purpose or “goal”!

dhw: I accept the “design” logic that underlies your opinion. I also accept the logical argument that if life and consciousness require design, the living, conscious being you call God must have been designed. You opt for the mystery of your first-cause God, and atheists opt for the mystery of how first-cause materials can combine into life and consciousness. I cannot put my faith in either option/opinion.

DAVID: And therefore deny the need for a designing mind.

I don’t deny anything! I accept the logic of both arguments, but since both arguments create an insoluble mystery, I find it impossible to make a decision.

Importance of ecosystems
DAVID: […] The connection you object to in your confusion is evolution involves progressive steps of which we are the last. How can we be the last if the previous rest played no role??

dhw: Evolution does not involve one line of progressive steps from bacteria to humans! It involves countless steps towards countless life forms, the vast majority of which did NOT lead to us! That is why, when I ask you why your God created all those life forms that had no connection with us, you reply that you have no idea and I should go and ask God.

DAVID: But you have had my answer for God's purpose: the bush must exist as a huge food supply for all.

Which bush? You agree that past bushes were necessary for past life forms and present for present life forms. Most past life forms had no connection with humans and their food, and so it makes no sense to claim that ALL of them were “part of the goal of evolving humansand our food bush!

DAVID: My God is not the tunnel-visioned one you imagine but creates logically in His controlled fashion. But I've always challenged your imagined God, unlike one ever described.

If your God exists and only has one purpose – humans and their food – then he has tunnel vision. I challenge YOUR tunnel-visioned view of God, because according to you he also designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. The concept of a God who created life and then allowed it to pursue its own course is known as Deism. I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it.

Food as well as oxygen allows a speedy change
DAVID: the food supply controls the speed of evolution to some degree, just as it is assumed oxygen does, but neither substance, causes the speed. but allows it. This is why dhw's complaint about 'humans and their food' is so silly.

dhw: I agree that food supply and oxygen were vital conditions for the emergence of new species. ALL new species, including ALL those that had no connection with humans. How does that explain why your God would have specially designed ALL those that had no connection with humans if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food, and if bush before was for ‘before’ and bush now is for ‘now’? Please stop trying to divert attention away from the illogicality of your two combined basic premises.

DAVID: When you accept God your illogicality dissolves. My basic premise is God designed evolution and once that is accepted all my theories fall into place.

Please stop kidding yourself. When asked why your God would have specially designed every extinct form that had no connection with humans plus food, although his only purpose was humans plus food, your answer is either to dodge the question or to agree that you have no idea and I should ask God. But if you now think you can explain it, please do so.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 28, 2021, 15:42 (183 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: Their theory is God designed all of evolution. That is my theory!!

dhw: But it is also your theory that his purpose for designing all forms, including all those that had no connection with humans, was to design humans and their food. THAT is what they do not discuss, and THAT is the part of your theory which doesn’t make sense, and you know it […]

I'm sure they are with Adler. All logical to me, so I do not know what you know about my logic.

dhw: You try to erase 3.8 billion years of your God individually designing countless forms of life that had no connection with humans plus food although you insist that designing humans plus food was his only purpose or “goal”!

Time not erased if I contend God designed life and its evolution. Your rejection confuses you.


DAVID: And therefore deny the need for a designing mind.

I don’t deny anything! I accept the logic of both arguments, but since both arguments create an insoluble mystery, I find it impossible to make a decision.

Importance of ecosystems

DAVID: But you have had my answer for God's purpose: the bush must exist as a huge food supply for all.

dhw: Which bush? You agree that past bushes were necessary for past life forms and present for present life forms. Most past life forms had no connection with humans and their food, and so it makes no sense to claim that ALL of them were “part of the goal of evolving humansand our food bush!

Evolutionary steps are all connected in time. You slice and dice it illogically.


dhw: If your God exists and only has one purpose – humans and their food – then he has tunnel vision. I challenge YOUR tunnel-visioned view of God, because according to you he also designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. The concept of a God who created life and then allowed it to pursue its own course is known as Deism. I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it.

I reject Deism fully. Where does that possibility appear here?


Food as well as oxygen allows a speedy change

DAVID: When you accept God your illogicality dissolves. My basic premise is God designed evolution and once that is accepted all my theories fall into place.

dhw: Please stop kidding yourself. When asked why your God would have specially designed every extinct form that had no connection with humans plus food, although his only purpose was humans plus food, your answer is either to dodge the question or to agree that you have no idea and I should ask God. But if you now think you can explain it, please do so.

Fully explained as you ignore it. All steps in evolution required a bush of food. Evolution is one complex step followed by a more complex step in a continuum from bacteria to humans, all designed by a mind we call God. All clear to believers

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Wednesday, December 29, 2021, 12:09 (182 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

DAVID: [ID-ers'] theory is God designed all of evolution. That is my theory!!

dhw: But it is also your theory that his purpose for designing all forms, including all those that had no connection with humans, was to design humans and their food. THAT is what they do not discuss, and THAT is the part of your theory which doesn’t make sense, and you know it […]

DAVID: I'm sure they are with Adler. All logical to me, so I do not know what you know about my logic.

You keep claiming that ID-ers and Adler support your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food and yet he also designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Then in the same breath you tell us that they do not discuss your theory! How can they all be “with” you if they don’t ever mention your theory?

dhw: You try to erase 3.8 billion years of your God individually designing countless forms of life that had no connection with humans plus food although you insist that designing humans plus food was his only purpose or “goal”!

DAVID: Time not erased if I contend God designed life and its evolution. Your rejection confuses you.

You jump from the beginning – bacteria – to humans, as if every single life form in between was “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food, although the vast majority of them throughout 3.X billion years had no connection with humans!

Importance of ecosystems
DAVID: But you have had my answer for God's purpose: the bush must exist as a huge food supply for all.

dhw: Which bush? You agree that past bushes were necessary for past life forms and present for present life forms. Most past life forms had no connection with humans and their food, and so it makes no sense to claim that ALL of them were “part of the goal of evolving humans” and our food bush!

DAVID: Evolutionary steps are all connected in time. You slice and dice it illogically.

What does “connected in time” mean? Over 3.8 billion years, evolutionary steps resulted in countless life forms that had no connection with humans and their food! It is therefore absurd to claim that every single one of those unconnected life forms was part of the goal of evolving humans and their food!

dhw: […] The concept of a God who created life and then allowed it to pursue its own course is known as Deism. I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it.

DAVID: I reject Deism fully. Where does that possibility appear here?

You claimed that the imagined God I present was “unlike one ever described”. This imagined God (all versions are imagined, since no one can “know” if he actually exists) is one who created life and then allowed life to pursue its own course (= a free-for-all). That view of God is called Deism. It has “appeared” here ever since I first proposed that instead of your God designing every virus, preprogramming or dabbling every lifestyle and every solution to every problem, giving courses in camouflage, nest-building, bridge-building, performing operations on groups of animals and humans to prepare them for conditions that don’t yet exist, he gave them the means (intelligence) to do their own designing. The fact that you reject the theory of a God who designs a free-for-all does not mean that it is “unlike one ever described”.

Food as well as oxygen allows a speedy change
DAVID: When you accept God your illogicality dissolves. My basic premise is God designed evolution and once that is accepted all my theories fall into place.

dhw: Please stop kidding yourself. When asked why your God would have specially designed every extinct form that had no connection with humans plus food, although his only purpose was humans plus food, your answer is either to dodge the question or to agree that you have no idea and I should ask God. But if you now think you can explain it, please do so.

DAVID: Fully explained as you ignore it. All steps in evolution required a bush of food.

Yes, ALL steps. Exactly as I have explained it. But you ignore the fact that ALL steps in evolution do not lead to humans and their food.

DAVID: Evolution is one complex step followed by a more complex step in a continuum from bacteria to humans, all designed by a mind we call God. All clear to believers.

There is not just one continuum from bacteria to humans. As usual, you ignore 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms that had no connection with humans and their food! How many “believers” believe that all the countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food prove that God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food? You have said yourself that not even your ID-ers or your beloved Adler even discuss such a theory!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 29, 2021, 15:06 (182 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: You keep claiming that ID-ers and Adler support your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food and yet he also designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Then in the same breath you tell us that they do not discuss your theory! How can they all be “with” you if they don’t ever mention your theory?

My theory comes from their beliefs!!!


dhw: You jump from the beginning – bacteria – to humans, as if every single life form in between was “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food, although the vast majority of them throughout 3.X billion years had no connection with humans!

So in your view we cannot trace how humans developed from bacteria and evolution is discontinuous?


Importance of ecosystems

dhw: […] The concept of a God who created life and then allowed it to pursue its own course is known as Deism. I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it.

DAVID: I reject Deism fully. Where does that possibility appear here?

dhw: You claimed that the imagined God I present was “unlike one ever described”. This imagined God (all versions are imagined, since no one can “know” if he actually exists) is one who created life and then allowed life to pursue its own course (= a free-for-all). That view of God is called Deism.

So you sort of believe in Deism?


Food as well as oxygen allows a speedy change

dhw: Yes, ALL steps. Exactly as I have explained it. But you ignore the fact that ALL steps in evolution do not lead to humans and their food.

The branches certainly lead to required food!!!


DAVID: Evolution is one complex step followed by a more complex step in a continuum from bacteria to humans, all designed by a mind we call God. All clear to believers.

dhw: There is not just one continuum from bacteria to humans. As usual, you ignore 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms that had no connection with humans and their food! How many “believers” believe that all the countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food prove that God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food? You have said yourself that not even your ID-ers or your beloved Adler even discuss such a theory!

ID'ers theories and Adler lead directly to my theory. By the way you started this site to explore agnosticism as one purpose. Where are the agnostic comments from other agnostics to support you? All you've got is me.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Thursday, December 30, 2021, 13:27 (181 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You keep claiming that ID-ers and Adler support your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food and yet he also designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Then in the same breath you tell us that they do not discuss your theory! How can they all be “with” you if they don’t ever mention your theory?

DAVID: My theory comes from their beliefs!!!

Your theory is an extension of their belief that God designed all life forms (ID-ers) and sapiens proves God's existence (Adler), and it is the extension (God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food) that makes no sense, because it raises the unanswerable question: if his only purpose was sapiens plus food, why did he design all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with sapiens plus food?

Later in your post:
dhw: How many “believers” believe that all the countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food prove that God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food? You have said yourself that not even your ID-ers or your beloved Adler even discuss such a theory!

DAVID: ID'ers theories and Adler lead directly to my theory.

And what an illogical mess it is. No wonder neither ID-ers nor Adler ever discuss it.

dhw: You jump from the beginning – bacteria – to humans, as if every single life form in between was “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food, although the vast majority of them throughout 3.X billion years had no connection with humans!

DAVID: So in your view we cannot trace how humans developed from bacteria and evolution is discontinuous?

That is not my view at all! I don’t know how often you want me to say this: evolution branched out into countless life forms and econiches, the majority of which had no connection with humans plus food! You keep insisting that ALL branches were part of the goal of evolving humans plus food. Evolution is not discontinuous if we believe in common descent. Only you advocate discontinuity when you tell us your God created species without predecessors. But the continuity lies in the descent of ALL life forms from bacteria, including all those unconnected with humans.

Importance of ecosystems

dhw: […] The concept of a God who created life and then allowed it to pursue its own course is known as Deism. I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it.

DAVID: I reject Deism fully. Where does that possibility appear here?

dhw: You claimed that the imagined God I present was “unlike one ever described”. This imagined God (all versions are imagined, since no one can “know” if he actually exists) is one who created life and then allowed life to pursue its own course (= a free-for-all). That view of God is called Deism.

DAVID: So you sort of believe in Deism?

I do not have a belief. I am an agnostic. But this does not stop me from speculating on what a possible God might have intended if he created life. You wrote that one of my proposals (the free-for-all) was “unlike one ever described”. You had forgotten about Deism.

DAVID: By the way you started this site to explore agnosticism as one purpose. Where are the agnostic comments from other agnostics to support you? All you've got is me.

Agnosticism is not a purpose! The purpose of the website was to have an open forum on all the mysteries for which nobody has a proven solution! Initially, we had lots of contributors who included atheists and reverends and other agnostics. But perhaps inevitably, all our discussions ended in a kind of stalemate, although I for one have learned an enormous amount in the course of the last 14 years. Especially, I must add, from you. Why are we now the only contributors? Probably because those who hoped to convert us to their views gave up trying, others may have felt that we were going round in circles (true) and getting nowhere (true). Nevertheless, there are still hundreds of people logging on to various posts – especially your natural wonders series – and even some of our own repetitive discussions are clearly of interest to a few readers! I’d be reluctant to close the site down so long as you are prepared to go on providing us with so much educational material, for which I myself am always extremely grateful.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 30, 2021, 15:20 (181 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You keep claiming that ID-ers and Adler support your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food and yet he also designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Then in the same breath you tell us that they do not discuss your theory! How can they all be “with” you if they don’t ever mention your theory?

DAVID: My theory comes from their beliefs!!!

dhw: Your theory is an extension of their belief that God designed all life forms (ID-ers) and sapiens proves God's existence (Adler), and it is the extension (God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food) that makes no sense, because it raises the unanswerable question: if his only purpose was sapiens plus food, why did he design all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with sapiens plus food?

From part one: DAVID: Life evolved over 3.8 billion years, and pre-human to human over 4.5 to five million years. It was obviously God's choice to take all that time. We humans have the time problem you raise, God doesn't being timelessly eternal.


dhw: You jump from the beginning – bacteria – to humans, as if every single life form in between was “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food, although the vast majority of them throughout 3.X billion years had no connection with humans!

DAVID: So in your view we cannot trace how humans developed from bacteria and evolution is discontinuous?

dhw: That is not my view at all! I don’t know how often you want me to say this: evolution branched out into countless life forms and econiches, the majority of which had no connection with humans plus food! You keep insisting that ALL branches were part of the goal of evolving humans plus food. Evolution is not discontinuous if we believe in common descent. Only you advocate discontinuity when you tell us your God created species without predecessors. But the continuity lies in the descent of ALL life forms from bacteria, including all those unconnected with humans.

I have bolded the last sentence which is my view also. Humans have their own branch, but all branches are required as food to support life as below:


Importance of ecosystems

DAVID: So you sort of believe in Deism?

dhw: I do not have a belief. I am an agnostic. But this does not stop me from speculating on what a possible God might have intended if he created life. You wrote that one of my proposals (the free-for-all) was “unlike one ever described”. You had forgotten about Deism.

OK


DAVID: By the way you started this site to explore agnosticism as one purpose. Where are the agnostic comments from other agnostics to support you? All you've got is me.

dhw: Agnosticism is not a purpose! The purpose of the website was to have an open forum on all the mysteries for which nobody has a proven solution! Initially, we had lots of contributors who included atheists and reverends and other agnostics. But perhaps inevitably, all our discussions ended in a kind of stalemate, although I for one have learned an enormous amount in the course of the last 14 years. Especially, I must add, from you. Why are we now the only contributors? Probably because those who hoped to convert us to their views gave up trying, others may have felt that we were going round in circles (true) and getting nowhere (true). Nevertheless, there are still hundreds of people logging on to various posts – especially your natural wonders series – and even some of our own repetitive discussions are clearly of interest to a few readers! I’d be reluctant to close the site down so long as you are prepared to go on providing us with so much educational material, for which I myself am always extremely grateful.

I appreciate you response and kind words. If you look at some of the purely science articles, we have had thousands of viewers, and our discussions perhaps rub off on them and stimulate them, but not to the point of jumping in as before. I have the time and interest to continue contributing.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Friday, December 31, 2021, 14:04 (180 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

DAVID: My theory comes from their beliefs!!!

dhw: Your theory is an extension of their belief that God designed all life forms (ID-ers) and sapiens proves God's existence (Adler), and it is the extension (God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food) that makes no sense, because it raises the unanswerable question: if his only purpose was sapiens plus food, why did he design all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with sapiens plus food?

DAVID: From part one: DAVID: Life evolved over 3.8 billion years, and pre-human to human over 4.5 to five million years. It was obviously God's choice to take all that time. We humans have the time problem you raise, God doesn't being timelessly eternal.

Time is irrelevant! It is the disconnection between your interpretation of God’s actions (designing every single life form, including all those that have no connection with humans) and of his purpose (in order to design humans plus their food) that is the problem you continue to dodge.

dhw: Evolution is not discontinuous if we believe in common descent. Only you advocate discontinuity when you tell us your God created species without predecessors. But the continuity lies in the descent of ALL life forms from bacteria, including all those unconnected with humans.

DAVID: I have bolded the last sentence which is my view also. Humans have their own branch, but all branches are required as food to support life […]

Yes, humans have their own branch. All branches require food. How does that come to mean that all branches were part of the goal to evolve humans plus their food???

dhw: […] I’d be reluctant to close the site down so long as you are prepared to go on providing us with so much educational material, for which I myself am always extremely grateful.

DAVID: I appreciate your response and kind words. If you look at some of the purely science articles, we have had thousands of viewers, and our discussions perhaps rub off on them and stimulate them, but not to the point of jumping in as before. I have the time and interest to continue contributing.

And for me, this alone justifies keeping the site going. Perhaps I should add, just in case some readers might get the wrong impression, that over the years and despite the fierceness of some of our discussions, David and I have become good friends away from the forum! Eight years ago, when my wife died, he and his wife came over from the States to England to attend her funeral. It was an unforgettable meeting, and we have remained in close contact ever since.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Friday, December 31, 2021, 20:34 (180 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: From part one: DAVID: Life evolved over 3.8 billion years, and pre-human to human over 4.5 to five million years. It was obviously God's choice to take all that time. We humans have the time problem you raise, God doesn't being timelessly eternal.

dhw: Time is irrelevant! It is the disconnection between your interpretation of God’s actions (designing every single life form, including all those that have no connection with humans) and of his purpose (in order to design humans plus their food) that is the problem you continue to dodge.

You think I dodge because you won't think though my logic using my belief in a God you do not accept, but invent your very weak, humanizing form of God, in myh opinion.


dhw: Evolution is not discontinuous if we believe in common descent. Only you advocate discontinuity when you tell us your God created species without predecessors. But the continuity lies in the descent of ALL life forms from bacteria, including all those unconnected with humans.

DAVID: I have bolded the last sentence which is my view also. Humans have their own branch, but all branches are required as food to support life […]

dhw: Yes, humans have their own branch. All branches require food. How does that come to mean that all branches were part of the goal to evolve humans plus their food???

Same illogical distortion. God chose His method of cresting us.


dhw: […] I’d be reluctant to close the site down so long as you are prepared to go on providing us with so much educational material, for which I myself am always extremely grateful.

DAVID: I appreciate your response and kind words. If you look at some of the purely science articles, we have had thousands of viewers, and our discussions perhaps rub off on them and stimulate them, but not to the point of jumping in as before. I have the time and interest to continue contributing.

dhw: And for me, this alone justifies keeping the site going. Perhaps I should add, just in case some readers might get the wrong impression, that over the years and despite the fierceness of some of our discussions, David and I have become good friends away from the forum! Eight years ago, when my wife died, he and his wife came over from the States to England to attend her funeral. It was an unforgettable meeting, and we have remained in close contact ever since.

Absolutely, but with the holidays I'll necessarily be more quiet. I treasure our friendship very much.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Saturday, January 01, 2022, 11:57 (179 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

DAVID: From part one: DAVID: Life evolved over 3.8 billion years, and pre-human to human over 4.5 to five million years. It was obviously God's choice to take all that time. We humans have the time problem you raise, God doesn't being timelessly eternal.


dhw: Time is irrelevant! It is the disconnection between your interpretation of God’s actions (designing every single life form, including all those that have no connection with humans) and of his purpose (in order to design humans plus their food) that is the problem you continue to dodge.

DAVID: You think I dodge because you won't think though my logic using my belief in a God you do not accept, but invent your very weak, humanizing form of God, in my opinion.

Forget my strong form of God (see “cellular intelligence”) and focus on your “logic”: please give us one logical reason why an all-powerful God with one purpose (to design sapiens plus food) would specially design countless extinct life forms that had no connection with humans plus our food.

dhw: Evolution is not discontinuous if we believe in common descent. Only you advocate discontinuity when you tell us your God created species without predecessors. But the continuity lies in the descent of ALL life forms from bacteria, including all those unconnected with humans.

DAVID: I have bolded the last sentence which is my view also. Humans have their own branch, but all branches are required as food to support life […]

dhw: Yes, humans have their own branch. All branches require food. How does that come to mean that all branches were part of the goal to evolve humans plus their food???

DAVID: Same illogical distortion. God chose His method of cresting us.

What “illogical distortion”? God, if he exists, chose his method of creating ALL life! Once again: Why would he have chosen to create ALL the forms of life that had no connection with sapiens plus food if he only wanted to create sapiens plus food?

dhw; […] Perhaps I should add, just in case some readers might get the wrong impression, that over the years and despite the fierceness of some of our discussions, David and I have become good friends away from the forum! Eight years ago, when my wife died, he and his wife came over from the States to England to attend her funeral. It was an unforgettable meeting, and we have remained in close contact ever since.

DAVID: Absolutely, but with the holidays I'll necessarily be more quiet. I treasure our friendship very much.

I must confess, the “break” is welcome! Meanwhile, Happy New Year to you and Susan, and the same to whoever else might be following these discussions.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 01, 2022, 16:03 (179 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: You think I dodge because you won't think though my logic using my belief in a God you do not accept, but invent your very weak, humanizing form of God, in my opinion.

dhw: Forget my strong form of God (see “cellular intelligence”) and focus on your “logic”: please give us one logical reason why an all-powerful God with one purpose (to design sapiens plus food) would specially design countless extinct life forms that had no connection with humans plus our food.

As in other threads, an all-powerful God has the right to chose His method of creation to fit His purposes. As you question God's existence, you question His right to choose. In religious circles your weak God would not be recognized, using Adler as a example.


dhw: Yes, humans have their own branch. All branches require food. How does that come to mean that all branches were part of the goal to evolve humans plus their food???

DAVID: Same illogical distortion. God chose His method of cresting us.

dhw: What “illogical distortion”? God, if he exists, chose his method of creating ALL life! Once again: Why would he have chosen to create ALL the forms of life that had no connection with sapiens plus food if he only wanted to create sapiens plus food?

God has the right to evolve us which He did. By His chosen method, a stepwise evolution.


dhw; […] Perhaps I should add, just in case some readers might get the wrong impression, that over the years and despite the fierceness of some of our discussions, David and I have become good friends away from the forum! Eight years ago, when my wife died, he and his wife came over from the States to England to attend her funeral. It was an unforgettable meeting, and we have remained in close contact ever since.

DAVID: Absolutely, but with the holidays I'll necessarily be more quiet. I treasure our friendship very much.

dhw: I must confess, the “break” is welcome! Meanwhile, Happy New Year to you and Susan, and the same to whoever else might be following these discussions.

And Susan and I offer our best New Year's to your lovely family, whom we have personally known for now many years. The twins are enormous!!! And we pray for Chris.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Sunday, January 02, 2022, 11:25 (179 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

DAVID: You think I dodge because you won't think though my logic using my belief in a God you do not accept, but invent your very weak, humanizing form of God, in my opinion.

dhw: Forget my strong form of God (see “Cellular intelligence”) and focus on your “logic”: please give us one logical reason why an all-powerful God with one purpose (to design sapiens plus food) would specially design countless extinct life forms that had no connection with humans plus our food.

DAVID: As in other threads, an all-powerful God has the right to chose His method of creation to fit His purposes. As you question God's existence, you question His right to choose.

I do not. I question your right to restrict him to your own subjective view of his purpose and your own subjective view of how he set about achieving that purpose. I note, however, that once more you have used the plural. I look forward to your response to my request under “Cellular intelligence” for more details about these “purposes”.

DAVID: In religious circles your weak God would not be recognized, using Adler as a example.

I do not regard any of my proposed versions of God as being “weak”. And I suggest to you that quite apart from Deism, which you conveniently forgot about, there are religious “circles” which believe in multiple gods with all kinds of characteristics, and in any case, I had no idea that you were such a fan of religion. I have always kept in mind the wonderful dedication you wrote at the beginning of your first book, and it is well worth quoting here:

Organized religion and patterns of belief are too often developed from the conceits of humans, who presume to know very exactly God’s intentions and very exactly the meanings of all the teachings in the Bible, and press others to accept their interpretations. True religion comes from within the individual, added (should this have been “aided”) by study from without.

This was published before Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and for any followers of this website, I am going to balance my attacks on the rigid beliefs you express in this forum by saying that I not only had the privilege of editing your second book (The Atheist Delusion) but would wholeheartedly recommend it. In both your books, you steer clear of identifying with particular religions and of most of the contentious subjects we are discussing here, and wisely focus on the scientific evidence for design. Even though I remain firmly seated on my agnostic fence, these books are an education in themselves.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 02, 2022, 16:15 (178 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: In religious circles your weak God would not be recognized, using Adler as a example.

dhw: I do not regard any of my proposed versions of God as being “weak”. And I suggest to you that quite apart from Deism, which you conveniently forgot about, there are religious “circles” which believe in multiple gods with all kinds of characteristics, and in any case, I had no idea that you were such a fan of religion. I have always kept in mind the wonderful dedication you wrote at the beginning of your first book, and it is well worth quoting here:

Organized religion and patterns of belief are too often developed from the conceits of humans, who presume to know very exactly God’s intentions and very exactly the meanings of all the teachings in the Bible, and press others to accept their interpretations. True religion comes from within the individual, added (should this have been “aided”) by study from without.

dhw: This was published before Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and for any followers of this website, I am going to balance my attacks on the rigid beliefs you express in this forum by saying that I not only had the privilege of editing your second book (The Atheist Delusion) but would wholeheartedly recommend it. In both your books, you steer clear of identifying with particular religions and of most of the contentious subjects we are discussing here, and wisely focus on the scientific evidence for design. Even though I remain firmly seated on my agnostic fence, these books are an education in themselves.

Your concepts of God and mine are colored by childhood instruction. My words you quoted still apply. But my point as I just noted in PART ONE is we start with the same all-powerful God concept, but diverge from my very purposeful God who knows the exact direction in which He is headed, and compared to yours who gives up control, changes His mind, experiments, and obviously had no endpoint in mind when He started to create.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Monday, January 03, 2022, 14:14 (177 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: In religious circles your weak God would not be recognized, using Adler as a example.

dhw: I do not regard any of my proposed versions of God as being “weak”. And I suggest to you that quite apart from Deism, which you conveniently forgot about, there are religious “circles” which believe in multiple gods with all kinds of characteristics, and in any case, I had no idea that you were such a fan of religion. I have always kept in mind the wonderful dedication you wrote at the beginning of your first book, and it is well worth quoting here:

Organized religion and patterns of belief are too often developed from the conceits of humans, who presume to know very exactly God’s intentions and very exactly the meanings of all the teachings in the Bible, and press others to accept their interpretations. True religion comes from within the individual, added (should this have been “aided”) by study from without.” […]

DAVID: Your concepts of God and mine are colored by childhood instruction. My words you quoted still apply. But my point as I just noted in PART ONE is we start with the same all-powerful God concept, but diverge from my very purposeful God who knows the exact direction in which He is headed, and compared to yours who gives up control, changes His mind, experiments, and obviously had no endpoint in mind when He started to create.

A not very neat way of changing the subject from your irrelevant objection that my proposals would not be recognized by “religious circles”. In PART ONE, you refuse to tell us what direction your very purposeful God is headed in, whereas I offer you three distinct alternatives, each one of which has a very precise purpose and – unlike your truncated version of a purpose (to produce humans, but you won’t tell us why) – each one covers all life forms and natural wonders, including those that had no connection with humans. Giving up control serves the purpose of providing a far more interesting spectacle for him to watch (you agree that he watches with interest). Changing his mind could apply equally to your version of him “dabbling”, especially in view of the fact that the majority of his actions according to you had no connection with the direction he wished to head in (humans and their food). Experimentation can be targeted or could be a purpose in itself (to learn something new), and interest and enjoyment would be greatly enhanced by having no endpoint in mind. Please tell us what endpoint you think your God had in mind when he designed H. sapiens.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Monday, January 03, 2022, 21:10 (177 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your concepts of God and mine are colored by childhood instruction. My words you quoted still apply. But my point as I just noted in PART ONE is we start with the same all-powerful God concept, but diverge from my very purposeful God who knows the exact direction in which He is headed, and compared to yours who gives up control, changes His mind, experiments, and obviously had no endpoint in mind when He started to create.

dhw: A not very neat way of changing the subject from your irrelevant objection that my proposals would not be recognized by “religious circles”. In PART ONE, you refuse to tell us what direction your very purposeful God is headed in, whereas I offer you three distinct alternatives, each one of which has a very precise purpose and – unlike your truncated version of a purpose (to produce humans, but you won’t tell us why) – each one covers all life forms and natural wonders, including those that had no connection with humans. Giving up control serves the purpose of providing a far more interesting spectacle for him to watch (you agree that he watches with interest). Changing his mind could apply equally to your version of him “dabbling”, especially in view of the fact that the majority of his actions according to you had no connection with the direction he wished to head in (humans and their food). Experimentation can be targeted or could be a purpose in itself (to learn something new), and interest and enjoyment would be greatly enhanced by having no endpoint in mind. Please tell us what endpoint you think your God had in mind when he designed H. sapiens.

The humans are the endpoint. Again you want His reasons which I cannot know. I can make the same guesses again so you can distort them again. His reasons are your problem. You don't like the fact that I simply accept them as I accept the historical endpoints as His obvious purposes. Adler and I accept that any relationship with God is a 50/50 probability and that He loves us is 50/50. So we can each psychoanalyze Him till the cows come home. I have my approach, and you yours, with wildly different results. So we can never agree on What God is like. Yours wants entertainment like a five-year-old to pass time or a free-for-all type of evolution with an unknown mysterious outcome like a murder mystery on TV. Human desires!!!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Wednesday, January 05, 2022, 12:53 (175 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

This began with your complaint that my various alternative explanations of evolution and a possible God’s purposes and actions would not he recognized by “religious circles”. You swiftly changed the subject back to the subject dealt with under “Cellular intelligence”:

DAVID: […] we start with the same all-powerful God concept, but diverge from my very purposeful God who knows the exact direction in which He is headed, and compared to yours who gives up control, changes His mind, experiments, and obviously had no endpoint in mind when He started to create.

dhw: Once again I pointed out that each of my alternative explanations of the great bush was based on a very precise purpose: 1) the free-for-all, following on from your own certainty that he enjoys creation and watches his creations with interest; 2) experimenting in order to fulfil the goal you set him – to create a being with consciousness resembling his own (you agree that we probably have thought patterns in common, but you don’t agree if this lends support to any of my proposals); 3) experimenting to see what new and interesting things might emerge – i.e.an ongoing learning process (not dissimilar to process theology). Just because you don’t like such alternative purposes, you claim that they are not purposes. Only your theory gives him a purpose or goal, which you now prefer to call an endpoint: to design humans and their food

DAVID: The humans are the endpoint.

They are the latest species. But I keep asking why you think they were his only purpose.

DAVID: Again you want His reasons which I cannot know.

You cannot “know” any of the answers to any of the questions concerning your theory, but you continue to promulgate it as if you DID know.

DAVID: His reasons are your problem.

No, your theory is my problem. Quite simply: I don’t understand why an all-powerful, purposeful God, whose only purpose was to design humans plus food, would have designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Nor do you.

DAVID: You don't like the fact that I simply accept them as I accept the historical endpoints as His obvious purposes.

Every extinction is an endpoint. Please tell me the various plural purposes for the various historical endpoints.

DAVID: Adler and I accept that any relationship with God is a 50/50 probability and that He loves us is 50/50.

So do you reckon that there is also a 50/50 probability that his purpose in creating humans might have been to create a life form that would want a relationship with him and would love him? Aren’t relationships and love supposed to be two-way? I’m asking you, because I’m discussing this with you, not with Adler. I rather like these odds. I’d offer the same myself for all three of my alternative, logical theistic theories of evolution, whereas I must confess it would be something like 9-1 against your own illogical theory. And of course it’s 50/50 for me when it comes to God’s existence.

Can’t Explain the Big Bang
DAVID: lots of discussion going nowhere. We either really have something from nothing or we are back to Einstein looking for something eternal, but that is not an answer. What is first cause?

Nobody knows. 50/50 for whatever explanation folk come up with. No wonder some of us remain agnostic.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 05, 2022, 20:10 (175 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: The humans are the endpoint.

dhw: They are the latest species. But I keep asking why you think they were his only purpose.

And I can't answer since I do not know His reasons, but can guess. See all past entries on the subject


DAVID: Again you want His reasons which I cannot know.

dhw: You cannot “know” any of the answers to any of the questions concerning your theory, but you continue to promulgate it as if you DID know.

DAVID: His reasons are your problem.

dhw: No, your theory is my problem. Quite simply: I don’t understand why an all-powerful, purposeful God, whose only purpose was to design humans plus food, would have designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Nor do you.

All I can tell you accepting history as we are here, by God's will


DAVID: You don't like the fact that I simply accept them as I accept the historical endpoints as His obvious purposes.

dhw: Every extinction is an endpoint. Please tell me the various plural purposes for the various historical endpoints.

Silly question. Every extinction leads from past to future forms. The Earth doesn't have room toc keep everything around


DAVID: Adler and I accept that any relationship with God is a 50/50 probability and that He loves us is 50/50.

dhw: So do you reckon that there is also a 50/50 probability that his purpose in creating humans might have been to create a life form that would want a relationship with him and would love him? Aren’t relationships and love supposed to be two-way? I’m asking you, because I’m discussing this with you, not with Adler. I rather like these odds. I’d offer the same myself for all three of my alternative, logical theistic theories of evolution, whereas I must confess it would be something like 9-1 against your own illogical theory. And of course it’s 50/50 for me when it comes to God’s existence.

My theory is perfectly logical when one accepts God as the designer of all life. You are so illogical you recognize the importance of complex living design, but then refuse to recognize a powerful planning mind is necessary to produce those designs and must exist. Something doesn't come from nothing, but that is what your illogical approach requires. This is why ID simply says there must be a designer, and stops at that point.


Can’t Explain the Big Bang
DAVID: lots of discussion going nowhere. We either really have something from nothing or we are back to Einstein looking for something eternal, but that is not an answer. What is first cause?

dhw: Nobody knows. 50/50 for whatever explanation folk come up with. No wonder some of us remain agnostic.

Agnosticism is not a solution, which means you do not need one. But I need a solution and you complain about it.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Thursday, January 06, 2022, 11:57 (174 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

dhw: No, your theory is my problem. Quite simply: I don’t understand why an all-powerful, purposeful God, whose only purpose was to design humans plus food, would have designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Nor do you.

DAVID: All I can tell you accepting history as we are here, by God's will.

And according to you, every other species, including those not connected with humans, is/was here by God’s will.

DAVID: You don't like the fact that I simply accept them as I accept the historical endpoints as His obvious purposes.

dhw: Every extinction is an endpoint. Please tell me the various plural purposes for the various historical endpoints.

DAVID: Silly question. Every extinction leads from past to future forms. The Earth doesn't have room to keep everything around

How can all extinct species, including those that had no connection with humans and our food, have led to us humans and our food?

DAVID: Adler and I accept that any relationship with God is a 50/50 probability and that He loves us is 50/50.

dhw: So do you reckon that there is also a 50/50 probability that his purpose in creating humans might have been to create a life form that would want a relationship with him and would love him? Aren’t relationships and love supposed to be two-way? I’m asking you, because I’m discussing this with you, not with Adler. I rather like these odds. I’d offer the same myself for all three of my alternative, logical theistic theories of evolution, whereas I must confess it would be something like 9-1 against your own illogical theory. And of course it’s 50/50 for me when it comes to God’s existence.

DAVID: My theory is perfectly logical when one accepts God as the designer of all life.

That is your theory that God exists. What follows is yet another dodge:

DAVID: You are so illogical you recognize the importance of complex living design, but then refuse to recognize a powerful planning mind is necessary to produce those designs and must exist. Something doesn't come from nothing, but that is what your illogical approach requires. This is why ID simply says there must be a designer, and stops at that point.

The theory of design is perfectly logical, and I do not oppose it. But it does not justify your illogical theory of evolution, which has your God, whose only goal is to design sapiens plus food, designing countless life forms that had no connection with sapiens plus food. Your diversionary tactics are unworthy.

Can’t Explain the Big Bang
DAVID: lots of discussion going nowhere. We either really have something from nothing or we are back to Einstein looking for something eternal, but that is not an answer. What is first cause?

dhw: Nobody knows. 50/50 for whatever explanation folk come up with. No wonder some of us remain agnostic.

DAVID: Agnosticism is not a solution, which means you do not need one. But I need a solution and you complain about it.

Your personal “needs” do not make a solution “logical”. However, I accept the logic of the design argument, while I reject the illogicality of your theory of evolution. However, I also accept the logic of the argument that a first-cause, sourceless mind is as hard to believe in as minds created by a first-cause lucky combination in an eternal history of combinations. Of course it’s not a solution. You’re right, I do not feel any pressure of “need”. I accept that I’m going to die anyway, and if there’s no afterlife, I shall never know the answers. If there is an afterlife, I may find out more. I’m not in a hurry! But I am simply fascinated by the subject, which is why I opened this website.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 06, 2022, 15:45 (174 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: You don't like the fact that I simply accept them as I accept the historical endpoints as His obvious purposes.

dhw: Every extinction is an endpoint. Please tell me the various plural purposes for the various historical endpoints.

DAVID: Silly question. Every extinction leads from past to future forms. The Earth doesn't have room to keep everything around

dhw: How can all extinct species, including those that had no connection with humans and our food, have led to us humans and our food?

Ah, no God again in your view. God designed what we call evolution in designed stages from bacteria, at the designed start of life.

DAVID: My theory is perfectly logical when one accepts God as the designer of all life.

That is your theory that God exists. What follows is yet another dodge:

DAVID: You are so illogical you recognize the importance of complex living design, but then refuse to recognize a powerful planning mind is necessary to produce those designs and must exist. Something doesn't come from nothing, but that is what your illogical approach requires. This is why ID simply says there must be a designer, and stops at that point.

dhw: The theory of design is perfectly logical, and I do not oppose it. But it does not justify your illogical theory of evolution, which has your God, whose only goal is to design sapiens plus food, designing countless life forms that had no connection with sapiens plus food. Your diversionary tactics are unworthy.

Don't attack my beliefs as unworthy. I believe in God and you don 't. You always call Him 'my god'.


Can’t Explain the Big Bang
DAVID: lots of discussion going nowhere. We either really have something from nothing or we are back to Einstein looking for something eternal, but that is not an answer. What is first cause?

dhw: Nobody knows. 50/50 for whatever explanation folk come up with. No wonder some of us remain agnostic.

DAVID: Agnosticism is not a solution, which means you do not need one. But I need a solution and you complain about it.

dhw: Your personal “needs” do not make a solution “logical”. However, I accept the logic of the design argument, while I reject the illogicality of your theory of evolution. However, I also accept the logic of the argument that a first-cause, sourceless mind is as hard to believe in as minds created by a first-cause lucky combination in an eternal history of combinations. Of course it’s not a solution. You’re right, I do not feel any pressure of “need”. I accept that I’m going to die anyway, and if there’s no afterlife, I shall never know the answers. If there is an afterlife, I may find out more. I’m not in a hurry! But I am simply fascinated by the subject, which is why I opened this website.

So you have needs also. You must have proof to develop beliefs

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Friday, January 07, 2022, 07:52 (174 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

dhw: How can all extinct species, including those that had no connection with humans and our food, have led to us humans and our food?

DAVID: Ah, no God again in your view. God designed what we call evolution in designed stages from bacteria, at the designed start of life.

The question has nothing to do with God’s existence or evolution’s stages! You claim that all extinct life forms were part of your God’s goal of evolving humans plus food. I ask how they could all possibly have been part of that goal, since the majority had no connection with humans!

DAVID: My theory is perfectly logical when one accepts God as the designer of all life.

That is your logical theory that God exists. What follows is yet another dodge:

DAVID: You are so illogical you recognize the importance of complex living design, but then refuse to recognize a powerful planning mind is necessary to produce those designs and must exist. Something doesn't come from nothing, but that is what your illogical approach requires. This is why ID simply says there must be a designer, and stops at that point.

dhw: The theory of design is perfectly logical, and I do not oppose it. But it does not justify your illogical theory of evolution, which has your God, whose only goal is to design sapiens plus food, designing countless life forms that had no connection with sapiens plus food. Your diversionary tactics are unworthy.

DAVID: Don't attack my beliefs as unworthy. I believe in God and you don 't. You always call Him 'my god'.

I’m not attacking your belief in God as unworthy. That is yet another dodge. I’m attacking your anthropocentric theory of evolution, but you have switched the subject to God’s existence – and changing the subject is an unworthy way of conducting a discussion.

Can’t Explain the Big Bang
DAVID: lots of discussion going nowhere. We either really have something from nothing or we are back to Einstein looking for something eternal, but that is not an answer. What is first cause?

dhw: Nobody knows. 50/50 for whatever explanation folk come up with. No wonder some of us remain agnostic.

DAVID: Agnosticism is not a solution, which means you do not need one. But I need a solution and you complain about it.

dhw: Your personal “needs” do not make a solution “logical”. However, I accept the logic of the design argument, while I reject the illogicality of your theory of evolution. However, I also accept the logic of the argument that a first-cause, sourceless mind is as hard to believe in as minds created by a first-cause lucky combination in an eternal history of combinations. Of course it’s not a solution. You’re right, I do not feel any pressure of “need”. I accept that I’m going to die anyway, and if there’s no afterlife, I shall never know the answers. If there is an afterlife, I may find out more. I’m not in a hurry! But I am simply fascinated by the subject, which is why I opened this website.

DAVID: So you have needs also. You must have proof to develop beliefs.

Unlike yourself, I do not embrace a solution because I “need” one. I am content to wait without one. I see no possibility of “proof”. I try to weigh up the evidence for both sides of the argument, but I find them equally balanced, and so I remain undecided. I don’t know why you find that so difficult to understand.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Friday, January 07, 2022, 15:55 (173 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: How can all extinct species, including those that had no connection with humans and our food, have led to us humans and our food?

DAVID: Ah, no God again in your view. God designed what we call evolution in designed stages from bacteria, at the designed start of life.

dhw: The question has nothing to do with God’s existence or evolution’s stages! You claim that all extinct life forms were part of your God’s goal of evolving humans plus food. I ask how they could all possibly have been part of that goal, since the majority had no connection with humans!

It has everything to do with stages. Evolution is defined as a process of development from simple to complex. Humans evolved from bacteria. The connection is God designing each stage.


DAVID: My theory is perfectly logical when one accepts God as the designer of all life.

dhw: That is your logical theory that God exists. What follows is yet another dodge:

DAVID: Don't attack my beliefs as unworthy. I believe in God and you don't. You always call Him 'my god'.

dhw: I’m not attacking your belief in God as unworthy. That is yet another dodge. I’m attacking your anthropocentric theory of evolution, but you have switched the subject to God’s existence – and changing the subject is an unworthy way of conducting a discussion.

How can you call a discussion of God's existence a change. We are debating God's role in producing humans, whom He obviously wanted to produce, since we are here at the current endpoint of evolution. It is God's anthrocentricity in my view.


Can’t Explain the Big Bang
DAVID: lots of discussion going nowhere. We either really have something from nothing or we are back to Einstein looking for something eternal, but that is not an answer. What is first cause?

dhw: Nobody knows. 50/50 for whatever explanation folk come up with. No wonder some of us remain agnostic.

DAVID: Agnosticism is not a solution, which means you do not need one. But I need a solution and you complain about it.

dhw: Your personal “needs” do not make a solution “logical”. However, I accept the logic of the design argument, while I reject the illogicality of your theory of evolution. However, I also accept the logic of the argument that a first-cause, sourceless mind is as hard to believe in as minds created by a first-cause lucky combination in an eternal history of combinations. Of course it’s not a solution. You’re right, I do not feel any pressure of “need”. I accept that I’m going to die anyway, and if there’s no afterlife, I shall never know the answers. If there is an afterlife, I may find out more. I’m not in a hurry! But I am simply fascinated by the subject, which is why I opened this website.

DAVID: So you have needs also. You must have proof to develop beliefs.

dhw: Unlike yourself, I do not embrace a solution because I “need” one. I am content to wait without one. I see no possibility of “proof”. I try to weigh up the evidence for both sides of the argument, but I find them equally balanced, and so I remain undecided. I don’t know why you find that so difficult to understand.

It's quite clear. You are content not to reach conclusions. I reached one on this subject.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Saturday, January 08, 2022, 13:05 (172 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

dhw: How can all extinct species, including those that had no connection with humans and our food, have led to us humans and our food?

DAVID: Ah, no God again in your view. God designed what we call evolution in designed stages from bacteria, at the designed start of life.

dhw: The question has nothing to do with God’s existence or evolution’s stages! You claim that all extinct life forms were part of your God’s goal of evolving humans plus food. I ask how they could all possibly have been part of that goal, since the majority had no connection with humans!

DAVID: It has everything to do with stages. Evolution is defined as a process of development from simple to complex. Humans evolved from bacteria. The connection is God designing each stage.

Now your dodge is to jump from God’s existence to the fact that evolution goes from stage to stage, from simple to complex. Each stage of what? Are you now telling me that all other life forms that had no connection with humans plus food were part of God’s one and only goal to produce humans plus food because they were all designed by him in stages (except, of course, for those that he designed without any predecessors)?

dhw: I’m not attacking your belief in God as unworthy. That is yet another dodge. I’m attacking your anthropocentric theory of evolution, but you have switched the subject to God’s existence – and changing the subject is an unworthy way of conducting a discussion.

DAVID: How can you call a discussion of God's existence a change.

Because we are discussing your God’s purpose and method, not his existence.

DAVID: We are debating God's role in producing humans, whom He obviously wanted to produce, since we are here at the current endpoint of evolution. It is God's anthrocentricity in my view.

If he exists, and if – as you claim – he designed every other life form, then equally obviously he wanted to design all the other life forms which were here but had no connection with us, which makes nonsense of your claim that his only goal was to design us and our food!

Can’t Explain the Big Bang

dhw: Unlike yourself, I do not embrace a solution because I “need” one. I am content to wait without one. I see no possibility of “proof”. I try to weigh up the evidence for both sides of the argument, but I find them equally balanced, and so I remain undecided. I don’t know why you find that so difficult to understand.

DAVID: It's quite clear. You are content not to reach conclusions. I reached one on this subject.

Correct. End of a non-discussion!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 08, 2022, 15:22 (172 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: The question has nothing to do with God’s existence or evolution’s stages! You claim that all extinct life forms were part of your God’s goal of evolving humans plus food. I ask how they could all possibly have been part of that goal, since the majority had no connection with humans!

DAVID: It has everything to do with stages. Evolution is defined as a process of development from simple to complex. Humans evolved from bacteria. The connection is God designing each stage.

dhw: Now your dodge is to jump from God’s existence to the fact that evolution goes from stage to stage, from simple to complex. Each stage of what? Are you now telling me that all other life forms that had no connection with humans plus food were part of God’s one and only goal to produce humans plus food because they were all designed by him in stages (except, of course, for those that he designed without any predecessors)?

I don't jump. God's design of evolution is one complete package, with simple stages leading to more complex ones. When He can, i.e., enough oxygen present to allow complex organisms, created by God's invention of photosynthesis, He uses the biochemical processes previously created to form the new phenotypes of the Cambrian. Your dodge is to forget God and try to separate the necessary parts.


DAVID: We are debating God's role in producing humans, whom He obviously wanted to produce, since we are here at the current endpoint of evolution. It is God's anthrocentricity in my view.

dhw: If he exists, and if – as you claim – he designed every other life form, then equally obviously he wanted to design all the other life forms which were here but had no connection with us, which makes nonsense of your claim that his only goal was to design us and our food!

Of course He wanted and understood the need for other life forms to supply our food. You can't have one without the other. You admit the food supply is needed and then somehow it proves humans are unconnected from the process of God's designed evolution.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 14, 2021, 15:27 (197 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

dhw: […] My main concern is the illogicality of the above bolded theory, which you constantly avoid discussing. “Latitude” or freedom is only one of my alternatives (see below), and designs are responses to changing conditions in the present, not “futuristic”.

DAVID: The gaps are leaps into the future, aren't they(?), which you continue to dodge by a hopeless prayer for more fossils which are not found. The Cambrian gap is 200 years old, isn't it?

dhw: I don’t know what your 200 years refers to. The Cambrian lasted for over 55 million years. The gaps relate to new life forms which do not appear to have had any predecessors, i.e. any links to past forms. How does that invalidate the theory that new species come into being in RESPONSE to changing conditions, as opposed to in ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

The 200 years are my fault, but referred to knowledge of the gap. The Cambrian is not explained by your theory or by original Darwin, who wanted intermediate fossils to fill in.


Transferred from “cellular intelligence”

DAVID: We are discussing God, aren't we? How did evolution work, but by introducing new forms into their new future which I pose as designed by God.

dhw: “Introducing new forms into their new future” is a neat obfuscation! Of course once a new form has arisen through its RESPONSE to new conditions it will then have a future under those conditions. And it will go on reproducing itself automatically for thousands of years until new conditions arise. Then it will RESPOND, change accordingly, and again have a new future under the new conditions. We are discussing the ORIGIN of species. So why do you think it is more logical for organisms to be changed BEFORE new conditions demand or allow for the changes? Do you really imagine your pre-whales sitting on the seashore with their new flippers, waiting for the moment when there is water for them to dive into?

Lucy out of the trees had a tiny brain. 315,000 year-old early sapiens had an unused giant forebrain, a great example of arriving before the future use appeared. That is fact, not wishful theory of a 'response to new conditions'. Base theory on known fact, please.


Dhw (transferred from “insect migration”): Obvious possible theistic alternatives: 1) humans plus food were NOT his only goal; 2) he did NOT design each and every life form and natural wonder; 3) he allowed a free-for-all; 4) he was experimenting; 5) he kept getting new ideas.

DAVID: So we go back to a fantastically humanized God who is not sure of what He is doing. Some God!

dhw: You have left out 1), 2) and 3), and you stick to a God who has one goal but inexplicably designs millions of life forms and natural wonders that have no relation to his goal. Some theory!

All those you dismiss were steps in God's form of evolution. Why can't you accept god's choice of creation by evolution of processes band forms.?


DAVID: I follow just as highly trained folks as your experts, but they believe in God and see evolution as I do. […]

dhw: How many of your scientists believe every life form, natural wonder etc., including all those unconnected with humans, was specially designed by your god “as part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. Apparently not even Adler does so.

DAVID: Not part of his book, which you probably never knew about, copyright 1967.

dhw: Right. And who are all the other scientists who see evolution as you do, with every life form and natural wonder specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans” and their food, including all those that had no connection with humans and their food?

All of ID feels God designed evolution and humans through 3.8 billion years of evolution, after He designed life itself. You avoid reading ID as well as Adler, while defending your position. How well-rounded is your background of research studying thoughts of all great minds? I even follow Larry Moran!!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Wednesday, December 15, 2021, 17:22 (196 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE
dhw: […] My main concern is the illogicality of the above bolded theory, which you constantly avoid discussing. “Latitude” or freedom is only one of my alternatives (see below), and designs are responses to changing conditions in the present, not “futuristic”.

DAVID: The gaps are leaps into the future, aren't they(?), which you continue to dodge by a hopeless prayer for more fossils which are not found.

dhw: […] The gaps relate to new life forms which do not appear to have had any predecessors, i.e. any links to past forms. How does that invalidate the theory that new species come into being in RESPONSE to changing conditions, as opposed to in ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

DAVID: […] The Cambrian is not explained by your theory or by original Darwin, who wanted intermediate fossils to fill in.

I still don’t get your point. Once again: The gaps relate to new life forms without any apparent predecessors. How does that come to mean that your God must have created them in anticipation of new conditions that did not yet exist?

DAVID: We are discussing God, aren't we? How did evolution work, but by introducing new forms into their new future which I pose as designed by God.

dhw: “Introducing new forms into their new future” is a neat obfuscation! Of course once a new form has arisen through its RESPONSE to new conditions it will then have a future under those conditions. And it will go on reproducing itself automatically for thousands of years until new conditions arise. Then it will RESPOND, change accordingly, and again have a new future under the new conditions. We are discussing the ORIGIN of species. So why do you think it is more logical for organisms to be changed BEFORE new conditions demand or allow for the changes? Do you really imagine your pre-whales sitting on the seashore with their new flippers, waiting for the moment when there is water for them to dive into?

DAVID: Lucy out of the trees had a tiny brain. 315,000 year-old early sapiens had an unused giant forebrain, a great example of arriving before the future use appeared. That is fact, not wishful theory of a 'response to new conditions'. Base theory on known fact, please.

Nobody knows the “fact” of why brains expanded! We have discussed this over and over again, and now you are pretending that your theory (your God performed sporadic operations on hominin and homo brains to expand them for future requirements) is a known fact! Here is the counter theory that we have discussed umpteen times over: each expansion had a specific cause (new ideas - e.g. for artefacts - or discoveries, new environment, new way of living) and the existing brain did not have the capacity to deal with it. We know for a fact that brains change when they perform new tasks (illiterate women and taxi drivers were our modern examples). We don’t know the individual causes of each past expansion, but once expanded, the brain then used its existing capacity (no doubt complexifying to a degree) until new demands again required additional cells. 315,000 years ago (or whenever it was), an unknown cause resulted in expansion to current size, and since further expansion would have required major changes to the rest of the anatomy, expansion gave way (except in one or two individual sections of the brain) to complexification. And complexification proved so efficient that the brain has actually shrunk, since some cells became redundant. The only instances we know of changes to the brain are those which take place in RESPONSE to new demands. It is therefore perfectly logical to theorize that the same process may have taken place in the past. The theory is based on known facts!

dhw: Obvious possible theistic alternatives [to your anthropocentric theory of evolution]: 1) humans plus food were NOT his only goal; 2) he did NOT design each and every life form and natural wonder; 3) he allowed a free-for-all; 4) he was experimenting; 5) he kept getting new ideas.

DAVID: So we go back to a fantastically humanized God who is not sure of what He is doing. Some God!

dhw: You have left out 1), 2) and 3), and you stick to a God who has one goal but inexplicably designs millions of life forms and natural wonders that have no relation to his goal. Some theory!

DAVID: All those you dismiss were steps in God's form of evolution. Why can't you accept god's choice of creation by evolution of processes band forms.?

What are “processes band forms”? I accept that evolution of all species proceeds in stages, and if God exists, I accept that this was his choice of creation. I do not accept that he chose to individually design every single life form, natural wonder etc., and since most of them had no connection with humans and their food, I do not accept that his sole purpose in designing them was to achieve what you believe to have been his one and only goal of designing homo sapiens and his food.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 15, 2021, 18:39 (196 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: […] The Cambrian is not explained by your theory or by original Darwin, who wanted intermediate fossils to fill in.

dhw: I still don’t get your point. Once again: The gaps relate to new life forms without any apparent predecessors. How does that come to mean that your God must have created them in anticipation of new conditions that did not yet exist?

See under cellular intelligence the point you avoided.


DAVID: Lucy out of the trees had a tiny brain. 315,000 year-old early sapiens had an unused giant forebrain, a great example of arriving before the future use appeared. That is fact, not wishful theory of a 'response to new conditions'. Base theory on known fact, please.

dhw: Nobody knows the “fact” of why brains expanded! We have discussed this over and over again, and now you are pretending that your theory (your God performed sporadic operations on hominin and homo brains to expand them for future requirements) is a known fact! Here is the counter theory that we have discussed umpteen times over: each expansion had a specific cause (new ideas - e.g. for artefacts - or discoveries, new environment, new way of living) and the existing brain did not have the capacity to deal with it. We know for a fact that brains change when they perform new tasks (illiterate women and taxi drivers were our modern examples). We don’t know the individual causes of each past expansion, but once expanded, the brain then used its existing capacity (no doubt complexifying to a degree) until new demands again required additional cells. 315,000 years ago (or whenever it was), an unknown cause resulted in expansion to current size, and since further expansion would have required major changes to the rest of the anatomy, expansion gave way (except in one or two individual sections of the brain) to complexification. And complexification proved so efficient that the brain has actually shrunk, since some cells became redundant. The only instances we know of changes to the brain are those which take place in RESPONSE to new demands. It is therefore perfectly logical to theorize that the same process may have taken place in the past. The theory is based on known facts!

Based only very weakly on the fact that existing large brains can slightly enlarged heavily used areas. We can only use our brain for facts. Tiny past brains had some plasticity limited by their size and lesser complexity. Doesn't tell us why they enlarged.


dhw: Obvious possible theistic alternatives [to your anthropocentric theory of evolution]: 1) humans plus food were NOT his only goal; 2) he did NOT design each and every life form and natural wonder; 3) he allowed a free-for-all; 4) he was experimenting; 5) he kept getting new ideas.

DAVID: So we go back to a fantastically humanized God who is not sure of what He is doing. Some God!

dhw: You have left out 1), 2) and 3), and you stick to a God who has one goal but inexplicably designs millions of life forms and natural wonders that have no relation to his goal. Some theory!

DAVID: All those you dismiss were steps in God's form of evolution. Why can't you accept god's choice of creation by evolution of processes and forms.?

dhw: What are “processes band forms”?

Sorry , misprint: processes and forms.

dhw: I accept that evolution of all species proceeds in stages, and if God exists, I accept that this was his choice of creation. I do not accept that he chose to individually design every single life form, natural wonder etc., and since most of them had no connection with humans and their food, I do not accept that his sole purpose in designing them was to achieve what you believe to have been his one and only goal of designing homo sapiens and his food.

I know. None of your thoughts tell us how humans with consciousness appeared, well beyond natural necessity for simple survival. Only Adler's answer fits.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Thursday, December 16, 2021, 11:14 (196 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Lucy out of the trees had a tiny brain. 315,000 year-old early sapiens had an unused giant forebrain, a great example of arriving before the future use appeared. That is fact, not wishful theory of a 'response to new conditions'. Base theory on known fact, please.

dhw: Nobody knows the “fact” of why brains expanded! We have discussed this over and over again, and now you are pretending that your theory (your God performed sporadic operations on hominin and homo brains to expand them for future requirements) is a known fact! Here is the counter theory that we have discussed umpteen times over: each expansion had a specific cause (new ideas - e.g. for artefacts - or discoveries, new environment, new way of living) and the existing brain did not have the capacity to deal with it. We know for a fact that brains change when they perform new tasks (illiterate women and taxi drivers were our modern examples). We don’t know the individual causes of each past expansion, but once expanded, the brain then used its existing capacity (no doubt complexifying to a degree) until new demands again required additional cells. 315,000 years ago (or whenever it was), an unknown cause resulted in expansion to current size, and since further expansion would have required major changes to the rest of the anatomy, expansion gave way (except in one or two individual sections of the brain) to complexification. And complexification proved so efficient that the brain has actually shrunk, since some cells became redundant. The only instances we know of changes to the brain are those which take place in RESPONSE to new demands. It is therefore perfectly logical to theorize that the same process may have taken place in the past. The theory is based on known facts!

DAVID: Based only very weakly on the fact that existing large brains can slightly enlarged heavily used areas. We can only use our brain for facts. Tiny past brains had some plasticity limited by their size and lesser complexity. Doesn't tell us why they enlarged.

Again, we’ve been over this. it is not based only on slight enlargements but on the fact that the brain is known to change its structure when implementing new tasks. Previously the changes would have been minor complexifications until more cells were needed. With sapiens, I propose that further expansion would have been dangerous, and so complexification became the main process for implementing new tasks. But nobody actually knows why they enlarged, which is why we have different theories. What "known facts" support your theory of divinely preprogrammed or dabbled enlargements?

dhw: I accept that evolution of all species proceeds in stages, and if God exists, I accept that this was his choice of creation. I do not accept that he chose to individually design every single life form, natural wonder etc., and since most of them had no connection with humans and their food, I do not accept that his sole purpose in designing them was to achieve what you believe to have been his one and only goal of designing homo sapiens and his food.

DAVID: I know. None of your thoughts tell us how humans with consciousness appeared, well beyond natural necessity for simple survival. Only Adler's answer fits.

Nobody knows how consciousness itself appeared. Nobody even knows how life appeared. Adler, you have told us, uses humans to “prove” that God exists. You can expand that argument to all life forms, as you do in your books, because even micro-organisms are a complex design. However, my disagreement with you in all these discussions is NOT over God’s existence but over your illogical anthropocentric interpretation of life’s history, your God’s purpose, and his method of achieving that purpose.

DAVID: All of ID feels God designed evolution and humans through 3.8 billion years of evolution, after He designed life itself.
#dhw: Yes I know. How many of them believe that BBBhe individually designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., including all those that had no connection with humans, as “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans and their food”?

DAVID: I think they all do.

dhw: […] name, say, three scientists who believe that your God individually designed every life form etc. as bolded above.

DAVID: Behe, Meyer, Demski.
I always thought that Behe specifically avoided mentioning God, let alone God’s purpose.

I looked up Dembski, and this was the first thing I came upon:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN - Bill Dembski
https://billdembski.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm

QUOTE: “Because a sign is not the thing signified, intelligent design does not presume to identify the purposes of a designer. Intelligent design focuses not on the designer’s purposes (the thing signified) but on the artifacts resulting from a designer’s purposes (the sign). What a designer intends or purposes is, to be sure, an interesting question, and one may be able to infer something about a designer’s purposes from the designed objects that a designer produces. Nevertheless, the purposes of a designer lie outside the scope of intelligent design.”

I don’t know how Behe and Dembski can support your theory that your God’s one and only purpose (goal) was to design H. sapiens plus food if Behe doesn’t talk of God, and Dembski doesn’t talk of purpose. I didn’t bother to find out about Meyer.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 16, 2021, 15:51 (195 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Based only very weakly on the fact that existing large brains can slightly enlarged heavily used areas. We can only use our brain for facts. Tiny past brains had some plasticity limited by their size and lesser complexity. Doesn't tell us why they enlarged.

dhw: Again, we’ve been over this. it is not based only on slight enlargements but on the fact that the brain is known to change its structure when implementing new tasks. Previously the changes would have been minor complexifications until more cells were needed. With sapiens, I propose that further expansion would have been dangerous, and so complexification became the main process for implementing new tasks. But nobody actually knows why they enlarged, which is why we have different theories. What "known facts" support your theory of divinely preprogrammed or dabbled enlargements?

The obvious facts that ID'ers point to constantly. Only design can create the complexities we see in living organisms.


dhw: I accept that evolution of all species proceeds in stages, and if God exists, I accept that this was his choice of creation. I do not accept that he chose to individually design every single life form, natural wonder etc., and since most of them had no connection with humans and their food, I do not accept that his sole purpose in designing them was to achieve what you believe to have been his one and only goal of designing homo sapiens and his food.

DAVID: I know. None of your thoughts tell us how humans with consciousness appeared, well beyond natural necessity for simple survival. Only Adler's answer fits.

dhw: Nobody knows how consciousness itself appeared. Nobody even knows how life appeared. Adler, you have told us, uses humans to “prove” that God exists. You can expand that argument to all life forms, as you do in your books, because even micro-organisms are a complex design. However, my disagreement with you in all these discussions is NOT over God’s existence but over your illogical anthropocentric interpretation of life’s history, your God’s purpose, and his method of achieving that purpose.

You accept that God created history, and then deny that same history. Evolution occurred, produced humans, so God did it, as I see God in charge.


dhw: […] name, say, three scientists who believe that your God individually designed every life form etc. as bolded above.

DAVID: Behe, Meyer, Demski.
I always thought that Behe specifically avoided mentioning God, let alone God’s purpose.

I looked up Dembski, and this was the first thing I came upon:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN - Bill Dembski
https://billdembski.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm

QUOTE: “Because a sign is not the thing signified, intelligent design does not presume to identify the purposes of a designer. Intelligent design focuses not on the designer’s purposes (the thing signified) but on the artifacts resulting from a designer’s purposes (the sign). What a designer intends or purposes is, to be sure, an interesting question, and one may be able to infer something about a designer’s purposes from the designed objects that a designer produces. Nevertheless, the purposes of a designer lie outside the scope of intelligent design.”

dhw: I don’t know how Behe and Dembski can support your theory that your God’s one and only purpose (goal) was to design H. sapiens plus food if Behe doesn’t talk of God, and Dembski doesn’t talk of purpose. I didn’t bother to find out about Meyer.

Since you have barely dipped your toe into ID you know nothing of ID's approach. For public consumption God is never mentioned. They simply use the force of complexity to demand the existence of an unnamed designer. I've talked with Behe personally. He believes. They all do, but the point is to keep religion out of it. Stephen C. Meyer finally didn't:

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-return-of-the-god-hypothesis-compelling-scientific-ev...

Read the address above to see my point. Meyer is an IDer.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Friday, December 17, 2021, 14:59 (194 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE
DAVID: Based only very weakly on the fact that existing large brains can slightly enlarged heavily used areas. We can only use our brain for facts. Tiny past brains had some plasticity limited by their size and lesser complexity. Doesn't tell us why they enlarged.

dhw: Again, we’ve been over this. it is not based only on slight enlargements but on the fact that the brain is known to change its structure when implementing new tasks. Previously the changes would have been minor complexifications until more cells were needed. With sapiens, I propose that further expansion would have been dangerous, and so complexification became the main process for implementing new tasks. But nobody actually knows why they enlarged, which is why we have different theories. What "known facts" support your theory of divinely preprogrammed or dabbled enlargements?

DAVID: The obvious facts that ID'ers point to constantly. Only design can create the complexities we see in living organisms.

We are not arguing about design! Why do you think design can only mean your God preprogramming or dabbling in advance of any need? The complexities of a brain that RESPONDS to new requirements are just as great as those of a brain that is operated on in advance, and my proposal is no less a product of ID than your own. It is a known fact that brains do change (complexify/expand) in response to new requirements. What known facts support your claim that they change in advance of new requirements?

dhw: […] my disagreement with you in all these discussions is NOT over God’s existence but over your illogical anthropocentric interpretation of life’s history, your God’s purpose, and his method of achieving that purpose.

DAVID: You accept that God created history, and then deny that same history. Evolution occurred, produced humans, so God did it, as I see God in charge.

I do not deny that evolution occurred and produced humans! It also produced millions of life forms, lifestyles, econiches and natural wonders that had no connection with humans! If God exists, he did it, but that does not mean he designed every single life form etc, and did so for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food. This is the illogicality you keep dodging!

dhw: […] name, say, three scientists who believe that your God individually designed every life form etc. as bolded above.

DAVID: Behe, Meyer, Demski.
[…]
dhw: I don’t know how Behe and Dembski can support your theory that your God’s one and only purpose (goal) was to design H. sapiens plus food if Behe doesn’t talk of God, and Dembski doesn’t talk of purpose. I didn’t bother to find out about Meyer.

DAVID: Since you have barely dipped your toe into ID you know nothing of ID's approach. For public consumption God is never mentioned. They simply use the force of complexity to demand the existence of an unnamed designer. I've talked with Behe personally. He believes. They all do….

For the thousandth time, I am not disputing the case for intelligent design, or its basis for believing in a designer! I am disputing your rigid belief that your God individually designed every single life form, natural wonder etc., and that he did so for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food, although most of the life forms and wonders etc. had no connection with humans. This is so illogical that I find it hard to believe any scientist would put his name to it. Clearly Behe and Dembski have not done so.

DAVID: …but the point is to keep religion out of it. Stephen C. Meyer finally didn't:
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-return-of-the-god-hypothesis-compelling-scientific-ev...

The link took me to an advertisement for “thriftbooks”. I have no doubt that Stephen C. Meyer believes in intelligent design, and in God the designer. Please save me some more time and just tell me whether he also believes that your God specially designed every life form and lifestyle and natural wonder, including all the extinct ones that had no connection with humans, for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Friday, December 17, 2021, 15:40 (194 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: The obvious facts that ID'ers point to constantly. Only design can create the complexities we see in living organisms.

dhw: We are not arguing about design! Why do you think design can only mean your God preprogramming or dabbling in advance of any need? The complexities of a brain that RESPONDS to new requirements are just as great as those of a brain that is operated on in advance, and my proposal is no less a product of ID than your own. It is a known fact that brains do change (complexify/expand) in response to new requirements. What known facts support your claim that they change in advance of new requirements?

Wrong brain example. Our brains thicken tiny areas, but don't get bigger. Extrapolating from the same design theory you accept, the designer designs in advance. You an -t use aeras of design theories you like and skip over others.


dhw: […] my disagreement with you in all these discussions is NOT over God’s existence but over your illogical anthropocentric interpretation of life’s history, your God’s purpose, and his method of achieving that purpose.

DAVID: You accept that God created history, and then deny that same history. Evolution occurred, produced humans, so God did it, as I see God in charge.

dhw: I do not deny that evolution occurred and produced humans! It also produced millions of life forms, lifestyles, econiches and natural wonders that had no connection with humans! If God exists, he did it, but that does not mean he designed every single life form etc, and did so for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food. This is the illogicality you keep dodging!

I don't dodge if I believe God designed all!!


DAVID: Since you have barely dipped your toe into ID you know nothing of ID's approach. For public consumption God is never mentioned. They simply use the force of complexity to demand the existence of an unnamed designer. I've talked with Behe personally. He believes. They all do….

dhw: For the thousandth time, I am not disputing the case for intelligent design, or its basis for believing in a designer! I am disputing your rigid belief that your God individually designed every single life form, natural wonder etc., and that he did so for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food, although most of the life forms and wonders etc. had no connection with humans. This is so illogical that I find it hard to believe any scientist would put his name to it. Clearly Behe and Dembski have not done so.

DAVID: …but the point is to keep religion out of it. Stephen C. Meyer finally didn't:
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-return-of-the-god-hypothesis-compelling-scientific-ev...

dhw: The link took me to an advertisement for “thriftbooks”. I have no doubt that Stephen C. Meyer believes in intelligent design, and in God the designer. Please save me some more time and just tell me whether he also believes that your God specially designed every life form and lifestyle and natural wonder, including all the extinct ones that had no connection with humans, for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food?

Meyer believes God is the designer of all, published it, and changed ID rules about mentioning God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Saturday, December 18, 2021, 07:49 (194 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: The obvious facts that ID'ers point to constantly. Only design can create the complexities we see in living organisms.

dhw: We are not arguing about design! Why do you think design can only mean your God preprogramming or dabbling in advance of any need? The complexities of a brain that RESPONDS to new requirements are just as great as those of a brain that is operated on in advance, and my proposal is no less a product of ID than your own. It is a known fact that brains do change (complexify/expand) in response to new requirements. What known facts support your claim that they change in advance of new requirements?

DAVID: Wrong brain example. Our brains thicken tiny areas, but don't get bigger. Extrapolating from the same design theory you accept, the designer designs in advance. You can't use areas of design theories you like and skip over others.

I was more specific earlier. Most parts of our modern brain complexify, but one or two sections expand. In both cases, the change is due to their RESPONSE to new requirements. “Extrapolating” from these known facts, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that in earlier times, the same process took place, with the brain RESPONDING to new requirements, whether by complexification or by expansion.

dhw: I do not deny that evolution occurred and produced humans! It also produced millions of life forms, lifestyles, econiches and natural wonders that had no connection with humans! If God exists, he did it, but that does not mean he designed every single life form etc, and did so for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food. This is the illogicality you keep dodging!

DAVID: I don't dodge if I believe God designed all!!

No, you don’t. The dodge is that you also insist that the only species he WANTED to design were humans and their food, in which case why did he design all the species and foods that had no connection with humans? It is the combination of premises that you always dodge because you know full well they do not fit together. That is why you tell me to go and ask God.

dhw: I have no doubt that Stephen C. Meyer believes in intelligent design, and in God the designer. Please save me some more time and just tell me whether he also believes that your God specially designed every life form and lifestyle and natural wonder, including all the extinct ones that had no connection with humans, for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food.

DAVID: Meyer believes God is the designer of all, published it, and changed ID rules about mentioning God.

So he did not promote the bolded theory above. Frankly, I doubt if any scientist would propose a theory that is so manifestly illogical. Design, yes. Existence of God, yes. Humans vastly more intelligent than other species, yes. But a God who only wants one species plus food, but spends 3.x billion years specially designing countless species that have no connection with humans plus food? No. That doesn’t even make sense to you, which is why you either dodge it or you tell me go and ask God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 18, 2021, 15:45 (193 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: Wrong brain example. Our brains thicken tiny areas, but don't get bigger. Extrapolating from the same design theory you accept, the designer designs in advance. You can't use areas of design theories you like and skip over others.

dhw: I was more specific earlier. Most parts of our modern brain complexify, but one or two sections expand. In both cases, the change is due to their RESPONSE to new requirements. “Extrapolating” from these known facts, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that in earlier times, the same process took place, with the brain RESPONDING to new requirements, whether by complexification or by expansion.

In regard to the whole brain the percentage enlargement is minuscule. You are once again making a mountain out of a molehill. We only know our brain's capacities but can infer only that previous brains could also enlarge tiny areas with heavier use.


dhw: I do not deny that evolution occurred and produced humans! It also produced millions of life forms, lifestyles, econiches and natural wonders that had no connection with humans! If God exists, he did it, but that does not mean he designed every single life form etc, and did so for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food. This is the illogicality you keep dodging!

DAVID: I don't dodge if I believe God designed all!!

dhw: No, you don’t. The dodge is that you also insist that the only species he WANTED to design were humans and their food, in which case why did he design all the species and foods that had no connection with humans?

God chose to evolve us and obviously WANTED all of the other forms on the way to us. You constantly distort my theory, which is a poor way to debate honestly.


dhw: I have no doubt that Stephen C. Meyer believes in intelligent design, and in God the designer. Please save me some more time and just tell me whether he also believes that your God specially designed every life form and lifestyle and natural wonder, including all the extinct ones that had no connection with humans, for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food.

DAVID: Meyer believes God is the designer of all, published it, and changed ID rules about mentioning God.

dhw: So he did not promote the bolded theory above. Frankly, I doubt if any scientist would propose a theory that is so manifestly illogical. Design, yes. Existence of God, yes. Humans vastly more intelligent than other species, yes. But a God who only wants one species plus food, but spends 3.x billion years specially designing countless species that have no connection with humans plus food? No. That doesn’t even make sense to you, which is why you either dodge it or you tell me go and ask God.

Same inadequate distortion. Makes perfect sense to me. Move on.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Sunday, December 19, 2021, 12:52 (192 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: Wrong brain example. Our brains thicken tiny areas, but don't get bigger. Extrapolating from the same design theory you accept, the designer designs in advance. You can't use areas of design theories you like and skip over others.

dhw: I was more specific earlier. Most parts of our modern brain complexify, but one or two sections expand. In both cases, the change is due to their RESPONSE to new requirements. “Extrapolating” from these known facts, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that in earlier times, the same process took place, with the brain RESPONDING to new requirements, whether by complexification or by expansion.

DAVID:In regard to the whole brain the percentage enlargement is minuscule. You are once again making a mountain out of a molehill. We only know our brain's capacities but can infer only that previous brains could also enlarge tiny areas with heavier use.

You persist in ignoring my suggestion that the human brain reached its maximum capacity, as further expansion would have required major anatomical changes, and therefore expansion generally gave way to complexification (which proved so efficient that the brain actually shrank). Since we KNOW that earlier brains expanded, and we KNOW that brains change in response to new requirements, I don’t understand why you have a problem acknowledging the logic of my proposal.

dhw: I do not deny that evolution occurred and produced humans! It also produced millions of life forms, lifestyles, econiches and natural wonders that had no connection with humans! If God exists, he did it, but that does not mean he designed every single life form etc, and did so for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food. This is the illogicality you keep dodging!

DAVID: I don't dodge if I believe God designed all!!

dhw: No, you don’t. The dodge is that you also insist that the only species he WANTED to design were humans and their food, in which case why did he design all the species and foods that had no connection with humans?

DAVID: God chose to evolve us and obviously WANTED all of the other forms on the way to us. You constantly distort my theory, which is a poor way to debate honestly.

There is no distortion. If he did indeed WANT all the other forms that had no connection with humans, it makes no sense to argue that the only species he WANTED were humans plus their food! And yet you insist that they were all part of the “goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. You constantly twist your own theory in order to escape from the discrepancy between what you think was his purpose and what you think were his actions.

dhw: I have no doubt that Stephen C. Meyer believes in intelligent design, and in God the designer. Please save me some more time and just tell me whether he also believes that your God specially designed every life form and lifestyle and natural wonder, including all the extinct ones that had no connection with humans, for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food.[/b]

DAVID: Meyer believes God is the designer of all, published it, and changed ID rules about mentioning God.

dhw: So he did not promote the bolded theory above.

I had asked you to name scientists who support your bolded theory. None of the three nominees do so.

dhw: Frankly, I doubt if any scientist would propose a theory that is so manifestly illogical. Design, yes. Existence of God, yes. Humans vastly more intelligent than other species, yes. But a God who only wants one species plus food, but spends 3.x billion years specially designing countless species that have no connection with humans plus food? No. That doesn’t even make sense to you, which is why you either dodge it or you tell me go and ask God.

DAVID: Same inadequate distortion. Makes perfect sense to me. Move on.

What have I distorted?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 19, 2021, 16:11 (192 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID:In regard to the whole brain the percentage enlargement is minuscule. You are once again making a mountain out of a molehill. We only know our brain's capacities but can infer only that previous brains could also enlarge tiny areas with heavier use.

dhw: You persist in ignoring my suggestion that the human brain reached its maximum capacity, as further expansion would have required major anatomical changes, and therefore expansion generally gave way to complexification (which proved so efficient that the brain actually shrank).

Really silly expansion-stop theory. There is no evidence that 200cc more would have caused anatomic problems for our neck and shoulders.

dhw: Since we KNOW that earlier brains expanded, and we KNOW that brains change in response to new requirements, I don’t understand why you have a problem acknowledging the logic of my proposal.

You are skipping over major jumps in size from Lucy to now. And Neanderthal brains were bigger!!! Doesn't fit your theory.


DAVID: God chose to evolve us and obviously WANTED all of the other forms on the way to us. You constantly distort my theory, which is a poor way to debate honestly.

dhw: There is no distortion. If he did indeed WANT all the other forms that had no connection with humans, it makes no sense to argue that the only species he WANTED were humans plus their food!

You forget/ignore all the material presented here as to how interbreeding gave us advantages.

dhw: I have no doubt that Stephen C. Meyer believes in intelligent design, and in God the designer. Please save me some more time and just tell me whether he also believes that your God specially designed every life form and lifestyle and natural wonder, including all the extinct ones that had no connection with humans, for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food.[/b]

All ID'ers think God designed evolution


DAVID: Meyer believes God is the designer of all, published it, and changed ID rules about mentioning God.

dhw: So he did not promote the bolded theory above.

dhw: I had asked you to name scientists who support your bolded theory. None of the three nominees do so.

They all believe God designed the forms in evolution.


dhw: Frankly, I doubt if any scientist would propose a theory that is so manifestly illogical. Design, yes. Existence of God, yes. Humans vastly more intelligent than other species, yes. But a God who only wants one species plus food, but spends 3.x billion years specially designing countless species that have no connection with humans plus food? No. That doesn’t even make sense to you, which is why you either dodge it or you tell me go and ask God.

DAVID: Same inadequate distortion. Makes perfect sense to me. Move on.

dhw: What have I distorted?

You have ignored Adler constantly. His thoughts and proofs of God are mine also. A leading philosopher of religion in the 20th century. I easily follow him and reject your approach. And both he and I accept the history of evolution as what God did. He created humans and their food by that method.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Monday, December 20, 2021, 07:04 (192 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID:In regard to the whole brain the percentage enlargement is minuscule. You are once again making a mountain out of a molehill. We only know our brain's capacities but can infer only that previous brains could also enlarge tiny areas with heavier use.

dhw: You persist in ignoring my suggestion that the human brain reached its maximum capacity, as further expansion would have required major anatomical changes, and therefore expansion generally gave way to complexification (which proved so efficient that the brain actually shrank).

DAVID: Really silly expansion-stop theory. There is no evidence that 200cc more would have caused anatomic problems for our neck and shoulders.

I have no idea what the tipping point would be. It is, however, a fact that the brain stopped expanding and complexity took over. What is your explanation?

dhw: Since we KNOW that earlier brains expanded, and we KNOW that brains change in response to new requirements, I don’t understand why you have a problem acknowledging the logic of my proposal.

DAVID: You are skipping over major jumps in size from Lucy to now. And Neanderthal brains were bigger!!! Doesn't fit your theory.

I am suggesting that every expansion (major jump) since Lucy was caused by new requirements which exceeded the capacity of the existing brain. Hence the expansion of the capacity. Neanderthals were a different build from sapiens, more thickset and with a more prominent brow and nose. Please explain why you think your God gave Neanderthals a bigger brain than ours.

DAVID: God chose to evolve us and obviously WANTED all of the other forms on the way to us. You constantly distort my theory, which is a poor way to debate honestly.

dhw: There is no distortion. If he did indeed WANT all the other forms that had no connection with humans, it makes no sense to argue that the only species he WANTED were humans plus their food!

DAVID: You forget/ignore all the material presented here as to how interbreeding gave us advantages.

I have asked why your all-powerful God needed to design all these different homos and hominins when according to you he is perfectly capable of designing species “de novo” (see Cambrian), but in any case your theory does not stop with homos and hominins. According to you EVERY extinct life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc, was “part of the goal to evolve [= design] human” and their food. According to you, he only WANTED us plus food, yet you say he also WANTED all those life forms and foods that had no connection with us.

dhw: I have no doubt that Stephen C. Meyer believes in intelligent design, and in God the designer. Please save me some more time and just tell me whether he also believes that your God specially designed every life form and lifestyle and natural wonder, including all the extinct ones that had no connection with humans, for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food.

DAVID: All ID'ers think God designed evolution.

But apparently you can’t find even one who supports the theory I have bolded!

dhw: Frankly, I doubt if any scientist would propose a theory that is so manifestly illogical. Design, yes. Existence of God, yes. Humans vastly more intelligent than other species, yes. But a God who only wants one species plus food, but spends 3.x billion years specially designing countless species that have no connection with humans plus food? No. That doesn’t even make sense to you, which is why you either dodge it or you tell me go and ask God.

DAVID: Same inadequate distortion. Makes perfect sense to me. Move on.

dhw: What have I distorted?

DAVID: You have ignored Adler constantly. His thoughts and proofs of God are mine also. A leading philosopher of religion in the 20th century. I easily follow him and reject your approach. And both he and I accept the history of evolution as what God did. He created humans and their food by that method.

I have agreed ad nauseam that Adler’s theory, as you have explained it, provides a logical reason for believing in the existence of God. But you have always maintained that he does not cover your theory of evolution. Please make up your mind. And please tell me what I have distorted in the paragraph you criticised.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Monday, December 20, 2021, 16:44 (191 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: Really silly expansion-stop theory. There is no evidence that 200cc more would have caused anatomic problems for our neck and shoulders.

dhw: I have no idea what the tipping point would be. It is, however, a fact that the brain stopped expanding and complexity took over. What is your explanation?

300,000+ years ago the unused brain was big enough for future anticipated use in God's mind.


dhw: I am suggesting that every expansion (major jump) since Lucy was caused by new requirements which exceeded the capacity of the existing brain. Hence the expansion of the capacity. Neanderthals were a different build from sapiens, more thickset and with a more prominent brow and nose. Please explain why you think your God gave Neanderthals a bigger brain than ours.

We assume it wasn't a better brain, just different. What Neanderthals gave us is much more important than brain size, i.e., improved immunity, for one.


DAVID: You forget/ignore all the material presented here as to how interbreeding gave us advantages.

dhw: I have asked why your all-powerful God needed to design all these different homos and hominins when according to you he is perfectly capable of designing species “de novo” (see Cambrian), but in any case your theory does not stop with homos and hominins. According to you EVERY extinct life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc, was “part of the goal to evolve [= design] human” and their food. According to you, he only WANTED us plus food, yet you say he also WANTED all those life forms and foods that had no connection with us.

The bold is your constant distortion of my thoughts about God's desires. God wanted all of the evolutionary tree with us arriving at the end, and evolved us by the process of evolution. You twist my God into a tunnel-visioned character to try to damage my theory. It won't/doesn't work to any rational person viewing.


DAVID: All ID'ers think God designed evolution.

dhw: But apparently you can’t find even one who supports the theory I have bolded!

All ID folks do is prove a designer exists, my theory is not their point of attack. You have favorite folks you bring up over and over who have an opinion cells are intelligent. Do they ever declare, as you do, that this is how speciation happens?

DAVID: Same inadequate distortion. Makes perfect sense to me. Move on.

dhw: What have I distorted?

DAVID: You have ignored Adler constantly. His thoughts and proofs of God are mine also. A leading philosopher of religion in the 20th century. I easily follow him and reject your approach. And both he and I accept the history of evolution as what God did. He created humans and their food by that method.

dhw: I have agreed ad nauseam that Adler’s theory, as you have explained it, provides a logical reason for believing in the existence of God. But you have always maintained that he does not cover your theory of evolution. Please make up your mind. And please tell me what I have distorted in the paragraph you criticised.

My whole view of God as discussed above in red.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Wednesday, December 22, 2021, 22:05 (189 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE
DAVID: Really silly expansion-stop theory. There is no evidence that 200cc more would have caused anatomic problems for our neck and shoulders.

dhw: I have no idea what the tipping point would be. It is, however, a fact that the brain stopped expanding and complexity took over. What is your explanation?

DAVID: 300,000+ years ago the unused brain was big enough for future anticipated use in God's mind.

And I propose that all past brains would have remained the same size and would presumably have complexified, until unknown new requirements (lots of possibilities ranging from new artefacts to new ideas or discoveries to new conditions to new ways of living) necessitated additional cells (= expansion). Our “mainly unused giant brain” reached its current size 300,000 years ago to meet unknown new requirements, but instead of expanding (possibly because further expansion would have necessitated major changes to the rest of the anatomy), the human brain subsequently responded to new requirements by complexifying, and complexification has proved so efficient that the brain has shrunk. You have never come up with any reason for rejecting this theory.

dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

So you stick to the idea that your God operated on pre-whale legs to change them into flippers before they entered the water, although the fossil record shows that there were transitional forms.

DAVID: [re "NEANDERTHALS"] You forget/ignore all the material presented here as to how interbreeding gave us advantages.

dhw: I have asked why your all-powerful God needed to design all these different homos and hominins when according to you he is perfectly capable of designing species “de novo” (see Cambrian), but in any case your theory does not stop with homos and hominins. According to you EVERY extinct life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc, was “part of the goal to evolve [= design] humans” and their food. According to you, he only WANTED us plus food, yet you say he also WANTED all those life forms and foods that had no connection with us.

DAVID: The bold is your constant distortion of my thoughts about God's desires. God wanted all of the evolutionary tree with us arriving at the end, and evolved us by the process of evolution. You twist my God into a tunnel-visioned character to try to damage my theory. It won't/doesn't work to any rational person viewing.

What doesn’t work to any rational person viewing is your rigid belief that all life forms are/were part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. You even emphasize this in your comment on ecosystems. (“Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.”) That is YOUR tunnel-vision. I cannot follow the logic of an all-powerful God, whose one and only goal is to produce humans plus food, deliberately designing all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with humans plus food.

DAVID: All ID'ers think God designed evolution.

dhw: But apparently you can’t find even one who supports the theory I have bolded!

DAVID: All ID folks do is prove a designer exists, my theory is not their point of attack.

So please stop pretending that they support your illogical theory of evolution!

DAVID: You have favorite folks you bring up over and over who have an opinion cells are intelligent. Do they ever declare, as you do, that this is how speciation happens?

Shapiro does. But it is you who constantly harp on about support – even to the extent of claiming that cellular intelligence has no supporters now. That is why I challenged you to name supporters of your own theory. The discussion on who supports what is pointless. We should simply focus on the arguments themselves.

DAVID: Same inadequate distortion. Makes perfect sense to me. Move on.

dhw: What have I distorted?

DAVID: You have ignored Adler constantly. His thoughts and proofs of God are mine also. A leading philosopher of religion in the 20th century. I easily follow him and reject your approach. And both he and I accept the history of evolution as what God did. He created humans and their food by that method.

dhw: I have agreed ad nauseam that Adler’s theory, as you have explained it, provides a logical reason for believing in the existence of God. But you have always maintained that he does not cover your theory of evolution. Please make up your mind. And please tell me what I have distorted in the paragraph you criticised.

DAVID: My whole view of God as discussed above in red.

Your comment in red does not explain why he wanted ALL of the evolutionary tree, or do you now wish to disown your constantly repeated view that he designed ALL life forms etc. “as part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 23, 2021, 00:31 (189 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: 300,000+ years ago the unused brain was big enough for future anticipated use in God's mind.

dhw: And I propose that all past brains would have remained the same size and would presumably have complexified, until unknown new requirements (lots of possibilities ranging from new artefacts to new ideas or discoveries to new conditions to new ways of living) necessitated additional cells (= expansion). Our “mainly unused giant brain” reached its current size 300,000 years ago to meet unknown new requirements, but instead of expanding (possibly because further expansion would have necessitated major changes to the rest of the anatomy), the human brain subsequently responded to new requirements by complexifying, and complexification has proved so efficient that the brain has shrunk. You have never come up with any reason for rejecting this theory.

I'll remind you, 200 cc of more brain is not anatomic problem. No new requirements appeared from erectus to sapiens of any larger amount. Lots of unused brain for no good reason, except it appeared in advance prepared for future use.


dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

dhw: So you stick to the idea that your God operated on pre-whale legs to change them into flippers before they entered the water, although the fossil record shows that there were transitional forms.

We do not know in the fossil gaps when they formed. Swimming mammals could have been redesigned in the water.


DAVID: [re "NEANDERTHALS"] You forget/ignore all the material presented here as to how interbreeding gave us advantages.

DAVID: The bold is your constant distortion of my thoughts about God's desires. God wanted all of the evolutionary tree with us arriving at the end, and evolved us by the process of evolution. You twist my God into a tunnel-visioned character to try to damage my theory. It won't/doesn't work to any rational person viewing.

dhw: What doesn’t work to any rational person viewing is your rigid belief that all life forms are/were part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. You even emphasize this in your comment on ecosystems. (“Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.”) That is YOUR tunnel-vision. I cannot follow the logic of an all-powerful God, whose one and only goal is to produce humans plus food, deliberately designing all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with humans plus food.

I think my logic fits God's intentions. God chose to evolve us. Deny that.


DAVID: All ID'ers think God designed evolution.

dhw: But apparently you can’t find even one who supports the theory I have bolded!

DAVID: All ID folks do is prove a designer exists, my theory is not their point of attack.

dhw: So please stop pretending that they support your illogical theory of evolution!

No pretend. They think God designed al forms in evolution


DAVID: You have favorite folks you bring up over and over who have an opinion cells are intelligent. Do they ever declare, as you do, that this is how speciation happens?

dhw: Shapiro does.

It is a theoretical proposal he barely supported at the Royal Society, remember?


DAVID: Same inadequate distortion. Makes perfect sense to me. Move on.

dhw: What have I distorted?

dhw: I have agreed ad nauseam that Adler’s theory, as you have explained it, provides a logical reason for believing in the existence of God. But you have always maintained that he does not cover your theory of evolution. Please make up your mind. And please tell me what I have distorted in the paragraph you criticised.

DAVID: My whole view of God as discussed above in red.

dhw: Your comment in red does not explain why he wanted ALL of the evolutionary tree, or do you now wish to disown your constantly repeated view that he designed ALL life forms etc. “as part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food?

Never. God chose to design all steps of evolution to form us, per Adler.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Thursday, December 23, 2021, 09:20 (189 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: 300,000+ years ago the unused brain was big enough for future anticipated use in God's mind.

dhw: And I propose that all past brains would have remained the same size and would presumably have complexified, until unknown new requirements (lots of possibilities ranging from new artefacts to new ideas or discoveries to new conditions to new ways of living) necessitated additional cells (= expansion). Our “mainly unused giant brain” reached its current size 300,000 years ago to meet unknown new requirements, but instead of expanding (possibly because further expansion would have necessitated major changes to the rest of the anatomy), the human brain subsequently responded to new requirements by complexifying, and complexification has proved so efficient that the brain has shrunk. You have never come up with any reason for rejecting this theory.

DAVID: I'll remind you, 200 cc of more brain is not anatomic problem.

I’m delighted that this is the only objection you can find to my theory. Please tell us your own theory as to why sapiens’ brain stopped expanding and gave precedence to complexification.

DAVID: No new requirements appeared from erectus to sapiens of any larger amount.

How large is a “larger” amount? And how do you know?

DAVID: Lots of unused brain for no good reason, except it appeared in advance prepared for future use.

How do you know it was not used? Do you think our ancestors were zombies? If they did encounter any new conditions or requirements, their brains would have complexified instead of expanding. That is the only process we know: the brain changes in RESPONSE to new requirements.

dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

dhw: So you stick to the idea that your God operated on pre-whale legs to change them into flippers before they entered the water, although the fossil record shows that there were transitional forms.

DAVID: We do not know in the fossil gaps when they formed. Swimming mammals could have been redesigned in the water.

So your all-powerful, all-knowing God had to keep dabbling, making corrections as and when he realized that conditions required more changes. If they were already in the water, wouldn’t this have been IN RESPONSE to conditions?

DAVID: The bold is your constant distortion of my thoughts about God's desires. God wanted all of the evolutionary tree with us arriving at the end, and evolved us by the process of evolution. You twist my God into a tunnel-visioned character to try to damage my theory. It won't/doesn't work to any rational person viewing.

dhw: What doesn’t work to any rational person viewing is your rigid belief that all life forms are/were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. You even emphasize this in your comment on ecosystems. (“Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.”) That is YOUR tunnel-vision. I cannot follow the logic of an all-powerful God, whose one and only goal is to produce humans plus food, deliberately designing all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with humans plus food.

DAVID: I think my logic fits God's intentions. God chose to evolve us. Deny that.

The usual dodge. If God exists, he chose to evolve every life form that ever lived (or he gave them the freedom to evolve), including all those that had no connection with humans and their food.

DAVID: All ID folks do is prove a designer exists, my theory is not their point of attack.

dhw: So please stop pretending that they support your illogical theory of evolution!

DAVID: No pretend. They think God designed all forms in evolution

But do they believe that all forms served his one and only goal of designing sapiens plus food?

DAVID (in PART TWO): Behe believes God designed all of evolution. We didn't discuss any further.

So stop pretending that he supports your theory!

DAVID: You have favorite folks you bring up over and over who have an opinion cells are intelligent. Do they ever declare, as you do, that this is how speciation happens?

dhw: Shapiro does.

DAVID: It is a theoretical proposal he barely supported at the Royal Society, remember?

What does “barely supported” mean? Has he expressly rejected his own theory? In any case, this is a silly discussion. The focus should be on the feasibility of the theory, not on who does or doesn’t support the theory.

dhw: ...please tell me what I have distorted in the paragraph you criticised.

DAVID: My whole view of God as discussed above in red.

dhw: Your comment in red does not explain why he wanted ALL of the evolutionary tree, or do you now wish to disown your constantly repeated view that he designed ALL life forms etc. “as part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food?

DAVID: Never. God chose to design all steps of evolution to form us, per Adler.

So please tell us how Adler explains the discrepancy between God’s one and only purpose (to “form us”) and God’s individual design of all the extinct life forms that had no connection with us.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 23, 2021, 15:34 (188 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: I'll remind you, 200 cc of more brain is not anatomic problem.

dhw: I’m delighted that this is the only objection you can find to my theory. Please tell us your own theory as to why sapiens’ brain stopped expanding and gave precedence to complexification.

Complexification caused shrinkage, as you know, so the size of our given brain was more than adequate 315,000 years ago, and when finally fully used lost size. It is the quality and quantity of neurons, not size, if we compare ourselves theoretically to bigger Neanderthal brains.


dhw: How do you know it was not used? Do you think our ancestors were zombies? If they did encounter any new conditions or requirements, their brains would have complexified instead of expanding. That is the only process we know: the brain changes in RESPONSE to new requirements.

Compare living style requirements of Erectus to sapiens to see the use difference.


dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

DAVID: All ID folks do is prove a designer exists, my theory is not their point of attack.

dhw: So please stop pretending that they support your illogical theory of evolution!

DAVID: No pretend. They think God designed all forms in evolution

dhw: But do they believe that all forms served his one and only goal of designing sapiens plus food?


Not discussed by them.


DAVID (in PART TWO): Behe believes God designed all of evolution. We didn't discuss any further.

dhw: So stop pretending that he supports your theory!

He supports design theory and believes in God all part of how I view evolution. ID doesn't go into the details I do.


DAVID: Never. God chose to design all steps of evolution to form us, per Adler.

dhw: So please tell us how Adler explains the discrepancy between God’s one and only purpose (to “form us”) and God’s individual design of all the extinct life forms that had no connection with us.

Adler and I see no discrepancy as you imagine it. Adler simply accepts, as I do, God evolved use from the beginning of the life God invented. In his view the appearance of humans proved God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Monday, December 27, 2021, 08:53 (185 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: I'll remind you, 200 cc of more brain is not anatomic problem.

dhw: I’m delighted that this is the only objection you can find to my theory. Please tell us your own theory as to why sapiens’ brain stopped expanding and gave precedence to complexification.

DAVID: Complexification caused shrinkage, as you know, so the size of our given brain was more than adequate 315,000 years ago, and when finally fully used lost size. It is the quality and quantity of neurons, not size, if we compare ourselves theoretically to bigger Neanderthal brains.

You don’t seem to be able to make up your mind whether 200 cc was a big leap or a little leap. I suggest it was no different from all the earlier leaps, and happened – like the others – for one of several possible reasons, as listed earlier. You don’t know any more than I do why the brain expanded or why it stopped expanding, but I’m surprised you think it has been fully used. Do you honestly believe that in the next hundred/ thousand/ten thousand/hundred thousand years we shall have no more new ideas or requirements or needs? And do you honestly believe that the brain could simply have gone on expanding indefinitely? At some stage, complexification would have had to take over anyway.

DAVID: Compare living style requirements of Erectus to sapiens to see the use difference.

"Living style" didn't change much between any of our earlier ancestors. If, for example, the invention of the bow and arrow required brain expansion, it would not have changed "living style". I suggest that all stages in the past were followed by a period of “stasis” until the next new factor required expansion, but with sapiens - as we have agreed over and over again - expansion was replaced by complexification, which proved so efficient that the brain shrank. I keep asking why you find this theory so difficult to accept. Your only answer seems to be that, like all your own theories, it isn’t proven.

dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

And so pre-whales sat on the beach with their brand new flippers waiting for God to provide a reason for them to enter the water (or waiting for him to provide the water).

DAVID: All ID folks do is prove a designer exists, my theory is not their point of attack.

dhw: So please stop pretending that they support your illogical theory of evolution!

DAVID: No pretend. They think God designed all forms in evolution

dhw: But do they believe that all forms, served his one and only goal of designing sapiens plus food?

DAVID: Not discussed by them.

Then please stop pretending that they support your theory!

DAVID (in PART TWO): Behe believes God designed all of evolution. We didn't discuss any further.

dhw: So stop pretending that he supports your theory!

DAVID: He supports design theory and believes in God all part of how I view evolution. ID doesn't go into the details I do.

Obviously all ID-ers believe in design, which is fine, but they don’t even mention your anthropocentric theory that your God’s only purpose was to design us and therefore he designed countless life forms that had no connection with us. So please stop leaning on ID-ers for support since you have fallen down each time you’ve tried to lean on them.

DAVID: God chose to design all steps of evolution to form us, per Adler.

dhw: So please tell us how Adler explains the discrepancy between God’s one and only purpose (to “form us”) and God’s individual design of all the extinct life forms that had no connection with us.

DAVID: Adler and I see no discrepancy as you imagine it. Adler simply accepts, as I do, God evolved use from the beginning of the life God invented. In his view the appearance of humans proved God.

Thank you for confirming for the umpteenth time that Adler does not cover your one-man campaign for a God who designed every life form, including all those that had no connection with humans, “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans" plus food. You can’t even lean on Adler.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Monday, December 27, 2021, 15:14 (184 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: Complexification caused shrinkage, as you know, so the size of our given brain was more than adequate 315,000 years ago, and when finally fully used lost size. It is the quality and quantity of neurons, not size, if we compare ourselves theoretically to bigger Neanderthal brains.

dhw: You don’t seem to be able to make up your mind whether 200 cc was a big leap or a little leap. I suggest it was no different from all the earlier leaps, and happened – like the others – for one of several possible reasons, as listed earlier. You don’t know any more than I do why the brain expanded or why it stopped expanding, but I’m surprised you think it has been fully used. Do you honestly believe that in the next hundred/ thousand/ten thousand/hundred thousand years we shall have no more new ideas or requirements or needs? And do you honestly believe that the brain could simply have gone on expanding indefinitely? At some stage, complexification would have had to take over anyway.

Remember I accept God did all the designing. I fully believe our brain is as fully used as it can be and advancing mentation needs will be handled with no problem


DAVID: Compare living style requirements of Erectus to sapiens to see the use difference.

dhw: "Living style" didn't change much between any of our earlier ancestors. If, for example, the invention of the bow and arrow required brain expansion, it would not have changed "living style". I suggest that all stages in the past were followed by a period of “stasis” until the next new factor required expansion, but with sapiens - as we have agreed over and over again - expansion was replaced by complexification, which proved so efficient that the brain shrank. I keep asking why you find this theory so difficult to accept. Your only answer seems to be that, like all your own theories, it isn’t proven.

My theory is God designs, which you don't accept. Your approach is backwards. The brain expands first and then new lifestyles appear, as history and archelogy demonstrate.


dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

dhw: And so pre-whales sat on the beach with their brand new flippers waiting for God to provide a reason for them to enter the water (or waiting for him to provide the water).

The fossils are of transitional forms, in and out of water. So the changes are stepwise even if the gaps are large, no Darwinoid itty-bitty forms found.

DAVID: All ID folks do is prove a designer exists, my theory is not their point of attack.

dhw: But do they believe that all forms, served his one and only goal of designing sapiens plus food?

DAVID: Not discussed by them.

dhw: Then please stop pretending that they support your theory!

Their theory is God designed all of evolution. That is my theory!!


dhw: Obviously all ID-ers believe in design, which is fine, but they don’t even mention your anthropocentric theory that your God’s only purpose was to design us and therefore he designed countless life forms that had no connection with us. So please stop leaning on ID-ers for support since you have fallen down each time you’ve tried to lean on them.

DAVID: God chose to design all steps of evolution to form us, per Adler.

dhw: So please tell us how Adler explains the discrepancy between God’s one and only purpose (to “form us”) and God’s individual design of all the extinct life forms that had no connection with us.

DAVID: Adler and I see no discrepancy as you imagine it. Adler simply accepts, as I do, God evolved use from the beginning of the life God invented. In his view the appearance of humans proved God.

dhw: Thank you for confirming for the umpteenth time that Adler does not cover your one-man campaign for a God who designed every life form, including all those that had no connection with humans, “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans" plus food. You can’t even lean on Adler.

Your complaint is a total distortion of my logic. Adler says human evolution proves God exists, and ID says God designed all of evolution from bacteria to humans. In that way I see humans as the desired endpoint for God. You can't erase 3.8 billion years of life getting from there to here.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Tuesday, December 28, 2021, 14:12 (183 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: Complexification caused shrinkage, as you know, so the size of our given brain was more than adequate 315,000 years ago, and when finally fully used lost size. It is the quality and quantity of neurons, not size, if we compare ourselves theoretically to bigger Neanderthal brains.

dhw: You don’t seem to be able to make up your mind whether 200 cc was a big leap or a little leap. I suggest it was no different from all the earlier leaps, and happened – like the others – for one of several possible reasons, as listed earlier. You don’t know any more than I do why the brain expanded or why it stopped expanding, but I’m surprised you think it has been fully used. Do you honestly believe that in the next hundred/ thousand/ten thousand/hundred thousand years we shall have no more new ideas or requirements or needs? And do you honestly believe that the brain could simply have gone on expanding indefinitely? At some stage, complexification would have had to take over anyway.

DAVID: Remember I accept God did all the designing. I fully believe our brain is as fully used as it can be and advancing mentation needs will be handled with no problem.

I can hardly forget your belief (not acceptance) that your God did all the designing. And if he exists, I have no problem accepting the idea that he designed the brain so that initially it would expand and/or complexify in order to meet new requirements. I don’t see how it can now be “as fully used as it can be” and yet be capable of advancing mentation. But I agree that complexification will handle all further requirements. Now please tell us whether you think the brain could have gone on expanding indefinitely with all our "advancing mentation".

DAVID: Compare living style requirements of Erectus to sapiens to see the use difference.

dhw: "Living style" didn't change much between any of our earlier ancestors. If, for example, the invention of the bow and arrow required brain expansion, it would not have changed "living style". I suggest that all stages in the past were followed by a period of “stasis” until the next new factor required expansion, but with sapiens - as we have agreed over and over again - expansion was replaced by complexification, which proved so efficient that the brain shrank. I keep asking why you find this theory so difficult to accept. Your only answer seems to be that, like all your own theories, it isn’t proven.

DAVID: My theory is God designs, which you don't accept.

My theory, as explained above, allows for your God designing the brain.

DAVID: Your approach is backwards. The brain expands first and then new lifestyles appear, as history and archelogy demonstrate.

History and archaeology do not tell us what caused the brain to expand in the first place. We took a simple example, though, to illustrate how it might work. Pre-expansion homo is a hunter and thinks of a safer way than close-up grappling, i.e. by designing a weapon that can be thrown from a distance. The new idea requires new skills in the making and using of the new weapon and so, just like illiterate women learning to read, the brain responds, but in this case it does so by adding new cells. The appearance of the new weapon COINCIDES with the expansion of the brain, since its designing, making and usage of the new weapon is the cause of the expansion (just as illiterate women’s complexification COINCIDES with learning to read). From then on, the newly expanded brain complexifies until once more a new requirement results in additional cells.If God exists, he designed the flexibility of the brain. Do you think he pops in to complexify the modern brain every time someone gets a new idea? Which comes first, the new requirement or the complexification? If it’s the new requirement now, why should it have been any different in the past?

dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

dhw: And so pre-whales sat on the beach with their brand new flippers waiting for God to provide a reason for them to enter the water (or waiting for him to provide the water).

DAVID: The fossils are of transitional forms, in and out of water. So the changes are stepwise even if the gaps are large, no Darwinoid itty-bitty forms found.

We are not discussing itty-bitty forms but the order in which the different steps are taken. Specifically, do you believe your God changed legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 28, 2021, 15:26 (183 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: Remember I accept God did all the designing. I fully believe our brain is as fully used as it can be and advancing mentation needs will be handled with no problem.

dhw: I can hardly forget your belief (not acceptance) that your God did all the designing. And if he exists, I have no problem accepting the idea that he designed the brain so that initially it would expand and/or complexify in order to meet new requirements. I don’t see how it can now be “as fully used as it can be” and yet be capable of advancing mentation. But I agree that complexification will handle all further requirements. Now please tell us whether you think the brain could have gone on expanding indefinitely with all our "advancing mentation".

Your imagined evolution of a much larger human brain requiring an anatomic stop is answered by yourself as not necessary


DAVID: Your approach is backwards. The brain expands first and then new lifestyles appear, as history and archelogy demonstrate.

dhw: History and archaeology do not tell us what caused the brain to expand in the first place. We took a simple example, though, to illustrate how it might work. Pre-expansion homo is a hunter and thinks of a safer way than close-up grappling, i.e. by designing a weapon that can be thrown from a distance. The new idea requires new skills in the making and using of the new weapon and so, just like illiterate women learning to read, the brain responds, but in this case it does so by adding new cells. The appearance of the new weapon COINCIDES with the expansion of the brain, since its designing, making and usage of the new weapon is the cause of the expansion (just as illiterate women’s complexification COINCIDES with learning to read). From then on, the newly expanded brain complexifies until once more a new requirement results in additional cells.If God exists, he designed the flexibility of the brain. Do you think he pops in to complexify the modern brain every time someone gets a new idea? Which comes first, the new requirement or the complexification? If it’s the new requirement now, why should it have been any different in the past?

Your long paragraph about past brains ignore the facts we know about our current 315,000 year old brain, which arrived prepared for the uses of today, and shrunk 150 cc with current use. Obviously prepared for the future.


dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

dhw: And so pre-whales sat on the beach with their brand new flippers waiting for God to provide a reason for them to enter the water (or waiting for him to provide the water).

DAVID: The fossils are of transitional forms, in and out of water. So the changes are stepwise even if the gaps are large, no Darwinoid itty-bitty forms found.

dhw: We are not discussing itty-bitty forms but the order in which the different steps are taken. Specifically, do you believe your God changed legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water?

Please study the whale series, rather than imagination. Transitional forms with swimming legs are part of it. Not legs to flippers in one step but with large gaps in form:

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0135-2

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Wednesday, December 29, 2021, 12:01 (182 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: Remember I accept God did all the designing. I fully believe our brain is as fully used as it can be and advancing mentation needs will be handled with no problem.

dhw: I can hardly forget your belief (not acceptance) that your God did all the designing. And if he exists, I have no problem accepting the idea that he designed the brain so that initially it would expand and/or complexify in order to meet new requirements. I don’t see how it can now be “as fully used as it can be” and yet be capable of advancing mentation. But I agree that complexification will handle all further requirements. Now please tell us whether you think the brain could have gone on expanding indefinitely with all our "advancing mentation".

DAVID: Your imagined evolution of a much larger human brain requiring an anatomic stop is answered by yourself as not necessary.

I don’t understand your reasoning. Firstly, you have told us that sapiens brain only expanded by 200 cc, which does not make it “much” larger than that of our immediate predecessors, and secondly I have proposed that a “much” larger brain would require changes to the anatomy, and that is WHY the existing process of complexification took over. Unanswered question: do you think the brain could have gone on expanding indefinitely?

DAVID: Your approach is backwards. The brain expands first and then new lifestyles appear, as history and archelogy demonstrate.

dhw: History and archaeology do not tell us what caused the brain to expand in the first place. We took a simple example, though, to illustrate how it might work. Pre-expansion homo is a hunter and thinks of a safer way than close-up grappling, i.e. by designing a weapon that can be thrown from a distance. The new idea requires new skills in the making and using of the new weapon and so, just like illiterate women learning to read, the brain responds, but in this case it does so by adding new cells. The appearance of the new weapon COINCIDES with the expansion of the brain, since its designing, making and usage of the new weapon is the cause of the expansion (just as illiterate women’s complexification COINCIDES with learning to read). From then on, the newly expanded brain complexifies until once more a new requirement results in additional cells.If God exists, he designed the flexibility of the brain. Do you think he pops in to complexify the modern brain every time someone gets a new idea? Which comes first, the new requirement or the complexification? If it’s the new requirement now, why should it have been any different in the past?

DAVID: Your long paragraph about past brains ignore the facts we know about our current 315,000 year old brain, which arrived prepared for the uses of today, and shrunk 150 cc with current use. Obviously prepared for the future.

Each successive brain expanded and was then efficient enough (no doubt through complexification) to cope with the uses of its “today” until new requirements made it necessary for more cells to be added. Sapiens brain could not go on expanding indefinitely, and so complexification became more efficient – so much so that the brain shrank. There are no known examples of the brain changing in ANTICIPATION of future requirements. Why do you find this theory unreasonable?

dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

dhw: And so pre-whales sat on the beach with their brand new flippers waiting for God to provide a reason for them to enter the water (or waiting for him to provide the water).

DAVID: The fossils are of transitional forms, in and out of water. So the changes are stepwise even if the gaps are large, no Darwinoid itty-bitty forms found.

dhw: We are not discussing itty-bitty forms but the order in which the different steps are taken. Specifically, do you believe your God changed legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water?

DAVID: Please study the whale series, rather than imagination. Transitional forms with swimming legs are part of it. Not legs to flippers in one step but with large gaps in form:

I use the whale example precisely because it makes nonsense of your claim that your God designs every evolutionary change in advance of requirements. So now you agree that your God did not give pre-whales flippers before they entered the water. On the contrary, legs passed through several transitional stages as the organism adapted to new conditions (life in the water). Or do you think your God kept popping in every few thousand years to make "itty-bitty" adjustments to his less than perfect designs?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 29, 2021, 14:52 (182 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: Your imagined evolution of a much larger human brain requiring an anatomic stop is answered by yourself as not necessary.

dhw: I don’t understand your reasoning. Firstly, you have told us that sapiens brain only expanded by 200 cc, which does not make it “much” larger than that of our immediate predecessors, and secondly I have proposed that a “much” larger brain would require changes to the anatomy, and that is WHY the existing process of complexification took over. Unanswered question: do you think the brain could have gone on expanding indefinitely?

I assume previous brains had complexification and used it. The fact our brain shrunk 150 cc with heavy use shows your imagined need for huge brains was never an issue.


DAVID: Your approach is backwards. The brain expands first and then new lifestyles appear, as history and archelogy demonstrate.

DAVID: Your long paragraph about past brains ignore the facts we know about our current 315,000 year old brain, which arrived prepared for the uses of today, and shrunk 150 cc with current use. Obviously prepared for the future.

dhw: Each successive brain expanded and was then efficient enough (no doubt through complexification) to cope with the uses of its “today” until new requirements made it necessary for more cells to be added. Sapiens brain could not go on expanding indefinitely, and so complexification became more efficient – so much so that the brain shrank. There are no known examples of the brain changing in ANTICIPATION of future requirements. Why do you find this theory unreasonable?

How do you know complexification became more efficient? Our brain is a known example, much lager before much more use!!!


dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

dhw: And so pre-whales sat on the beach with their brand new flippers waiting for God to provide a reason for them to enter the water (or waiting for him to provide the water).

DAVID: Please study the whale series, rather than imagination. Transitional forms with swimming legs are part of it. Not legs to flippers in one step but with large gaps in form:

dhw: I use the whale example precisely because it makes nonsense of your claim that your God designs every evolutionary change in advance of requirements. So now you agree that your God did not give pre-whales flippers before they entered the water. On the contrary, legs passed through several transitional stages as the organism adapted to new conditions (life in the water). Or do you think your God kept popping in every few thousand years to make "itty-bitty" adjustments to his less than perfect designs?

The gaps in form are all huge requiring major phenotypic changes. Look at the species with open eyes. Why do you think the sites that believe in God tout the series?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Thursday, December 30, 2021, 13:20 (181 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: Your imagined evolution of a much larger human brain requiring an anatomic stop is answered by yourself as not necessary.

dhw: I don’t understand your reasoning. Firstly, you have told us that sapiens brain only expanded by 200 cc, which does not make it “much” larger than that of our immediate predecessors, and secondly I have proposed that a “much” larger brain would require changes to the anatomy, and that is WHY the existing process of complexification took over. Unanswered question: do you think the brain could have gone on expanding indefinitely?

DAVID: I assume previous brains had complexification and used it. The fact our brain shrunk 150 cc with heavy use shows your imagined need for huge brains was never an issue.

Since you refuse to answer my question, I’ll answer it for you. The brain continued to expand until it reached its present size. Obviously it could not go on expanding indefinitely, or we would have finished up with elephant-sized heads on human bodies. And so the already existing process of complexification – we agree that it would have been in use earlier – had to become increasingly efficient in order to meet all new requirements. And it became so efficient that the brain shrank. Please explain precisely what it is that you find so difficult to accept in this theory.

DAVID: How do you know complexification became more efficient? Our brain is a known example, much larger before much more use!!!

You keep harping on about “much larger", and then you tell us that unlike earlier brains with similar or even smaller changes in volume, it would not have required expansion! We know that complexification became more efficient because we know that our brain responds to new requirements by complexifying and not by expanding. Are you saying this is not true? Shrinkage is further evidence of its efficiency.

dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

dhw: And so pre-whales sat on the beach with their brand new flippers waiting for God to provide a reason for them to enter the water (or waiting for him to provide the water).

DAVID: Please study the whale series, rather than imagination. Transitional forms with swimming legs are part of it. Not legs to flippers in one step but with large gaps in form:

dhw: I use the whale example precisely because it makes nonsense of your claim that your God designs every evolutionary change in advance of requirements. So now you agree that your God did not give pre-whales flippers before they entered the water. On the contrary, legs passed through several transitional stages as the organism adapted to new conditions (life in the water). Or do you think your God kept popping in every few thousand years to make "itty-bitty" adjustments to his less than perfect designs?

DAVID: The gaps in form are all huge requiring major phenotypic changes. Look at the species with open eyes. Why do you think the sites that believe in God tout the series?

You keep telling us that your God designs all “major phenotypic changes” in advance of their being needed. I keep proposing that the changes take place in response to their being needed. I’ll withdraw the expression “itty-bitty” from my question. Please tell us: do you think your God kept popping in every few thousand years to make major adjustments to the less than perfect leggy-flippers he started off with because in future, life and movement in the water was going to become different from when pre-whales first entered it? (The same question applies to all the other changes the animal went through over thousands of years.) As with humans, if he knew what he wanted to design right from the start, why did he have to keep dabbling? I can’t answer your final question, since I don’t understand why an all-powerful God, whose only aim was apparently to design humans plus food, would have had to design whales and humans, plus countless extinct life forms, in “series”, especially since you are convinced that he was capable of designing species without predecessors (e.g. during the Cambrian). NB I am not questioning that these changes took place. I am questioning your theory as to why and how they took place.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 30, 2021, 15:03 (181 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

dhw: Since you refuse to answer my question, I’ll answer it for you. The brain continued to expand until it reached its present size. Obviously it could not go on expanding indefinitely, or we would have finished up with elephant-sized heads on human bodies. And so the already existing process of complexification – we agree that it would have been in use earlier – had to become increasingly efficient in order to meet all new requirements. And it became so efficient that the brain shrank. Please explain precisely what it is that you find so difficult to accept in this theory.

Because I believe God designed our brain to do exactly as it did. And God knew the brain He provided was sufficient for all uses.

dhw: And so pre-whales sat on the beach with their brand new flippers waiting for God to provide a reason for them to enter the water (or waiting for him to provide the water).

DAVID: Please study the whale series, rather than imagination. Transitional forms with swimming legs are part of it. Not legs to flippers in one step but with large gaps in form:

dhw: I use the whale example precisely because it makes nonsense of your claim that your God designs every evolutionary change in advance of requirements. So now you agree that your God did not give pre-whales flippers before they entered the water. On the contrary, legs passed through several transitional stages as the organism adapted to new conditions (life in the water). Or do you think your God kept popping in every few thousand years to make "itty-bitty" adjustments to his less than perfect designs?

DAVID: The gaps in form are all huge requiring major phenotypic changes. Look at the species with open eyes. Why do you think the sites that believe in God tout the series?

dhw: You keep telling us that your God designs all “major phenotypic changes” in advance of their being needed. I keep proposing that the changes take place in response to their being needed. I’ll withdraw the expression “itty-bitty” from my question. Please tell us: do you think your God kept popping in every few thousand years to make major adjustments to the less than perfect leggy-flippers he started off with because in future, life and movement in the water was going to become different from when pre-whales first entered it? (The same question applies to all the other changes the animal went through over thousands of years.) As with humans, if he knew what he wanted to design right from the start, why did he have to keep dabbling?

The species God designed was not every 'few thousand years'. Life evolved over 3.8 billion years, and pre-human to human over 4.5 to five million years. It was obviously God's choice to take all that time. We humans have the time problem you raise, God doesn't being timelessly eternal.

dhw: I can’t answer your final question, since I don’t understand why an all-powerful God, whose only aim was apparently to design humans plus food, would have had to design whales and humans, plus countless extinct life forms, in “series”, especially since you are convinced that he was capable of designing species without predecessors (e.g. during the Cambrian). NB I am not questioning that these changes took place. I am questioning your theory as to why and how they took place.

Why do you question God's choice of action? In my view the Cambrian is no bigger than Lucy.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Friday, December 31, 2021, 14:00 (180 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

dhw: Since you refuse to answer my question, I’ll answer it for you. The brain continued to expand until it reached its present size. Obviously it could not go on expanding indefinitely, or we would have finished up with elephant-sized heads on human bodies. And so the already existing process of complexification – we agree that it would have been in use earlier – had to become increasingly efficient in order to meet all new requirements. And it became so efficient that the brain shrank. Please explain precisely what it is that you find so difficult to accept in this theory.

DAVID: Because I believe God designed our brain to do exactly as it did. And God knew the brain He provided was sufficient for all uses.

If God exists, I have no problem with the concept of his designing cells, including brain cells, to do exactly what they do: adapt and/or innovate in response to changing requirements. I do have problems with your rigid belief that he either preprogrammed or personally dabbled every phase of evolution etc., as listed at the end of my post on “Cellular intelligence”.

dhw: You keep telling us that your God designs all “major phenotypic changes” in advance of their being needed. I keep proposing that the changes take place in response to their being needed. I’ll withdraw the expression “itty-bitty” from my question. Please tell us: do you think your God kept popping in every few thousand years to make major adjustments to the less than perfect leggy-flippers he started off with because in future, life and movement in the water was going to become different from when pre-whales first entered it? (The same question applies to all the other changes the animal went through over thousands of years.) As with humans, if he knew what he wanted to design right from the start, why did he have to keep dabbling?

DAVID: The species God designed was not every 'few thousand years'.

I was talking specifically about legs turning into flippers. My apologies, though. I’ll rephrase the question: Do you think your God kept popping in every few million years to make major adjustments to the less than perfect leggy-flippers he started off with because in future, life and movement in the water was going to become different from when pre-whales first entered it?

DAVID: Life evolved over 3.8 billion years, and pre-human to human over 4.5 to five million years. It was obviously God's choice to take all that time. We humans have the time problem you raise, God doesn't being timelessly eternal.

I am not concerned with the length of time! I am challenging your fixed belief that your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every evolutionary change BEFORE the change was necessary.

dhw: […] I don’t understand why an all-powerful God, whose only aim was apparently to design humans plus food, would have had to design whales and humans, plus countless extinct life forms, in “series”, especially since you are convinced that he was capable of designing species without predecessors (e.g. during the Cambrian). NB I am not questioning that these changes took place. I am questioning your theory as to why and how they took place.

DAVID: Why do you question God's choice of action? In my view the Cambrian is no bigger than Lucy.

I am not questioning God’s choice of action (if he exists). In this instance, I am challenging your theory that your all-powerful God deliberately designed every step in every series that led to every species, although the only species he wanted to create was sapiens plus food, and although he has the power – as you believe he does – to create species without predecessors. You seem to be unable to recognize that what you believe to have been God’s actions (specially designing absolutely everything) do not fit in with what you believe to have been your God’s one and only purpose (to design sapiens plus food).

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Friday, December 31, 2021, 20:27 (180 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

dhw: If God exists, I have no problem with the concept of his designing cells, including brain cells, to do exactly what they do: adapt and/or innovate in response to changing requirements. I do have problems with your rigid belief that he either preprogrammed or personally dabbled every phase of evolution etc., as listed at the end of my post on “Cellular intelligence”.

I feel the designing God innovates new species.


DAVID: The species God designed was not every 'few thousand years'.

dhw: I was talking specifically about legs turning into flippers. My apologies, though. I’ll rephrase the question: Do you think your God kept popping in every few million years to make major adjustments to the less than perfect leggy-flippers he started off with because in future, life and movement in the water was going to become different from when pre-whales first entered it?

God designs new versions of species when required, time varaible.


dhw: […] I don’t understand why an all-powerful God, whose only aim was apparently to design humans plus food, would have had to design whales and humans, plus countless extinct life forms, in “series”, especially since you are convinced that he was capable of designing species without predecessors (e.g. during the Cambrian). NB I am not questioning that these changes took place. I am questioning your theory as to why and how they took place.

DAVID: Why do you question God's choice of action? In my view the Cambrian is no bigger than Lucy.

dhw: I am not questioning God’s choice of action (if he exists). In this instance, I am challenging your theory that your all-powerful God deliberately designed every step in every series that led to every species, although the only species he wanted to create was sapiens plus food, and although he has the power – as you believe he does – to create species without predecessors. You seem to be unable to recognize that what you believe to have been God’s actions (specially designing absolutely everything) do not fit in with what you believe to have been your God’s one and only purpose (to design sapiens plus food).

Same contortion. God chose to create humans by stepwise design that is a form of evolution as we view the history of our arrival.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Saturday, January 01, 2022, 11:49 (179 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

dhw: If God exists, I have no problem with the concept of his designing cells, including brain cells, to do exactly what they do: adapt and/or innovate in response to changing requirements. I do have problems with your rigid belief that he either preprogrammed or personally dabbled every phase of evolution etc., as listed at the end of my post on “Cellular intelligence”.

DAVID: I feel the designing God innovates new species.

Yes, I know. You also feel that he specially designed every single one for the sole purpose of designing sapiens plus his food, but since the vast majority of extinct life forms had no connection with sapiens and his food, your feelings clash violently with your reason, which is why you constantly dodge the issue. Later in your post, you answer this criticism:

DAVID: Same contortion. God chose to create humans by stepwise design that is a form of evolution as we view the history of our arrival.

There is no contortion. I am not denying that humans evolved in steps! I am asking why an all-powerful God with only one purpose (to design sapiens plus food) would design countless other life forms that had no connection with humans, and why – since you believe him to be capable of designing species without predecessors – he would have chosen NOT to design us in the same way. Hence the different alternatives that I have proposed (a free-for-all, experimentation as he pursues his goal, or experimentation that brings new ideas as it proceeds). You try to dismiss all these on the feeble grounds that they “humanize” God, although you have admitted repeatedly that he we probably have attributes in common with him, and we mimic him in certain ways.

dhw: […] Do you think your God kept popping in every few million years to make major adjustments to the less than perfect leggy-flippers he started off with because in future, life and movement in the water was going to become different from when pre-whales first entered it?

DAVID: God designs new versions of species when required, time varaible.

Thank you. At long last you have agreed that innovations come into existence when required (I would add “allowed”) and not beforehand in anticipation of not yet existing conditions. No doubt you will withdraw this agreement. ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 01, 2022, 15:51 (179 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, January 01, 2022, 16:12

PART ONE

DAVID: I feel the designing God innovates new species.

dhw: Yes, I know. You also feel that he specially designed every single one for the sole purpose of designing sapiens plus his food, but since the vast majority of extinct life forms had no connection with sapiens and his food, your feelings clash violently with your reason, which is why you constantly dodge the issue. Later in your post, you answer this criticism:

DAVID: Same contortion. God chose to create humans by stepwise design that is a form of evolution as we view the history of our arrival.

dhw: There is no contortion. I am not denying that humans evolved in steps! I am asking why an all-powerful God with only one purpose (to design sapiens plus food) would design countless other life forms that had no connection with humans, and why – since you believe him to be capable of designing species without predecessors – he would have chosen NOT to design us in the same way.

Why do you disallow an all-powerful God the right to chose His preferred method of creation? Why can't you recognize God has the right to choose? Imagine seven plus billions of us and no bush of evolved life?

dhw: Hence the different alternatives that I have proposed (a free-for-all, experimentation as he pursues his goal, or experimentation that brings new ideas as it proceeds). You try to dismiss all these on the feeble grounds that they “humanize” God, although you have admitted repeatedly that he we probably have attributes in common with him, and we mimic him in certain ways.

My thoughts about our similarities with God's personality do not mean your weak God you imagined is acceptable to me.


dhw: […] Do you think your God kept popping in every few million years to make major adjustments to the less than perfect leggy-flippers he started off with because in future, life and movement in the water was going to become different from when pre-whales first entered it?

DAVID: God designs new versions of species when required, time variable.

Thank you. At long last you have agreed that innovations come into existence when required (I would add “allowed”) and not beforehand in anticipation of not yet existing conditions. No doubt you will withdraw this agreement. ;-)

As I said its God's doing His next required step on the way to humans, just following His plan. Humans won't appear unless desired by God (Adler).

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Sunday, January 02, 2022, 11:17 (179 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: I feel the designing God innovates new species.

dhw: Yes, I know. You also feel that he specially designed every single one for the sole purpose of designing sapiens plus his food, but since the vast majority of extinct life forms had no connection with sapiens and his food, your feelings clash violently with your reason, which is why you constantly dodge the issue. Later in your post, you answer this criticism:

DAVID: Same contortion. God chose to create humans by stepwise design that is a form of evolution as we view the history of our arrival.

dhw: There is no contortion. I am not denying that humans evolved in steps! I am asking why an all-powerful God with only one purpose (to design sapiens plus food) would design countless other life forms that had no connection with humans, and why – since you believe him to be capable of designing species without predecessors – he would have chosen NOT to design us in the same way.

DAVID: Why do you disallow an all-powerful God the right to chose His preferred method of creation? Why can't you recognize God has the right to choose? Imagine seven plus billions of us and no bush of evolved life?

Of course if he exists, he has the right to choose. And what he chose was to evolve the huge bush of life, including countless life forms that had no connection with humans! Why can’t you recognize that he had the right to choose a free-for-all, or to experiment with a particular goal in mind, or to experiment just to see where his ideas would lead him? What you do not seem to be able to recognize is that your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution fails to explain the vast majority of your God’s actions!

dhw: Hence the different alternatives that I have proposed (a free-for-all, experimentation as he pursues his goal, or experimentation that brings new ideas as it proceeds). You try to dismiss all these on the feeble grounds that they “humanize” God, although you have admitted repeatedly that he we probably have attributes in common with him, and we mimic him in certain ways.

DAVID: My thoughts about our similarities with God's personality do not mean your weak God you imagined is acceptable to me.

You still haven’t explained why a God who designs precisely what he wants is “weak” compared to a God who “has to” design a system that results in errors he does not want and can’t control. (See “Cellular intelligence”.)

dhw: […] Do you think your God kept popping in every few million years to make major adjustments to the less than perfect leggy-flippers he started off with because in future, life and movement in the water was going to become different from when pre-whales first entered it?

DAVID: God designs new versions of species when required, time variable.

dhw: Thank you. At long last you have agreed that innovations come into existence when required (I would add “allowed”) and not beforehand in anticipation of not yet existing conditions. No doubt you will withdraw this agreement. ;-)

DAVID: As I said its God's doing His next required step on the way to humans, just following His plan. Humans won't appear unless desired by God (Adler).

According to you, nothing would appear unless desired by God, since he designed everything. So he kept popping in every few million years to turn leggy flippers into proper flippers on the way to designing humans. Anyway, I’m pleased to see that you have not withdrawn your statement that he “designs new species when required”, i.e. not BEFORE they are required (or “allowed”).

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 02, 2022, 16:04 (178 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: Why do you disallow an all-powerful God the right to chose His preferred method of creation? Why can't you recognize God has the right to choose? Imagine seven plus billions of us and no bush of evolved life?

dhw: Of course if he exists, he has the right to choose. And what he chose was to evolve the huge bush of life, including countless life forms that had no connection with humans! Why can’t you recognize that he had the right to choose a free-for-all, or to experiment with a particular goal in mind, or to experiment just to see where his ideas would lead him? What you do not seem to be able to recognize is that your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution fails to explain the vast majority of your God’s actions!

There is the major difference between us. I accept God's actions as dayenu, enough. I don't question why He did what He did, but interpret it as His desired goal/goals. Your God with amorphous thinking is not the God I envision.


dhw: You still haven’t explained why a God who designs precisely what he wants is “weak” compared to a God who “has to” design a system that results in errors he does not want and can’t control. (See “Cellular intelligence”.)

My explanation is there today.

dhw: Thank you. At long last you have agreed that innovations come into existence when required (I would add “allowed”) and not beforehand in anticipation of not yet existing conditions. No doubt you will withdraw this agreement. ;-)

DAVID: As I said its God's doing His next required step on the way to humans, just following His plan. Humans won't appear unless desired by God (Adler).

dhw: According to you, nothing would appear unless desired by God, since he designed everything. So he kept popping in every few million years to turn leggy flippers into proper flippers on the way to designing humans. Anyway, I’m pleased to see that you have not withdrawn your statement that he “designs new species when required”, i.e. not BEFORE they are required (or “allowed”).

I don't see the difference you infer. God designs species to handle living requirements at the time of their existence. They arrive prepared for their future.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Monday, January 03, 2022, 14:11 (177 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: Why do you disallow an all-powerful God the right to chose His preferred method of creation? Why can't you recognize God has the right to choose? Imagine seven plus billions of us and no bush of evolved life?

dhw: Of course if he exists, he has the right to choose. And what he chose was to evolve the huge bush of life, including countless life forms that had no connection with humans! Why can’t you recognize that he had the right to choose a free-for-all, or to experiment with a particular goal in mind, or to experiment just to see where his ideas would lead him? What you do not seem to be able to recognize is that your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution fails to explain the vast majority of your God’s actions!

DAVID: There is the major difference between us. I accept God's actions as dayenu, enough. I don't question why He did what He did, but interpret it as His desired goal/goals. Your God with amorphous thinking is not the God I envision.

It is absurd to keep emphasizing how purposeful your God is if you are not prepared to discuss his purpose. You do not “accept” God’s actions – you merely cling rigidly to your belief that he individually designed every life form and natural wonder, and that he did so for the sole purpose of producing sapiens plus food! You could hardly impose a more “amorphous” shape on his thinking than having him create countless life forms that had no connection with his one and only goal. In all three of the alternatives I have presented above, he has a very precise purpose (see also under “Cellular intelligence”) and his pursuit of it explains the vast variety of extinct and extant life forms that constitute the whole history of evolution.

dhw: At long last you have agreed that innovations come into existence when required (I would add “allowed”) and not beforehand in anticipation of not yet existing conditions. No doubt you will withdraw this agreement.

DAVID: As I said its God's doing His next required step on the way to humans, just following His plan. Humans won't appear unless desired by God (Adler).

dhw: According to you, nothing would appear unless desired by God, since he designed everything. So he kept popping in every few million years to turn leggy flippers into proper flippers on the way to designing humans. Anyway, I’m pleased to see that you have not withdrawn your statement that he “designs new species when required”, i.e. not BEFORE they are required (or “allowed”).

DAVID: I don't see the difference you infer. God designs species to handle living requirements at the time of their existence. They arrive prepared for their future.

But you believe in common descent. So even in your own God-does-it-all scenario, he does not change existing organisms in anticipation of new conditions – as you have always maintained in the past – but in response to the conditions that exist. And then of course they are prepared for a future under those conditions, until things change again, and then he does another dabble – or his 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every change throughout life’s history switches itself on at the appropriate moment, i.e. when conditions change (and not before they change). And when you have him designing creatures "de novo", they must be able to handle requirements at the time of their birth - i.e. he'll produce them at the time when conditions have already changed, not before they change.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Monday, January 03, 2022, 20:46 (177 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, January 03, 2022, 20:55

PART ONE

DAVID: There is the major difference between us. I accept God's actions as dayenu, enough. I don't question why He did what He did, but interpret it as His desired goal/goals. Your God with amorphous thinking is not the God I envision.

dhw: It is absurd to keep emphasizing how purposeful your God is if you are not prepared to discuss his purpose. You do not “accept” God’s actions – you merely cling rigidly to your belief that he individually designed every life form and natural wonder, and that he did so for the sole purpose of producing sapiens plus food! You could hardly impose a more “amorphous” shape on his thinking than having him create countless life forms that had no connection with his one and only goal. In all three of the alternatives I have presented above, he has a very precise purpose (see also under “Cellular intelligence”) and his pursuit of it explains the vast variety of extinct and extant life forms that constitute the whole history of evolution.

Once again you demand I know God's thoughts. You and I don't. The God you describe is vastly different from mine. I have guessed as to why He wanted us to appear in the past but you know all of that information. I've not changed my mind or conclusions about a very purposeful God, sand hour God has no obvious specified point to His process of evolution if He sets up a free-for-all. My God knows His specific endpoints, this basis of Adler's philosophic approach.


dhw: According to you, nothing would appear unless desired by God, since he designed everything. So he kept popping in every few million years to turn leggy flippers into proper flippers on the way to designing humans. Anyway, I’m pleased to see that you have not withdrawn your statement that he “designs new species when required”, i.e. not BEFORE they are required (or “allowed”).

DAVID: I don't see the difference you infer. God designs species to handle living requirements at the time of their existence. They arrive prepared for their future.

dhw: But you believe in common descent. So even in your own God-does-it-all scenario, he does not change existing organisms in anticipation of new conditions – as you have always maintained in the past – but in response to the conditions that exist. And then of course they are prepared for a future under those conditions, until things change again, and then he does another dabble – or his 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every change throughout life’s history switches itself on at the appropriate moment, i.e. when conditions change (and not before they change). And when you have him designing creatures "de novo", they must be able to handle requirements at the time of their birth - i.e. he'll produce them at the time when conditions have already changed, not before they change.

My approach is simpler than your distortion above. God evolves in steps, basing each new designed forms on the past. Bacteria start with many basic biochemical processes to be used by all future forms, so form can change but the biochemistry is already in place for much of the requirements for living, with new systems added as necessary to fit with the new phenotypical changes. All prepared for future use.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Wednesday, January 05, 2022, 12:45 (175 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

I’ve cut the first section of this post, as it has been amply covered under “Cellular intelligence”, although this thread would have been more appropriate.

dhw: According to you, nothing would appear unless desired by God, since he designed everything. So he kept popping in every few million years to turn leggy flippers into proper flippers on the way to designing humans. Anyway, I’m pleased to see that you have not withdrawn your statement that he “designs new species when required”, i.e. not BEFORE they are required (or “allowed”).

DAVID: I don't see the difference you infer. God designs species to handle living requirements at the time of their existence. They arrive prepared for their future.

dhw: But you believe in common descent. So even in your own God-does-it-all scenario, he does not change existing organisms in anticipation of new conditions – as you have always maintained in the past – but in response to the conditions that exist. And then of course they are prepared for a future under those conditions, until things change again, and then he does another dabble – or his 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every change throughout life’s history switches itself on at the appropriate moment, i.e. when conditions change (and not before they change). And when you have him designing creatures "de novo", they must be able to handle requirements at the time of their birth - i.e. he'll produce them at the time when conditions have already changed, not before they change.

DAVID: My approach is simpler than your distortion above. God evolves in steps, basing each new designed forms on the past. Bacteria start with many basic biochemical processes to be used by all future forms, so form can change but the biochemistry is already in place for much of the requirements for living, with new systems added as necessary to fit with the new phenotypical changes. All prepared for future .

Yes, evolution proceeds in steps, and common descent means new forms arise out of past forms. Yes, the single cell is the basis of all multicellular organisms, and works biochemically as new systems (combinations of different forms of cell) are added to transform the comparatively simple into the ultimately vastly complex. How on earth does this come to mean that your God changed the structure of every predecessor BEFORE conditions changed instead of in RESPONSE to the new conditions in which the new species was to live?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 05, 2022, 19:55 (175 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

dhw: But you believe in common descent. So even in your own God-does-it-all scenario, he does not change existing organisms in anticipation of new conditions – as you have always maintained in the past – but in response to the conditions that exist. And then of course they are prepared for a future under those conditions, until things change again, and then he does another dabble – or his 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every change throughout life’s history switches itself on at the appropriate moment, i.e. when conditions change (and not before they change). And when you have him designing creatures "de novo", they must be able to handle requirements at the time of their birth - i.e. he'll produce them at the time when conditions have already changed, not before they change.

DAVID: My approach is simpler than your distortion above. God evolves in steps, basing each new designed forms on the past. Bacteria start with many basic biochemical processes to be used by all future forms, so form can change but the biochemistry is already in place for much of the requirements for living, with new systems added as necessary to fit with the new phenotypical changes. All prepared for future .

dhw: Yes, evolution proceeds in steps, and common descent means new forms arise out of past forms. Yes, the single cell is the basis of all multicellular organisms, and works biochemically as new systems (combinations of different forms of cell) are added to transform the comparatively simple into the ultimately vastly complex. How on earth does this come to mean that your God changed the structure of every predecessor BEFORE conditions changed instead of in RESPONSE to the new conditions in which the new species was to live?

Proof is clearly in our large brain as a precise example: 315,000 years ago the first sapiens with a 1,500 cc barely used brain for requirements of daily living at the time that became 1,350 cc as civilization appeared with many new requirements of understanding by the brain. Volume bigger allowed the future use and complexification by neurons caused the brain to become smaller from so many new uses the early brain was prepared for in advance.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Thursday, January 06, 2022, 11:52 (174 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE
(I am gradually trying to telescope threads.)

Geckos
DAVID: same old. All ecosystems are complex and required by all living organisms for food energy. This clearly explains the huge branched bush of life that evolution created, a point dhw disputes when he laughs at the theory that God wanted to create humans and their food. We are here. Of course He did.

There is absolutely no connection between your two points. All life forms need food. That does not mean all life forms and foods, including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, were “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food. I do not laugh at your theory. The more you dodge this blatant illogicality, the more I squirm on your behalf. I wish you wouldn’t keep doing it.

DAVID: God evolves in steps, basing each new designed forms on the past. Bacteria start with many basic biochemical processes to be used by all future forms, so form can change but the biochemistry is already in place for much of the requirements for living, with new systems added as necessary to fit with the new phenotypical changes. All prepared for future .

dhw: Yes, evolution proceeds in steps, and common descent means new forms arise out of past forms. Yes, the single cell is the basis of all multicellular organisms, and works biochemically as new systems (combinations of different forms of cell) are added to transform the comparatively simple into the ultimately vastly complex. How on earth does this come to mean that your God changed the structure of every predecessor BEFORE conditions changed instead of in RESPONSE to the new conditions in which the new species was to live?

DAVID: Proof is clearly in our large brain as a precise example: 315,000 years ago the first sapiens with a 1,500 cc barely used brain for requirements of daily living at the time that became 1,350 cc as civilization appeared with many new requirements of understanding by the brain. Volume bigger allowed the future use and complexification by neurons caused the brain to become smaller from so many new uses the early brain was prepared for in advance.

This now seems to be the only example you can think of, and we have dealt with it over and over again. It is NOT an example of a structural change to anticipate future conditions if you accept the known fact that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements. Yet again, the theory: earlier expansions occurred when new ideas, conditions, inventions, lifestyles required additional capacity. Complexification then took over until the next lot of new ideas etc. demanded the next expansion. The pre-sapiens brain would also have expanded to meet new requirements, but from then on there was no further expansion, complexification took over, and it was so efficient that the brain shrank. You have never found any logical flaw in this theory, which is supported by the fact that we KNOW the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements, and no one has ever recorded a brain changing IN ADVANCE of the requirement that the brain has to meet.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 06, 2022, 15:37 (174 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE
(I am gradually trying to telescope threads.)

Geckos
DAVID: same old. All ecosystems are complex and required by all living organisms for food energy. This clearly explains the huge branched bush of life that evolution created, a point dhw disputes when he laughs at the theory that God wanted to create humans and their food. We are here. Of course He did.

dhw: There is absolutely no connection between your two points. All life forms need food. That does not mean all life forms and foods, including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, were “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food. I do not laugh at your theory. The more you dodge this blatant illogicality, the more I squirm on your behalf. I wish you wouldn’t keep doing it.

God provided the huge bush as a food supply all along while designing more advanced forms in stages we call new species. A whole connected process of stages as below:


DAVID: God evolves in steps, basing each new designed forms on the past. Bacteria start with many basic biochemical processes to be used by all future forms, so form can change but the biochemistry is already in place for much of the requirements for living, with new systems added as necessary to fit with the new phenotypical changes. All prepared for future .

dhw: Yes, evolution proceeds in steps, and common descent means new forms arise out of past forms. Yes, the single cell is the basis of all multicellular organisms, and works biochemically as new systems (combinations of different forms of cell) are added to transform the comparatively simple into the ultimately vastly complex. How on earth does this come to mean that your God changed the structure of every predecessor BEFORE conditions changed instead of in RESPONSE to the new conditions in which the new species was to live?

DAVID: Proof is clearly in our large brain as a precise example: 315,000 years ago the first sapiens with a 1,500 cc barely used brain for requirements of daily living at the time that became 1,350 cc as civilization appeared with many new requirements of understanding by the brain. Volume bigger allowed the future use and complexification by neurons caused the brain to become smaller from so many new uses the early brain was prepared for in advance.

dhw: This now seems to be the only example you can think of, and we have dealt with it over and over again. It is NOT an example of a structural change to anticipate future conditions if you accept the known fact that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements. Yet again, the theory: earlier expansions occurred when new ideas, conditions, inventions, lifestyles required additional capacity. Complexification then took over until the next lot of new ideas etc. demanded the next expansion. The pre-sapiens brain would also have expanded to meet new requirements, but from then on there was no further expansion, complexification took over, and it was so efficient that the brain shrank. You have never found any logical flaw in this theory, which is supported by the fact that we KNOW the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements, and no one has ever recorded a brain changing IN ADVANCE of the requirement that the brain has to meet.

Same old dodge. Your bold is totally illogical in face of sapiens' brain history. So big and so complex with little to do. A cerebral cortex arrangement highly complex with five layers of neurons, not like the chimp's simple arrangement. We came from apes and God designed the many differences. The proof you want comes from logical analysis of known facts.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Friday, January 07, 2022, 07:48 (174 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: same old. All ecosystems are complex and required by all living organisms for food energy. This clearly explains the huge branched bush of life that evolution created, a point dhw disputes when he laughs at the theory that God wanted to create humans and their food. We are here. Of course He did.

dhw: There is absolutely no connection between your two points. All life forms need food. That does not mean all life forms and foods, including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, were “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food. I do not laugh at your theory. The more you dodge this blatant illogicality, the more I squirm on your behalf. I wish you wouldn’t keep doing it.

DAVID: God provided the huge bush as a food supply all along while designing more advanced forms in stages we call new species. A whole connected process of stages as below:

Yes, if he exists, he provided food for all the extinct species that had no connection with humans. So how does that come to mean that all foods and all stages of all species were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food? You constantly dodge the point at issue. please stop it.
The discussion now moves to your theory that your God designs all new species in advance of the conditions that they are required to cope with or exploit. And once again, you turn the discussion to the human brain. There is no point in my repeating my whole theory, as summarized yesterday.

dhw: You have never found any logical flaw in this theory, which is supported by the fact that we KNOW the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new dequirements, and no one has ever recorded a brain changing IN ADVANCE of the requirement that the brain has to meet.

DAVID: Same old dodge. Your bold is totally illogical in face of sapiens' brain history. So big and so complex with little to do.

You seem to think that sapiens’ brain is the only complex one! It’s all a matter of degree, and it is manifestly absurd to say that there was “little to do”! The history of all the homos is full of new inventions and increasingly complex modes of living. Sapiens was not the first hunter-gatherer, maker of tools and weapons and clothes, user of fire etc. Do you think surviving indigenous people in the rainforest have “little to do” and have no brain complexity? Our brain would have reached its current size through some new requirement, and subsequent new requirements have resulted in further complexification – with such efficiency that it has shrunk. Do you really believe that the illiterate women's brains complexified BEFORE they learned to read?

DAVID: A cerebral cortex arrangement highly complex with five layers of neurons, not like the chimp's simple arrangement. We came from apes and God designed the many differences. The proof you want comes from logical analysis of known facts.

Yes, it’s complex compared to the chimp. Yes, we came from apes. How does that prove that our brains change IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements and not in RESPONSE to them???

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Friday, January 07, 2022, 14:37 (173 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

dhw: The discussion now moves to your theory that your God designs all new species in advance of the conditions that they are required to cope with or exploit. And once again, you turn the discussion to the human brain. There is no point in my repeating my whole theory, as summarized yesterday.

dhw: You have never found any logical flaw in this theory, which is supported by the fact that we KNOW the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new dequirements, and no one has ever recorded a brain changing IN ADVANCE of the requirement that the brain has to meet.

DAVID: Same old dodge. Your bold is totally illogical in face of sapiens' brain history. So big and so complex with little to do.

dhw: You seem to think that sapiens’ brain is the only complex one! It’s all a matter of degree, and it is manifestly absurd to say that there was “little to do”! The history of all the homos is full of new inventions and increasingly complex modes of living. Sapiens was not the first hunter-gatherer, maker of tools and weapons and clothes, user of fire etc. Do you think surviving indigenous people in the rainforest have “little to do” and have no brain complexity? Our brain would have reached its current size through some new requirement, and subsequent new requirements have resulted in further complexification – with such efficiency that it has shrunk. Do you really believe that the illiterate women's brains complexified BEFORE they learned to read?

You are seemingly blind to the concept of activities of daily living. How complex was the early sapiens life compared to ours? How vast was the knowledge to be used? The change is obviously enormous and requires full use of our brains, which came prepared for this degree of use.


DAVID: A cerebral cortex arrangement highly complex with five layers of neurons, not like the chimp's simple arrangement. We came from apes and God designed the many differences. The proof you want comes from logical analysis of known facts.

dhw: Yes, it’s complex compared to the chimp. Yes, we came from apes. How does that prove that our brains change IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements and not in RESPONSE to them???

How can you say, in the face of the evidence, it came in anticipation of the future. Erectus and sapiens lived in much the same simple way.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Saturday, January 08, 2022, 12:59 (172 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

dhw: The discussion now moves to your theory that your God designs all new species in advance of the conditions that they are required to cope with or exploit. And once again, you turn the discussion to the human brain. There is no point in my repeating my whole theory, as summarized yesterday.

dhw: You have never found any logical flaw in this theory, which is supported by the fact that we KNOW the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements, and no one has ever recorded a brain changing IN ADVANCE of the requirement that the brain has to meet. […]

DAVID: [….] You are seemingly blind to the concept of activities of daily living. How complex was the early sapiens life compared to ours? How vast was the knowledge to be used? The change is obviously enormous and requires full use of our brains, which came prepared for this degree of use.

Of course I’m not blind to the difference! I am merely pointing out to you that since the final expansion, our brains have coped with all the new requirements by complexifying instead of expanding. The complexifications take place in response to the demands made on them, not in anticipation of them. This suggests that changes to the brain, just like all other evolutionary changes, take place IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not BEFORE those requirements exist.

DAVID: A cerebral cortex arrangement highly complex with five layers of neurons, not like the chimp's simple arrangement. We came from apes and God designed the many differences. The proof you want comes from logical analysis of known facts.

dhw: Yes, it’s complex compared to the chimp. Yes, we came from apes. How does that prove that our brains change IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements and not in RESPONSE to them???

DAVID: How can you say, in the face of the evidence, it came in anticipation of the future. Erectus and sapiens lived in much the same simple way.

It is you who keep telling us that brain changes and all other evolutionary changes take place in anticipation of the future!!!! All of us animals used to live in the same simple way – finding different ways to survive. But early humans certainly advanced way beyond their fellow animals with their invention of tools, weapons, use of fire etc, which were giant steps at the time, and required additional brain capacity (= expansion). We don’t know the exact cause of each expansion, or the final one, which was that of sapiens. But all brains, including ours, then went through a period of stasis, as life went on in the same relatively “simple way”. But then, for some unknown reason, sapiens came up with a veritable explosion of new ideas, and in order for these to be implemented, the brain did not expand with more cells, but vastly increased its ability to complexify - so much so that it actually shrank. A modern example is the way illiterate women’s brains complexified when they learned to read. Do you believe their brains complexified IN ANTICIPATION of their learning to read?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 08, 2022, 15:07 (172 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

dhw: You have never found any logical flaw in this theory, which is supported by the fact that we KNOW the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements, and no one has ever recorded a brain changing IN ADVANCE of the requirement that the brain has to meet. […]

DAVID: [….] You are seemingly blind to the concept of activities of daily living. How complex was the early sapiens life compared to ours? How vast was the knowledge to be used? The change is obviously enormous and requires full use of our brains, which came prepared for this degree of use.

dhw: Of course I’m not blind to the difference! I am merely pointing out to you that since the final expansion, our brains have coped with all the new requirements by complexifying instead of expanding.

Yes! Because our brains were prepared in advance for all the future uses

dhw: The complexifications take place in response to the demands made on them, not in anticipation of them. This suggests that changes to the brain, just like all other evolutionary changes, take place IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not BEFORE those requirements exist.

Totally confused. The complexification mechanism supplied in advance accommodates all the new uses.


DAVID: A cerebral cortex arrangement highly complex with five layers of neurons, not like the chimp's simple arrangement. We came from apes and God designed the many differences. The proof you want comes from logical analysis of known facts.

dhw: Yes, it’s complex compared to the chimp. Yes, we came from apes. How does that prove that our brains change IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements and not in RESPONSE to them???

DAVID: How can you say, in the face of the evidence, it came in anticipation of the future. Erectus and sapiens lived in much the same simple way.

dhw: It is you who keep telling us that brain changes and all other evolutionary changes take place in anticipation of the future!!!! All of us animals used to live in the same simple way – finding different ways to survive. But early humans certainly advanced way beyond their fellow animals with their invention of tools, weapons, use of fire etc, which were giant steps at the time, and required additional brain capacity (= expansion). We don’t know the exact cause of each expansion, or the final one, which was that of sapiens. But all brains, including ours, then went through a period of stasis, as life went on in the same relatively “simple way”. But then, for some unknown reason, sapiens came up with a veritable explosion of new ideas, and in order for these to be implemented, the brain did not expand with more cells, but vastly increased its ability to complexify - so much so that it actually shrank. A modern example is the way illiterate women’s brains complexified when they learned to read. Do you believe their brains complexified IN ANTICIPATION of their learning to read?

Early sapiens ideation was small and you want to explode it. Compare your current lifestyle using a computer, translating languages in fully using your brain, which 315,000 years ago came fully prepared for that present use. And complexification sitting there, ready to help and helping those Italian ladies become literate.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Sunday, January 09, 2022, 13:51 (171 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

dhw: I am merely pointing out to you that since the final expansion, our brains have coped with all the new requirements by complexifying instead of expanding.

DAVID: Yes! Because our brains were prepared in advance for all the future uses.

dhw: The complexifications take place in response to the demands made on them, not in anticipation of them. This suggests that changes to the brain, just like all other evolutionary changes, take place IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not BEFORE those requirements exist.

DAVID: Totally confused. The complexification mechanism supplied in advance accommodates all the new uses.

Three cheers. We need not take this discussion any further. The brain was your chosen example to illustrate how your God created new forms, organs, organisms in advance of any need for them. My favourite example was that of him changing pre-whale legs to flippers before the animals entered the water, but you chose the brain. At last, however, we now have your God providing the MECHANISM for change in advance of the changes. Precisely. With the brain, it's the MECHANISM initially for expansion and for complexification, but then almost entirely for complexification, and in both cases, the mechanism responds to the new requirements. This applies to the whole of evolution. My theistic proposal is that your God provided the MECHANISM for all evolutionary change, and this mechanism (the flexible and intelligent cell) brings about all the changes IN RESPONSE to new conditions and not in ANTICIPATION of them. Your God did not need to look into his crystal ball and preprogramme every solution to every problem, every response to new conditions, every innovation leading from bacteria to ants and eagles and humans and the duckbilled platypus, not to mention the weaverbird’s nest. He supplied the initial MECHANISM which would accommodate all uses. Agreement at last!

PART TWO (Let’s combine them.)
dhw: Now your dodge is to jump from God’s existence to the fact that evolution goes from stage to stage, from simple to complex. Each stage of what? Are you now telling me that all other life forms that had no connection with humans plus food were part of God’s one and only goal to produce humans plus food because they were all designed by him in stages (except, of course, for those that he designed without any predecessors)?

DAVID: I don't jump. God's design of evolution is one complete package, with simple stages leading to more complex ones.

But the more complex ones include countless “packages” that had no connection with humans and their food, and that is the problem you dodge and dodge and dodge.

DAVID: When He can, i.e., enough oxygen present to allow complex organisms, created by God's invention of photosynthesis, He uses the biochemical processes previously created to form the new phenotypes of the Cambrian. Your dodge is to forget God and try to separate the necessary parts.

I do not forget God – I propose that if he exists, he designed the mechanism which enables organisms to adapt to or exploit new conditions. What do you mean by the “necessary parts”. Necessary for what? According to you, the only goal was humans plus food. Why were all the brontosaurus’s “parts” necessary for your God’s design of humans plus their food?

DAVID: We are debating God's role in producing humans, whom He obviously wanted to produce, since we are here at the current endpoint of evolution. It is God's anthrocentricity in my view.

dhw: If he exists, and if – as you claim – he designed every other life form, then equally obviously he wanted to design all the other life forms which were here but had no connection with us, which makes nonsense of your claim that his only goal was to design us and our food!

DAVID: Of course He wanted and understood the need for other life forms to supply our food. You can't have one without the other. You admit the food supply is needed and then somehow it proves humans are unconnected from the process of God's designed evolution.

Of course we need food and our food consists of other life forms! But that does not mean that every single extinct life form and food was part of the goal of designing humans and our food! Please stop dodging!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 09, 2022, 15:53 (171 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Sunday, January 09, 2022, 15:59

PART ONE

DAVID: Totally confused. The complexification mechanism supplied in advance accommodates all the new uses.

dhw: Three cheers. We need not take this discussion any further. The brain was your chosen example to illustrate how your God created new forms, organs, organisms in advance of any need for them. My favourite example was that of him changing pre-whale legs to flippers before the animals entered the water, but you chose the brain. At last, however, we now have your God providing the MECHANISM for change in advance of the changes. Precisely. With the brain, it's the MECHANISM initially for expansion and for complexification, but then almost entirely for complexification, and in both cases, the mechanism responds to the new requirements. This applies to the whole of evolution. My theistic proposal is that your God provided the MECHANISM for all evolutionary change, and this mechanism (the flexible and intelligent cell) brings about all the changes IN RESPONSE to new conditions and not in ANTICIPATION of them....He supplied the initial MECHANISM which would accommodate all uses. Agreement at last!

No cheers at all. Complexification is a preparation to handle future use, supplied in the newly enlarged brain by God, long before all the current brain uses were needed or required. The bold fits no known facts. Our use of complexification shrunk the brain 150 cc. Intelligent cells are hyperbolic opinions of some folks, not all. Ask ID. We each follow our own champions, according to our individual preferences, but all of whom have equal education but differing opinions. In other words your guys are no better than my guys.


PART TWO (Let’s combine them.)
dhw: Now your dodge is to jump from God’s existence to the fact that evolution goes from stage to stage, from simple to complex. Each stage of what? Are you now telling me that all other life forms that had no connection with humans plus food were part of God’s one and only goal to produce humans plus food because they were all designed by him in stages (except, of course, for those that he designed without any predecessors)?

DAVID: I don't jump. God's design of evolution is one complete package, with simple stages leading to more complex ones.

dhw: But the more complex ones include countless “packages” that had no connection with humans and their food, and that is the problem you dodge and dodge and dodge.

Again, for you the importance of diversity in creating ecosystem for food doesn't exist. Ecosystems require initial diversity to form.


DAVID: When He can, i.e., enough oxygen present to allow complex organisms, created by God's invention of photosynthesis, He uses the biochemical processes previously created to form the new phenotypes of the Cambrian. Your dodge is to forget God and try to separate the necessary parts.

dhw: I do not forget God – I propose that if he exists, he designed the mechanism which enables organisms to adapt to or exploit new conditions. What do you mean by the “necessary parts”. Necessary for what? According to you, the only goal was humans plus food. Why were all the brontosaurus’s “parts” necessary for your God’s design of humans plus their food?

The 'parts' are all the sequential stages of evolution which you slice into separate parts!. Your God gives up control of evolution. What was His desired endpoint, if any?


DAVID: We are debating God's role in producing humans, whom He obviously wanted to produce, since we are here at the current endpoint of evolution. It is God's anthrocentricity in my view.

dhw: If he exists, and if – as you claim – he designed every other life form, then equally obviously he wanted to design all the other life forms which were here but had no connection with us, which makes nonsense of your claim that his only goal was to design us and our food!

DAVID: Of course He wanted and understood the need for other life forms to supply our food. You can't have one without the other. You admit the food supply is needed and then somehow it proves humans are unconnected from the process of God's designed evolution.

dhw: Of course we need food and our food consists of other life forms! But that does not mean that every single extinct life form and food was part of the goal of designing humans and our food! Please stop dodging!

Your constant dodge is not recognizing that necessary diversity of the bush allows organisms to form into structured ecosystems with top predators. This occurred as life began and diversified. Stop slicing up evolution into unrelated parts. Why are you so unhappy God wanted us?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, January 10, 2022, 15:27 (170 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: Totally confused. The complexification mechanism supplied in advance accommodates all the new uses.

dhw: Three cheers. We need not take this discussion any further. The brain was your chosen example to illustrate how your God created new forms, organs, organisms in advance of any need for them. My favourite example was that of him changing pre-whale legs to flippers before the animals entered the water, but you chose the brain. At last, however, we now have your God providing the MECHANISM for change in advance of the changes. Precisely. With the brain, it's the MECHANISM initially for expansion and for complexification, but then almost entirely for complexification, and in both cases, the mechanism responds to the new requirements. This applies to the whole of evolution. My theistic proposal is that your God provided the MECHANISM for all evolutionary change, and this mechanism (the flexible and intelligent cell) brings about all the changes IN RESPONSE to new conditions and not in ANTICIPATION of them....He supplied the initial MECHANISM which would accommodate all uses. Agreement at last!

DAVID: No cheers at all. Complexification is a preparation to handle future use, supplied in the newly enlarged brain by God, long before all the current brain uses were needed or required.

What do you mean by “complexificaton is a preparation”? Complexification is the process, and each complexification is a new product of the process, which takes place in RESPONSE to new requirements.. We have agreed that the ABILITY to complexify must have been present in earlier brains as well, and of course the ability – or what you earlier called the mechanism – was present before it was called upon to meet new requirements.

DAVID: The bold fits no known facts. Our use of complexification shrunk the brain 150 cc. Intelligent cells are hyperbolic opinions of some folks, not all. Ask ID. We each follow our own champions, according to our individual preferences, but all of whom have equal education but differing opinions. In other words your guys are no better than my guys.

Why are you disagreeing with yourself? You explicitly said it was the MECHANISM for complexification that was supplied in advance, and I agreed. Now you are flapping around trying to do what? Prove that it wasn’t the mechanism?

You tried to use the brain as an example of how your God designed new organs and organisms in anticipation of the conditions that required or allowed them. The article on “Oxygen” that we discussed under “More miscellany” is another instance in which you appear to agree that the change in conditions comes first, but then you try to wriggle out of it.

Oxygen
dhw; […] environmental changes either require or allow changes in life forms. […]

DAVID: You cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn’t present.

We agree. But today you write:

DAVID: New conditions allow new changes to happen. God dsigns in advance for them.

You say cannot design an organism dependent on new conditions (oxygen) if the new conditions oxygen) aren’t already present, so what is it that God designs in advance? Did oxygen-breathing animals appear before there was oxygen? Once more, what exists in advance can only be the MECHANISM which makes new changes when conditions require or allow them – not in advance of the change in conditions.

PART TWO simply repeats points already dealt with under “Cellular Intelligence” concerning ecosystems, and “slicing and dicing”, as attempts to dodge the question of why your God would design countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, if his one and only purpose was to design humans plus food.

There is only one new question:

DAVID: Why are you so unhappy God wanted us?

I am not in the least unhappy at the idea. My experimentation theories both allow for him “wanting us”, and even the free-for-all allows him to dabble if he feels like it. I am only unhappy with two of your theories: your all-powerful God creating a system with errors he did not want and could not correct, and your all-powerful God specially designing countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although his one and only goal was to design humans plus food.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, January 10, 2022, 18:36 (170 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: . Complexification is a preparation to handle future use, supplied in the newly enlarged brain by God, long before all the current brain uses were needed or required.

dhw: What do you mean by “complexificaton is a preparation”? Complexification is the process, and each complexification is a new product of the process, which takes place in RESPONSE to new requirements.. We have agreed that the ABILITY to complexify must have been present in earlier brains as well, and of course the ability – or what you earlier called the mechanism – was present before it was called upon to meet new requirements.

Exactly: the bold is correct. The complexification is there in advance to handle new uses


DAVID: The bold fits no known facts. Our use of complexification shrunk the brain 150 cc. Intelligent cells are hyperbolic opinions of some folks, not all. Ask ID. We each follow our own champions, according to our individual preferences, but all of whom have equal education but differing opinions. In other words your guys are no better than my guys.

dhw: Why are you disagreeing with yourself? You explicitly said it was the MECHANISM for complexification that was supplied in advance, and I agreed. Now you are flapping around trying to do what? Prove that it wasn’t the mechanism?

dhw: You tried to use the brain as an example of how your God designed new organs and organisms in anticipation of the conditions that required or allowed them. The article on “Oxygen” that we discussed under “More miscellany” is another instance in which you appear to agree that the change in conditions comes first, but then you try to wriggle out of it.

No wiggle. Environmental/changed conditions allow new advances. More oxygen allowed God to now design Cambrians. Not worth doing until His complex quantum-process-using photosynthesis developed enough oxygen.


Oxygen
dhw; […] environmental changes either require or allow changes in life forms. […]

DAVID: You cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn’t present.

We agree. But today you write:

DAVID: New conditions allow new changes to happen. God designs in advance for them.

dhw: You say cannot design an organism dependent on new conditions (oxygen) if the new conditions oxygen) aren’t already present, so what is it that God designs in advance? Did oxygen-breathing animals appear before there was oxygen? Once more, what exists in advance can only be the MECHANISM which makes new changes when conditions require or allow them – not in advance of the change in conditions.

The MECHANISM is God working is stepwise evolutionary fashion!


PART TWO simply repeats points already dealt with under “Cellular Intelligence” concerning ecosystems, and “slicing and dicing”, as attempts to dodge the question of why your God would design countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, if his one and only purpose was to design humans plus food.

You recognize the need for a huge bush of food and then deny it to tally illogically.


There is only one new question:

DAVID: Why are you so unhappy God wanted us?

dhw: I am not in the least unhappy at the idea. My experimentation theories both allow for him “wanting us”, and even the free-for-all allows him to dabble if he feels like it. I am only unhappy with two of your theories: your all-powerful God creating a system with errors he did not want and could not correct, and your all-powerful God specially designing countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although his one and only goal was to design humans plus food.

Still illogical theories. So God is still not allowed to create us from bacteria in a stepwise fashion creating a huge bush of ecosystems for food?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, January 11, 2022, 08:03 (170 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: Complexification is a preparation to handle future use, supplied in the newly enlarged brain by God, long before all the current brain uses were needed or required.

dhw: What do you mean by “complexificaton is a preparation”? Complexification is the process, and each complexification is a new product of the process, which takes place in RESPONSE to new requirements. We have agreed that the ABILITY to complexify must have been present in earlier brains as well, and of course the ability – or what you earlier called the mechanism – was present before it was called upon to meet new requirements.

DAVID: Exactly: the bold is correct. The complexification is there in advance to handle new uses.

The bold says that each complexification takes place IN RESPONSE, not in advance. It is the ABILITY to complexify, or the MECHANISM for complexification which is there in advance. Why are you trying to wriggle out of your agreement with what, after all, seems blindingly obvious?

dhw: You tried to use the brain as an example of how your God designed new organs and organisms in anticipation of the conditions that required or allowed them. The article on “Oxygen” that we discussed under “More miscellany” is another instance in which you appear to agree that the change in conditions comes first, but then you try to wriggle out of it.

DAVID: No wiggle. Environmental/changed conditions allow new advances. More oxygen allowed God to now design Cambrians.

So even in your own theistic scenario, the oxygen comes first and “now” God designs the new species. He does not design them in anticipation of the oxygen arriving.

DAVID: Not worth doing until His complex quantum-process-using photosynthesis developed enough oxygen.

Absolutely crazy to design an animal that needs oxygen if the oxygen isn’t there. I have no objection to your logic if you say that God first created the new conditions and then designed the new species. Whether one believes that he deliberately designed every single environmental change, local and global, that required or allowed every single evolutionary change is another matter. It is your idea of speciation in anticipation of new conditions that I have been objecting to. And yet once again, you try to wriggle out of your agreement:

DAVID: New conditions allow new changes to happen. God designs in advance for them. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: You say you cannot design an organism dependent on new conditions (oxygen) if the new conditions oxygen) aren’t already present, so what is it that God designs in advance? Did oxygen-breathing animals appear before there was oxygen? Once more, what exists in advance can only be the MECHANISM which makes new changes when conditions require or allow them – not in advance of the change in conditions.

DAVID: The MECHANISM is God working is stepwise evolutionary fashion!

If you want to call your God a mechanism, that’s up to you. It’s true that one of the two methods you allow him is a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme which switches itself on at every pre-planned moment to carry out the requisite changes to the cells, but even then, it would only be switched on IN RESPONSE to new conditions and not before they existed. And the same applies to his dabbling: not much point in dabbling with the cells to create a new species BEFORE the right conditions exist, is there? My proposal has him giving the cells the intelligence to RESPOND to new conditions by changing themselves. In all our theories, speciation takes place in RESPONSE to new conditions, and not beforehand.

dhw: PART TWO simply repeats points already dealt with under “Cellular Intelligence” concerning ecosystems, and “slicing and dicing”, as attempts to dodge the question of why your God would design countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, if his one and only purpose was to design humans plus food.

DAVID: You recognize the need for a huge bush of food and then deny it totally illogically.

You simply refuse to put the pieces together. All organisms need food. What I deny is your theory that your God only wanted to design humans plus our food, and therefore designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and foods, the majority of which had no connection with humans. THAT is what is illogical, you admit it, can’t explain it, and so you continue to edit out all the parts of your theory that make it illogical!

DAVID: So God is still not allowed to create us from bacteria in a stepwise fashion creating a huge bush of ecosystems for food?

If God exists, he created us (or allowed his invention to create us) plus every other life form and food, extant and extinct, in a stepwise fashion from bacteria! The huge bush of ecosystems provided food for every life form, extant and extinct. That does not mean that every life form extant and extinct and every branch of every bush that existed and perished for 3.X billion years was “PART OF THE GOAL OF EVOLVING [DESIGNING] HUMANS” AND THEIR FOOD! Please stop editing out the illogical bits of your theory and then pretending it’s logical! :-(

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 11, 2022, 16:05 (169 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: Exactly: the bold is correct. The complexification is there in advance to handle new uses.

dhw: The bold says that each complexification takes place IN RESPONSE, not in advance.

If the mechanism is not already there, it couldn't respond to new uses.

DAVID: No wiggle. Environmental/changed conditions allow new advances. More oxygen allowed God to now design Cambrians.

dhw: So even in your own theistic scenario, the oxygen comes first and “now” God designs the new species. He does not design them in anticipation of the oxygen arriving.

In evolution everything in its time. He designs as new conditions He provides arrive. Each step is a function of many factors. New organisms need oxygen, food, and need new parts to breathe and eat.


DAVID: Not worth doing until His complex quantum-process-using photosynthesis developed enough oxygen.

dhw: Absolutely crazy to design an animal that needs oxygen if the oxygen isn’t there. I have no objection to your logic if you say that God first created the new conditions and then designed the new species.

dhw: You say you cannot design an organism dependent on new conditions (oxygen) if the new conditions oxygen) aren’t already present, so what is it that God designs in advance? Did oxygen-breathing animals appear before there was oxygen? Once more, what exists in advance can only be the MECHANISM which makes new changes when conditions require or allow them – not in advance of the change in conditions.

DAVID: The MECHANISM is God working is stepwise evolutionary fashion!

dhw: If you want to call your God a mechanism, that’s up to you. It’s true that one of the two methods you allow him is a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme which switches itself on at every pre-planned moment to carry out the requisite changes to the cells, but even then, it would only be switched on IN RESPONSE to new conditions and not before they existed. And the same applies to his dabbling: not much point in dabbling with the cells to create a new species BEFORE the right conditions exist, is there? My proposal has him giving the cells the intelligence to RESPOND to new conditions by changing themselves. In all our theories, speciation takes place in RESPONSE to new conditions, and not beforehand.

You have never explained our huge brains mainly unused for 300,000 years, or how Cambrians appeared prepared for their conditions with no precursors. And don't fall back on negativity. Darwin knew it 160 years ago, and no change with lots of new shale fields uncovered.


dhw: PART TWO simply repeats points already dealt with under “Cellular Intelligence” concerning ecosystems, and “slicing and dicing”, as attempts to dodge the question of why your God would design countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, if his one and only purpose was to design humans plus food.

DAVID: You recognize the need for a huge bush of food and then deny it totally illogically.

dhw: You simply refuse to put the pieces together. All organisms need food. What I deny is your theory that your God only wanted to design humans plus our food, and therefore designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and foods, the majority of which had no connection with humans. THAT is what is illogical, you admit it, can’t explain it, and so you continue to edit out all the parts of your theory that make it illogical!

Nothing is illogical about God choosing to evolve us. You accept the idea and then ignore it.


DAVID: So God is still not allowed to create us from bacteria in a stepwise fashion creating a huge bush of ecosystems for food?

dhw: If God exists, he created us (or allowed his invention to create us) plus every other life form and food, extant and extinct, in a stepwise fashion from bacteria! The huge bush of ecosystems provided food for every life form, extant and extinct. That does not mean that every life form extant and extinct and every branch of every bush that existed and perished for 3.X billion years was “PART OF THE GOAL OF EVOLVING [DESIGNING] HUMANS” AND THEIR FOOD! Please stop editing out the illogical bits of your theory and then pretending it’s logical! :-(

Same old, same old: same reply, "Nothing is illogical about God choosing to evolve us. You accept the idea and then ignore it." History is God's history of action. Adler's philosophy/theology depends upon it, as I do. ;-)

As usual the logical interpretation of your illogical complaint is why not God directly creating us as Genesis ancient interpretations imply, but really doesn't mean in modern translations? We know God evolved us, don't we? :-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, January 12, 2022, 09:28 (169 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Exactly: the bold is correct. The complexification is there in advance to handle new uses.

dhw: The bold says that each complexification takes place IN RESPONSE, not in advance.

DAVID: If the mechanism is not already there, it couldn't respond to new uses.

Precisely. It is the mechanism which is in place, and it responds to new uses. Species do not arrive in advance of changing conditions but in response to them.

DAVID: No wiggle. Environmental/changed conditions allow new advances. More oxygen allowed God to now design Cambrians.

dhw: So even in your own theistic scenario, the oxygen comes first and “now” God designs the new species. He does not design them in anticipation of the oxygen arriving.

DAVID: In evolution everything in its time. He designs as new conditions He provides arrive. Each step is a function of many factors. New organisms need oxygen, food, and need new parts to breathe and eat.

So in your imagined scenario, your God does not go round operating on existing organisms, or creating organisms with no predecessors, until he has ALREADY designed the conditions in which they are to live. Just as it is in my scenario, the cells do not have to plan for the future: the changes are made once the new conditions are in place.


dhw: …what exists in advance can only be the MECHANISM which makes new changes when conditions require or allow them – not in advance of the change in conditions.

DAVID: The MECHANISM is God working is stepwise evolutionary fashion!

I’d like to follow up on this astonishing idea. I have proposed that the mechanism that makes new changes when new conditions require or allow them is the flexible, intelligent cell. I don’t think you will disagree that every change requires changes to the cells of every individual organism that makes up the new species. Previously you have proposed that your God either provided the very first cells with a computer programme for every single change to be passed on through billions of years to each organism on each branch of the ever expanding bush, or he personally popped in to perform operations on each individual he wanted to change (or to design new species without any predecessors). Are you now offering us a ubiquitous God who is actually inside the cells of each individual? If so, what an interesting idea that is. After all, you could hardly have anything more intelligent than your God.

dhw: In all our theories, speciation takes place in RESPONSE to new conditions, and not beforehand.

DAVID: You have never explained our huge brains mainly unused for 300,000 years, or how Cambrians appeared prepared for their conditions with no precursors. And don't fall back on negativity. Darwin knew it 160 years ago, and no change with lots of new shale fields uncovered.

We have covered both these questions over and over again, including on this same thread! All expansions were followed by long periods of comparative stasis until the next major new requirement(s). In our case, the next major requirements were dealt with by complexification and not expansion. “No precursor” Cambrians may be due to the inevitable lack of fossils and/or the ability of intelligent cells to make major changes when new conditions require or allow them. Even your God apparently had to provide the oxygen before he designed new species – they could not have appeared BEFORE the new conditions existed. And it is your theory that new species were designed IN ANTICIPATION of new conditions that is under fire here. But you keep trying to dodge it, as you do with your other pet theory:

dhw: What I deny is your theory that your God only wanted to design humans plus our food, and therefore designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and foods, the majority of which had no connection with humans. THAT is what is illogical, you admit it, can’t explain it, and so you continue to edit out all the parts of your theory that make it illogical!

DAVID: Nothing is illogical about God choosing to evolve us. You accept the idea and then ignore it.

And still you edit out the illogicalities! Please stop ignoring the bold. The rest of your post does the same.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 12, 2022, 15:55 (168 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If the mechanism is not already there, it couldn't respond to new uses.

dhw: Precisely. It is the mechanism which is in place, and it responds to new uses. Species do not arrive in advance of changing conditions but in response to them.

All species we know modify to fit changes. Speciation itself is our debate. I choose God designing.


DAVID: In evolution everything in its time. He designs as new conditions He provides arrive. Each step is a function of many factors. New organisms need oxygen, food, and need new parts to breathe and eat.

dhw: So in your imagined scenario, your God does not go round operating on existing organisms, or creating organisms with no predecessors, until he has ALREADY designed the conditions in which they are to live. Just as it is in my scenario, the cells do not have to plan for the future: the changes are made once the new conditions are in place.

Designing complexity requires deep mentation, which your cells cannot possibly do. They can create tiny modifications, no more.>


dhw: …what exists in advance can only be the MECHANISM which makes new changes when conditions require or allow them – not in advance of the change in conditions.

DAVID: The MECHANISM is God working is stepwise evolutionary fashion!

dhw: I’d like to follow up on this astonishing idea. I have proposed that the mechanism that makes new changes when new conditions require or allow them is the flexible, intelligent cell. I don’t think you will disagree that every change requires changes to the cells of every individual organism that makes up the new species.

Some cells are changed, some new parts with news cells are created, but most use biochemical processes developed long ago in advance.

dhw: Are you now offering us a ubiquitous God who is actually inside the cells of each individual? If so, what an interesting idea that is. After all, you could hardly have anything more intelligent than your God.

God works with the genome of germ stem cells to design the new. He doesn't live there.


dhw: In all our theories, speciation takes place in RESPONSE to new conditions, and not beforehand.

DAVID: You have never explained our huge brains mainly unused for 300,000 years, or how Cambrians appeared prepared for their conditions with no precursors. And don't fall back on negativity. Darwin knew it 160 years ago, and no change with lots of new shale fields uncovered.

dhw: We have covered both these questions over and over again, including on this same thread! All expansions were followed by long periods of comparative stasis until the next major new requirement(s). In our case, the next major requirements were dealt with by complexification and not expansion. “No precursor” Cambrians may be due to the inevitable lack of fossils and/or the ability of intelligent cells to make major changes when new conditions require or allow them. Even your God apparently had to provide the oxygen before he designed new species – they could not have appeared BEFORE the new conditions existed. And it is your theory that new species were designed IN ANTICIPATION of new conditions that is under fire here.

Yes, our giant brain didn't change much (stasis) until we learned to use it. It obviously appeared in anticipation of future use. No new brain required as we civilized and developed libraries of knowledge to stuff into it by complexifing with a pre-prepared mechanism to help..


dhw: What I deny is your theory that your God only wanted to design humans plus our food, and therefore designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and foods, the majority of which had no connection with humans. THAT is what is illogical, you admit it, can’t explain it, and so you continue to edit out all the parts of your theory that make it illogical!

DAVID: Nothing is illogical about God choosing to evolve us. You accept the idea and then ignore it.

dhw: And still you edit out the illogicalities! Please stop ignoring the bold. The rest of your post does the same.

Your bolds are constantly illogical.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, January 13, 2022, 09:56 (168 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If the mechanism is not already there, it couldn't respond to new uses.

dhw: Precisely. It is the mechanism which is in place, and it responds to new uses. Species do not arrive in advance of changing conditions but in response to them.

DAVID: All species we know modify to fit changes.

No they don’t. Most of them died out. But if they survive, they have done so by RESPONDING to changing conditions.

DAVID: Speciation itself is our debate. I choose God designing.

Even if your God does the designing, you have agreed that he does not design new species in advance of changing conditions. The oxygen must already be present for him to produce the new species which requires the oxygen.

dhw: Just as it is in my scenario, the cells do not have to plan for the future: the changes are made once the new conditions are in place.

DAVID: Designing complexity requires deep mentation, which your cells cannot possibly do. They can create tiny modifications, no more.

Back to your prejudice as a way of dodging the issue we are debating, which is your theory that your God creates new species IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions, although you have now agreed that the changes in conditions must precede the new species.

dhw: …what exists in advance can only be the MECHANISM which makes new changes when conditions require or allow them – not in advance of the change in conditions.

DAVID: The MECHANISM is God working is stepwise evolutionary fashion!

dhw: I’d like to follow up on this astonishing idea. I have proposed that the mechanism that makes new changes when new conditions require or allow them is the flexible, intelligent cell. I don’t think you will disagree that every change requires changes to the cells of every individual organism that makes up the new species.

DAVID: Some cells are changed, some new parts with news cells are created, but most use biochemical processes developed long ago in advance.

Agreed. If cells are intelligent, they would have been using the same methods right from the start: working out what to do with themselves under changing conditions. Thank you also for confirming that speciation depends on new parts and cells and changing use of old cells – finally knocking on the head your claim that evolutionary advances are “simply” a matter of losing genes. (See “More miscellany”.)

dhw: Are you now offering us a ubiquitous God who is actually inside the cells of each individual? If so, what an interesting idea that is. After all, you could hardly have anything more intelligent than your God.

DAVID: God works with the genome of germ stem cells to design the new. He doesn't live there.

Ah well, bang goes your theory that God is a mechanism. He’s an outsider who pops in to conduct countless operations in order to make the changes he didn’t preprogramme 3.8 billion years ago.

You continue to try and prove that your God changes organisms in advance of new requirements by flogging your example of the brain:

DAVID: Yes, our giant brain didn't change much (stasis) until we learned to use it. It obviously appeared in anticipation of future use.

We didn’t “learn to use it”. We used it, just as our ancestors did. And when they came up with new ideas, their brains expanded. When we came up with new ideas, our brains complexified, as they continue to do even today.

DAVID: No new brain required as we civilized and developed libraries of knowledge to stuff into it by complexifing with a pre-prepared mechanism to help.

Agreed. The “pre-prepared” mechanism was that of complexification, which – we agree – was also present in the brains of our ancestors, as was the mechanism enabling expansion. Since you clearly do not believe that your God keeps popping in to create every new complexification, may I suggest that you believe he created the mechanism for expansion and complexification way back at the very beginning, since the very first cells must have contained the mechanism which eventually led to the expansion and complexification of life forms as evolution developed. I need hardly tell you that the mechanism might be the flexibility and intelligence of the cell.

dhw: What I deny is your theory that your God only wanted to design humans plus our food, and therefore designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and foods, the majority of which had no connection with humans. THAT is what is illogical, you admit it, can’t explain it, and so you continue to edit out all the parts of your theory that make it illogical!

DAVID: Your bolds are constantly illogical.

Of course they are. It is totally illogical for an all-powerful God with one purpose (humans plus food) to deliberately create countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one purpose. That is why you constantly dodge the issue.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 13, 2022, 16:00 (167 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Speciation itself is our debate. I choose God designing.

dhw: Even if your God does the designing, you have agreed that he does not design new species in advance of changing conditions. The oxygen must already be present for him to produce the new species which requires the oxygen.

God changes the conditions. He is in control of all steps in evolution.

DAVID: Designing complexity requires deep mentation, which your cells cannot possibly do. They can create tiny modifications, no more.

dhw: Back to your prejudice as a way of dodging the issue we are debating, which is your theory that your God creates new species IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions, although you have now agreed that the changes in conditions must precede the new species.

forgetting God manages everything, climate and speciation


dhw: I’d like to follow up on this astonishing idea. I have proposed that the mechanism that makes new changes when new conditions require or allow them is the flexible, intelligent cell. I don’t think you will disagree that every change requires changes to the cells of every individual organism that makes up the new species.

DAVID: Some cells are changed, some new parts with news cells are created, but most use biochemical processes developed long ago in advance.

dhw: Agreed. If cells are intelligent, they would have been using the same methods right from the start: working out what to do with themselves under changing conditions.

Now it is "if cells are intelligent". Big IF.

You continue to try and prove that your God changes organisms in advance of new requirements by flogging your example of the brain:

DAVID: Yes, our giant brain didn't change much (stasis) until we learned to use it. It obviously appeared in anticipation of future use.

dhw: We didn’t “learn to use it”. We used it, just as our ancestors did. And when they came up with new ideas, their brains expanded. When we came up with new ideas, our brains complexified, as they continue to do even today.

'Learning to use it" involves developing new concepts like maths, language, etc., none of which existed 315,000 years ago with the first sapiens.


DAVID: No new brain required as we civilized and developed libraries of knowledge to stuff into it by complexifing with a pre-prepared mechanism to help.

Agreed. The “pre-prepared” mechanism was that of complexification, which – we agree – was also present in the brains of our ancestors, as was the mechanism enabling expansion. Since you clearly do not believe that your God keeps popping in to create every new complexification, may I suggest that you believe he created the mechanism for expansion and complexification way back at the very beginning, since the very first cells must have contained the mechanism which eventually led to the expansion and complexification of life forms as evolution developed. I need hardly tell you that the mechanism might be the flexibility and intelligence of the cell.

You are back to proposing God made cells so intelligent, He could sit back and let them do the work of future designs to handle future conditions.


dhw: What I deny is your theory that your God only wanted to design humans plus our food, and therefore designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and foods, the majority of which had no connection with humans. THAT is what is illogical, you admit it, can’t explain it, and so you continue to edit out all the parts of your theory that make it illogical!

DAVID: Your bolds are constantly illogical.

dhw: Of course they are. It is totally illogical for an all-powerful God with one purpose (humans plus food) to deliberately create countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one purpose. That is why you constantly dodge the issue.

My dodge is I do not accept any of your illogical premise that my God is tunnel-visioned. God recognized all the many necessary steps in evolution to reach humans, and did them. Adler would be as puzzled as I am.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, January 14, 2022, 09:23 (167 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Even if your God does the designing, you have agreed that he does not design new species in advance of changing conditions. The oxygen must already be present for him to produce the new species which requires the oxygen.

DAVID: God changes the conditions. He is in control of all steps in evolution.

For a long time you dithered over whether God changed all the conditions, so it’s good to hear that you’ve now made up your mind. This does not alter the fact that you yourself agree that he changes the conditions before he designs the new species, and our dispute is over your previous claim that he designed new species in anticipation of changing conditions.

DAVID: Designing complexity requires deep mentation, which your cells cannot possibly do. They can create tiny modifications, no more.

dhw: Back to your prejudice as a way of dodging the issue we are debating, which is your theory that your God creates new species IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions, although you have now agreed that the changes in conditions must precede the new species.

DAVID: forgetting God manages everything, climate and speciation.

This is your new fixed belief, but it still leaves you with your God changing the conditions before he “manages” the species that will cope with or exploit the new conditions. Oxygen first, oxygen-breathing animals second. Remember?

dhw: I have proposed that the mechanism that makes new changes when new conditions require or allow them is the flexible, intelligent cell. I don’t think you will disagree that every change requires changes to the cells of every individual organism that makes up the new species.

DAVID: Some cells are changed, some new parts with news cells are created, but most use biochemical processes developed long ago in advance.

dhw: Agreed. If cells are intelligent, they would have been using the same methods right from the start: working out what to do with themselves under changing conditions.

DAVID: Now it is "if cells are intelligent". Big IF.

It has always been “if”. It’s a theory, not a proven fact. The same applies to your God. No one has any proven answers to any of our big questions, and that is the reason why we theorize!

dhw: You continue to try and prove that your God changes organisms in advance of new requirements by flogging your example of the brain:

DAVID: Yes, our giant brain didn't change much (stasis) until we learned to use it. It obviously appeared in anticipation of future use.

dhw: We didn’t “learn to use it”. We used it, just as our ancestors did. And I suggest that when they came up with new ideas, their brains eventually expanded. When we came up with new ideas, our brains complexified, as they continue to do even today.

DAVID: 'Learning to use it" involves developing new concepts like maths, language, etc., none of which existed 315,000 years ago with the first sapiens.

Of course they didn’t. Developing new concepts is the CAUSE of complexification, and I propose that the same applied in the past, when new concepts would have CAUSED expansion when the capacity for complexification had been exhausted. You have agreed that what preceded all these new concepts was the MECHANISM for complexification. I don’t know why you keep going back over the same discussion, unless it’s to distract attention from the fact that you now acknowledge that species are not designed in anticipation of new conditions but in response to them.

dhw: It is totally illogical for an all-powerful God with one purpose (humans plus food) to deliberately create countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one purpose. That is why you constantly dodge the issue.

DAVID: My dodge is I do not accept any of your illogical premise that my God is tunnel-visioned.

If he only has one goal (you say that all his designs are “part of the goal to evolve [=design] humans” and their food), then of course he’s tunnel-visioned. But your theory that he designed countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with humans is the exact opposite of tunnel-visioned, which is why your theory is illogical.

DAVID: God recognized all the many necessary steps in evolution to reach humans, and did them. Adler would be as puzzled as I am.

If your Adler is as logical a thinker as you say, I expect he would be just as puzzled as I am by a theory that has an all-powerful God pursuing his one solitary purpose of designing humans plus food by designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. However, you have told us that he does not even discuss your theory. Good for him.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, January 14, 2022, 15:33 (166 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God changes the conditions. He is in control of all steps in evolution.

dhw: For a long time you dithered over whether God changed all the conditions, so it’s good to hear that you’ve now made up your mind. This does not alter the fact that you yourself agree that he changes the conditions before he designs the new species, and our dispute is over your previous claim that he designed new species in anticipation of changing conditions.

Both designs are coordinated, and again using my human brain point, it was set up hundreds of thousands of years prior to its full use, resultant complexification and shrinkage.


DAVID: Now it is "if cells are intelligent". Big IF.

dhw: It has always been “if”. It’s a theory, not a proven fact. The same applies to your God. No one has any proven answers to any of our big questions, and that is the reason why we theorize!

dhw: You continue to try and prove that your God changes organisms in advance of new requirements by flogging your example of the brain:

DAVID: Yes, our giant brain didn't change much (stasis) until we learned to use it. It obviously appeared in anticipation of future use.

dhw: We didn’t “learn to use it”. We used it, just as our ancestors did. And I suggest that when they came up with new ideas, their brains eventually expanded. When we came up with new ideas, our brains complexified, as they continue to do even today.

DAVID: 'Learning to use it" involves developing new concepts like maths, language, etc., none of which existed 315,000 years ago with the first sapiens.

dhw: Of course they didn’t. Developing new concepts is the CAUSE of complexification, and I propose that the same applied in the past, when new concepts would have CAUSED expansion when the capacity for complexification had been exhausted. You have agreed that what preceded all these new concepts was the MECHANISM for complexification. I don’t know why you keep going back over the same discussion, unless it’s to distract attention from the fact that you now acknowledge that species are not designed in anticipation of new conditions but in response to them.

What you left out is God coordinates His advances. He evolved the Earth He formed so it could accept the life He started, each step in its time.


dhw: If he only has one goal (you say that all his designs are “part of the goal to evolve [=design] humans” and their food), then of course he’s tunnel-visioned. But your theory that he designed countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with humans is the exact opposite of tunnel-visioned, which is why your theory is illogical.

Same tortured illogical complaint. The bush of life with many branches, the ends of which have no physical comparison to humans, are the food for all of life, a point you logically accept, and then illogically distort.


DAVID: God recognized all the many necessary steps in evolution to reach humans, and did them. Adler would be as puzzled as I am.

dhw: If your Adler is as logical a thinker as you say, I expect he would be just as puzzled as I am by a theory that has an all-powerful God pursuing his one solitary purpose of designing humans plus food by designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. However, you have told us that he does not even discuss your theory. Good for him.

What IS Adler's point is the end result of humans proves God!!! Adler fully accepts God evolved us and accepts the process as fact. Since in all of your study regarding God you have ignored folks like Adler, you obviously have a blind side that I am trying to pry open. I've even gotten you to take a squint at ID! Why not try all sides of the question? I started on the fence and with lots of reading climbed down, so it is possible.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, January 15, 2022, 08:42 (166 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God changes the conditions. He is in control of all steps in evolution.

dhw: For a long time you dithered over whether God changed all the conditions, so it’s good to hear that you’ve now made up your mind. This does not alter the fact that you yourself agree that he changes the conditions before he designs the new species, and our dispute is over your previous claim that he designed new species in anticipation of changing conditions.

I realize now, however, that your new decision changes the argument. If God preprogrammed every single environmental change, global and local, and every single species 3.8 billion years ago, then of course you could argue that he designed all species in advance. We should simply forget your agreement that "you cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn't present", and "more oxygen allowed God to now design Cambrians". The "now" certainly doesn't fit if you're going to tell us that it was all designed 3.8 billion years ago.

DAVID: Both designs are coordinated, and again using my human brain point, it was set up hundreds of thousands of years prior to its full use, resultant complexification and shrinkage.

What was set up? Regarding the brain, I agree with you that the MECHANISM for change (i.e. for expansion and complexification) must have been present, and yes of course it was/is used with every new expansion and every new complexification as the brain responded/responds to every new requirement. Are you now saying that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every new idea or condition that required expansion or complexification, and continues to do so? Or has he left us to work out the ideas, and the mechanism to respond without him?

dhw: You have agreed that what preceded all these new concepts was the MECHANISM for complexification. I don’t know why you keep going back over the same discussion, unless it’s to distract attention from the fact that you now acknowledge that species are not designed in anticipation of new conditions but in response to them.

DAVID: What you left out is God coordinates His advances. He evolved the Earth He formed so it could accept the life He started, each step in its time.

If God exists, then I accept that he must have evolved the Earth so that it could be conducive to life. However, I find it difficult to believe that 3.8 billion years ago he preprogrammed every environmental change, every innovation, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. - especially when you say it was all for the sake of humans.

DAVID: I do not accept any of your illogical premise that my God is tunnel-visioned.

dhw: If he only has one goal (you say that all his designs are “part of the goal to evolve [=design] humans” and their food), then of course he’s tunnel-visioned. But your theory that he designed countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with humans is the exact opposite of tunnel-visioned, which is why your theory is illogical.

DAVID: Same tortured illogical complaint. The bush of life with many branches, the ends of which have no physical comparison to humans, are the food for all of life, a point you logically accept, and then illogically distort.

You are making the very point that renders your anthropocentric theory illogical. According to you, he designed ALL the life forms and branches and foods, most of which had no connection with humans, and yet the only life forms, branches and foods he wanted were those connected with humans! Stop dodging!

DAVID: God recognized all the many necessary steps in evolution to reach humans, and did them. Adler would be as puzzled as I am.

dhw: If your Adler is as logical a thinker as you say, I expect he would be just as puzzled as I am by a theory that has an all-powerful God pursuing his one solitary purpose of designing humans plus food by designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. However, you have told us that he does not even discuss your theory. Good for him.

DAVID: What IS Adler's point is the end result of humans proves God!!!

And that is not what we are arguing about!

DAVID: Adler fully accepts God evolved us and accepts the process as fact. Since in all of your study regarding God you have ignored folks like Adler, you obviously have a blind side that I am trying to pry open. I've even gotten you to take a squint at ID! Why not try all sides of the question? I started on the fence and with lots of reading climbed down, so it is possible.

You simply refuse to accept that our disagreement in all these discussions is NOT over the logic of the design argument as evidence for the existence of God, but over your dislocated theory concerning what you believe to have been your God’s one and only purpose (humans plus food) and what you believe to have been his method (to design countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans). PLEASE stop dodging. You are simply taking us round in the same circles. You admit that you cannot explain this theory (you tell me to go and ask God to explain it), and that should be the end of this discussion.:-(

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 15, 2022, 15:43 (165 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I realize now, however, that your new decision changes the argument. If God preprogrammed every single environmental change, global and local, and every single species 3.8 billion years ago, then of course you could argue that he designed all species in advance. We should simply forget your agreement that "you cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn't present", and "more oxygen allowed God to now design Cambrians". The "now" certainly doesn't fit if you're going to tell us that it was all designed 3.8 billion years ago.

God designed photosynthesis to make the proper conditions for future complex Cambrians is a reasonable view. Throwing Chixculub is a questionable issue. As for timing of planned events both in initial and dabbles are reasonable.


DAVID: Both designs are coordinated, and again using my human brain point, it was set up hundreds of thousands of years prior to its full use, resultant complexification and shrinkage.

dhw: Regarding the brain, I agree with you that the MECHANISM for change (i.e. for expansion and complexification) must have been present, and yes of course it was/is used with every new expansion and every new complexification as the brain responded/responds to every new requirement.

dhw: Are you now saying that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every new idea or condition that required expansion or complexification, and continues to do so?

Answered above.


DAVID: What you left out is God coordinates His advances. He evolved the Earth He formed so it could accept the life He started, each step in its time.

dhw: If God exists, then I accept that he must have evolved the Earth so that it could be conducive to life. However, I find it difficult to believe that 3.8 billion years ago he preprogrammed every environmental change, every innovation, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. - especially when you say it was all for the sake of humans.

So I guess you think God didn't want humans in the beginning. When He did what in planning is not settled in my mind. At the start He knew exactly what the outcomes should be. Planning in advance or dabbles actions are both probable.


DAVID: Same tortured illogical complaint. The bush of life with many branches, the ends of which have no physical comparison to humans, are the food for all of life, a point you logically accept, and then illogically distort.

dhw: You are making the very point that renders your anthropocentric theory illogical. According to you, he designed ALL the life forms and branches and foods, most of which had no connection with humans, and yet the only life forms, branches and foods he wanted were those connected with humans! Stop dodging!

Same old confusion. There must be food for all. All of life is hungry.


DAVID: Adler fully accepts God evolved us and accepts the process as fact. Since in all of your study regarding God you have ignored folks like Adler, you obviously have a blind side that I am trying to pry open. I've even gotten you to take a squint at ID! Why not try all sides of the question? I started on the fence and with lots of reading climbed down, so it is possible.

dhw: You simply refuse to accept that our disagreement in all these discussions is NOT over the logic of the design argument as evidence for the existence of God, but over your dislocated theory concerning what you believe to have been your God’s one and only purpose (humans plus food) and what you believe to have been his method (to design countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans). PLEASE stop dodging. You are simply taking us round in the same circles. You admit that you cannot explain this theory (you tell me to go and ask God to explain it), and that should be the end of this discussion.:-(

Don't pout. I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is His choice for His reasons, unknown to us. Perhaps it is the only way He can do it. Don't you dare, as you often do, make a fact out of that supposition. The circles exist because because of your confusion producing your illogical constantly repeated pleat about God's relation to His desired goals in an evolutionary process He designs. I repeat Adler and I fully accept God evolved humans purposely from the beginning. The circles Are your problem.:-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, January 16, 2022, 13:29 (164 days ago) @ David Turell

Mutations random or not
DAVID: …do you recognize the problem with the [survival] theory?

dhw: […] I have no idea why you think that organisms which undergo changes that will help them to get food to eat, to protect themselves from harm, to adapt to new conditions etc. do not undergo these changes for the sake of survival […] No, I don’t recognize the problem. Please tell me.

DAVID: Darwin's theory is that survival adaptations make speciation. Not proven is my only point.

The theory is that the motive for the adaptations and innovations that result in speciation is to improve chances of survival. “Not proven” is not a reason for rejecting an argument. If it were, then out goes God. Please tell us the “problem”.

Pathogens fight hosts
DAVID: its eat or die out there. This is another example of the war over food supply. It has been and will be continuous in every ecosystem. [...]

dhw: Surprise, surprise. Yes, it’s eat or die. And yet you do not see survival as a key motive for evolutionary developments.

DAVID: Back to pure Darwin support.

You seem to think that by mentioning Darwin, you render any proposal invalid. Please explain why hosts and pathogens keep coming up with new strategies to fight one another but their motive is not survival.

DAVID: You agree food for all and then withdraw it. Your complaint is empty rhetoric.

And elsewhere:

DAVID: The vast variety of life is food for all. You agree and then ignore as you know it negates your illogical objection. Humans are in the endpoint branch of development.

Yes, every ecosystem provides/provided food for every life form in that system, and I’m glad you now agree that humans are just one branch of evolution. But I do not agree that every ecosystem and every branch of life forms and foods that ever existed was specially designed by God as “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. THAT is the illogical basis of your theory of evolution.

dhw (re environmental conditions): I realize now, however, that your new decision changes the argument. If God preprogrammed every single environmental change, global and local, and every single species 3.8 billion years ago, then of course you could argue that he designed all species in advance. We should simply forget your agreement that "you cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn't present", and "more oxygen allowed God to now design Cambrians". The "now" certainly doesn't fit if you're going to tell us that it was all designed 3.8 billion years ago.

DAVID: God designed photosynthesis to make the proper conditions for future complex Cambrians is a reasonable view. Throwing Chixculub is a questionable issue. As for timing of planned events both in initial and dabbles are reasonable.

I have no objection to God planning or dabbling. This discussion revolves around your insistence that speciation precedes the changes in conditions, whereas I find it only logical than the conditions will change before the new species appears. My proposal, yet again, is that it is the changing conditions that trigger the mechanism for the changes that lead to speciation. That mechanism may have been designed by your God.

dhw: If God exists, then I accept that he must have evolved the Earth so that it could be conducive to life. However, I find it difficult to believe that 3.8 billion years ago he preprogrammed every environmental change, every innovation, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. - especially when you say it was all for the sake of humans.

DAVID: So I guess you think God didn't want humans in the beginning.

You have never understood that I offer alternative theories to explain the vast bush of life extant and extinct. Experimentation would explain your theory: he wanted humans (i.e. organisms that might mimic him) , and experimented with different life forms before hitting on the right “formula”.

DAVID: When He did what in planning is not settled in my mind. [dhw: I’m not surprised, since all your imaginings lead to such confusion.] At the start He knew exactly what the outcomes should be. [dhw: What plural “outcomes”? According to you, the only “outcome” he wanted was humans plus food, so you can’t explain why he planned or dabbled all those life forms and foods that were not on the human branch.] Planning in advance or dabbles actions are both probable. [dhw: Agreed, if God exists. Not “proven”.]

dhw: [referring to David’s theory that his God designed every single life form etc., and did so for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food]: You admit that you cannot explain this theory (you tell me to go and ask God to explain it), and that should be the end of this discussion.

DAVID: Don't pout. I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is His choice for His reasons, unknown to us.

Thank you for yet again agreeing that you haven’t a clue why your God should choose your interpretation of his method to achieve your interpretation of his goal. There is no point in repeating your beliefs, or in referring to Adler’s evidence for the existence of God. Your theory is illogical, but you believe it. That should end the discussion.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 16, 2022, 16:24 (164 days ago) @ dhw

Mutations random or not

DAVID: Darwin's theory is that survival adaptations make speciation. Not proven is my only point.

dhw: The theory is that the motive for the adaptations and innovations that result in speciation is to improve chances of survival. “Not proven” is not a reason for rejecting an argument. If it were, then out goes God. Please tell us the “problem”.

We are back to a supposition with no proof after 160 years, disputed by a large group of trained scientists that carries some force of important consideration.


Pathogens fight hosts

DAVID: Back to pure Darwin support.

dhw: You seem to think that by mentioning Darwin, you render any proposal invalid. Please explain why hosts and pathogens keep coming up with new strategies to fight one another but their motive is not survival.

Still pure Darwin. Survival does not speciate.

DAVID: The vast variety of life is food for all. You agree and then ignore as you know it negates your illogical objection. Humans are in the endpoint branch of development.

dhw: Yes, every ecosystem provides/provided food for every life form in that system, and I’m glad you now agree that humans are just one branch of evolution. But I do not agree that every ecosystem and every branch of life forms and foods that ever existed was specially designed by God as “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. THAT is the illogical basis of your theory of evolution.

There you go again slicing away the past evolution from the present forms, as if never connected.


dhw: If God exists, then I accept that he must have evolved the Earth so that it could be conducive to life. However, I find it difficult to believe that 3.8 billion years ago he preprogrammed every environmental change, every innovation, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. - especially when you say it was all for the sake of humans.

DAVID: So I guess you think God didn't want humans in the beginning.

dhw: You have never understood that I offer alternative theories to explain the vast bush of life extant and extinct. Experimentation would explain your theory: he wanted humans (i.e. organisms that might mimic him) , and experimented with different life forms before hitting on the right “formula”.

You always want an uncertain God in your imagination, and complain when I tell you He is humanized. Your God has no relation to mine. We see what He wanted from the beginning of His creations, and think He always was certain of His endpoints.


dhw: [referring to David’s theory that his God designed every single life form etc., and did so for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food]: You admit that you cannot explain this theory (you tell me to go and ask God to explain it), and that should be the end of this discussion.

DAVID: Don't pout. I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is His choice for His reasons, unknown to us.

dhw: Thank you for yet again agreeing that you haven’t a clue why your God should choose your interpretation of his method to achieve your interpretation of his goal. There is no point in repeating your beliefs, or in referring to Adler’s evidence for the existence of God. Your theory is illogical, but you believe it. That should end the discussion.

My theory is illogical only to you, so I view it as your problem. Lot's of folks I've quoted are with me. The end from my viewpoint. Don't bring it up again as you constantly have done.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, January 17, 2022, 13:16 (163 days ago) @ David Turell

Mutations random or not

DAVID: Darwin's theory is that survival adaptations make speciation. Not proven is my only point.

dhw: The theory is that the motive for the adaptations and innovations that result in speciation is to improve chances of survival. “Not proven” is not a reason for rejecting an argument. If it were, then out goes God. Please tell us the “problem”.

DAVID: We are back to a supposition with no proof after 160 years, disputed by a large group of trained scientists that carries some force of important consideration.

I must confess I'm surprised that there are lots of scientists who believe that the adaptations and innovations which result in speciation do NOT improve organisms’ chances of survival. So why did you say "not proven” was your “only point”? I stand by my response above. Goodbye, God, if “not proven” is enough for you to dismiss a theory.

Pathogens fight hosts
DAVID: Back to pure Darwin support.

dhw: You seem to think that by mentioning Darwin, you render any proposal invalid. Please explain why hosts and pathogens keep coming up with new strategies to fight one another but their motive is not survival.

DAVID: Still pure Darwin. Survival does not speciate.

Of course survival doesn’t speciate. Improving chances of survival is the MOTIVE for the adaptations and innovations that result in speciation. The motive leads to the activation of the biochemical mechanisms which create the necessary changes. And if your God exists, he must have invented those mechanisms.

DAVID: The vast variety of life is food for all. You agree and then ignore as you know it negates your illogical objection. Humans are in the endpoint branch of development.

dhw: Every ecosystem provides/provided food for every life form in that system, and I’m glad you now agree that humans are just ONE branch of evolution. But I do not agree that every ecosystem and every branch of life forms and foods that ever existed was specially designed by God as “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. THAT is the illogical basis of your theory of evolution, which you constantly try to edit out of your posts.

DAVID: There you go again slicing away the past evolution from the present forms, as if never connected.

You have agreed that only ONE of the vast number of branches led to humans. As for food, you have agreed that “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. So how could ALL branches and food bushes have been “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food? Please stop backtracking.

DAVID: So I guess you think God didn't want humans in the beginning.

dhw: You have never understood that I offer alternative theories to explain the vast bush of life extant and extinct. Experimentation would explain your theory: he wanted humans (i.e. organisms that might mimic him) , and experimented with different life forms before hitting on the right “formula”.

DAVID: You always want an uncertain God in your imagination…..

I don’t “always” want anything. I offer what you agree are LOGICAL alternative theories to explain the diversity of life. If your God’s purpose was humans plus food, you cannot explain why he deliberately created all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. Experimenting would give us an explanation.

DAVID…and complain when I tell you He is humanized. Your God has no relation to mine. We see what He wanted from the beginning of His creations, and think He always was certain of His endpoints.

Why plural “endpoints” when you insist that he only had one? If he did design every single life form and econiche, then he must have wanted to design every single life form and econiche, but if from the beginning he only wanted to create humans and their econiches, why did he create those that had no connection with humans and their econiches? You admit you can’t explain it (“I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is His choice for His reasons, unknown to us”), but still you reject the logical explanation of experimentation, or alternative purposes, such as an unpredictable free-for-all, or an on-going learning process. I shan’t bother to comment on your silly “humanization” argument, since you have agreed unequivocally that your God may have thought patterns etc. similar to ours.

DAVID: My theory is illogical only to you, so I view it as your problem.

If you can’t explain it, how can you claim that it is logical?

DAVID: Lot's of folks I've quoted are with me. The end from my viewpoint. Don't bring it up again as you constantly have done.

You have not yet told me of anyone who explicitly believes that every single life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. was individually designed by your God as part of his one and only goal to create humans and their food. Unfortunately, I cannot avoid bringing it up every time you tell us a particular life form etc. must have been designed by your God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, January 17, 2022, 16:22 (163 days ago) @ dhw

Mutations random or not

DAVID: We are back to a supposition with no proof after 160 years, disputed by a large group of trained scientists that carries some force of important consideration.

dhw: I must confess I'm surprised that there are lots of scientists who believe that the adaptations and innovations which result in speciation do NOT improve organisms’ chances of survival.

The only point under discussion is does striving for survival cause speciation? Don't twist the point out of shape.


Pathogens fight hosts

DAVID: The vast variety of life is food for all. You agree and then ignore as you know it negates your illogical objection. Humans are in the endpoint branch of development.

dhw: Every ecosystem provides/provided food for every life form in that system, and I’m glad you now agree that humans are just ONE branch of evolution. But I do not agree that every ecosystem and every branch of life forms and foods that ever existed was specially designed by God as “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. THAT is the illogical basis of your theory of evolution, which you constantly try to edit out of your posts.

DAVID: There you go again slicing away the past evolution from the present forms, as if never connected.

dhw: You have agreed that only ONE of the vast number of branches led to humans. As for food, you have agreed that “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. So how could ALL branches and food bushes have been “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food? Please stop backtracking.

No backtrack, since i had to follow yours above. Evolution is one continuous process or it isn't. Your choice is not mine as you slice it up into unrelated parts.


DAVID: You always want an uncertain God in your imagination…..

dhw: I don’t “always” want anything. I offer what you agree are LOGICAL alternative theories to explain the diversity of life. If your God’s purpose was humans plus food, you cannot explain why he deliberately created all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. Experimenting would give us an explanation.

The bush of life has distinct stages of complexification in each branch. Most branches supply food for all. All purposeful, no need to experiment, bu t we are back, as usual, to your weak humanized God.


DAVID…and complain when I tell you He is humanized. Your God has no relation to mine. We see what He wanted from the beginning of His creations, and think He always was certain of His endpoints.

dhw: Why plural “endpoints” when you insist that he only had one?

More than one: all the branches of the bush are food for all, without which no life could exist.

dhw: If he did design every single life form and econiche, then he must have wanted to design every single life form and econiche, but if from the beginning he only wanted to create humans and their econiches, why did he create those that had no connection with humans and their econiches? You admit you can’t explain it (“I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is His choice for His reasons, unknown to us”), but still you reject the logical explanation of experimentation, or alternative purposes, such as an unpredictable free-for-all, or an on-going learning process. I shan’t bother to comment on your silly “humanization” argument, since you have agreed unequivocally that your God may have thought patterns etc. similar to ours.

Again God's comparative thought patterns like ours do not make Him in any way human. I'm describing a purposeful God who knows exactly what He is doing, vastly different from the one you describe as you imagine possibilities for some sort of God.


DAVID: My theory is illogical only to you, so I view it as your problem.

dhw: If you can’t explain it, how can you claim that it is logical?

Explain what I haven't already explained?


DAVID: Lot's of folks I've quoted are with me. The end from my viewpoint. Don't bring it up again as you constantly have done.

dhw: You have not yet told me of anyone who explicitly believes that every single life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. was individually designed by your God as part of his one and only goal to create humans and their food. Unfortunately, I cannot avoid bringing it up every time you tell us a particular life form etc. must have been designed by your God.

My cohort of IDer are with me. I have an army of folks.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, January 18, 2022, 08:47 (163 days ago) @ David Turell

SURVIVAL
DAVID: We are back to a supposition with no proof after 160 years, disputed by a large group of trained scientists that carries some force of important consideration.

dhw: I must confess I'm surprised that there are lots of scientists who believe that the adaptations and innovations which result in speciation do NOT improve organisms’ chances of survival.

DAVID: The only point under discussion is does striving for survival cause speciation? Don't twist the point out of shape.

That is precisely what I mean when I say that the motive for the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation is the quest to improve chances of survival. I’m surprised that large groups of scientists disagree. Do they argue that the adaptations and innovations do NOT improve chances of survival? If that is the case, what do they say is the purpose of, say, flippers replacing legs?

Pathogens fight hosts
dhw: I do not agree that every ecosystem and every branch of life forms and foods that ever existed was specially designed by God as “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. THAT is the illogical basis of your theory of evolution, which you constantly try to edit out of your posts.

DAVID: There you go again slicing away the past evolution from the present forms, as if never connected.

dhw: You have agreed that only ONE of the vast number of branches led to humans. As for food, you have agreed that “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. So how could ALL branches and food bushes have been “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food? Please stop backtracking.

DAVID: No backtrack, since i had to follow yours above. Evolution is one continuous process or it isn't. Your choice is not mine as you slice it up into unrelated parts.

Evolution is not one continuous process from bacteria to humans plus their econiches! It branches out into countless unrelated branches and econiches. That is why it is absurd to argue that the goal of every past branch and every past econiche was to produce humans and their econiches.

DAVID: The bush of life has distinct stages of complexification in each branch. Most branches supply food for all.

But each branch does not lead to humans! Each branch supplies food for itself until it stops doing so and the branch dies. And yet you say that each branch over 3+ billion years was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food!

DAVID… We see what He wanted from the beginning of His creations, and think He always was certain of His endpoints.

dhw: Why plural “endpoints” when you insist that he only had one?

DAVID: More than one: all the branches of the bush are food for all, without which no life could exist.

Food for all what? You keep using the word endpoint instead of goal and purpose. If all you mean is that every extinct life form was an endpoint because it ended, then there is nothing to discuss. I complain about your theory that every extinct life form was part of your God’s goal to produce humans and their food. (I'm hoping these repetitions will help you to remember what it is I complain about!;-))

dhw: I shan’t bother to comment on your silly “humanization” argument, since you have agreed unequivocally that your God may have thought patterns etc. similar to ours.

See “A possible God’s possible nature and purpose”.

DAVID: My theory is illogical only to you, so I view it as your problem.

dhw: If you can’t explain it, how can you claim that it is logical?

DAVID: Explain what I haven't already explained?

A couple of days ago you wrote: “I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is his choice for His reasons, unknown to us.” Can you or can’t you explain why God evolves [= specially designs] ALL his creations, even though the ONLY creations he wants to evolve are us and our food?

DAVID: My cohort of IDer are with me. I have an army of folks.

Then do please tell me why they think your God evolved (= individually designed) ALL the life forms etc which had no connection with humans and their food, although his only purpose was to evolve humans and their food.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 18, 2022, 16:16 (162 days ago) @ dhw

SURVIVAL

DAVID: The only point under discussion is does striving for survival cause speciation? Don't twist the point out of shape.

dhw: That is precisely what I mean when I say that the motive for the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation is the quest to improve chances of survival. I’m surprised that large groups of scientists disagree. Do they argue that the adaptations and innovations do NOT improve chances of survival? If that is the case, what do they say is the purpose of, say, flippers replacing legs?

Survival is required for ecosystems to work and feed all, nothing more.


Pathogens fight hosts

DAVID: Evolution is one continuous process or it isn't. Your choice is not mine as you slice it up into unrelated parts.

dhw: Evolution is not one continuous process from bacteria to humans plus their econiches! It branches out into countless unrelated branches and econiches. That is why it is absurd to argue that the goal of every past branch and every past econiche was to produce humans and their econiches.

Yes, the humans are in one branch, which goes back to bacteria as all branches do


DAVID… We see what He wanted from the beginning of His creations, and think He always was certain of His endpoints.

dhw: Why plural “endpoints” when you insist that he only had one?

DAVID: More than one: all the branches of the bush are food for all, without which no life could exist.

Food for all what?....I complain about your theory that every extinct life form was part of your God’s goal to produce humans and their food. (I'm hoping these repetitions will help you to remember what it is I complain about!;-))

I remember the illogic of humans without food.

DAVID: My theory is illogical only to you, so I view it as your problem.

dhw: If you can’t explain it, how can you claim that it is logical?

DAVID: Explain what I haven't already explained?

dhw: A couple of days ago you wrote: “I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is his choice for His reasons, unknown to us.” Can you or can’t you explain why God evolves [= specially designs] ALL his creations, even though the ONLY creations he wants to evolve are us and our food?

That I cannot know God's reasons for using evolution is explanation enough. The others are our food. Back to illogical humans without food.


DAVID: My cohort of IDer's are with me. I have an army of folks.

dhw: Then do please tell me why they think your God evolved (= individually designed) ALL the life forms etc which had no connection with humans and their food, although his only purpose was to evolve humans and their food.

Your illogical complaint never enters their minds. They think just like Adler.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 11:23 (162 days ago) @ David Turell

SURVIVAL
DAVID: The only point under discussion is does striving for survival cause speciation? Don't twist the point out of shape.

dhw: That is precisely what I mean when I say that the motive for the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation is the quest to improve chances of survival. I’m surprised that large groups of scientists disagree. Do they argue that the adaptations and innovations do NOT improve chances of survival? If that is the case, what do they say is the purpose of, say, flippers replacing legs?

DAVID: Survival is required for ecosystems to work and feed all, nothing more.

Well yes, if organisms don’t survive, the ecosystem won’t survive, but on the other hand if the food isn’t there, the organisms won’t survive! The organisms eat and are eaten, and that is why ecosystems must be balanced for all the organisms to survive. Now please tell us why large groups of scientists believe that adaptations and innovations do not serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival.

Pathogens fight hosts
DAVID: Evolution is one continuous process or it isn't. Your choice is not mine as you slice it up into unrelated parts.

dhw: Evolution is not one continuous process from bacteria to humans plus their econiches! It branches out into countless unrelated branches and econiches. That is why it is absurd to argue that the goal of every past branch and every past econiche was to produce humans and their econiches.

DAVID:Yes, the humans are in one branch, which goes back to bacteria as all branches do.

You’ve got it. And yet you still believe, illogically, that even though most of the other extinct branches had no connection with humans and their food, they were part of your God’s goal to produce humans and their food.

DAVID: I remember the illogic of humans without food.

Who said anything about humans without food??? Here we go again: bbb you tell us your God's sole purpose was to design humans plus their food, and yet he specially designed countless forms of life and foods that had no connection with humans.bbb You agree that you can’t explain it. You wrote:
DAVID “I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is his choice for His reasons, unknown to us.”

dhw: Can you or can’t you explain why God evolves [= specially designs] ALL his creations, even though the ONLY creations he wants to evolve are us and our food?

DAVID: That I cannot know God's reasons for using evolution is explanation enough. The others are our food. Back to illogical humans without food.

Most of the “others” were not OUR food. How many more times? You wrote: that “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. Please stick to your confession that you can’t explain your theory and leave it at that. There is no point in repeatedly trying to dodge the issue with the same old contradictions.

DAVID: My cohort of IDer's are with me. I have an army of folks.

dhw: Then do please tell me why they all think your God evolved (= individually designed) ALL the life forms etc which had no connection with humans and their food, although his only purpose was to evolve humans and their food[/b].

DAVID: Your illogical complaint never enters their minds. They think just like Adler.

You mean your illogical theory never enters their minds, just as you say it never entered Adler’s.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 15:33 (161 days ago) @ dhw

SURVIVAL

DAVID: Survival is required for ecosystems to work and feed all, nothing more.

dhw: Well yes, if organisms don’t survive, the ecosystem won’t survive, but on the other hand if the food isn’t there, the organisms won’t survive! The organisms eat and are eaten, and that is why ecosystems must be balanced for all the organisms to survive. Now please tell us why large groups of scientists believe that adaptations and innovations do not serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival.

Same confusion. Survival does not drive speciation is the issue. What group of scientists say what?


Pathogens fight hosts

DAVID:Yes, the humans are in one branch, which goes back to bacteria as all branches do.

dhw: You’ve got it. And yet you still believe, illogically, that even though most of the other extinct branches had no connection with humans and their food, they were part of your God’s goal to produce humans and their food.

That is simply a description of the world of life as it exists today. Everyone eats everyone to have energy to live.


DAVID: I remember the illogic of humans without food.

dhw: Can you or can’t you explain why God evolves [= specially designs] ALL his creations, even though the ONLY creations he wants to evolve are us and our food?

DAVID: That I cannot know God's reasons for using evolution is explanation enough. The others are our food. Back to illogical humans without food.

dhw: Most of the “others” were not OUR food. How many more times? You wrote: that “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. Please stick to your confession that you can’t explain your theory and leave it at that. There is no point in repeatedly trying to dodge the issue with the same old contradictions.

They are illogical only in your strange way of analyzing life's living processes today. All ecosystems involve those at the bottom being eating by those above. Humans are at the very top of the system, and with our numbers, the only way we could be here and expanding our numbers


DAVID: My cohort of IDer's are with me. I have an army of folks.

dhw: Then do please tell me why they all think your God evolved (= individually designed) ALL the life forms etc which had no connection with humans and their food, although his only purpose was to evolve humans and their food[/b].

DAVID: Your illogical complaint never enters their minds. They think just like Adler.

dhw: You mean your illogical theory never enters their minds, just as you say it never entered Adler’s.

They follow the same theory as I do and Adler assumes. God designed all life as He wished to do

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, January 20, 2022, 11:36 (161 days ago) @ David Turell

Taken from “More miscellany”, as this covers most of the entries on this thread.

dhw: […] when will you (leave Adler out, since you say he doesn’t deal with your theory) finally explain to us why a God whose one and only goal was to design humans plus food took all the trouble to design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans?

DAVID: Simple answer you refuse to accept: God chose to evolve us from bacteria. And all life needs food which the vast variety of life provides. A full answer to your empty illogical complaint.

But according to you, he also chose to individually design countless other life forms that had no connection with us, although you say we and our food were his only purpose. Yes, all life needs and always needed food, but that does not mean that all extinct life forms and all extinct foods were part of your God’s one and only goal of evolving (= designing) humans and our food. If an all-powerful God has ONE purpose, why would he devote himself to designing things that have no connection with his purpose? One of your answers:
I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is his choice for His reasons, unknown to us.” By “evolve” you mean design, and we can emphasize the word “all”. Why don’t you leave it at that and stop pretending that you have given me a “full” answer?

DAVID: My cohort of IDer's are with me. I have an army of folks. […] Your illogical complaint never enters their minds. They think just like Adler.

dhw: You mean your illogical theory never enters their minds, just as you say it never entered Adler’s.

DAVID: They follow the same theory as I do and Adler assumes. God designed all life as He wished to do.

If God exists, then of course he would have designed what he wished to design! How do you manage to jump from that to your illogical theory that he only wished to design us, and therefore wished to design countless life forms that had no connection with us? Stop dodging!

SURVIVAL
dhw: […] please tell us why large groups of scientists believe that adaptations and innovations do not serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival.

DAVID: Same confusion. Survival does not drive speciation is the issue. What group of scientists say what?

Why do you keep using the same formula, which of course makes no sense? You’re just playing with language. Survival is the state of continuing to live. It is the RESULT of the changes, not the cause. The cause of the changes which lead to adaptation, innovation and speciation is the quest to improve the organism’s chances of survival. You wrote that this theory is disputed by a large group of trained scientists. And I expressed my surprise, since this seems to me to be so obvious. Whether your God designed autonomous mechanisms, or a computer programme, or popped in to perform operations, the changes would still be for the same purpose: to improve the organism’s chances of survival by adapting to or exploiting new conditions.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 20, 2022, 16:09 (160 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Simple answer you refuse to accept: God chose to evolve us from bacteria. And all life needs food which the vast variety of life provides. A full answer to your empty illogical complaint.

dhw: But according to you, he also chose to individually design countless other life forms that had no connection with us, although you say we and our food were his only purpose. Yes, all life needs and always needed food, but that does not mean that all extinct life forms and all extinct foods were part of your God’s one and only goal of evolving (= designing) humans and our food. If an all-powerful God has ONE purpose, why would he devote himself to designing things that have no connection with his purpose? One of your answers:
I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is his choice for His reasons, unknown to us.” By “evolve” you mean design, and we can emphasize the word “all”. Why don’t you leave it at that and stop pretending that you have given me a “full” answer?

Humans are God's endpoint of His creation. Everything must be connected if designed in stages. Your bold is purely illogical if we see God uses evolutionary methods for each aspect of creating reality.


SURVIVAL
dhw: […] please tell us why large groups of scientists believe that adaptations and innovations do not serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival.

DAVID: Same confusion. Survival does not drive speciation is the issue. What group of scientists say what?

dhw: Why do you keep using the same formula, which of course makes no sense? You’re just playing with language. Survival is the state of continuing to live. It is the RESULT of the changes, not the cause. The cause of the changes which lead to adaptation, innovation and speciation is the quest to improve the organism’s chances of survival. You wrote that this theory is disputed by a large group of trained scientists. And I expressed my surprise, since this seems to me to be so obvious. Whether your God designed autonomous mechanisms, or a computer programme, or popped in to perform operations, the changes would still be for the same purpose: to improve the organism’s chances of survival by adapting to or exploiting new conditions.

So you agree, survival is for survivals sake, nothing more.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, January 21, 2022, 08:10 (160 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Simple answer you refuse to accept: God chose to evolve us from bacteria. And all life needs food which the vast variety of life provides. A full answer to your empty illogical complaint.

dhw: But according to you, he also chose to individually design countless other life forms that had no connection with us, although you say we and our food were his only purpose. Yes, all life needs and always needed food, but that does not mean that all extinct life forms and all extinct foods were part of your God’s one and only goal of evolving (= designing) humans and our food. If an all-powerful God has ONE purpose, why would he devote himself to designing things that have no connection with his purpose? One of your answers:
I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is his choice for His reasons, unknown to us.” By “evolve” you mean design, and we can emphasize the word “all”. Why don’t you leave it at that and stop pretending that you have given me a “full” answer?

DAVID: Humans are God's endpoint of His creation. Everything must be connected if designed in stages. Your bold is purely illogical if we see God uses evolutionary methods for each aspect of creating reality.

Humans are the last species so far. How does that come to mean that all the different stages of the whale were connected to the different stages of hominins and homos, not to mention all the different stages of all the different organisms that preceded all the different organisms that preceded all the different organisms etc. that had no connection with humans? Please accept your own admission that you can’t explain it.

SURVIVAL
dhw: […] please tell us why large groups of scientists believe that adaptations and innovations do not serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival.

DAVID: Same confusion. Survival does not drive speciation is the issue. What group of scientists say what?

dhw: Why do you keep using the same formula, which of course makes no sense? You’re just playing with language. Survival is the state of continuing to live. It is the RESULT of the changes, not the cause. The cause of the changes which lead to adaptation, innovation and speciation is the quest to improve the organism’s chances of survival. You wrote that this theory is disputed by a large group of trained scientists. And I expressed my surprise, since this seems to me to be so obvious. Whether your God designed autonomous mechanisms, or a computer programme, or popped in to perform operations, the changes would still be for the same purpose: to improve the organism’s chances of survival by adapting to or exploiting new conditions.

DAVID: So you agree, survival is for survivals sake, nothing more.

I don’t know what you mean. Do you or do you not agree that the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation are designed (by intelligent cells or by God) to improve chances of survival? If you do, and your large number of scientists do, then what are we arguing about? If you want to talk about the purpose of life itself, then we’re on different ground – but you don’t even want to talk about that, except to say that the purpose of every single organism that ever lived was to enable your God to design H. sapiens. Any other purpose, according to you, is “humanizing”, which is only acceptable if we choose human thought patterns and emotions you approve of. ;-)

The missing fossils argument
QUOTE: "A time window for the Cambrian explosion briefer than 410,000 years is far too brief for any conceivable naturalistic model for the history of life. It would be far too brief even for the appearance of just one new phylum, let alone 30+ phyla.

Bechley: The most popular attempt to resolve this discrepancy is the so-called “artifact hypothesis,” which proposes that the Cambrian animal phyla had ancestors, but that those ancestors either left no fossil record or have not yet been found, because of the incompleteness of the fossil record.

DAVID: So I might add, without fossils, imagining lost fossils disappears.

Without concrete evidence, theories remain theories. Has anyone found your God's 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all species and natural wonders, or is there a video of him performing operations on whales and camels and small-brained humans? By “naturalistic” I presume the authors are referring to Darwin’s random mutations. If – as I presume – they are telling us that their all-powerful, all-knowing God did it, and there was no “evolution” but simply straight “de novo” design, I’m frankly surprised that it took him so long. There is, of course, an alternative: that he might have designed an intelligent mechanism which was able to exploit the new conditions. 410,000 years is one helluva long time in terms of thousands and thousands of generations of intelligent organisms working out ways of using new conditions.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, January 21, 2022, 18:53 (159 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Humans are God's endpoint of His creation. Everything must be connected if designed in stages. Your bold is purely illogical if we see God uses evolutionary methods for each aspect of creating reality.

dhw: Humans are the last species so far. How does that come to mean that all the different stages of the whale were connected to the different stages of hominins and homos, not to mention all the different stages of all the different organisms that preceded all the different organisms that preceded all the different organisms etc. that had no connection with humans? Please accept your own admission that you can’t explain it.

I have explained it to my satisfaction. God evolved the Earth and its resources and food supply in anticipation of our success and huge eventual population


SURVIVAL

DAVID: So you agree, survival is for survivals sake, nothing more.

dhw: I don’t know what you mean. Do you or do you not agree that the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation are designed (by intelligent cells or by God) to improve chances of survival? If you do, and your large number of scientists do, then what are we arguing about? If you want to talk about the purpose of life itself, then we’re on different ground – but you don’t even want to talk about that, except to say that the purpose of every single organism that ever lived was to enable your God to design H. sapiens. Any other purpose, according to you, is “humanizing”, which is only acceptable if we choose human thought patterns and emotions you approve of. ;-)

We are not arguing if we agree, as we seem to, that survival does not drive evolution


The missing fossils argument
QUOTE: "A time window for the Cambrian explosion briefer than 410,000 years is far too brief for any conceivable naturalistic model for the history of life. It would be far too brief even for the appearance of just one new phylum, let alone 30+ phyla.

Bechley: The most popular attempt to resolve this discrepancy is the so-called “artifact hypothesis,” which proposes that the Cambrian animal phyla had ancestors, but that those ancestors either left no fossil record or have not yet been found, because of the incompleteness of the fossil record.

DAVID: So I might add, without fossils, imagining lost fossils disappears.

dhw: Without concrete evidence, theories remain theories. Has anyone found your God's 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all species and natural wonders, or is there a video of him performing operations on whales and camels and small-brained humans? By “naturalistic” I presume the authors are referring to Darwin’s random mutations. If – as I presume – they are telling us that their all-powerful, all-knowing God did it, and there was no “evolution” but simply straight “de novo” design, I’m frankly surprised that it took him so long. There is, of course, an alternative: that he might have designed an intelligent mechanism which was able to exploit the new conditions. 410,000 years is one helluva long time in terms of thousands and thousands of generations of intelligent organisms working out ways of using new conditions.

You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, January 22, 2022, 13:12 (158 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID (transferred from “Cellular intelligence”, to replace other comments on the same subject): His one and only goal followed a prelude of preparation for an Earth rich with resources for us: oil and gas, metal deposits, a a huge variety of food source. You just can't see it that way.

No, I can’t see why he would have specially designed countless life forms and natural wonders that had no connection with humans and their food, if his "one and only goal" was to create humans and their food. Nor can you, as you keep confessing. I have no idea why you think human exploitation of natural resources explains why he designed all those other life forms and natural wonders that had no connection with "his one and only goal".

SURVIVAL
DAVID: So you agree, survival is for survivals sake, nothing more.

dhw: I don’t know what you mean. Do you or do you not agree that the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation are designed (by intelligent cells or by God) to improve chances of survival? If you do, and your large number of scientists do, then what are we arguing about? If you want to talk about the purpose of life itself, then we’re on different ground – but you don’t even want to talk about that, except to say that the purpose of every single organism that ever lived was to enable your God to design H. sapiens. Any other purpose, according to you, is “humanizing”, which is only acceptable if we choose human thought patterns and emotions you approve of.

DAVID: We are not arguing if we agree, as we seem to, that survival does not drive evolution.

We do not “seem to agree” on any such thing, because your wording is wrong! You don’t seem to read what I write: “Survival is the state of continuing to live. It is the RESULT of the changes, not the cause. The cause of the changes which lead to adaptation, innovation and speciation is the quest to improve the organism’s chances of survival.” Once more, do you or do you not agree that the adaptations and innovations which lead to speciation serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival? Please answer.

The missing fossils argument
QUOTES: "A time window for the Cambrian explosion briefer than 410,000 years is far too brief for any conceivable naturalistic model for the history of life. It would be far too brief even for the appearance of just one new phylum, let alone 30+ phyla.

Bechley: The most popular attempt to resolve this discrepancy is the so-called “artifact hypothesis,” which proposes that the Cambrian animal phyla had ancestors, but that those ancestors either left no fossil record or have not yet been found, because of the incompleteness of the fossil record.

DAVID: So I might add, without fossils, imagining lost fossils disappears.

dhw: Without concrete evidence, theories remain theories. Has anyone found your God's 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all species and natural wonders, or is there a video of him performing operations on whales and camels and small-brained humans? By “naturalistic” I presume the authors are referring to Darwin’s random mutations. If – as I presume – they are telling us that their all-powerful, all-knowing God did it, and there was no “evolution” but simply straight “de novo” design, I’m frankly surprised that it took him so long. There is, of course, an alternative: that he might have designed an intelligent mechanism which was able to exploit the new conditions. 410,000 years is one helluva long time in terms of thousands and thousands of generations of intelligent organisms working out ways of using new conditions. [dhw's bold - see below.]

DAVID: You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

What “off-hand dismissal”? I’m not disputing the maths. I’m disputing the claim that 410,000 years is not long enough for intelligent cells to produce new species in response to new conditions. Your question raises the obvious question why, if your all-powerful God’s "one and only goal" was to design humans and their food, he didn’t “do it before then”??? Meanwhile, thank you for the next eye-opening article on genetic complexity:

QUOTE: Mirouze says TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.

Dictionary definition: Transposons cause mutations of various kinds and have important applications in genetic engineering.

DAVID: Perhaps transposons are God's dabble mechanism.

Rapid evolution measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.” I have bolded the relevant sentence in my own comment. Thank you as always for your integrity in reproducing articles that support my proposals.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 22, 2022, 15:09 (158 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID (transferred from “Cellular intelligence”, to replace other comments on the same subject): His one and only goal followed a prelude of preparation for an Earth rich with resources for us: oil and gas, metal deposits, a a huge variety of food source. You just can't see it that way.

dhw: No, I can’t see why he would have specially designed countless life forms and natural wonders that had no connection with humans and their food, if his "one and only goal" was to create humans and their food.

You are simply questioning God's choice of creation method. We obviously arrived by being evolved. And you get your panties all in a twist about it. I start with the belief God made history. From that Adler proves the most unusual animal result proves God. Try thinking like Adler. I do.


SURVIVAL
DAVID: So you agree, survival is for survivals sake, nothing more.

dhw: I don’t know what you mean. Do you or do you not agree that the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation are designed (by intelligent cells or by God) to improve chances of survival? If you do, and your large number of scientists do, then what are we arguing about?

DAVID: We are not arguing if we agree, as we seem to, that survival does not drive evolution.

dhw: We do not “seem to agree” on any such thing, because your wording is wrong! You don’t seem to read what I write: “Survival is the state of continuing to live. It is the RESULT of the changes, not the cause. The cause of the changes which lead to adaptation, innovation and speciation is the quest to improve the organism’s chances of survival.” Once more, do you or do you not agree that the adaptations and innovations which lead to speciation serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival? Please answer.

You are arguing. I'm not. The quest for survival produces minor adaptation in existing species. Not the cause of speciation, about which we differ, as I believe God designs them.


The missing fossils argument

DAVID: You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

dhw: What “off-hand dismissal”? I’m not disputing the maths. I’m disputing the claim that 410,000 years is not long enough for intelligent cells to produce new species in response to new conditions. Your question raises the obvious question why, if your all-powerful God’s "one and only goal" was to design humans and their food, he didn’t “do it before then”???

All of Cambrians by your brilliant cells' designs. Fairy tale. As for God's method, His created history easily reveals the story of His methods.

dhw: Meanwhile, thank you for the next eye-opening article on genetic complexity:

QUOTE: Mirouze says TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.

Dictionary definition: Transposons cause mutations of various kinds and have important applications in genetic engineering.

DAVID: Perhaps transposons are God's dabble mechanism.

dhw: “Rapid evolution measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.” I have bolded the relevant sentence in my own comment. Thank you as always for your integrity in reproducing articles that support my proposals.

The author's appraisal of gap s mimics yours. Both have great imaginations. And, thank you for the praise for the article which can easily be seen as God's dabble mechanism.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, January 23, 2022, 12:26 (157 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: His one and only goal followed a prelude of preparation for an Earth rich with resources for us: oil and gas, metal deposits, a a huge variety of food source. You just can't see it that way.

dhw: No, I can’t see why he would have specially designed countless life forms and natural wonders that had no connection with humans and their food, if his "one and only goal" was to create humans and their food.

DAVID: You are simply questioning God's choice of creation method. We obviously arrived by being evolved. And you get your panties all in a twist about it.

And every other species also arrived by being evolved, including all those that had no connection with humans – his one and only goal – though you keep forgetting to mention them!

DAVID: I start with the belief God made history. From that Adler proves the most unusual animal result proves God. Try thinking like Adler. I do.

Of course if you believe in God, you believe he made history. And how many more times do you want me to repeat that I have no quarrel with design as evidence of God’s existence? The dispute – as if you didn’t know it – is over your belief that your God designed every single life form as part of his one and only goal to design humans plus our food, although most life forms had no connection with humans or our food. You admit that you don’t know why. This silly dodging game should end now.

SURVIVAL
DAVID: So you agree, survival is for survivals sake, nothing more.

dhw: I don’t know what you mean. Do you or do you not agree that the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation are designed (by intelligent cells or by God) to improve chances of survival? If you do, and your large number of scientists do, then what are we arguing about?

DAVID: We are not arguing if we agree, as we seem to, that survival does not drive evolution.

dhw: We do not “seem to agree” on any such thing, because your wording is wrong! You don’t seem to read what I write: “Survival is the state of continuing to live. It is the RESULT of the changes, not the cause. The cause of the changes which lead to adaptation, innovation and speciation is the quest to improve the organism’s chances of survival.” Once more, do you or do you not agree that the adaptations and innovations which lead to speciation serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival? Please answer.

DAVID: You are arguing. I'm not. The quest for survival produces minor adaptation in existing species. Not the cause of speciation, about which we differ, as I believe God designs them.

Still not answering. Do you believe that the innovations which lead to speciation were designed to serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival?

The missing fossils argument
DAVID: You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

dhw: What “off-hand dismissal”? I’m not disputing the maths. I’m disputing the claim that 410,000 years is not long enough for intelligent cells to produce new species in response to new conditions. Your question raises the obvious question why, if your all-powerful God’s "one and only goal" was to design humans and their food, he didn’t “do it before then”???

DAVID: All of Cambrians by your brilliant cells' designs. Fairy tale. As for God's method, His created history easily reveals the story of His methods.

If I put on my theist’s hat, it’s all of Cambrians by God’s brilliant design of brilliant cells. The history is a vast, ever changing bush of life forms (including Cambrians) - most of which had no connection with humans – that have come and gone. Humans are the last known species – the brilliant culmination perhaps of God’s brilliant invention rather than a fairytale, 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme or endless individual operations to create new species irrelevant to his one and only purpose.

dhw: Meanwhile, thank you for the next eye-opening article on genetic complexity:

QUOTE: Mirouze says TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia. […][dhw's bold]

dhw: […] Thank you as always for your integrity in reproducing articles that support my proposals.

DAVID: The author's appraisal of gaps mimics yours. Both have great imaginations.

Yes, it’s good to have support from scientists who work in the field. I don’t know why you regard this as more “imaginative” than an unknown, all-powerful, sourceless being who took billions of years to create every life form and natural wonder you can think of, although he only wanted to programme/dabble one particular life form and its food.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 23, 2022, 15:35 (157 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I start with the belief God made history. From that Adler proves the most unusual animal result proves God. Try thinking like Adler. I do.

dhw: Of course if you believe in God, you believe he made history. And how many more times do you want me to repeat that I have no quarrel with design as evidence of God’s existence? The dispute – as if you didn’t know it – is over your belief that your God designed every single life form as part of his one and only goal to design humans plus our food, although most life forms had no connection with humans or our food. You admit that you don’t know why. This silly dodging game should end now.

If Adler followed your odd view of evolution, he would not have written his book.


SURVIVAL
DAVID: So you agree, survival is for survivals sake, nothing more.

DAVID: You are arguing. I'm not. The quest for survival produces minor adaptation in existing species. Not the cause of speciation, about which we differ, as I believe God designs them.

dhw: Still not answering. Do you believe that the innovations which lead to speciation were designed to serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival?

Still arguing are you? Of course adaptations by species help their survival. The gaps in the fossil record does not help the argument that stepwise adaptations lead to new species.


The missing fossils argument
DAVID: You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

dhw: What “off-hand dismissal”? I’m not disputing the maths. I’m disputing the claim that 410,000 years is not long enough for intelligent cells to produce new species in response to new conditions. Your question raises the obvious question why, if your all-powerful God’s "one and only goal" was to design humans and their food, he didn’t “do it before then”???

DAVID: All of Cambrians by your brilliant cells' designs. Fairy tale. As for God's method, His created history easily reveals the story of His methods.

dhw: If I put on my theist’s hat, it’s all of Cambrians by God’s brilliant design of brilliant cells. The history is a vast, ever changing bush of life forms (including Cambrians) - most of which had no connection with humans – that have come and gone. Humans are the last known species – the brilliant culmination perhaps of God’s brilliant invention rather than a fairytale, 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme or endless individual operations to create new species irrelevant to his one and only purpose.

Your theist hat is interesting. God's cells are as brilliant as He is. Hopefully they know what God's wishes are.


dhw: Meanwhile, thank you for the next eye-opening article on genetic complexity:

QUOTE: Mirouze says TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia. […][dhw's bold]

dhw: […] Thank you as always for your integrity in reproducing articles that support my proposals.

DAVID: The author's appraisal of gaps mimics yours. Both have great imaginations.

dhw: Yes, it’s good to have support from scientists who work in the field. I don’t know why you regard this as more “imaginative” than an unknown, all-powerful, sourceless being who took billions of years to create every life form and natural wonder you can think of, although he only wanted to programme/dabble one particular life form and its food.

Still fighting Adler's point.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, January 24, 2022, 12:49 (156 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I start with the belief God made history. From that Adler proves the most unusual animal result proves God. Try thinking like Adler. I do.

dhw: Of course if you believe in God, you believe he made history. And how many more times do you want me to repeat that I have no quarrel with design as evidence of God’s existence? The dispute – as if you didn’t know it – is over your belief that your God designed every single life form as part of his one and only goal to design humans plus our food, although most life forms had no connection with humans or our food. You admit that you don’t know why. This silly dodging game should end now.

DAVID: If Adler followed your odd view of evolution, he would not have written his book.
And
DAVID (under “universal consciousness”): You always miss Adler's point that the production of most unusual humans proves God. That fits my view of evolution designed toward a goal of humans, doesn't it?

I have not offered an odd view of evolution here. I have questioned your odd view, which according to you, your beloved Adler never covered, since his aim was to prove the existence of God, not God’s method of fulfilling his one and only purpose by not fulfilling his one and only purpose until he’d produced countless life forms that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Please stop trying to hide behind Adler.

SURVIVAL
dhw: Do you [or do you not] believe that the innovations which lead to speciation were designed to serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival?

DAVID: Still arguing are you? Of course adaptations by species help their survival. The gaps in the fossil record does not help the argument that stepwise adaptations lead to new species.

I deliberately left out the word “adaptations” last time, but that hasn’t stopped you from yet again dodging the question. It’s bolded, and concerns “innovations”. Please answer.

The missing fossils argument
DAVID: You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

dhw: I’m not disputing the maths. I’m disputing the claim that 410,000 years is not long enough for intelligent cells to produce new species in response to new conditions. Your question raises the obvious question why, if your all-powerful God’s "one and only goal" was to design humans and their food, he didn’t “do it before then[/b]??? ]

Not answered.

DAVID: All of Cambrians by your brilliant cells' designs. Fairy tale. As for God's method, His created history easily reveals the story of His methods.

dhw: If I put on my theist’s hat, it’s all of Cambrians by God’s brilliant design of brilliant cells. The history is a vast, ever changing bush of life forms (including Cambrians) - most of which had no connection with humans – that have come and gone. Humans are the last known species – the brilliant culmination perhaps of God’s brilliant invention rather than a fairytale, 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme or endless individual operations to create new species irrelevant to his one and only purpose.

DAVID: Your theist hat is interesting. God's cells are as brilliant as He is. Hopefully they know what God's wishes are.

No they aren’t as brilliant as he is, if he exists, and I would not expect them even to dream of your God's existence. Let us assume that he is all-powerful and all-knowing. Have you noticed that all life forms try to survive, and yet all individuals die, and species also die, and there are terrible diseases that we and other species fail to cure? Intelligent though they may be, cells can never figure out how to be eternal and immortal, like your God. So I would suggest that since he is all-powerful and all-knowing, he actually wanted them to be the way they are. Intelligent enough to design different ways of surviving for a limited time (hence the astonishing variety of life forms, natural wonders etc.), but nowhere near as brilliant as he is. Even our own brilliant cells can't figure out the major mysteries of life. Only he can - if he exists.

dhw: Meanwhile, thank you for the next eye-opening article on genetic complexity:

QUOTE: Mirouze says TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia. […][dhw's bold]

dhw: […] Thank you as always for your integrity in reproducing articles that support my proposals.

DAVID: The author's appraisal of gaps mimics yours. Both have great imaginations.

dhw: Yes, it’s good to have support from scientists who work in the field. I don’t know why you regard this as more “imaginative” than an unknown, all-powerful, sourceless beingbwho took billions of years to create every life form and natural wonder you can think of, although he only wanted to programme/dabble one particular life form and its food.

DAVID: Still fighting Adler's point.

Adler doesn’t cover your illogical theory. See earlier in this post.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, January 24, 2022, 15:46 (156 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID (under “universal consciousness”): You always miss Adler's point that the production of most unusual humans proves God. That fits my view of evolution designed toward a goal of humans, doesn't it?

dhw: I have not offered an odd view of evolution here. I have questioned your odd view, which according to you, your beloved Adler never covered, since his aim was to prove the existence of God, not God’s method of fulfilling his one and only purpose by not fulfilling his one and only purpose until he’d produced countless life forms that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Please stop trying to hide behind Adler.

I tell you what Adler covers and you say he doesn't. Read Adler to see I am correct in my interpretation. Again, accepting that God evolved humans the highly unusual human result is the way Adler proves God. Adler accepts that God invented life and designed all of evolution. Do I seem different in what I propose?


SURVIVAL
dhw: Do you [or do you not] believe that the innovations which lead to speciation were designed to serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival?

DAVID: Still arguing are you? Of course adaptations by species help their survival. The gaps in the fossil record does not help the argument that stepwise adaptations lead to new species.

dhw: I deliberately left out the word “adaptations” last time, but that hasn’t stopped you from yet again dodging the question. It’s bolded, and concerns “innovations”. Please answer.

Of course designed innovations help survival. I've admitted that many times.


The missing fossils argument
DAVID: You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

dhw: I’m not disputing the maths. I’m disputing the claim that 410,000 years is not long enough for intelligent cells to produce new species in response to new conditions. Your question raises the obvious question why, if your all-powerful God’s "one and only goal" was to design humans and their food, he didn’t “do it before then[/b]??? ]

dhw: Not answered.

The maths dispute your point!! And you want direct creation which didn't happen. So? I've concluded God must have wanted to evolve us because the history "God created shows exactly that.


DAVID: Your theist hat is interesting. God's cells are as brilliant as He is. Hopefully they know what God's wishes are.

dhw: No they aren’t as brilliant as he is, if he exists, and I would not expect them even to dream of your God's existence. Let us assume that he is all-powerful and all-knowing. Have you noticed that all life forms try to survive, and yet all individuals die, and species also die, and there are terrible diseases that we and other species fail to cure? Intelligent though they may be, cells can never figure out how to be eternal and immortal, like your God. So I would suggest that since he is all-powerful and all-knowing, he actually wanted them to be the way they are. Intelligent enough to design different ways of surviving for a limited time (hence the astonishing variety of life forms, natural wonders etc.), but nowhere near as brilliant as he is. Even our own brilliant cells can't figure out the major mysteries of life. Only he can - if he exists.

So you have concluded all living forms must die. Long ago I noted death is built in.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 08:20 (156 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I have not offered an odd view of evolution here. I have questioned your odd view, which according to you, your beloved Adler never covered, since his aim was to prove the existence of God, not God’s method of fulfilling his one and only purpose by not fulfilling his one and only purpose until he’d produced countless life forms that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Please stop trying to hide behind Adler.

DAVID:I tell you what Adler covers and you say he doesn't. Read Adler to see I am correct in my interpretation. Again, accepting that God evolved humans the highly unusual human result is the way Adler proves God.

But proving God is not the point at issue!!!

DAVID: Adler accepts that God invented life and designed all of evolution. Do I seem different in what I propose?

You have told us yourself that Adler does NOT deal with your theory. Nor do your ID-ers. In any case, the point at issue is not what other people say or don't say, but the fact that you yourself can find no logical explanation for your theory that your God fulfilled his one and only purpose by not fulfilling his one and only purpose until he had designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with his one and only purpose! I think I've bolded this before, but still you go on dodging!

SURVIVAL
dhw: Do you [or do you not] believe that the innovations which lead to speciation were designed to serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival?

DAVID: Still arguing are you? Of course adaptations by species help their survival. The gaps in the fossil record does not help the argument that stepwise adaptations lead to new species.

dhw: I deliberately left out the word “adaptations” last time, but that hasn’t stopped you from yet again dodging the question. It’s bolded, and concerns “innovations”. Please answer.

DAVID: Of course designed innovations help survival. I've admitted that many times.

So if your God designed the innovations that lead to speciation in order to “help” survival, why is it wrong to say that the purpose of the innovations that lead to speciation is to improve chances of survival?

The missing fossils argument
DAVID: You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

dhw: I’m not disputing the maths. I’m disputing the claim that 410,000 years is not long enough for intelligent cells to produce new species in response to new conditions. Your question raises the obvious question why, if your all-powerful God’s "one and only goal" was to design humans and their food, he didn’t “do it before then??? ]

Not answered.

DAVID: The maths dispute your point!!

They obviously don’t “dispute” my point that 410,000 years is enough for thousands of generations of intelligent organisms to produce rapid evolution, as proposed by Mirouze: : “ TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.” The fact that you disagree does not mean he is wrong and you are right.

DAVID: And you want direct creation which didn't happen. So? I've concluded God must have wanted to evolve us because the history God created shows exactly that.

I don’t “want” anything. The history shows that your God, if he exists, caused the evolution of countless life forms that had no connection with humans, and if we assume that he did what he wanted, then clearly he did not ONLY want humans and their food but also wanted the great higgledy-piggledy bush.

DAVID: Your theist hat is interesting. God's cells are as brilliant as He is. Hopefully they know what God's wishes are.

dhw: No they aren’t as brilliant as he is, if he exists, and I would not expect them even to dream of your God's existence. Let us assume that he is all-powerful and all-knowing. Have you noticed that all life forms try to survive, and yet all individuals die, and species also die, and there are terrible diseases that we and other species fail to cure? Intelligent though they may be, cells can never figure out how to be eternal and immortal, like your God. So I would suggest that since he is all-powerful and all-knowing, he actually wanted them to be the way they are. Intelligent enough to design different ways of surviving for a limited time (hence the astonishing variety of life forms, natural wonders etc.), but nowhere near as brilliant as he is. Even our own brilliant cells can't figure out the major mysteries of life. Only he can - if he exists.

DAVID: So you have concluded all living forms must die. Long ago I noted death is built in.

You claimed that my theory made cells as brilliant as your God. I have tried to demonstrate that if your God exists, he deliberately made them considerably less brilliant than himself, and my conclusion – to put it frankly – is that your point was ridiculous.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 18:48 (155 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID:I tell you what Adler covers and you say he doesn't. Read Adler to see I am correct in my interpretation. Again, accepting that God evolved humans the highly unusual human result is the way Adler proves God.

dhw: But proving God is not the point at issue!!!

I know that. My point is Adler accepts that God caused evolution in creating his proof.


dhw: You have told us yourself that Adler does NOT deal with your theory. Nor do your ID-ers. In any case, the point at issue is not what other people say or don't say, but the fact that you yourself can find no logical explanation for your theory that your God fulfilled his one and only purpose by not fulfilling his one and only purpose until he had designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with his one and only purpose! I think I've bolded this before, but still you go on dodging!

You want either direct creation or evolution from God. Which is it? You view of God is so skewed! God can bring us about in any way He wishes, and history tells us hw He did it. Why do you want Him comparable to a tunnel-versioned human? It is your problem of your own creation. I accept what God did. Try it.


SURVIVAL

DAVID: Of course designed innovations help survival. I've admitted that many times.

dhw: So if your God designed the innovations that lead to speciation in order to “help” survival, why is it wrong to say that the purpose of the innovations that lead to speciation is to improve chances of survival?

Word salad. I agree, but the point is still survival needs don't drive speciation. Your Darwin brain is all twisted as usual.


The missing fossils argument
DAVID: You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

dhw: I’m not disputing the maths. I’m disputing the claim that 410,000 years is not long enough for intelligent cells to produce new species in response to new conditions. Your question raises the obvious question why, if your all-powerful God’s "one and only goal" was to design humans and their food, he didn’t “do it before then??? ]

dhw: Not answered.

My answer is always the same: from above "You want either direct creation or evolution from God. Which is it? You view of God is so skewed! God can bring us about in any way He wishes, and history tells us hw He did it. Why do you want Him comparable to a tunnel-versioned human? It is your problem of your own creation. I accept what God did. Try it."


DAVID: The maths dispute your point!!

dhw: They obviously don’t “dispute” my point that 410,000 years is enough for thousands of generations of intelligent organisms to produce rapid evolution, as proposed by Mirouze: : “ TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.” The fact that you disagree does not mean he is wrong and you are right.

Nirouze's thought is pure Darwinian. The ID math folks agree with me.


DAVID: And you want direct creation which didn't happen. So? I've concluded God must have wanted to evolve us because the history God created shows exactly that.

dhw: I don’t “want” anything. The history shows that your God, if he exists, caused the evolution of countless life forms that had no connection with humans, and if we assume that he did what he wanted, then clearly he did not ONLY want humans and their food but also wanted the great higgledy-piggledy bush.

The bush is food for all or in your case it isn't.


DAVID: So you have concluded all living forms must die. Long ago I noted death is built in.

dhw: You claimed that my theory made cells as brilliant as your God. I have tried to demonstrate that if your God exists, he deliberately made them considerably less brilliant than himself, and my conclusion – to put it frankly – is that your point was ridiculous.

Your cell brilliance theory is based on observation of how cells act so well as seen from the outside. No facts involved, and primarily from somewhat ancient scientists who have not seen the current molecule by molecule elucidation of intracellular reactions design.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, January 26, 2022, 12:24 (154 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I tell you what Adler covers and you say he doesn't. Read Adler to see I am correct in my interpretation. Again, accepting that God evolved humans the highly unusual human result is the way Adler proves God.

dhw: But proving God is not the point at issue!!!

DAVID: I know that. My point is Adler accepts that God caused evolution in creating his proof.

We both agree that evolution happened, and if God exists, he caused it to happen. So please stick to the issue.

dhw: You have told us yourself that Adler does NOT deal with your theory. Nor do your ID-ers. In any case, the point at issue is not what other people say or don't say, but the fact that you yourself can find no logical explanation for your theory that your God fulfilled his one and only purpose by not fulfilling his one and only purpose until he had designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with his one and only purpose!

DAVID: You want either direct creation or evolution from God. Which is it? You view of God is so skewed! God can bring us about in any way He wishes, and history tells us hw He did it. Why do you want Him comparable to a tunnel-versioned human? It is your problem of your own creation. I accept what God did. Try it.

For the hundredth time: I do not “want” anything. It is you who make him tunnel-visioned because you say his one and only goal was to design humans plus food. You also say he individually designed countless species that had no connection with humans. Why would he choose such a method to achieve such a purpose? You admit that you have no idea, and I must ask God.

SURVIVAL
DAVID: Of course designed innovations help survival. I've admitted that many times.

dhw: So if your God designed the innovations that lead to speciation in order to “help” survival, why is it wrong to say that the purpose of the innovations that lead to speciation is to improve chances of survival?

DAVID: Word salad. I agree, but the point is still survival needs don't drive speciation. Your Darwin brain is all twisted as usual.

You agree that the purpose of the innovations that lead to speciation is to improve chances of survival, but their purpose is not the reason for speciation. So when you're hungry and cook a meal, you don't cook the meal because you're hungry. And my brain is twisted! Out of my deep respect and affection for a dear friend, I shall refrain from further comment! ;-)

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: The ability to be alive anywhere is amazing.

Yes indeed. You might even call it the ability to survive which seems to be common to all species and, I suggest, is the purpose that leads to adaptations, and also to the innovations that cause specification.

A new source of water
DAVID: A clear-thinking God can evolve anything. Not dhw's muddled-headed form, who didn't do it the right humanized way.

I agree that God, if he exists, could evolve anything any way he wanted. That is why I am so sceptical of theories that have him, for instance, specially designing countless life forms that have no connection to his one and only purpose (humans plus food). Or despite his omnipotence and omniscience, having to design a system with errors which he cannot control or correct. I can’t imagine such a “muddle-headed” God, and can’t help wondering if the inventor of such illogical theories might not himself be m…..No, I don’t want to be rude.;-)

The missing fossils argument
DAVID: The maths dispute your point!!

dhw: They obviously don’t “dispute” my point that 410,000 years is enough for thousands of generations of intelligent organisms to produce rapid evolution, as proposed by Mirouze: : “TEs are likely major drivers of bbbrapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.” The fact that you disagree does not mean he is wrong and you are right.[dhw's bold]

DAVID: Nirouze's thought is pure Darwinian. The ID math folks agree with me.

And so surprise, surprise, there are different opinions. However, your statement that the maths “dispute” my point is obviously wrong, since the maths can be used to confirm my point.

DAVID: Your theist hat is interesting. God’s cells are as brilliant as he is.

I wrote a detailed reply to show that this was nonsense.

DAVID: So you have concluded all living forms must die. Long ago I noted death is built in.

dhw: You claimed that my theory made cells as brilliant as your God. I have tried to demonstrate that if your God exists, he deliberately made them considerably less brilliant than himself, and my conclusion – to put it frankly – is that your point was ridiculous.

DAVID: Your cell brilliance theory is based on observation of how cells act so well as seen from the outside. No facts involved, and primarily from somewhat ancient scientists who have not seen the current molecule by molecule elucidation of intracellular reactions design.

We know that you disagree with the theory, ignore all the modern scientists who support it, and ignore the point that intelligence is shown when actions cease to be automatic. But none of this makes your comment about my cells being “as brilliant as” your God any less ridiculous, which is the point you made and are now trying to dodge.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 26, 2022, 16:13 (154 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You want either direct creation or evolution from God. Which is it? You view of God is so skewed! God can bring us about in any way He wishes, and history tells us hw He did it. Why do you want Him comparable to a tunnel-versioned human? It is your problem of your own creation. I accept what God did. Try it.

dhw: For the hundredth time: I do not “want” anything. It is you who make him tunnel-visioned because you say his one and only goal was to design humans plus food. You also say he individually designed countless species that had no connection with humans. Why would he choose such a method to achieve such a purpose? You admit that you have no idea, and I must ask God.

But we arrived through an evolutionary style creation. Belief in God simply says He did it that way. You are questioning history and suggest God didn't know what He was doing in choosing this way. It is your human interpretation from the standpoint of what you would have done as God.

The missing fossils argument

dhw: You claimed that my theory made cells as brilliant as your God. I have tried to demonstrate that if your God exists, he deliberately made them considerably less brilliant than himself, and my conclusion – to put it frankly – is that your point was ridiculous.

DAVID: Your cell brilliance theory is based on observation of how cells act so well as seen from the outside. No facts involved, and primarily from somewhat ancient scientists who have not seen the current molecule by molecule elucidation of intracellular reactions design.

dhw: We know that you disagree with the theory, ignore all the modern scientists who support it, and ignore the point that intelligence is shown when actions cease to be automatic.

When are cellular reactions shown to be other than automatic? Not in any study I read or report.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, January 27, 2022, 07:30 (154 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You want either direct creation or evolution from God. Which is it? You view of God is so skewed! God can bring us about in any way He wishes, and history tells us hw He did it. Why do you want Him comparable to a tunnel-versioned human? It is your problem of your own creation. I accept what God did. Try it.

dhw: For the hundredth time: I do not “want” anything. It is you who make him tunnel-visioned because you say his one and only goal was to design humans plus food. You also say he individually designed countless species that had no connection with humans. Why would he choose such a method to achieve such a purpose? You admit that you have no idea, and I must ask God.

DAVID: But we arrived through an evolutionary style creation. Belief in God simply says He did it that way.

I have never disagreed that if God exists, he would have designed the evolutionary mechanisms through which ALL life forms arrived.

DAVID: You are questioning history and suggest God didn't know what He was doing in choosing this way. It is your human interpretation from the standpoint of what you would have done as God.

Why do you keep on and on dodging the bolded issue? History does not tell us that God even exists, or that humans were his one and only goal, or that he individually designed every life form, or that all the life forms that had no connection with humans were part of his one and only goal to design humans plus food. I too assume he would have known exactly what he was doing, and I do not believe he would have devoted himself to activities that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. And so I ask you why he would have done so, and you reply that you have no idea, and I should ask God. Why can’t you leave it at that?

The missing fossils argument
dhw: You claimed that my theory made cells as brilliant as your God. I have tried to demonstrate that if your God exists, he deliberately made them considerably less brilliant than himself, and my conclusion – to put it frankly – is that your point was ridiculous.

DAVID: Your cell brilliance theory is based on observation of how cells act so well as seen from the outside. No facts involved, and primarily from somewhat ancient scientists who have not seen the current molecule by molecule elucidation of intracellular reactions design.

dhw: We know that you disagree with the theory, ignore all the modern scientists who support it, and ignore the point that intelligence is shown when actions cease to be automatic.

DAVID: When are cellular reactions shown to be other than automatic? Not in any study I read or report.

How many studies have you read in which all cellular actions have been shown to be manipulated by your God, or preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food? You keep telling us, quite rightly, that we can only observe cellular actions from the outside, and so it is purely a matter of interpretation whether they demonstrate autonomous intelligence or automatic obedience. You put the odds at 50/50, and then settle for 100/0.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 27, 2022, 16:58 (153 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are questioning history and suggest God didn't know what He was doing in choosing this way. It is your human interpretation from the standpoint of what you would have done as God.

dhw: Why do you keep on and on dodging the bolded issue? History does not tell us that God even exists, or that humans were his one and only goal, or that he individually designed every life form, or that all the life forms that had no connection with humans were part of his one and only goal to design humans plus food. I too assume he would have known exactly what he was doing, and I do not believe he would have devoted himself to activities that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. And so I ask you why he would have done so, and you reply that you have no idea, and I should ask God. Why can’t you leave it at that?

Creating all of us through evolution is entirely relevant. We evolved from bacteria by Go d's choice is obvious. Your contorted complaint is not worth answering any more, since it comes from a humanized image of your God


The missing fossils argument
dhw: You claimed that my theory made cells as brilliant as your God. I have tried to demonstrate that if your God exists, he deliberately made them considerably less brilliant than himself, and my conclusion – to put it frankly – is that your point was ridiculous.

DAVID: Your cell brilliance theory is based on observation of how cells act so well as seen from the outside. No facts involved, and primarily from somewhat ancient scientists who have not seen the current molecule by molecule elucidation of intracellular reactions design.

dhw: We know that you disagree with the theory, ignore all the modern scientists who support it, and ignore the point that intelligence is shown when actions cease to be automatic.

DAVID: When are cellular reactions shown to be other than automatic? Not in any study I read or report.

dhw: How many studies have you read in which all cellular actions have been shown to be manipulated by your God, or preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food? You keep telling us, quite rightly, that we can only observe cellular actions from the outside, and so it is purely a matter of interpretation whether they demonstrate autonomous intelligence or automatic obedience. You put the odds at 50/50, and then settle for 100/0.

I have the right to my 100% side, based on my analysis.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, January 28, 2022, 13:32 (152 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are questioning history and suggest God didn't know what He was doing in choosing this way. It is your human interpretation from the standpoint of what you would have done as God.

dhw: Why do you keep on and on dodging the bolded issue? History does not tell us that God even exists, or that humans were his one and only goal, or that he individually designed every life form, or that all the life forms that had no connection with humans were part of his one and only goal to design humans plus food. I too assume he would have known exactly what he was doing, and I do not believe he would have devoted himself to activities that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. And so I ask you why he would have done so, and you reply that you have no idea, and I should ask God. Why can’t you leave it at that?

DAVID: Creating all of us through evolution is entirely relevant. We evolved from bacteria by God's choice is obvious. Your contorted complaint is not worth answering any more, since it comes from a humanized image of your God.

By “us” and “we”, you obviously mean humans, and so once more you leave out the whole basis of your illogical theory, which is that he also specially designed countless life forms that were not connected with “us”, even though “we” were apparently his one and only goal. This has nothing to do with the alternative, so-called “humanized” alternatives I offer. Your own theory makes no sense even to you – as bolded above.

The missing fossils argument
DAVID: When are cellular reactions shown to be other than automatic? Not in any study I read or report.

dhw: How many studies have you read in which all cellular actions have been shown to be manipulated by your God, or preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food? You keep telling us, quite rightly, that we can only observe cellular actions from the outside, and so it is purely a matter of interpretation whether they demonstrate autonomous intelligence or automatic obedience. You put the odds at 50/50, and then settle for 100/0.

DAVID: I have the right to my 100% side, based on my analysis.

Of course you do. And your opponents have the same right. That is why we hold our discussions. And I ask you the same question you asked me: How many studies show that your God has given instructions for every cellular reaction ever observed?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, January 28, 2022, 21:31 (152 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Creating all of us through evolution is entirely relevant. We evolved from bacteria by God's choice is obvious. Your contorted complaint is not worth answering any more, since it comes from a humanized image of your God.

dhw: By “us” and “we”, you obviously mean humans, and so once more you leave out the whole basis of your illogical theory, which is that he also specially designed countless life forms that were not connected with “us”, even though “we” were apparently his one and only goal. This has nothing to do with the alternative, so-called “humanized” alternatives I offer. Your own theory makes no sense even to you – as bolded above.

It makes perfect sense as God's choice of method. If it is illogical it makes Adler the fool, as He assumes God evolved us over time, making our unusual appearance a proof of God.


The missing fossils argument
DAVID: When are cellular reactions shown to be other than automatic? Not in any study I read or report.

dhw: How many studies have you read in which all cellular actions have been shown to be manipulated by your God, or preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food? You keep telling us, quite rightly, that we can only observe cellular actions from the outside, and so it is purely a matter of interpretation whether they demonstrate autonomous intelligence or automatic obedience. You put the odds at 50/50, and then settle for 100/0.

DAVID: I have the right to my 100% side, based on my analysis.

dhw: Of course you do. And your opponents have the same right. That is why we hold our discussions. And I ask you the same question you asked me: How many studies show that your God has given instructions for every cellular reaction ever observed?

The studies I review of molecular reactions all assume automaticity. Agnosticism never proves anything except doubt. God is a reasonable theory. Belief by many.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, January 29, 2022, 08:16 (152 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Creating all of us through evolution is entirely relevant. We evolved from bacteria by God's choice is obvious. Your contorted complaint is not worth answering any more, since it comes from a humanized image of your God.

dhw: By “us” and “we”, you obviously mean humans, and so once more you leave out the whole basis of your illogical theory, which is that he also specially designed countless life forms that were not connected with “us”, even though “we” were apparently his one and only goal. This has nothing to do with the alternative, so-called “humanized” alternatives I offer. Your own theory makes no sense even to you....

DAVID: It makes perfect sense as God's choice of method. If it is illogical it makes Adler the fool, as He assumes God evolved us over time, making our unusual appearance a proof of God.

How many more times are you going to hide behind Adler in order to dodge the issue? Yes, we and every other life form evolved over time, and yes Adler uses us as proof that God exists. And so once more you leave out...see the bold above. Please stop dodging!

The missing fossils argument

DAVID: When are cellular reactions shown to be other than automatic? Not in any study I read or report.

dhw: How many studies have you read in which all cellular actions have been shown to be manipulated by your God, or preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food? You keep telling us, quite rightly, that we can only observe cellular actions from the outside, and so it is purely a matter of interpretation whether they demonstrate autonomous intelligence or automatic obedience. You put the odds at 50/50, and then settle for 100/0.

DAVID: I have the right to my 100% side, based on my analysis.

dhw: Of course you do. And your opponents have the same right. That is why we hold our discussions. And I ask you the same question you asked me: How many studies show that your God has given instructions for every cellular reaction ever observed?

DAVID: The studies I review of molecular reactions all assume automaticity.

I don’t have time to compile another list of modern scientists who believe in cellular intelligence, but last time I did, you misinterpreted a quote and told us that you couldn’t be bothered to read the other references. Meanwhile, please answer my bolded question.

DAVID: Agnosticism never proves anything except doubt. God is a reasonable theory. Belief by many.

Nobody can prove anything, but yes, God is a reasonable theory believed by many. How does that prove that your God could not have invented the intelligent cell, or that he kept designing life forms that had no connection with the only life form (plus food) that he wanted to design?

Hibernation
DAVID: Hibernation requires symbiosis with specialized organisms. How does this adaptation work naturally? Not epigenetically since different organisms have to work together. Trial and error would kill if tried suddenly, so it has to be gradual over time and goal directed. How about design?

You may remember that it was Lynn Margulis who first drew the world’s attention to the importance of symbiosis in the process of evolution. Different organisms work together to cope with environmental conditions. I think this has now been generally accepted. Lynn Margulis was also a firm champion of the theory that cells are intelligent organisms. I presume you accept her theory of symbiosis, but you dismiss her theory of cellular intelligence because she died a few years ago and you can’t be bothered to read the work of modern scientists who agree with her.

Life’s required metals
DAVID: God goes as far as He has to in designing.

dhw: I like it. According to you, he has to design everything. I propose that he only has to design the mechanism that enables cell communities to do their own designing. Same God, but at least my proposal explains the higgledy-piggledy bush!

DAVID: Without the bush, not enough food for all. My God knows what He is required to create.

Not again, please! You have agreed explicitly that past bushes were for past life forms and extinct life has no role to play in the present. ALL life forms need food, but that does not mean that all life forms and foods were designed for the sole purpose of designing one life form (us) and our food.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 29, 2022, 15:50 (151 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It makes perfect sense as God's choice of method. If it is illogical it makes Adler the fool, as He assumes God evolved us over time, making our unusual appearance a proof of God.

dhw: How many more times are you going to hide behind Adler in order to dodge the issue? Yes, we and every other life form evolved over time, and yes Adler uses us as proof that God exists. And so once more you leave out...see the bold above. Please stop dodging!

How long will it take you to realize Adler's thoughts and mine are one and the same. Your bold is totally irrational. That God chose to evolve us is a simple obvious concept.


Hibernation
DAVID: Hibernation requires symbiosis with specialized organisms. How does this adaptation work naturally? Not epigenetically since different organisms have to work together. Trial and error would kill if tried suddenly, so it has to be gradual over time and goal directed. How about design?

dhw: You may remember that it was Lynn Margulis who first drew the world’s attention to the importance of symbiosis in the process of evolution. Different organisms work together to cope with environmental conditions. I think this has now been generally accepted. Lynn Margulis was also a firm champion of the theory that cells are intelligent organisms. I presume you accept her theory of symbiosis, but you dismiss her theory of cellular intelligence because she died a few years ago and you can’t be bothered to read the work of modern scientists who agree with her.

I read those works and come back to the same point. From the outside we see cells acting intelligently. Now interpretation rakes over. Intelligent or intelligent design. My choice asv you know is the latter.


Life’s required metals
DAVID: God goes as far as He has to in designing.

dhw: I like it. According to you, he has to design everything. I propose that he only has to design the mechanism that enables cell communities to do their own designing. Same God, but at least my proposal explains the higgledy-piggledy bush!

DAVID: Without the bush, not enough food for all. My God knows what He is required to create.

dhw: Not again, please! You have agreed explicitly that past bushes were for past life forms and extinct life has no role to play in the present. ALL life forms need food, but that does not mean that all life forms and foods were designed for the sole purpose of designing one life form (us) and our food.

It means exactly that to me.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, January 30, 2022, 11:22 (151 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It makes perfect sense as God's choice of method. If it is illogical it makes Adler the fool, as He assumes God evolved us over time, making our unusual appearance a proof of God.

dhw: How many more times are you going to hide behind Adler in order to dodge the issue? Yes, we and every other life form evolved over time, and yes Adler uses us as proof that God exists. And so once more you leave out...see the bold above. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: How long will it take you to realize Adler's thoughts and mine are one and the same. Your bold is totally irrational. That God chose to evolve us is a simple obvious concept.

The bold which you left out as usual was:”…his one and only goal was to design humans plus food. You also say he individually designed countless species that had no connection with humans.” You are right. The theory that an all-powerful God would reach his one and only goal by designing countless species that had no connection with his one and only goal is totally irrational, which is why you say you can’t explain it and I should go and ask God.

Hibernation
DAVID: Hibernation requires symbiosis with specialized organisms. How does this adaptation work naturally? Not epigenetically since different organisms have to work together. Trial and error would kill if tried suddenly, so it has to be gradual over time and goal directed. How about design?

dhw: You may remember that it was Lynn Margulis who first drew the world’s attention to the importance of symbiosis in the process of evolution. Different organisms work together to cope with environmental conditions. I think this has now been generally accepted. Lynn Margulis was also a firm champion of the theory that cells are intelligent organisms. I presume you accept her theory of symbiosis, but you dismiss her theory of cellular intelligence because she died a few years ago and you can’t be bothered to read the work of modern scientists who agree with her.

DAVID: I read those works and come back to the same point. From the outside we see cells acting intelligently. Now interpretation rakes over. Intelligent or intelligent design. My choice asv you know is the latter.

Yes, it is a matter of interpretation, but not “intelligent or intelligent design”! Both theories entail intelligent design. You have tried to dismiss intelligent design by intelligent cells on the grounds that no modern scientists agree that cells can be intelligent. Firstly, this is not true, and secondly you agree that it’s a 50/50 matter of interpretation, which is hardly grounds for rejecting the theory.

Life’s required metals
DAVID: God goes as far as He has to in designing.

dhw: I like it. According to you, he has to design everything. I propose that he only has to design the mechanism that enables cell communities to do their own designing. Same God, but at least my proposal explains the higgledy-piggledy bush!

DAVID: Without the bush, not enough food for all. My God knows what He is required to create.

dhw: Not again, please! You have agreed explicitly that past bushes were for past life forms and extinct life has no role to play in the present. ALL life forms need food, but that does not mean that all life forms and foods were designed for the sole purpose of designing one life form (us) and our food.

DAVID: It means exactly that to me.

I know. And it makes no sense to claim that species and their food supplies which had no connection with humans were specially designed for the sole purpose of specially designing humans and their food supplies.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 30, 2022, 16:17 (150 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: How long will it take you to realize Adler's thoughts and mine are one and the same. Your bold is totally irrational. That God chose to evolve us is a simple obvious concept.

dhw: The bold which you left out as usual was:”…his one and only goal was to design humans plus food. You also say he individually designed countless species that had no connection with humans.” You are right. The theory that an all-powerful God would reach his one and only goal by designing countless species that had no connection with his one and only goal is totally irrational, which is why you say you can’t explain it and I should go and ask God.

Your bold is totally irrational if you simply accept that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. We are His endpoint.


Hibernation

DAVID: I read those works and come back to the same point. From the outside we see cells acting intelligently. Now interpretation rakes over. Intelligent or intelligent design. My choice as you know is the latter.

dhw: Yes, it is a matter of interpretation, but not “intelligent or intelligent design”! Both theories entail intelligent design. You have tried to dismiss intelligent design by intelligent cells on the grounds that no modern scientists agree that cells can be intelligent. Firstly, this is not true, and secondly you agree that it’s a 50/50 matter of interpretation, which is hardly grounds for rejecting the theory.

Each of us has the right to a choice based on logical evidence.


Life’s required metals
DAVID: God goes as far as He has to in designing.

dhw: I like it. According to you, he has to design everything. I propose that he only has to design the mechanism that enables cell communities to do their own designing. Same God, but at least my proposal explains the higgledy-piggledy bush!

DAVID: Without the bush, not enough food for all. My God knows what He is required to create.

dhw: Not again, please! You have agreed explicitly that past bushes were for past life forms and extinct life has no role to play in the present. ALL life forms need food, but that does not mean that all life forms and foods were designed for the sole purpose of designing one life form (us) and our food.

DAVID: It means exactly that to me.

dhw: I know. And it makes no sense to claim that species and their food supplies which had no connection with humans were specially designed for the sole purpose of specially designing humans and their food supplies.

All part of an evolutionary process with early steps leading to later steps in a continuum.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, January 31, 2022, 13:24 (149 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: How long will it take you to realize Adler's thoughts and mine are one and the same. Your bold is totally irrational. That God chose to evolve us is a simple obvious concept.

dhw: The bold which you left out as usual was:BBB”…his one and only goal was to design humans plus food. You also say he individually designed countless species that had no connection with humans.” You are right. The theory that an all-powerful God would reach his one and only goal by designing countless species that had no connection with his one and only goal is totally irrational, which is why you say you can’t explain it and I should go and ask God.

DAVID: Your bold is totally irrational if you simply accept that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. We are His endpoint.

I don’t believe you are so blinkered that you cannot see the illogicality of a theory that has an all-powerful God with a single purpose (us) deliberately designing countless life forms that have no connection with us! If I told you that the one and only thing I wanted to make was a rowing boat, and so first I proceeded to make a kitchen cupboard, a bookshelf and a rabbit hutch, you’d send me off to have my brain tested.

Hibernation

DAVID: I read those works and come back to the same point. From the outside we see cells acting intelligently. Now interpretation rakes over. Intelligent or intelligent design. My choice as you know is the latter.

dhw: Yes, it is a matter of interpretation, but not “intelligent or intelligent design”! Both theories entail intelligent design. You have tried to dismiss intelligent design by intelligent cells on the grounds that no modern scientists agree that cells can be intelligent. Firstly, this is not true, and secondly you agree that it’s a 50/50 matter of interpretation, which is hardly grounds for rejecting the theory.

DAVID: Each of us has the right to a choice based on logical evidence.

Of course. But (a) it is NOT a choice between “intelligent [cells] or intelligent design” – both theories entail intelligent design, and (b) you clearly do not accept your own odds of 50/50!

Life’s required metals

DAVID: Without the bush, not enough food for all. My God knows what He is required to create.

dhw: […] it makes no sense to claim that species and their food supplies which had no connection with humans were specially designed for the sole purpose of specially designing humans and their food supplies.

DAVID: All part of an evolutionary process with early steps leading to later steps in a continuum.

Yes, life has continued to evolve into all its separate branches, extant and extinct, most of which had no connection with sapiens. As usual, you resort to generalizations in order to avoid the total illogicality of your theory bolded above.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, January 31, 2022, 18:50 (149 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your bold is totally irrational if you simply accept that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. We are His endpoint.

dhw: I don’t believe you are so blinkered that you cannot see the illogicality of a theory that has an all-powerful God with a single purpose (us) deliberately designing countless life forms that have no connection with us! If I told you that the one and only thing I wanted to make was a rowing boat, and so first I proceeded to make a kitchen cupboard, a bookshelf and a rabbit hutch, you’d send me off to have my brain tested.

Again you have returned to a purely human example of invention. Stop imagining a human God!!! God does what He wants any way He wants and He chose to evolve us from bacteria as His history shows.


Hibernation

DAVID: Each of us has the right to a choice based on logical evidence.

dhw: Of course. But (a) it is NOT a choice between “intelligent [cells] or intelligent design” – both theories entail intelligent design, and (b) you clearly do not accept your own odds of 50/50!

I reject your 50% based on the view that God dos not do secondhand design.


Life’s required metals

DAVID: Without the bush, not enough food for all. My God knows what He is required to create.

dhw: […] it makes no sense to claim that species and their food supplies which had no connection with humans were specially designed for the sole purpose of specially designing humans and their food supplies.

DAVID: All part of an evolutionary process with early steps leading to later steps in a continuum.

dhw: Yes, life has continued to evolve into all its separate branches, extant and extinct, most of which had no connection with sapiens. As usual, you resort to generalizations in order to avoid the total illogicality of your theory bolded above.

No generalization in the statement that true evolution is stepwise from a beginning to the current endpoint and therefore all related.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, February 01, 2022, 12:03 (148 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your bold is totally irrational if you simply accept that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. We are His endpoint.

dhw: I don’t believe you are so blinkered that you cannot see the illogicality of a theory that has an all-powerful God with a single purpose (us) deliberately designing countless life forms that have no connection with us! If I told you that the one and only thing I wanted to make was a rowing boat, and so first I proceeded to make a kitchen cupboard, a bookshelf and a rabbit hutch, you’d send me off to have my brain tested.

DAVID: Again you have returned to a purely human example of invention. Stop imagining a human God!!! God does what He wants any way He wants and He chose to evolve us from bacteria as His history shows.

It is an example of how purpose and action go together. Of course God does what he wants, and if all he wanted was to design humans plus food, why did he first design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? You admit that you can’t find any logical reason and tell me to ask God. But you won’t admit that your inability to find a reason might just possibly mean that your theory is wrong.

Hibernation
DAVID: Each of us has the right to a choice based on logical evidence.

dhw: Of course. But (a) it is NOT a choice between “intelligent [cells] or intelligent design” – both theories entail intelligent design, and (b) you clearly do not accept your own odds of 50/50!

DAVID: I reject your 50% based on the view that God dos not do secondhand design.

And yet your God gave sapiens the autonomous power to do his own designing – or are you now telling us that your God designed our buildings, machines and clothes, and writes our plays and paints our paintings? If he can give us freedom, why could he not possibly have given freedom to the micro-organisms whose evolution led to the great higgledy-piggledy bush of life (though he would still have been able to dabble if he wished to do so)?

Life’s required metals
DAVID: Without the bush, not enough food for all. My God knows what He is required to create.

dhw: […] it makes no sense to claim that species and their food supplies which had no connection with humans were specially designed for the sole purpose of specially designing humans and their food supplies.

DAVID: All part of an evolutionary process with early steps leading to later steps in a continuum.

dhw: Yes, life has continued to evolve into all its separate branches, extant and extinct, most of which had no connection with sapiens. As usual, you resort to generalizations in order to avoid the total illogicality of your theory bolded above.

DAVID: No generalization in the statement that true evolution is stepwise from a beginning to the current endpoint and therefore all related.

Unfortunately, this generalization happens to leave out your claim that your God ONLY wanted evolution to lead to sapiens plus food, but he individually designed every step to every life form that ever existed, including all those which had no connection to his one and only desire to design sapiens plus food. Just one of your many dodges to leave out the one glaringly obvious illogical part of your theory.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 01, 2022, 16:13 (148 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Again you have returned to a purely human example of invention. Stop imagining a human God!!! God does what He wants any way He wants and He chose to evolve us from bacteria as His history shows.

dhw: It is an example of how purpose and action go together. Of course God does what he wants, and if all he wanted was to design humans plus food, why did he first design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? You admit that you can’t find any logical reason and tell me to ask God. But you won’t admit that your inability to find a reason might just possibly mean that your theory is wrong.

The bold is your unreasonable distorted view of God's desires. Evolution from bacteria to humans, as history shows, requires all those ancient steps. I have found my reason, which is simply accepting what God did. We are here, the surprise endpoint.


Hibernation
DAVID: Each of us has the right to a choice based on logical evidence.

dhw: Of course. But (a) it is NOT a choice between “intelligent [cells] or intelligent design” – both theories entail intelligent design, and (b) you clearly do not accept your own odds of 50/50!

DAVID: I reject your 50% based on the view that God does not do secondhand design.

dhw: And yet your God gave sapiens the autonomous power to do his own designing – or are you now telling us that your God designed our buildings, machines and clothes, and writes our plays and paints our paintings? If he can give us freedom, why could he not possibly have given freedom to the micro-organisms whose evolution led to the great higgledy-piggledy bush of life (though he would still have been able to dabble if he wished to do so)?

Micro-organisms cannot possibly see the future of complexity to the purpose of creating humans.


Life’s required metals
DAVID: Without the bush, not enough food for all. My God knows what He is required to create.

dhw: […] it makes no sense to claim that species and their food supplies which had no connection with humans were specially designed for the sole purpose of specially designing humans and their food supplies.

DAVID: All part of an evolutionary process with early steps leading to later steps in a continuum.

dhw: Yes, life has continued to evolve into all its separate branches, extant and extinct, most of which had no connection with sapiens. As usual, you resort to generalizations in order to avoid the total illogicality of your theory bolded above.

DAVID: No generalization in the statement that true evolution is stepwise from a beginning to the current endpoint and therefore all related.

dhw: Unfortunately, this generalization happens to leave out your claim that your God ONLY wanted evolution to lead to sapiens plus food, but he individually designed every step to every life form that ever existed, including all those which had no connection to his one and only desire to design sapiens plus food. Just one of your many dodges to leave out the one glaringly obvious illogical part of your theory.

We go round and round. You are totally illogical from a believer's standpoint. Our views of God are wildly disparate. I simply accept what God does/did.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, February 02, 2022, 08:39 (148 days ago) @ David Turell

This post has turned into a game called Dodge the Issue. Every entry except for “Hibernation”exemplifies the technique, and although I doubt if anyone else is interested, I’ll go on giving the same response to each dodge in the hope that eventually my dear opponent will accept what he has always accepted and tried to dodge: namely, that it doesn’t make sense for an all-powerful God with only one purpose (humans plus food) to devote himself to designing countless life forms plus foods that have no connection with his one and only purpose (humans plus food).

dhw: I don’t believe you are so blinkered that you cannot see the illogicality of a theory that has an all-powerful God with a single purpose (us) deliberately designing countless life forms that have no connection with us! If I told you that the one and only thing I wanted to make was a rowing boat, and so first I proceeded to make a kitchen cupboard, a bookshelf and a rabbit hutch, you’d send me off to have my brain tested.

DAVID: Again you have returned to a purely human example of invention. Stop imagining a human God!!! God does what He wants any way He wants and He chose to evolve us from bacteria as His history shows.

dhw: It is an example of how purpose and action go together. Of course God does what he wants, and if all he wanted was to design humans plus food, why did he first design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? You admit that you can’t find any logical reason and tell me to ask God. But you won’t admit that your inability to find a reason might just possibly mean that your theory is wrong.

DAVID: The bold is your unreasonable distorted view of God's desires.

What distortion? You have said over and over again that your God’s one and only goal was to design humans and their food. I’ll be delighted if you now tell us this is not your belief, and perhaps you will at last tell us what other goals he had that explain all the life forms he specifically designed which had no connection with humans and their food.

DAVID: Evolution from bacteria to humans, as history shows, requires all those ancient steps. I have found my reason, which is simply accepting what God did. We are here, the surprise endpoint.

How does your "acceptance" that we are here provide a reason why your all-powerful God, whose one and only purpose was apparently to design us and our food, specifically designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us?


Life’s required metals

DAVID: No generalization in the statement that true evolution is stepwise from a beginning to the current endpoint and therefore all related.

dhw: Unfortunately, this generalization happens to leave out your claim that your God ONLY wanted evolution to lead to sapiens plus food, but he individually designed every step to every life form that ever existed, including all those which had no connection to his one and only desire to design sapiens plus food. Just one of your many dodges to leave out the one glaringly obvious illogical part of your theory.

DAVID: We go round and round. You are totally illogical from a believer's standpoint. Our views of God are wildly disparate. I simply accept what God does/did.

Another wild collection of non-responses to avoid the illogicality of your theory that your God fulfilled his one and only purpose by specially designing countless life forms that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Of course we go round and round, because although you admit you can’t find a logical explanation, you simply continue to play the dodging game.

Hibernation

DAVID: Each of us has the right to a choice based on logical evidence.

dhw: Of course. But (a) it is NOT a choice between “intelligent [cells] or intelligent design” – both theories entail intelligent design, and (b) you clearly do not accept your own odds of 50/50!

DAVID: I reject your 50% based on the view that God does not do secondhand design.

dhw: And yet your God gave sapiens the autonomous power to do his own designing – or are you now telling us that your God designed our buildings, machines and clothes, and writes our plays and paints our paintings? If he can give us freedom, why could he not possibly have given freedom to the micro-organisms whose evolution led to the great higgledy-piggledy bush of life (though he would still have been able to dabble if he wished to do so)?

DAVID: Micro-organisms cannot possibly see the future of complexity to the purpose of creating humans.

Whoever said they could??? You claimed that your God did not do what you call “secondhand design”. I pointed out that you believe he gave humans the autonomous power to do their own designing, so he does do “secondhand design”. And if he can do it for us, why can’t he do it for other life forms?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 02, 2022, 18:23 (147 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: that it doesn’t make sense for an all-powerful God with only one purpose (humans plus food) to devote himself to designing countless life forms plus foods that have no connection with his one and only purpose (humans plus food).

Again delivered from someone who has no idea how religious believers really view God and accept His history as showing His intentions and choices. Dhw second guesses God's actions.

dhw: You have said over and over again that your God’s one and only goal was to design humans and their food. I’ll be delighted if you now tell us this is not your belief, and perhaps you will at last tell us what other goals he had that explain all the life forms he specifically designed which had no connection with humans and their food.

Again, misunderstanding how to view God, you use Him as tunnel-visioned. You have no concept of how to view the belief of believers, as shown by your vision of a humanized God as correct.


DAVID: Evolution from bacteria to humans, as history shows, requires all those ancient steps. I have found my reason, which is simply accepting what God did. We are here, the surprise endpoint.

dhw: How does your "acceptance" that we are here provide a reason why your all-powerful God, whose one and only purpose was apparently to design us and our food, specifically designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us?

Just the point. I don't need a reason, nor did Adler. You question God's methods from a purely human viewpoint. If you were God, how would you do it differently?>


Hibernation

DAVID: Each of us has the right to a choice based on logical evidence.

dhw: Of course. But (a) it is NOT a choice between “intelligent [cells] or intelligent design” – both theories entail intelligent design, and (b) you clearly do not accept your own odds of 50/50!

DAVID: I reject your 50% based on the view that God does not do secondhand design.

dhw: And yet your God gave sapiens the autonomous power to do his own designing – or are you now telling us that your God designed our buildings, machines and clothes, and writes our plays and paints our paintings? If he can give us freedom, why could he not possibly have given freedom to the micro-organisms whose evolution led to the great higgledy-piggledy bush of life (though he would still have been able to dabble if he wished to do so)?

DAVID: Micro-organisms cannot possibly see the future of complexity to the purpose of creating humans.

dhw: Whoever said they could??? You claimed that your God did not do what you call “secondhand design”. I pointed out that you believe he gave humans the autonomous power to do their own designing, so he does do “secondhand design”. And if he can do it for us, why can’t he do it for other life forms?

Other life forms were on a purposeful trajectory during evolution to reach the production of humans. Uncontrolled in their designs, we have idea where evolution might end up, nor would God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, February 03, 2022, 12:19 (146 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: … it doesn’t make sense for an all-powerful God with only one purpose (humans plus food) to devote himself to designing countless life forms plus foods that have no connection with his one and only purpose (humans plus food).

DAVID: Again delivered from someone who has no idea how religious believers really view God and accept His history as showing His intentions and choices. Dhw second guesses God's actions.

So the latest way to dodge the illogicality is to claim that all religious people believe in the illogical theory bolded above.

DAVID: Again, misunderstanding how to view God, you use Him as tunnel-visioned.

You allow him one purpose for the fulfilment of which he designs countless life forms that have no connection with that purpose, and you don’t think that is tunnel-visioned! I offer a variety of alternatives, and apparently that makes me tunnel-visioned!

DAVID: Evolution from bacteria to humans, as history shows, requires all those ancient steps. I have found my reason, which is simply accepting what God did. We are here, the surprise endpoint.

dhw: How does your "acceptance" that we are here provide a reason why your all-powerful God, whose one and only purpose was apparently to design us and our food, specifically designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us?

DAVID: Just the point. I don't need a reason, nor did Adler. You question God's methods from a purely human viewpoint. If you were God, how would you do it differently?

I didn’t know that you and Adler were not human, or that when trying to defend an illogical theory it was enough to say you don’t need a reason. As for your question, if I were an all-powerful God and my only purpose was to design humans and their food, I would design humans and their food. I would not design and kill off countless life forms that had nothing to do with my one and only purpose. And frankly, if I were God, I would object very strongly to a human being attributing such illogical behaviour to me, and I would suggest that he should rethink his theory to make it fit in logically with the history of life.

Hibernation

DAVID: I reject your 50% based on the view that God does not do secondhand design.

dhw: And yet your God gave sapiens the autonomous power to do his own designing […]

DAVID: Micro-organisms cannot possibly see the future of complexity to the purpose of creating humans.

dhw: Whoever said they could??? You claimed that your God did not do what you call “secondhand design”. I pointed out that you believe he gave humans the autonomous power to do their own designing, so he does do “secondhand design”. And if he can do it for us, why can’t he do it for other life forms?

DAVID: Other life forms were on a purposeful trajectory during evolution to reach the production of humans.

There we go again. Every extinct life form that had no connection with humans was apparently specially designed as part of the goal of designing humans. And you still haven’t answered my question.

DAVID: Uncontrolled in their designs, we have [no] idea where evolution might end up, nor would God.

True. That is one logical explanation of the higgledy-piggledy bush: God didn’t want life’s history to be a predictable puppet show with himself simply pulling the strings. (But of course, he always had the option of dabbling.)

Evidence of non-random mutation

QUOTE: "The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival.

DAVID: It seems chance mutations can be protected from affecting plants. Was this designed or a natural event? I'll stick with design.

I’ve only quoted this to reinforce two points: 1) some genes must act automatically to preserve the species, while some genes must be flexible to allow for speciation; 2) the purpose of all these mechanisms – whether designed by God or not – is to improve chances of survival.

Hummingbird torpor

Thank you as always for the natural wonder articles. They are a delight to read. Shame about the comments, though. ;-)

QUOTE: "At night, hummingbirds lower their body temperature and metabolism drastically by dropping into an energy-saving state of inactivity called torpor.

DAVID: how did this evolve. It all obviously goes together purposefully, and like all irreducible complex systems it must be designed.

Why would God specially design an energy-saving mechanism just for hummingbirds when all he apparently ever wanted to do was design humans and their food? Would we really not be here, or would we starve, if it weren’t for the hummingbird’s torpor?

Sea spiders

DAVID: fully adapted to their strange lifestyle in their ecosystem. They appeared post-Cambrian.

Amazing stuff. I just can’t quite understand why humans could not exist without your God having designed their strange lifestyle in their ecosystem.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 03, 2022, 20:24 (146 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Again, misunderstanding how to view God, you use Him as tunnel-visioned.

dhw: You allow him one purpose for the fulfilment of which he designs countless life forms that have no connection with that purpose, and you don’t think that is tunnel-visioned! I offer a variety of alternatives, and apparently that makes me tunnel-visioned!

Your human mind entered into God's mind, with no alterations, and arrived at human complaints about God's indirection in achieving a desired endpoint to evolution.


DAVID: Evolution from bacteria to humans, as history shows, requires all those ancient steps. I have found my reason, which is simply accepting what God did. We are here, the surprise endpoint.

dhw: How does your "acceptance" that we are here provide a reason why your all-powerful God, whose one and only purpose was apparently to design us and our food, specifically designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us?

DAVID: Just the point. I don't need a reason, nor did Adler. You question God's methods from a purely human viewpoint. If you were God, how would you do it differently?

dhw: As for your question, if I were an all-powerful God and my only purpose was to design humans and their food, I would design humans and their food. I would not design and kill off countless life forms that had nothing to do with my one and only purpose. And frankly, if I were God, I would object very strongly to a human being attributing such illogical behaviour to me, and I would suggest that he should rethink his theory to make it fit in logically with the history of life.

Analyzed like a true human, not like a true theistic view of the real God.


Hibernation

DAVID: Other life forms were on a purposeful trajectory during evolution to reach the production of humans.

dhw: There we go again. Every extinct life form that had no connection with humans was apparently specially designed as part of the goal of designing humans. And you still haven’t answered my question.

Again making God think like a human solving problems on Earth in a direct manor like He should, no waste of time.

Evidence of non-random mutation

QUOTE: "The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival.

DAVID: It seems chance mutations can be protected from affecting plants. Was this designed or a natural event? I'll stick with design.

dhw: I’ve only quoted this to reinforce two points: 1) some genes must act automatically to preserve the species, while some genes must be flexible to allow for speciation; 2) the purpose of all these mechanisms – whether designed by God or not – is to improve chances of survival.

Survival is required to advance evolution in stages. It does not drive new designs.


Hummingbird torpor

Thank you as always for the natural wonder articles. They are a delight to read. Shame about the comments, though. ;-)

QUOTE: "At night, hummingbirds lower their body temperature and metabolism drastically by dropping into an energy-saving state of inactivity called torpor.

DAVID: how did this evolve. It all obviously goes together purposefully, and like all irreducible complex systems it must be designed.

dhw: Why would God specially design an energy-saving mechanism just for hummingbirds when all he apparently ever wanted to do was design humans and their food? Would we really not be here, or would we starve, if it weren’t for the hummingbird’s torpor?

Each organism fits an ecosystem providing food for all.


Sea spiders

DAVID: fully adapted to their strange lifestyle in their ecosystem. They appeared post-Cambrian.

dhw: Amazing stuff. I just can’t quite understand why humans could not exist without your God having designed their strange lifestyle in their ecosystem.

All ecosystems are necessary as they are needed for food supply.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, February 04, 2022, 07:58 (146 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Again, misunderstanding how to view God, you use Him as tunnel-visioned.

dhw: You allow him one purpose for the fulfilment of which he designs countless life forms that have no connection with that purpose, and you don’t think that is tunnel-visioned! I offer a variety of alternatives, and apparently that makes me tunnel-visioned!

DAVID: Your human mind entered into God's mind, with no alterations, and arrived at human complaints about God's indirection in achieving a desired endpoint to evolution.

I haven’t uttered a word of complaint about your God! Tunnel vision = seeing only part of something and not seeing the rest. Your human mind sees nothing but humans and our food and comes up with the conclusion that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design us. You refuse to look at the rest of life’s history, which according to you includes his deliberate design of countless life forms that had no connection with humans and our food, i.e. with his one and only purpose. A classic example of tunnel vision, as a result of which you have come up with a theory of two parts that contradict each other.

DAVID: If you were God, how would you do it differently?

dhw: [...] if I were an all-powerful God and my only purpose was to design humans and their food, I would design humans and their food. I would not design and kill off countless life forms that had nothing to do with my one and only purpose. And frankly, if I were God, I would object very strongly to a human being attributing such illogical behaviour to me, and I would suggest that he should rethink his theory to make it fit in logically with the history of life.

DAVID: Analyzed like a true human, not like a true theistic view of the real God.

Yes, I am human. I thought you were too. But no, apparently you know the true theistic view of the real God. But unfortunately, he has never explained to you why he designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although all he wanted to do was design humans plus food.

Evidence of non-random mutation

QUOTE: "The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival.”

DAVID: It seems chance mutations can be protected from affecting plants. Was this designed or a natural event? I'll stick with design.

dhw: I’ve only quoted this to reinforce two points: 1) some genes must act automatically to preserve the species, while some genes must be flexible to allow for speciation; 2) the purpose of all these mechanisms – whether designed by God or not – is to improve chances of survival.

DAVID: Survival is required to advance evolution in stages. It does not drive new designs.

I thought we’d finished with these silly quibbles. What you are saying now is that if life forms don’t survive, there can be no evolution, which is pretty obvious. What I am saying is that the purpose of all the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation is to improve chances of survival. A land based animal does not have its legs turn into flippers so that evolution can advance in stages. The legs turn into flippers so that it can have a better chance of survival. Organs/organisms changing into something new = evolution. Therefore the purpose of the changes (or “new designs”) which constitute the evolution of species is survival.

Hummingbird torpor and sea spiders

dhw: Thank you as always for the natural wonder articles. They are a delight to read. Shame about the comments, though. ;-)

QUOTE: "At night, hummingbirds lower their body temperature and metabolism drastically by dropping into an energy-saving state of inactivity called torpor.”

DAVID: how did this evolve. It all obviously goes together purposefully, and like all irreducible complex systems it must be designed.

dhw: Why would God specially design an energy-saving mechanism just for hummingbirds when all he apparently ever wanted to do was design humans and their food? Would we really not be here, or would we starve, if it weren’t for the hummingbird’s torpor?

DAVID: Each organism fits an ecosystem providing food for all.

Yes indeed. But each ecosystem provides only for the organisms that are part of it. I do not believe, and nor do you, that every organism and every ecosystem that ever existed was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their ecosystems.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, February 04, 2022, 16:11 (145 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If you were God, how would you do it differently?

dhw: [...] if I were an all-powerful God and my only purpose was to design humans and their food, I would design humans and their food. I would not design and kill off countless life forms that had nothing to do with my one and only purpose. And frankly, if I were God, I would object very strongly to a human being attributing such illogical behaviour to me, and I would suggest that he should rethink his theory to make it fit in logically with the history of life.

DAVID: Analyzed like a true human, not like a true theistic view of the real God.

dhw: Yes, I am human. I thought you were too. But no, apparently you know the true theistic view of the real God. But unfortunately, he has never explained to you why he designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although all he wanted to do was design humans plus food.

You have expressed your exact problem. We have to accept what God did and try to understand it from a developmental view of His creation which God does not explain. I've given you my explanation which you refuse to accept, since God did it in a round-about way over lots of time, in comparison to an efficient human approach who would have gotten it done straight away. Thus your humanized God appears to solve your problem.


Evidence of non-random mutation

DAVID: Survival is required to advance evolution in stages. It does not drive new designs.

dhw: I thought we’d finished with these silly quibbles. What you are saying now is that if life forms don’t survive, there can be no evolution, which is pretty obvious. What I am saying is that the purpose of all the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation is to improve chances of survival. A land based animal does not have its legs turn into flippers so that evolution can advance in stages. The legs turn into flippers so that it can have a better chance of survival. Organs/organisms changing into something new = evolution. Therefore the purpose of the changes (or “new designs”) which constitute the evolution of species is survival.

Fine. We have been agreeing all along.


Hummingbird torpor and sea spiders

dhw: Thank you as always for the natural wonder articles. They are a delight to read. Shame about the comments, though. ;-)

QUOTE: "At night, hummingbirds lower their body temperature and metabolism drastically by dropping into an energy-saving state of inactivity called torpor.”

DAVID: how did this evolve. It all obviously goes together purposefully, and like all irreducible complex systems it must be designed.

dhw: Why would God specially design an energy-saving mechanism just for hummingbirds when all he apparently ever wanted to do was design humans and their food? Would we really not be here, or would we starve, if it weren’t for the hummingbird’s torpor?

DAVID: Each organism fits an ecosystem providing food for all.

dhw: Yes indeed. But each ecosystem provides only for the organisms that are part of it. I do not believe, and nor do you, that every organism and every ecosystem that ever existed was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their ecosystems.

Yes, no other way to explain God's actions. I accept them, not complain about His methods.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, February 05, 2022, 08:33 (145 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If you were God, how would you do it differently?

dhw: [...] if I were an all-powerful God and my only purpose was to design humans and their food, I would design humans and their food. I would not design and kill off countless life forms that had nothing to do with my one and only purpose. And frankly, if I were God, I would object very strongly to a human being attributing such illogical behaviour to me, and I would suggest that he should rethink his theory to make it fit in logically with the history of life.

DAVID: Analyzed like a true human, not like a true theistic view of the real God.

dhw: Yes, I am human. I thought you were too. But no, apparently you know the true theistic view of the real God. But unfortunately, he has never explained to you why he designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although all he wanted to do was design humans plus food.

DAVID: You have expressed your exact problem. We have to accept what God did and try to understand it from a developmental view of His creation which God does not explain.

Assuming God exists, the only thing we agree he did is invent life. We do not “have to” accept your theory that his one and only goal was to design humans plus food, that he designed every life form, or that every life form he designed was part of his one and only goal even though most of them had no connection with his one and only goal. If you propose a theory, it is for you to explain it, and you can’t, because you have no idea why your God would choose such a method to achieve such a goal. The obvious implication is not that God works in mysterious ways, but that your theory is wrong.

DAVID: I've given you my explanation which you refuse to accept, since God did it in a round-about way over lots of time, in comparison to an efficient human approach who would have gotten it done straight away. Thus your humanized God appears to solve your problem.

It’s not MY problem. It’s yours if you think your God is less “efficient” than us humans!

Evidence of non-random mutation

DAVID: Survival is required to advance evolution in stages. It does not drive new designs.

dhw: I thought we’d finished with these silly quibbles. What you are saying now is that if life forms don’t survive, there can be no evolution, which is pretty obvious. What I am saying is that the purpose of all the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation is to improve chances of survival. A land based animal does not have its legs turn into flippers so that evolution can advance in stages. The legs turn into flippers so that it can have a better chance of survival. Organs/organisms changing into something new = evolution. Therefore the purpose of the changes (or “new designs”) which constitute the evolution of species is survival.

DAVID: Fine. We have been agreeing all along.

At last. I’ll remind you of your agreement next time you raise the subject.

Hummingbird torpor and sea spiders
dhw: Thank you as always for the natural wonder articles. They are a delight to read. Shame about the comments, though. ;-)

QUOTE: "At night, hummingbirds lower their body temperature and metabolism drastically by dropping into an energy-saving state of inactivity called torpor.

DAVID: how did this evolve. It all obviously goes together purposefully, and like all irreducible complex systems it must be designed.

dhw: Why would God specially design an energy-saving mechanism just for hummingbirds when all
he apparently ever wanted to do was design humans and their food? Would we really not be here, or would we starve, if it weren’t for the hummingbird’s torpor?

DAVID: Each organism fits an ecosystem providing food for all.

dhw: Yes indeed. But each ecosystem provides only for the organisms that are part of it. I do not believe, and nor do you, that every organism and every ecosystem that ever existed was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their ecosystems.

DAVID: Yes, no other way to explain God's actions. I accept them, not complain about His methods.

What do you “accept”? You are proposing a theory about your God’s actions, and it doesn’t make sense. And I am complaining about your theory, not about your God’s actions!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 05, 2022, 16:07 (144 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Yes, I am human. I thought you were too. But no, apparently you know the true theistic view of the real God. But unfortunately, he has never explained to you why he designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although all he wanted to do was design humans plus food.

DAVID: You have expressed your exact problem. We have to accept what God did and try to understand it from a developmental view of His creation which God does not explain.

dhw: Assuming God exists, the only thing we agree he did is invent life. We do not “have to” accept your theory that his one and only goal was to design humans plus food, that he designed every life form, or that every life form he designed was part of his one and only goal even though most of them had no connection with his one and only goal. If you propose a theory, it is for you to explain it, and you can’t, because you have no idea why your God would choose such a method to achieve such a goal. The obvious implication is not that God works in mysterious ways, but that your theory is wrong.

I follow simple logic. God created evolution and history tells us how He did it, not the why of His choice of method. Total logic to me. It is ridiculous to claim my theism is wrong just because I don't question God's choice of method.


DAVID: I've given you my explanation which you refuse to accept, since God did it in a round-about way over lots of time, in comparison to an efficient human approach who would have gotten it done straight away. Thus your humanized God appears to solve your problem.

dhw: It’s not MY problem. It’s yours if you think your God is less “efficient” than us humans!

Not me! It is your human complaint about His time-taking method.


Hummingbird torpor and sea spiders

dhw: Why would God specially design an energy-saving mechanism just for hummingbirds when all
he apparently ever wanted to do was design humans and their food? Would we really not be here, or would we starve, if it weren’t for the hummingbird’s torpor?

DAVID: Each organism fits an ecosystem providing food for all.

dhw: Yes indeed. But each ecosystem provides only for the organisms that are part of it. I do not believe, and nor do you, that every organism and every ecosystem that ever existed was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their ecosystems.

DAVID: Yes, no other way to explain God's actions. I accept them, not complain about His methods.

dhw: What do you “accept”? You are proposing a theory about your God’s actions, and it doesn’t make sense. And I am complaining about your theory, not about your God’s actions!

My theory is not a theory in this fact: I fully accept the history of evolution as God's doings with us as the current endpoint. Adler does exactly the same to make his argument, which is the significance of the "Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes".

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, February 08, 2022, 07:08 (142 days ago) @ David Turell

Many apologies for this delayed response! It should have appeared on Sunday, but I was interrupted by a long phone call, and then mistakenly thought I had posted it and the "More Miscellany " response. A clear case of brain over-complexification!

DAVID: You have expressed your exact problem. We have to accept what God did and try to understand it from a developmental view of His creation which God does not explain.

dhw: Assuming God exists, the only thing we agree he did is invent life. We do not “have to” accept your theory that his one and only goal was to design humans plus food, that he designed every life form, or that every life form he designed was part of his one and only goal even though most of them had no connection with his one and only goal. If you propose a theory, it is for you to explain it, and you can’t, because you have no idea why your God would choose such a method to achieve such a goal. The obvious implication is not that God works in mysterious ways, but that your theory is wrong.

DAVID: I follow simple logic. God created evolution and history tells us how He did it, not the why of His choice of method. Total logic to me. It is ridiculous to claim my theism is wrong just because I don't question God's choice of method.

I am not questioning your theism but your theory of evolution! History does not tell us the why of your God's creation of evolution. It is you who insist that the only “why” is to create humans plus food. And if you insist that his method of achieving his one and only goal was to perform countless acts of creation that had no connection with his one and only goal, it is patently absurd to claim that your theory is totally logical.

DAVID: I've given you my explanation which you refuse to accept, since God did it in a round-about way over lots of time, in comparison to an efficient human approach who would have gotten it done straight away. Thus your humanized God appears to solve your problem.

dhw: It’s not MY problem. It’s yours if you think your God is less “efficient” than us humans!

DAVID: Not me! It is your human complaint about His time-taking method.

Time is not the point. The point is the special design of life forms that had no connection with his one and only goal, and this now leads you to the weird notion that humans are more efficient than your all-powerful God! Try that one out on all the religious people you think support your theory!

Hummingbird torpor and sea spiders

dhw: Why would God specially design an energy-saving mechanism just for hummingbirds when all he apparently ever wanted to do was design humans and their food? Would we really not be here, or would we starve, if it weren’t for the hummingbird’s torpor?

DAVID: Each organism fits an ecosystem providing food for all.

dhw: Yes indeed. But each ecosystem provides only for the organisms that are part of it. I do not believe [...] that every organism and every ecosystem that ever existed was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their ecosystems.

DAVID: Yes, no other way to explain God's actions. I accept them, not complain about His methods.

dhw: What do you “accept”? You are proposing a theory about your God’s actions, and it doesn’t make sense. And I am complaining about your theory, not about your God’s actions!

DAVID: My theory is not a theory in this fact: I fully accept the history of evolution as God's doings with us as the current endpoint. Adler does exactly the same to make his argument, which is the significance of the "Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes".

It is a fact that you fully believe and keep repeating your illogical theory that humans plus food were your God’s one and only goal, but that in order to achieve his one and only goal, he specially designed every life form that had no connection with his goal. According to you, it is also a fact that Adler uses humans as proof of God’s existence, and does not even touch upon the above theory. And it is a fact that when asked to explain the logic of your theory, you have no idea, and have told me to go and ask God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 08, 2022, 14:50 (141 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I follow simple logic. God created evolution and history tells us how He did it, not the why of His choice of method. Total logic to me. It is ridiculous to claim my theism is wrong just because I don't question God's choice of method.

dhw: I am not questioning your theism but your theory of evolution! History does not tell us the why of your God's creation of evolution. It is you who insist that the only “why” is to create humans plus food. And if you insist that his method of achieving his one and only goal was to perform countless acts of creation that had no connection with his one and only goal, it is patently absurd to claim that your theory is totally logical.

You completely ignore God creates history or doesn't He? We are left to interpret the facts. Adler and I believe we are the result against all natural odds. Adler uses the theory to obtain His proof of God. You are questioning one of the great philosophers of the 20th century.


Hummingbird torpor and sea spiders

dhw: What do you “accept”? You are proposing a theory about your God’s actions, and it doesn’t make sense. And I am complaining about your theory, not about your God’s actions!

DAVID: My theory is not a theory in this fact: I fully accept the history of evolution as God's doings with us as the current endpoint. Adler does exactly the same to make his argument, which is the significance of the "Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes".

dhw: It is a fact that you fully believe and keep repeating your illogical theory that humans plus food were your God’s one and only goal, but that in order to achieve his one and only goal, he specially designed every life form that had no connection with his goal. According to you, it is also a fact that Adler uses humans as proof of God’s existence, and does not even touch upon the above theory. And it is a fact that when asked to explain the logic of your theory, you have no idea, and have told me to go and ask God.

Same tired complaints. Adler described above does not fit your distorted view of him here. Adler based his argument on God especially evolving humans.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, February 09, 2022, 08:54 (141 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I follow simple logic. God created evolution and history tells us how He did it, not the why of His choice of method. Total logic to me. It is ridiculous to claim my theism is wrong just because I don't question God's choice of method.

dhw: I am not questioning your theism but your theory of evolution! History does not tell us the why of your God's creation of evolution. It is you who insist that the only “why” is to create humans plus food. And if you insist that his method of achieving his one and only goal was to perform countless acts of creation that had no connection with his one and only goal, it is patently absurd to claim that your theory is totally logical.

DAVID: You completely ignore God creates history or doesn't He? We are left to interpret the facts. Adler and I believe we are the result against all natural odds. Adler uses the theory to obtain His proof of God. You are questioning one of the great philosophers of the 20th century.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. For the thousandth time, this dispute is not over the existence of God, but over your illogical belief that although your God’s one and only intention was to design humans plus food, he deliberately and individually designed countless species and econiches that had no connection with humans plus food.
There is no point in your constantly calling on Adler’s “proof of God” to defend this theory, which you yourself admit you cannot explain. The nearest you have come is to point out that efficient humans, if they have just one purpose, will try to achieve it directly, which suggests that they are more efficient than your "roundabout" God!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 09, 2022, 15:27 (140 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I follow simple logic. God created evolution and history tells us how He did it, not the why of His choice of method. Total logic to me. It is ridiculous to claim my theism is wrong just because I don't question God's choice of method.

dhw: I am not questioning your theism but your theory of evolution! History does not tell us the why of your God's creation of evolution. It is you who insist that the only “why” is to create humans plus food. And if you insist that his method of achieving his one and only goal was to perform countless acts of creation that had no connection with his one and only goal, it is patently absurd to claim that your theory is totally logical.

DAVID: You completely ignore God creates history or doesn't He? We are left to interpret the facts. Adler and I believe we are the result against all natural odds. Adler uses the theory to obtain His proof of God. You are questioning one of the great philosophers of the 20th century.

dhw: There are none so blind as those who will not see. For the thousandth time, this dispute is not over the existence of God, but over your illogical belief that although your God’s one and only intention was to design humans plus food, he deliberately and individually designed countless species and econiches that had no connection with humans plus food.
There is no point in your constantly calling on Adler’s “proof of God” to defend this theory, which you yourself admit you cannot explain. The nearest you have come is to point out that efficient humans, if they have just one purpose, will try to achieve it directly, which suggests that they are more efficient than your "roundabout" God!

There is nothing roundabout a God who does nothing but what He wishes to do. That is your blindness.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, February 10, 2022, 13:10 (139 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: There are none so blind as those who will not see. For the thousandth time, this dispute is not over the existence of God, but over your illogical belief that bbbalthough your God’s one and only intention was to design humans plus food, he deliberately and individually designed countless species and econiches that had no connection with humans plus food.bbb
There is no point in your constantly calling on Adler’s “proof of God” to defend this theory, which you yourself admit you cannot explain. The nearest you have come is to point out that efficient humans, if they have just one purpose, will try to achieve it directly, which suggests that they are more efficient than your "roundabout" God!

DAVID: There is nothing roundabout a God who does nothing but what He wishes to do. That is your blindness.

I totally agree - apart from your idea of blindness! God would do what he wishes to do. And if he had only one purpose, then he would naturally focus on that one purpose, not devote himself to designing life forms which had no connection with that purpose. Hence YOUR description of his actions as “roundabout”, with the astonishing implication that we are more efficient than he is. You wrote:
I’ve given you my explanation which you refuse to accept, since God did it in a roundabout way over lots of time, in comparison to an efficient human approach who would have gotten it done straight away.”

You have said over and over again that you have no idea why, if your God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food, he would have designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Why can’t you leave it at that?

Another illogical part of your theory is the claim that speciation takes place IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions. You have, however, proceeded to give us plenty of examples that show the converse is true. Here’s another one:

Oxygen and the Cambrian: gills appeared

A new Chinese find, early gills from 520 million years ago:

QUOTES: “'When it came to arthropods, however, we just weren’t sure where these gills came from.”
“Thanks to this new fossil, Erratus sperare, we now have a much clearer idea,” he added.
“'These gills also probably went on to evolve into the wings of insects and the lungs of terrestrial arthropods like spiders so were a very important innovation.'”

DAVID: These animals had to utilize oxygen somehow. This is probably the beginning.

You’ve got it. Oxygen first, innovations in response. What’s more, new finds are being made all the time, and some of them fill in gaps . You expect to find one fossil per link in the chain. It’s almost a miracle that we can find any fossils at all from 520 million years ago!

Cambrian explosion: A new study of a late branch
DAVID: Helps explain the steps in its evolution:
and
DAVID: please note lots of fossil samples are lying around waiting for further study to place them in the right order.

Yes, even those we have can yield more information about the steps, i.e. fill in the gaps.

Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

DAVID: These complex animals could not exist without lots of oxygen prepared first.

dhw: For I don’t know how long, you have been touting the theory that your God designs species in advance of changing conditions. It would be gracious if you would now agree that speciation takes place IN RESPONSE to new conditions, and not in ANTICIPATION of them. I’m not sure what you’re referring to with the “cause”. You have agreed that the purpose of the changes which result in new species is to improve their chances of survival. But perhaps you simply mean the process by which the changes take place: Darwinists say random mutations, Shapiro says intelligent cells, and you say direct design by your God. Of the three, I favour Shapiro’s theory, bearing in mind that it allows for a possible God as the designer.

DAVID: Good summary.

dhw: So let’s hear no more of this theory of yours that speciation anticipates changing conditions, as opposed to responding to them.

DAVID: It stays my full theory.

As with your theory that your God pursues his only purpose by not pursuing his only purpose, and you don’t know why but you won’t budge, here you agree that conditions must change before these new species can appear, but you stick to your theory that species appear before conditions change.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 10, 2022, 15:35 (139 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You have said over and over again that you have no idea why, if your God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food, he would have designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Why can’t you leave it at that?

Your blindness to God's choice of His method is my issue. We both picture the other as wrong. I'll leave it at that if you will also.


dhw: Another illogical part of your theory is the claim that speciation takes place IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions. You have, however, proceeded to give us plenty of examples that show the converse is true. Here’s another one:

Oxygen and the Cambrian: gills appeared

A new Chinese find, early gills from 520 million years ago:

QUOTES: “'When it came to arthropods, however, we just weren’t sure where these gills came from.”
“Thanks to this new fossil, Erratus sperare, we now have a much clearer idea,” he added.
“'These gills also probably went on to evolve into the wings of insects and the lungs of terrestrial arthropods like spiders so were a very important innovation.'”

DAVID: These animals had to utilize oxygen somehow. This is probably the beginning.

dhw: You’ve got it. Oxygen first, innovations in response.

The free oxygen had to come first. So God provided photosynthesis as a first evolutionary step. God anticipates His needs.

dhw: What’s more, new finds are being made all the time, and some of them fill in gaps. You expect to find one fossil per link in the chain. It’s almost a miracle that we can find any fossils at all from 520 million years ago!

Findings now fill only minor skips in specific individual lines. See Bechly entry on fossil finding reaching endpoints. (Wednesday, January 01, 2020, 18:23 & 2020-07-08, 22:45


Cambrian explosion: A new study of a late branch
DAVID: Helps explain the steps in its evolution:
and
DAVID: please note lots of fossil samples are lying around waiting for further study to place them in the right order.

dhw: Yes, even those we have can yield more information about the steps, i.e. fill in the gaps.

Only tiny steps in a fossil line. You simply wish along with Darwin. Not happened.


Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

DAVID: These complex animals could not exist without lots of oxygen prepared first.

dhw: For I don’t know how long, you have been touting the theory that your God designs species in advance of changing conditions. It would be gracious if you would now agree that speciation takes place IN RESPONSE to new conditions, and not in ANTICIPATION of them. I’m not sure what you’re referring to with the “cause”. You have agreed that the purpose of the changes which result in new species is to improve their chances of survival. But perhaps you simply mean the process by which the changes take place: Darwinists say random mutations, Shapiro says intelligent cells, and you say direct design by your God. Of the three, I favour Shapiro’s theory, bearing in mind that it allows for a possible God as the designer.

DAVID: Good summary.

dhw: So let’s hear no more of this theory of yours that speciation anticipates changing conditions, as opposed to responding to them.

DAVID: It stays my full theory.

dhw: As with your theory that your God pursues his only purpose by not pursuing his only purpose, and you don’t know why but you won’t budge, here you agree that conditions must change before these new species can appear, but you stick to your theory that species appear before conditions change.

Your usual error. Not responding to new conditions, but preparing for new conditions or as in our brain handling new, never seen before uses.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, February 11, 2022, 13:14 (138 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have said over and over again that you have no idea why, if your God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food, he would have designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Why can’t you leave it at that?

DAVID: Your blindness to God's choice of His method is my issue. We both picture the other as wrong. I'll leave it at that if you will also.

It’s impossible to do so when in post after post you continue to refer directly or indirectly to your rigid belief that your God chose your “roundabout” method of achieving what you rigidly believe to have been his goal. Why am I “blind” if you can’t understand the illogical combination of purpose and method you impose on your God?

dhw: Another illogical part of your theory is the claim that speciation takes place IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions. You have, however, proceeded to give us plenty of examples that show the converse is true. Here’s another one:

Oxygen and the Cambrian: gills appeared

A new Chinese find, early gills from 520 million years ago:

DAVID: These animals had to utilize oxygen somehow. This is probably the beginning.

dhw: You’ve got it. Oxygen first, innovations in response.

DAVID: The free oxygen had to come first. So God provided photosynthesis as a first evolutionary step. God anticipates His needs.

You yourself are not sure to what extent your God manipulates the environmental changes – local and universal – but no matter what he “provides”, even in your theory, speciation only takes place AFTER conditions have changed. Or do you still believe that he changed legs to flippers BEFORE pre-whales entered the water?

dhw: What’s more, new finds are being made all the time, and some of them fill in gaps.

DAVID: Findings now fill only minor skips in specific individual lines. See Bechly entry on fossil finding reaching endpoints. (Wednesday, January 01, 2020, 18:23 & 2020-07-08, 22:45

What is the thread name, please? Or just give us a quote. Meanwhile, I can only repeat that it’s a miracle ANY fossils survive from hundreds of millions of years ago. And the more rapid the process of speciation (e.g. in times of major environmental changes), the fewer fossils there will be.

Cambrian explosion: A new study of a late branch

DAVID: Helps explain the steps in its evolution:
and
DAVID: please note lots of fossil samples are lying around waiting for further study to place them in the right order.

dhw: Yes, even those we have can yield more information about the steps.

DAVID: Only tiny steps in a fossil line. You simply wish along with Darwin. Not happened.

I don’t “wish”. I’m testing theories for their feasibility. Of course the absence of fossils is a problem for Darwin’s theory. The absence of your God is a problem for your own theory. If you can claim that design is evidence of your absent God, others can say that the known links between different species are evidence of absent life forms in the chain of common descent.

Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

DAVID: These complex animals could not exist without lots of oxygen prepared first.

[...]

dhw: So let’s hear no more of this theory of yours that speciation anticipates changing conditions, as opposed to responding to them.

DAVID: It stays my full theory.

dhw: As with your theory that your God pursues his only purpose by not pursuing his only purpose, and you don’t know why but you won’t budge, here you agree that conditions must change before these new species can appear, but you stick to your theory that species appear before conditions change.

DAVID: Your usual error. Not responding to new conditions, but preparing for new conditions or as in our brain handling new, never seen before uses.

What do you mean by “preparing” for new conditions? Once again, are you still saying that your God operated on prewhales to give them flippers to flap until it was time for them to enter the water? Or he gave a bunch of humans 200 cc worth of extra brain cells to lie around in their bigger skulls for a couple of hundred thousand years doing nothing?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, February 11, 2022, 15:22 (138 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your blindness to God's choice of His method is my issue. We both picture the other as wrong. I'll leave it at that if you will also.

dhw: It’s impossible to do so when in post after post you continue to refer directly or indirectly to your rigid belief that your God chose your “roundabout” method of achieving what you rigidly believe to have been his goal. Why am I “blind” if you can’t understand the illogical combination of purpose and method you impose on your God?

I'm sorry you are so illogical, while I will pursue my points. Your reasoning about God's actions is purely from a 'what a thinking human would logically do'. God is not required to be humanly logical.


dhw: Another illogical part of your theory is the claim that speciation takes place IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions. You have, however, proceeded to give us plenty of examples that show the converse is true.

Oxygen and the Cambrian: gills appeared

dhw: You’ve got it. Oxygen first, innovations in response.

DAVID: The free oxygen had to come first. So God provided photosynthesis as a first evolutionary step. God anticipates His needs.

dhw: You yourself are not sure to what extent your God manipulates the environmental changes – local and universal – but no matter what he “provides”, even in your theory, speciation only takes place AFTER conditions have changed. Or do you still believe that he changed legs to flippers BEFORE pre-whales entered the water?

I would reason flippers appeared while mammals were paddling around in water.


dhw: What’s more, new finds are being made all the time, and some of them fill in gaps.

DAVID: Findings now fill only minor skips in specific individual lines. See Bechly entry on fossil finding reaching endpoints. (Wednesday, January 01, 2020, 18:23 & 2020-07-08, 22:45

dhw: What is the thread name, please? Or just give us a quote. Meanwhile, I can only repeat that it’s a miracle ANY fossils survive from hundreds of millions of years ago. And the more rapid the process of speciation (e.g. in times of major environmental changes), the fewer fossils there will be.

Pure wishful thinking. Bechly points out the real facts you are ignoring to protect your pet rigid approaches: Early in exploration many fossils are found, filling gaps, but at a later point less and less are found to fill continuity until paleontologists recognize a gap exists. Think Gould's point.


Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

dhw: As with your theory that your God pursues his only purpose by not pursuing his only purpose, and you don’t know why but you won’t budge, here you agree that conditions must change before these new species can appear, but you stick to your theory that species appear before conditions change.

DAVID: Your usual error. Not responding to new conditions, but preparing for new conditions or as in our brain handling new, never seen before uses.

dhw:What do you mean by “preparing” for new conditions? Once again, are you still saying that your God operated on prewhales to give them flippers to flap until it was time for them to enter the water? Or he gave a bunch of humans 200 cc worth of extra brain cells to lie around in their bigger skulls for a couple of hundred thousand years doing nothing?

Those extra neurons ae doing a lot more now than 315,000 years ago.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, February 12, 2022, 07:47 (138 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your blindness to God's choice of His method is my issue. We both picture the other as wrong. I'll leave it at that if you will also.

dhw: It’s impossible to do so when in post after post [see today's "More Miscellany"] you continue to refer directly or indirectly to your rigid belief that your God chose your “roundabout” method of achieving what you rigidly believe to have been his goal. Why am I “blind” if you can’t understand the illogical combination of purpose and method you impose on your God?

DAVID: I'm sorry you are so illogical, while I will pursue my points. Your reasoning about God's actions is purely from a 'what a thinking human would logically do'. God is not required to be humanly logical.

And so your ultimate defence of your illogical theory is that you are firmly convinced that your God would act in a way which you as a human being would regard as illogical. This has even led you to the conclusion that we humans are more efficient than your God when it comes to the fulfilment of a single purpose. I wonder how many supporters you will find in the scientific and the religious communities.

dhw: Another illogical part of your theory is the claim that speciation takes place IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions. You have, however, proceeded to give us plenty of examples that show the converse is true.

Oxygen and the Cambrian: gills appeared

dhw: You’ve got it. Oxygen first, innovations in response.

DAVID: The free oxygen had to come first. So God provided photosynthesis as a first evolutionary step. God anticipates His needs.

dhw: You yourself are not sure to what extent your God manipulates the environmental changes – local and universal – but no matter what he “provides”, even in your theory, speciation only takes place AFTER conditions have changed. Or do you still believe that he changed legs to flippers BEFORE pre-whales entered the water?

DAVID: I would reason flippers appeared while mammals were paddling around in water.

At least your God didn’t leave them stranded on the shore waiting for the water to arrive. But to be frank, I would have thought the legs would have turned into flippers when pre-whales actually swam in the water. Paddling only requires legs, not flippers, and it is clear from all the examples you have given that bodies change IN RESPONSE to new conditions, not in anticipation of them.

dhw: What’s more, new finds are being made all the time, and some of them fill in gaps.

DAVID: Findings now fill only minor skips in specific individual lines. See Bechly entry on fossil finding reaching endpoints. (Wednesday, January 01, 2020, 18:23 & 2020-07-08, 22:45

dhw: What is the thread name, please? Or just give us a quote. Meanwhile, I can only repeat that it’s a miracle ANY fossils survive from hundreds of millions of years ago. And the more rapid the process of speciation (e.g. in times of major environmental changes), the fewer fossils there will be.

DAVID: Pure wishful thinking. Bechly points out the real facts you are ignoring to protect your pet rigid approaches: Early in exploration many fossils are found, filling gaps, but at a later point less and less are found to fill continuity until paleontologists recognize a gap exists. Think Gould's point.

I find this perfectly reasonable. The last thing I would expect is continuity from hundreds of millions of years ago. That really would be wishful thinking. But the explicable gaps in the fossil record can hardly be called evidence that your equally absent God popped in to perform countless operations on countless organisms, or equipped the first cells with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every species plus natural wonder etc. in the whole history of life. Absence of evidence proves nothing (see Bertrand Russell’s teapot orbiting the sun), and so we can only speculate on what seems reasonable or logical, given the facts we do have at our disposal. And I don’t think it’s unnatural for us humans to base beliefs on what seems logical to us (e.g. the design argument for your God's existence) rather than to assume that God – if he exists – must think illogically by our standards.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 12, 2022, 16:27 (137 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'm sorry you are so illogical, while I will pursue my points. Your reasoning about God's actions is purely from a 'what a thinking human would logically do'. God is not required to be humanly logical.

dhw: And so your ultimate defence of your illogical theory is that you are firmly convinced that your God would act in a way which you as a human being would regard as illogical. This has even led you to the conclusion that we humans are more efficient than your God when it comes to the fulfilment of a single purpose. I wonder how many supporters you will find in the scientific and the religious communities.

I am describing how you view God as a human. That doesn't mean I view Him that way. Your full misinterpretation of my point shows your hardened bias. I've bolded above to show you what you slid by. I am not you.

Oxygen and the Cambrian: gills appeared

DAVID: I would reason flippers appeared while mammals were paddling around in water.

dhw: At least your God didn’t leave them stranded on the shore waiting for the water to arrive. But to be frank, I would have thought the legs would have turned into flippers when pre-whales actually swam in the water. Paddling only requires legs, not flippers, and it is clear from all the examples you have given that bodies change IN RESPONSE to new conditions, not in anticipation of them.

The anatomic changes from paddling legs to flippers require enormous redesign. You skip over how bodies are changed.


dhw: What’s more, new finds are being made all the time, and some of them fill in gaps.

DAVID: Findings now fill only minor skips in specific individual lines. See Bechly entry on fossil finding reaching endpoints. (Wednesday, January 01, 2020, 18:23 & 2020-07-08, 22:45

dhw: What is the thread name, please? Or just give us a quote. Meanwhile, I can only repeat that it’s a miracle ANY fossils survive from hundreds of millions of years ago. And the more rapid the process of speciation (e.g. in times of major environmental changes), the fewer fossils there will be.

DAVID: Pure wishful thinking. Bechly points out the real facts you are ignoring to protect your pet rigid approaches: Early in exploration many fossils are found, filling gaps, but at a later point less and less are found to fill continuity until paleontologists recognize a gap exists. Think Gould's point.

dhw: I find this perfectly reasonable. The last thing I would expect is continuity from hundreds of millions of years ago. That really would be wishful thinking. But the explicable gaps in the fossil record can hardly be called evidence that your equally absent God popped in to perform countless operations on countless organisms, or equipped the first cells with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every species plus natural wonder etc. in the whole history of life. Absence of evidence proves nothing (see Bertrand Russell’s teapot orbiting the sun), and so we can only speculate on what seems reasonable or logical, given the facts we do have at our disposal. And I don’t think it’s unnatural for us humans to base beliefs on what seems logical to us (e.g. the design argument for your God's existence) rather than to assume that God – if he exists – must think illogically by our standards.

It's your God's standards that are eschew, not mine. See above.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, February 13, 2022, 12:10 (136 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your reasoning about God's actions is purely from a 'what a thinking human would logically do'. God is not required to be humanly logical.

dhw: And so your ultimate defence of your illogical theory is that you are firmly convinced that your God would act in a way which you as a human being would regard as illogical. […]

DAVID: I am describing how you view God as a human. That doesn't mean I view Him that way. Your full misinterpretation of my point shows your hardened bias. I've bolded above to show you what you slid by. I am not you.

I’m sorry, but since you can find no logical reason why your God would pursue his only goal in such a “roundabout” way (your word) but he is “not required to be humanly logical”, I assume you agree that your theory has him acting in a way you as a human being regard as illogical. Personally, I’d be more inclined to believe a theory that I as a human being find logical than one which goes against all my human reason.

dhw (re absence of fossils): Absence of evidence proves nothing (see Bertrand Russell’s teapot orbiting the sun), and so we can only speculate on what seems reasonable or logical, given the facts [..]. And I don’t think it’s unnatural for us humans to base beliefs on what seems logical to us (e.g. the design argument for your God's existence) rather than to assume that God – if he exists – must think illogically by our standards.

DAVID: It's your God's standards that are eschew, not mine.

It is you who do not require human logic when defending a theory that makes your God behave illogically by your standards and mine.

Oxygen and the Cambrian: gills appeared

DAVID: I would reason flippers appeared while mammals were paddling around in water.

dhw: [...] I would have thought the legs would have turned into flippers when pre-whales actually swam in the water. Paddling only requires legs, not flippers, and it is clear from all the examples you have given that bodies change IN RESPONSE to new conditions, not in anticipation of them.

DAVID: The anatomic changes from paddling legs to flippers require enormous redesign. You skip over how bodies are changed.

Nobody knows how bodies are changed. That’s why we have different theories: e.g. your God performing operations on groups of individuals in anticipation of changing conditions, or cell communities using their intelligence (perhaps designed by your God) to work out how best to respond to changing conditions. But I would suggest that bodies changing in response to new conditions is infinitely more likely than bodies changing in anticipation of new conditions.

Anticipation of use
A paywalled article offers support for this view in its abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01656-0

QUOTE: [..] However, persistent life-habit evolution throughout the early Palaeozoic, combined with iterative functional convergence within adaptive strategies, results in major expansion of ecospace and functional diversity. The interactions between tempo, divergence and convergence demonstrate not only that anatomical novelty precedes ecological success, but also that ecological innovation is constrained, even during a phylum’s origin. (David's bold)

DAVID: This clearly states that new organisms arise and then adapt to their environments. It clearly states morphology first, adaptive functions later. Assuming a designer at work, he is obviously assuming anticipation of future use.

You can’t have adaptation before you have a body to adapt! You agree that the Cambrian innovations appeared AFTER the increase in oxygen. Once life forms exist, they “expand their ecospace” and adapt to different environments. If your God exists, he will have designed the mechanisms enabling life forms to adapt to different environments or to exploit them through innovation. Back to our favourite example: The pre-whale – I suggest to you – was not given flippers before it entered the water, but legs changed into flippers and there were various other changes IN RESPONSE to the pre-whale’s new way of life in a different environment. The same process would apply to ALL species: first the changing conditions, then the new species (constrained by those conditions), and then expansion of “eco-space”, adaptations and functional diversity. Always in response, never in anticipation.

DAVID (under “More Miscellany”): Don't you believe evolution is stepwise?

Yes.

DAVID: Doesn't a new stage appear built on the past?

Yes.

DAVID: Humans are a result of all those past stages, aren't they?

dhw: No. Humans are the result of one line or branch of past stages, not “all”. Thousands of other branches led to thousands of other life forms, most of which never had any connection with humans or with our food. Hence the illogicality of your theory […]

DAVID: The connection is the huge requirement for a food supply. You admit it must exist and then try to diminish its importance. All the ecosystems layer one upon the next to support the need for consuming energy.

The fact that ALL life forms need food does not prove that humans are the result of ALL past stages of ALL life forms and econiches in the history of life, including ALL those that had no connection with humans!!!!!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 13, 2022, 15:20 (136 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your reasoning about God's actions is purely from a 'what a thinking human would logically do'. God is not required to be humanly logical.

dhw: And so your ultimate defence of your illogical theory is that you are firmly convinced that your God would act in a way which you as a human being would regard as illogical. […]

DAVID: I am describing how you view God as a human. That doesn't mean I view Him that way. Your full misinterpretation of my point shows your hardened bias. I've bolded above to show you what you slid by. I am not you.

dhw: Personally, I’d be more inclined to believe a theory that I as a human being find logical than one which goes against all my human reason.

Once again you wish God to be humanly logical. How is that logical? To quote Adler, God is a personage like no other person from "How to Think about God".


dhw And I don’t think it’s unnatural for us humans to base beliefs on what seems logical to us (e.g. the design argument for your God's existence) rather than to assume that God – if he exists – must think illogically by our standards.[/i]

DAVID: It's your God's standards that are eschew, not mine.

dhw: It is you who do not require human logic when defending a theory that makes your God behave illogically by your standards and mine.

Not mine!!


Anticipation of use
A paywalled article offers support for this view in its abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01656-0

QUOTE: [..] However, persistent life-habit evolution throughout the early Palaeozoic, combined with iterative functional convergence within adaptive strategies, results in major expansion of ecospace and functional diversity. The interactions between tempo, divergence and convergence demonstrate not only that anatomical novelty precedes ecological success, but also that ecological innovation is constrained, even during a phylum’s origin. (David's bold)

DAVID: This clearly states that new organisms arise and then adapt to their environments. It clearly states morphology first, adaptive functions later. Assuming a designer at work, he is obviously assuming anticipation of future use.

dhw: You can’t have adaptation before you have a body to adapt! You agree that the Cambrian innovations appeared AFTER the increase in oxygen. Once life forms exist, they “expand their ecospace” and adapt to different environments. If your God exists, he will have designed the mechanisms enabling life forms to adapt to different environments or to exploit them through innovation. Back to our favourite example: The pre-whale – I suggest to you – was not given flippers before it entered the water, but legs changed into flippers and there were various other changes IN RESPONSE to the pre-whale’s new way of life in a different environment. The same process would apply to ALL species: first the changing conditions, then the new species (constrained by those conditions), and then expansion of “eco-space”, adaptations and functional diversity. Always in response, never in anticipation.

The adaptations in the whole whale series requires intense design. How can a whale deep dive without having the phenotypic changes to do that from the whale's beginning? Flippers are minor engineering/design in comparison. The whole whale series defies your theories.


dhw: No. Humans are the result of one line or branch of past stages, not “all”. Thousands of other branches led to thousands of other life forms, most of which never had any connection with humans or with our food. Hence the illogicality of your theory […]

DAVID: The connection is the huge requirement for a food supply. You admit it must exist and then try to diminish its importance. All the ecosystems layer one upon the next to support the need for consuming energy.

dhw: The fact that ALL life forms need food does not prove that humans are the result of ALL past stages of ALL life forms and econiches in the history of life, including ALL those that had no connection with humans!!!!!

Humans need food not connections to all the bush. Humans evolved in their line didn't they?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, February 14, 2022, 08:53 (136 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your reasoning about God's actions is purely from a 'what a thinking human would logically do'. God is not required to be humanly logical.

dhw: And so your ultimate defence of your illogical theory is that you are firmly convinced that your God would act in a way which you as a human being would regard as illogical. […]

DAVID: I am describing how you view God as a human. That doesn't mean I view Him that way. Your full misinterpretation of my point shows your hardened bias. I've bolded above to show you what you slid by. I am not you.

dhw: Personally, I’d be more inclined to believe a theory that I as a human being find logical than one which goes against all my human reason.

DAVID: Once again you wish God to be humanly logical. How is that logical? To quote Adler, God is a personage like no other person from "How to Think about God".

Nobody could possibly imagine that a God who creates a universe and life is just like any “other person”! But calling him a “personage” (another word for person) is in perfect keeping with your own belief that “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logic”, and “All we can be sure of is logic on his part”, and the fact that you are “sure we mimic him in many ways”. I can only repeat that I’m more inclined to believe a theory that makes sense to me than one that requires the theorist himself to abandon the human logic which leads him to believe in God (design theory - one up for human logic) but also leads him to give up trying to understand his own theory (one down for human logic).

Anticipation of use
A paywalled article offers support for this view in its abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01656-0

QUOTE: [..] However, persistent life-habit evolution throughout the early Palaeozoic, combined with iterative functional convergence within adaptive strategies, results in major expansion of ecospace and functional diversity. The interactions between tempo, divergence and convergence demonstrate not only that anatomical novelty precedes ecological success, but also that ecological innovation is constrained, even during a phylum’s origin. (David's bold)

DAVID: This clearly states that new organisms arise and then adapt to their environments. It clearly states morphology first, adaptive functions later. Assuming a designer at work, he is obviously assuming anticipation of future use.

dhw: You can’t have adaptation before you have a body to adapt! You agree that the Cambrian innovations appeared AFTER the increase in oxygen. Once life forms exist, they “expand their ecospace” and adapt to different environments. If your God exists, he will have designed the mechanisms enabling life forms to adapt to different environments or to exploit them through innovation. Back to our favourite example: The pre-whale – I suggest to you – was not given flippers before it entered the water, but legs changed into flippers and there were various other changes IN RESPONSE to the pre-whale’s new way of life in a different environment. The same process would apply to ALL species: first the changing conditions, then the new species (constrained by those conditions), and then expansion of “eco-space”, adaptations and functional diversity. Always in response, never in anticipation.

DAVID: The adaptations in the whole whale series requires intense design. How can a whale deep dive without having the phenotypic changes to do that from the whale's beginning?

It can’t deep dive from the very beginning! Only when it begins to attempt deep diving will the cells adapt to the new requirements. Just as legs won’t turn into flippers until the pre-whale lives in the water. What is your theory? Did God pop in one night and operate on a few whales to engineer the “phenotypic changes”, and they woke up next morning realizing that now, yippee, they could go deep diving?

dhw: Humans are the result of one line or branch of past stages, not “all”. Thousands of other branches led to thousands of other life forms, most of which never had any connection with humans or with our food. Hence the illogicality of your theory […]

DAVID: The connection is the huge requirement for a food supply. You admit it must exist and then try to diminish its importance. All the ecosystems layer one upon the next to support the need for consuming energy.

dhw: The fact that ALL life forms need food does not prove that humans are the result of ALL past stages of ALL life forms and econiches in the history of life, including ALL those that had no connection with humans!!!!!

DAVID: Humans need food not connections to all the bush. Humans evolved in their line didn't they?

Yes, humans evolved in their own line. Thank you for echoing my response to the absurd notion that ALL lines and ALL food bushes were designed as “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food, although most of them had no connection with humans and their food!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, February 14, 2022, 16:26 (135 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Once again you wish God to be humanly logical. How is that logical? To quote Adler, God is a personage like no other person from "How to Think about God".

dhw: I can only repeat that I’m more inclined to believe a theory that makes sense to me than one that requires the theorist himself to abandon the human logic which leads him to believe in God (design theory - one up for human logic) but also leads him to give up trying to understand his own theory (one down for human logic).

I understand my theory perfectly. You simply refuse to accept it as rational, but that means you don't understand a person can rationally accept faith in God and what He does is correct.


Anticipation of use

DAVID: The adaptations in the whole whale series requires intense design. How can a whale deep dive without having the phenotypic changes to do that from the whale's beginning?

dhw: It can’t deep dive from the very beginning! Only when it begins to attempt deep diving will the cells adapt to the new requirements. Just as legs won’t turn into flippers until the pre-whale lives in the water. What is your theory? Did God pop in one night and operate on a few whales to engineer the “phenotypic changes”, and they woke up next morning realizing that now, yippee, they could go deep diving?

My usual response: God makes species by design. I've been swimming under water since childhood, no gills have appeared. Your faith in cell capacity for speciation is sheer phantasy, based on extreme extrapolation of the real fact, cells act as if intelligent


dhw: Humans are the result of one line or branch of past stages, not “all”. Thousands of other branches led to thousands of other life forms, most of which never had any connection with humans or with our food. Hence the illogicality of your theory […]

DAVID: The connection is the huge requirement for a food supply. You admit it must exist and then try to diminish its importance. All the ecosystems layer one upon the next to support the need for consuming energy.

dhw: The fact that ALL life forms need food does not prove that humans are the result of ALL past stages of ALL life forms and econiches in the history of life, including ALL those that had no connection with humans!!!!!

DAVID: Humans need food not connections to all the bush. Humans evolved in their line didn't they?

dhw: Yes, humans evolved in their own line. Thank you for echoing my response to the absurd notion that ALL lines and ALL food bushes were designed as “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food, although most of them had no connection with humans and their food!

All I accept is God ran evolution properly to fill all requirements, one of which is enough food for all.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, February 15, 2022, 08:09 (135 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Once again you wish God to be humanly logical. How is that logical? To quote Adler, God is a personage like no other person from "How to Think about God"

dhw: Nobody could possibly imagine that a God who creates a universe and life is just like any “other person”! But calling him a “personage” (another word for person) is in perfect keeping with your own belief that “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logic”, and “All we can be sure of is logic on his part”, and the fact that you are “sure we mimic him in many ways”. .

Unfortunately, you seem to have missed this reply to the above.

dhw: I can only repeat that I’m more inclined to believe a theory that makes sense to me than one that requires the theorist himself to abandon the human logic which leads him to believe in God (design theory - one up for human logic) but also leads him to give up trying to understand his own theory (one down for human logic).

DAVID: I understand my theory perfectly. You simply refuse to accept it as rational, but that means you don't understand a person can rationally accept faith in God and what He does is correct.

You have no idea why your God, whose one and only purpose apparently was to design humans plus their food, proceeded to design countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans and their food, you renounce human logic, tell me to ask God, and elsewhere tell us you “can simply accept it as necessary, and more research will tell us why”. You don’t know why, and yet you say you “understand your theory perfectly”!

Anticipation of use

DAVID: The adaptations in the whole whale series requires intense design. How can a whale deep dive without having the phenotypic changes to do that from the whale's beginning?

dhw: It can’t deep dive from the very beginning! Only when it begins to attempt deep diving will the cells adapt to the new requirements. Just as legs won’t turn into flippers until the pre-whale lives in the water. What is your theory? Did God pop in one night and operate on a few whales to engineer the “phenotypic changes”, and they woke up next morning realizing that now, yippee, they could go deep diving?

DAVID: My usual response: God makes species by design. I've been swimming under water since childhood, no gills have appeared. Your faith in cell capacity for speciation is sheer phantasy, based on extreme extrapolation of the real fact, cells act as if intelligent.

I have a strong suspicion that since childhood you may have occasionally come out from under the water. I’m afraid sneering at alternative theories (cellular intelligence is only one of them) does not make your own theory any the more credible. Is my above version of your theory correct? Or do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for deep diving phenotypic changes, along with the rest of the “whale series”, along with every other species and natural wonder for the rest of time? Please give a straight answer.

dhw: Humans are the result of one line or branch of past stages, not “all”. Thousands of other branches led to thousands of other life forms, most of which never had any connection with humans or with our food. Hence the illogicality of your theory […]

DAVID: The connection is the huge requirement for a food supply. You admit it must exist and then try to diminish its importance. All the ecosystems layer one upon the next to support the need for consuming energy.

dhw: The fact that ALL life forms need food does not prove that humans are the result of ALL past stages of ALL life forms and econiches in the history of life, including ALL those that had no connection with humans!!!!!

DAVID: Humans need food not connections to all the bush. Humans evolved in their line didn't they?

dhw: Yes, humans evolved in their own line. Thank you for echoing my response to the absurd notion that ALL lines and ALL food bushes were designed as “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food, although most of them had no connection with humans and their food!

DAVID: All I accept is God ran evolution properly to fill all requirements, one of which is enough food for all.

What you “accept” is your own theory, which is illogical by human standards, but which apparently you “understand perfectly”, although you have no idea why he would have done what you think he did in order to achieve what you think was his purpose, but more research will tell us why.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 15, 2022, 15:40 (134 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Once again you wish God to be humanly logical. How is that logical? To quote Adler, God is a personage like no other person from "How to Think about God"

dhw: Nobody could possibly imagine that a God who creates a universe and life is just like any “other person”! But calling him a “personage” (another word for person) is in perfect keeping with your own belief that “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logic”, and “All we can be sure of is logic on his part”, and the fact that you are “sure we mimic him in many ways”. .

dhw: Unfortunately, you seem to have missed this reply to the above.

Not to insult you, these oft repeated quotes you find are, as usual, out of context since they are guesses you asked for. God is logical in His own way. We can try to compare ourselves to God, but Adler's characterization applies..


dhw: I can only repeat that I’m more inclined to believe a theory that makes sense to me than one that requires the theorist himself to abandon the human logic which leads him to believe in God (design theory - one up for human logic) but also leads him to give up trying to understand his own theory (one down for human logic).

DAVID: I understand my theory perfectly. You simply refuse to accept it as rational, but that means you don't understand a person can rationally accept faith in God and what He does is correct.

You have no idea why your God, whose one and only purpose apparently was to design humans plus their food, proceeded to design countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans and their food, you renounce human logic, tell me to ask God, and elsewhere tell us you “can simply accept it as necessary, and more research will tell us why”. You don’t know why, and yet you say you “understand your theory perfectly”!

You miss the fact I accept God does what He wanted to do. Logical. He obviously wanted us.


Anticipation of use

DAVID: My usual response: God makes species by design. I've been swimming under water since childhood, no gills have appeared. Your faith in cell capacity for speciation is sheer phantasy, based on extreme extrapolation of the real fact, cells act as if intelligent.

dhw: I have a strong suspicion that since childhood you may have occasionally come out from under the water. I’m afraid sneering at alternative theories (cellular intelligence is only one of them) does not make your own theory any the more credible. Is my above version of your theory correct? Or do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for deep diving phenotypic changes...Please give a straight answer.

You know I believe God speciates. I had to come up for air, so how did the early aquatic pre-whales change? In your view, the animals kept trying until their brainless cells designed a system.


dhw: The fact that ALL life forms need food does not prove that humans are the result of ALL past stages of ALL life forms and econiches in the history of life, including ALL those that had no connection with humans!!!!!

DAVID: Humans need food not connections to all the bush. Humans evolved in their line didn't they?

dhw: Yes, humans evolved in their own line. Thank you for echoing my response to the absurd notion that ALL lines and ALL food bushes were designed as “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food, although most of them had no connection with humans and their food!

DAVID: All I accept is God ran evolution properly to fill all requirements, one of which is enough food for all.

dhw: What you “accept” is your own theory, which is illogical by human standards, but which apparently you “understand perfectly”, although you have no idea why he would have done what you think he did in order to achieve what you think was his purpose, but more research will tell us why.

My theory is illogical only by your individual standards. I'm with the group ID who are human also.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, February 16, 2022, 11:16 (134 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Once again you wish God to be humanly logical. How is that logical? To quote Adler, God is a personage like no other person from "How to Think about God"

dhw: Nobody could possibly imagine that a God who creates a universe and life is just like any “other person”! But calling him a “personage” (another word for person) is in perfect keeping with your own belief that “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logic”, and “All we can be sure of is logic on his part”, and the fact that you are “sure we mimic him in many ways”.

DAVID: Not to insult you, these oft repeated quotes you find are, as usual, out of context since they are guesses you asked for. God is logical in His own way. We can try to compare ourselves to God, but Adler's characterization applies.

Not to insult you, but there is no possible context in which you can change the meaning of those words! Nobody can force you to say that you think something is “probable” and you are “sure of something”!

dhw: You have no idea why your God, whose one and only purpose apparently was to design humans plus their food, proceeded to design countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans and their food, you renounce human logic, tell me to ask God, and elsewhere tell us you “can simply accept it as necessary, and more research will tell us why”. You don’t know why, and yet you say you “understand your theory perfectly”!

DAVID: You miss the fact I accept God does what He wanted to do. Logical. He obviously wanted us.

Anyone who believes in God is bound to believe that he does what he wants to do. If he wanted a free-for-all, he got a free-for-all. If he wanted to design us, then he designed us. But unfortunately, according to your theory, he also designed every other life form, food, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, which means he wanted them ALL, and that contradicts your theory that his one and only aim was to design us and our food. You can’t explain it, and that is why your only recourse now is to turn your back on logic.

DAVID (later in this post:) My theory is illogical only by your individual standards. I'm with the group ID who are human also.

Do ID-ers tell us that humans plus food were God’s one and only purpose, and so he individually designed lots of life forms that had no connection with humans plus food? If so, how do THEY explain the “logic”?

Anticipation of use

DAVID: My usual response: God makes species by design. I've been swimming under water since childhood, no gills have appeared. Your faith in cell capacity for speciation is sheer phantasy, based on extreme extrapolation of the real fact, cells act as if intelligent.

dhw: I have a strong suspicion that since childhood you may have occasionally come out from under the water. I’m afraid sneering at alternative theories (cellular intelligence is only one of them) does not make your own theory any the more credible. Is my above version of your theory correct? Or do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for deep diving phenotypic changes?...Please give a straight answer.

DAVID: You know I believe God speciates. I had to come up for air, so how did the early aquatic pre-whales change? In your view, the animals kept trying until their brainless cells designed a system.

Yes, I propose that the cell communities adapted to their new living conditions by making the necessary changes. And yes, you believe God speciates. I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”? Please answer.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 16, 2022, 15:14 (133 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Not to insult you, these oft repeated quotes you find are, as usual, out of context since they are guesses you asked for. God is logical in His own way. We can try to compare ourselves to God, but Adler's characterization applies.

dhw: Not to insult you, but there is no possible context in which you can change the meaning of those words! Nobody can force you to say that you think something is “probable” and you are “sure of something”!

My guesses about God have generally been after you request them.

DAVID: You miss the fact I accept God does what He wanted to do. Logical. He obviously wanted us.

dhw: Anyone who believes in God is bound to believe that he does what he wants to do. If he wanted a free-for-all, he got a free-for-all. If he wanted to design us, then he designed us. But unfortunately, according to your theory, he also designed every other life form, food, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, which means he wanted them ALL, and that contradicts your theory that his one and only aim was to design us and our food. You can’t explain it, and that is why your only recourse now is to turn your back on logic.

You have created the 'one and only aim' distortion which I view as totally illogical. Humans as a desired endpoint of God's designed evolution is a reasonable observation. After all humans finally appeared at what looks like an endpoint


DAVID (later in this post:) My theory is illogical only by your individual standards. I'm with the group ID who are human also.

dhw: Do ID-ers tell us that humans plus food were God’s one and only purpose, and so he individually designed lots of life forms that had no connection with humans plus food? If so, how do THEY explain the “logic”?

They insist everything in reality is designed by a mind.


Anticipation of use

DAVID: My usual response: God makes species by design. I've been swimming under water since childhood, no gills have appeared. Your faith in cell capacity for speciation is sheer phantasy, based on extreme extrapolation of the real fact, cells act as if intelligent.

dhw: I have a strong suspicion that since childhood you may have occasionally come out from under the water. I’m afraid sneering at alternative theories (cellular intelligence is only one of them) does not make your own theory any the more credible. Is my above version of your theory correct? Or do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for deep diving phenotypic changes?...Please give a straight answer.

DAVID: You know I believe God speciates. I had to come up for air, so how did the early aquatic pre-whales change? In your view, the animals kept trying until their brainless cells designed a system.

dhw: Yes, I propose that the cell communities adapted to their new living conditions by making the necessary changes. And yes, you believe God speciates. I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”? Please answer.

Your facetious question has no answer. I have proposed an early program and dabbling as probabilities but in reality, I have no idea. Design requires a designing mind.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, February 17, 2022, 11:32 (133 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Nobody could possibly imagine that a God who creates a universe and life is just like any “other person”! But calling him a “personage” (another word for person) is in perfect keeping with your own belief that “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logic”, and “All we can be sure of is logic on his part”, and the fact that you are “sure we mimic him in many ways”. [...]

DAVID: My guesses about God have generally been after you request them.

Even if I requested them, what would have stopped you from saying your God had no thought patterns, emotions or logic similar to ours, and you are sure that his logic is different from ours, and you are sure that we don’t mimic him in any ways at all? Is it not perfectly reasonable to believe that if God created us, he would not have created thought patterns, emotions and logic he knew nothing about?

DAVID: You miss the fact I accept God does what He wanted to do. Logical. He obviously wanted us.

dhw: Anyone who believes in God is bound to believe that he does what he wants to do. If he wanted a free-for-all, he got a free-for-all. If he wanted to design us, then he designed us. But unfortunately, according to your theory, he also designed every other life form, food, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, which means he wanted them ALL, and that contradicts your theory that his one and only aim was to design us and our food. You can’t explain it, and that is why your only recourse now is to turn your back on logic.

DAVID: You have created the 'one and only aim' distortion which I view as totally illogical. Humans as a desired endpoint of God's designed evolution is a reasonable observation. After all humans finally appeared at what looks like an endpoint.

This dispute has rumbled on for years precisely because you have insisted over and over again that we were his one and only purpose, and every life form etc. was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. You introduced “endpoint” a little while ago, though even here you say “a” instead of “the”. I am happy to accept the reasonableness of the theory that your God, if he exists, might have wanted to create a being who would admire his work and perhaps even form a relationship with him (two of your other proposals), though it’s difficult to see how that would be possible if we didn’t have thought patterns etc. similar to his. And since apparently humans were not his only purpose after all, I also find it reasonable to suppose, as you have done, that he would enjoy creation and be interested in what he creates, which would explain why he created the vast variety of life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. Indeed his purpose right from the start might have been to create an ever-changing world of life which he could watch with interest – the most interesting of all being human beings. Perhaps we are heading towards a theistic theory that makes sense?

DAVID (later in this post:) My theory is illogical only by your individual standards. I'm with the group ID who are human also.

dhw: Do ID-ers tell us that humans plus food were God’s one and only purpose, and so he individually designed lots of life forms that had no connection with humans plus food? If so, how do THEY explain the “logic”?

DAVID: They insist everything in reality is designed by a mind.

That does not answer my question. But now that you have withdrawn your theory that humans were his one and only purpose, we can move on to other theories anyway.

Anticipation of use

DAVID: You know I believe God speciates.

dhw: […] I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”? Please answer.

DAVID: Your facetious question has no answer. I have proposed an early program and dabbling as probabilities but in reality, I have no idea. Design requires a designing mind.

It’s not facetious! Those are the only two “possibilities” you have offered: preprogramming or dabbling. The very fact that you regard the above as “facetious” shows just how unlikely your two methods appear even to you! Good. If those two theories are too absurd for you to regard as anything but facetious, maybe you should consider other possibilities. Are you now ready to do so?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 17, 2022, 15:33 (132 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My guesses about God have generally been after you request them.

dhw: Is it not perfectly reasonable to believe that if God created us, he would not have created thought patterns, emotions and logic he knew nothing about?

God knew we would have emotions, thoughts and logic, but we cannot be sure how similar they are to His.

DAVID: You have created the 'one and only aim' distortion which I view as totally illogical. Humans as a desired endpoint of God's designed evolution is a reasonable observation. After all humans finally appeared at what looks like an endpoint.

dhw: I am happy to accept the reasonableness of the theory that your God, if he exists, might have wanted to create a being who would admire his work and perhaps even form a relationship with him (two of your other proposals), though it’s difficult to see how that would be possible if we didn’t have thought patterns etc. similar to his. And since apparently humans were not his only purpose after all, I also find it reasonable to suppose, as you have done, that he would enjoy creation and be interested in what he creates, which would explain why he created the vast variety of life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. Indeed his purpose right from the start might have been to create an ever-changing world of life which he could watch with interest – the most interesting of all being human beings. Perhaps we are heading towards a theistic theory that makes sense?

Now you make sense. You have repeated my guesses about God and His purposes with humans as an endpoint.


DAVID (later in this post:) My theory is illogical only by your individual standards. I'm with the group ID who are human also.

dhw: Do ID-ers tell us that humans plus food were God’s one and only purpose, and so he individually designed lots of life forms that had no connection with humans plus food? If so, how do THEY explain the “logic”?

DAVID: They insist everything in reality is designed by a mind.

That does not answer my question. But now that you have withdrawn your theory that humans were his one and only purpose, we can move on to other theories anyway.

Anticipation of use

DAVID: You know I believe God speciates.

dhw: […] I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”? Please answer.

DAVID: Your facetious question has no answer. I have proposed an early program and dabbling as probabilities but in reality, I have no idea. Design requires a designing mind.

dhw: It’s not facetious! Those are the only two “possibilities” you have offered: preprogramming or dabbling. The very fact that you regard the above as “facetious” shows just how unlikely your two methods appear even to you! Good. If those two theories are too absurd for you to regard as anything but facetious, maybe you should consider other possibilities. Are you now ready to do so?

If you accept as I do that God engineered evolution, note I've entered articles about early preparation of the genome, one such this week. Thus pre-programming and dabbling are probable valid ways God acted.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, February 18, 2022, 11:33 (132 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Is it not perfectly reasonable to believe that if God created us, he would not have created thought patterns, emotions and logic he knew nothing about?

DAVID: God knew we would have emotions, thoughts and logic, but we cannot be sure how similar they are to His.

We cannot even be sure that he exists, but these discussions centre on his possible nature, purposes and methods if he does exist. I find it hard to conceive of a God who creates a being with emotions, thoughts and logic he himself never experienced. In particular, I’m interested in your own belief that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. And now that at last we have rid ourselves of your theory that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, we can consider other possible purposes.

dhw: Indeed his purpose right from the start might have been to create an ever-changing world of life which he could watch with interest – the most interesting of all being human beings. Perhaps we are heading towards a theistic theory that makes sense?

DAVID: Now you make sense. You have repeated my guesses about God and His purposes with humans as an endpoint.

This is good news. At a stroke, we have settled a dispute that has gone on for years. Truly a red-letter day in the history of the Agnostic Web. Still assuming the existence of your God, we can now move on to discussing how he might have handled evolution.

Anticipation of use

DAVID: You know I believe God speciates.

dhw: […] I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”? Please answer.

DAVID: Your facetious question has no answer. I have proposed an early program and dabbling as probabilities but in reality, I have no idea. Design requires a designing mind.

dhw: It’s not facetious! Those are the only two “possibilities” you have offered: preprogramming or dabbling. The very fact that you regard the above as “facetious” shows just how unlikely your two methods appear even to you! Good. If those two theories are too absurd for you to regard as anything but facetious, maybe you should consider other possibilities. Are you now ready to do so?

DAVID: If you accept as I do that God engineered evolution, note I've entered articles about early preparation of the genome, one such this week. Thus pre-programming and dabbling are probable valid ways God acted.

As above, I’m accepting God’s existence for the sake of our discussions on the possible nature, purposes, methods etc. of a possible God. I would certainly accept that he would have “engineered” evolution in the sense that he created the mechanisms which enabled evolution to take place. The question we are discussing here is HOW evolution took place. If by “preparation” of the genome you mean that he provided the first cells with the mechanisms required for all the developments we know have taken place throughout life’s history, I would regard that as an extremely reasonable theory. However, you insist that he individually designed every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. Hence the above questions concerning the 3.8-billion-year-old programme or the constant flow of individual operations on individual organisms – theories which are so far-fetched that you regard my questions as “facetious”! This suggests that these two theories don’t make sense even to you. (Further discussion on other threads.)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, February 18, 2022, 16:28 (131 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God knew we would have emotions, thoughts and logic, but we cannot be sure how similar they are to His.

dhw: We cannot even be sure that he exists, but these discussions centre on his possible nature, purposes and methods if he does exist. I find it hard to conceive of a God who creates a being with emotions, thoughts and logic he himself never experienced. In particular, I’m interested in your own belief that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. And now that at last we have rid ourselves of your theory that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, we can consider other possible purposes.

God is not like us. You agree, so any speculations about His personality and how He may or may not experience emotions is just that. Of course He knows our emotions. Of course He is logical. He could not be otherwise.


dhw: Indeed his purpose right from the start might have been to create an ever-changing world of life which he could watch with interest – the most interesting of all being human beings. Perhaps we are heading towards a theistic theory that makes sense?

DAVID: Now you make sense. You have repeated my guesses about God and His purposes with humans as an endpoint.

dhw: This is good news. At a stroke, we have settled a dispute that has gone on for years. Truly a red-letter day in the history of the Agnostic Web. Still assuming the existence of your God, we can now move on to discussing how he might have handled evolution.

We have had many discussion about evolution. God designs as He wishes to advance hi purposes.


Anticipation of use

DAVID: You know I believe God speciates.


DAVID: If you accept as I do that God engineered evolution, note I've entered articles about early preparation of the genome, one such this week. Thus pre-programming and dabbling are probable valid ways God acted.

dhw: As above, I’m accepting God’s existence for the sake of our discussions on the possible nature, purposes, methods etc. of a possible God. I would certainly accept that he would have “engineered” evolution in the sense that he created the mechanisms which enabled evolution to take place. The question we are discussing here is HOW evolution took place. If by “preparation” of the genome you mean that he provided the first cells with the mechanisms required for all the developments we know have taken place throughout life’s history, I would regard that as an extremely reasonable theory. However, you insist that he individually designed every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. Hence the above questions concerning the 3.8-billion-year-old programme or the constant flow of individual operations on individual organisms – theories which are so far-fetched that you regard my questions as “facetious”! This suggests that these two theories don’t make sense even to you.

I would not invent nonsense theories after concluding initially God speciates. Pre-programming and dabbling are reasonable thoughts.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, February 19, 2022, 07:13 (131 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God knew we would have emotions, thoughts and logic, but we cannot be sure how similar they are to His.

dhw: We cannot even be sure that he exists, but these discussions centre on his possible nature, purposes and methods if he does exist. I find it hard to conceive of a God who creates a being with emotions, thoughts and logic he himself never experienced. In particular, I’m interested in your own belief that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. And now that at last we have rid ourselves of your theory that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, we can consider other possible purposes.

DAVID: God is not like us. You agree, so any speculations about His personality and how He may or may not experience emotions is just that. Of course He knows our emotions. Of course He is logical. He could not be otherwise.

Even God’s existence is a speculation, let alone his nature and purposes. But since he is logical, and since you are sure he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, I have offered the following:
dhw: Indeed his purpose right from the start might have been to create an ever-changing world of life which he could watch with interest – the most interesting of all being human beings. Perhaps we are heading towards a theistic theory that makes sense?

DAVID: Now you make sense. You have repeated my guesses about God and His purposes with humans as an endpoint.

dhw: This is good news. At a stroke, we have settled a dispute that has gone on for years. Truly a red-letter day in the history of the Agnostic Web. Still assuming the existence of your God, we can now move on to discussing how he might have handled evolution.

DAVID: We have had many discussion about evolution. God designs as He wishes to advance his purposes.

Agreed. And now that we have plural purposes instead of just one, and it makes sense to you that he might have created life because he enjoyed creating something he could be interested in, and it also makes sense to you that your God is logical and may have thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, we can examine different theistic theories to explain the course of evolution. I will come back another time to my own alternatives (already well known to you), but first I’d like to go back to your two theories of preprogramming and dabbling. I’m not dismissing them, but, taking one of our favourite examples...
dhw: I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”?

Please explain why you consider this question to be “facetious”.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 19, 2022, 15:53 (130 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God is not like us. You agree, so any speculations about His personality and how He may or may not experience emotions is just that. Of course He knows our emotions. Of course He is logical. He could not be otherwise.

Even God’s existence is a speculation, let alone his nature and purposes. But since he is logical, and since you are sure he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, I have offered the following:
dhw: Indeed his purpose right from the start might have been to create an ever-changing world of life which he could watch with interest – the most interesting of all being human beings. Perhaps we are heading towards a theistic theory that makes sense?

DAVID: Now you make sense. You have repeated my guesses about God and His purposes with humans as an endpoint.

dhw: This is good news. At a stroke, we have settled a dispute that has gone on for years. Truly a red-letter day in the history of the Agnostic Web. Still assuming the existence of your God, we can now move on to discussing how he might have handled evolution.

DAVID: We have had many discussion about evolution. God designs as He wishes to advance His purposes.

dhw: Agreed. And now that we have plural purposes instead of just one, and it makes sense to you that he might have created life because he enjoyed creating something he could be interested in, and it also makes sense to you that your God is logical and may have thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, we can examine different theistic theories to explain the course of evolution. I will come back another time to my own alternatives (already well known to you), but first I’d like to go back to your two theories of preprogramming and dabbling. I’m not dismissing them, but, taking one of our favourite examples...
dhw: I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”?

dhw: Please explain why you consider this question to be “facetious”.

Absolutely facetious. I've repeated told you I can see early pre-programming and later making changes (dabbling) as necessary probabilities. How God speciates through His programming of the genome is not known! The point remains simple: God as the designer programs however He does it!

Note the bolded sections in your description of our 'agreement'. God does not create to produce enjoyment for Himself as a primary purpose. It is a secondary effect.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, February 20, 2022, 07:59 (130 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God designs as He wishes to advance His purposes.

dhw: Agreed. And now that we have plural purposes instead of just one, and it makes sense to you that he might have created life because he enjoyed creating something he could be interested in, and it also makes sense to you that your God is logical and may have thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, we can examine different theistic theories to explain the course of evolution.

DAVID: Note the bolded sections in your description of our 'agreement'. God does not create to produce enjoyment for Himself as a primary purpose. It is a secondary effect.

At least we are now making a little bit of headway – a purpose is a purpose - but I wish you wouldn’t make such authoritative statements on your God’s behalf. You have no more direct access to him (if he exists) than I have. Now please tell us what you think is his primary purpose for creating the whole bush of life, including humans.

dhw: […] I’d like to go back to your two theories of preprogramming and dabbling. I’m not dismissing them, but, taking one of our favourite examples...
dhw: I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”? Please explain why you consider this question to be “facetious”.

DAVID: Absolutely facetious. I've repeated told you I can see early How God speciates through His programming of the genome is not known! The point remains simple: God as the designer programs however He does it!pre-programming and later making changes (dabbling) as necessary probabilities.

The necessary “phenotypic changes” were made. You see early programming for whales’ deep-sea diving as one possibility, and individual dabbling as the other, but you dismiss as “facetious” the theories of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for deep sea diving or of your God performing some kind of operation on a group of whales. (Newly inserted ad hoc programmes would of course also be a form of dabbling operation requiring interference with the existing genome.) How else can you programme without programming, or dabble without dabbling?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 20, 2022, 15:47 (129 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God designs as He wishes to advance His purposes.

dhw: Agreed. And now that we have plural purposes instead of just one, and it makes sense to you that he might have created life because he enjoyed creating something he could be interested in, and it also makes sense to you that your God is logical and may have thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, we can examine different theistic theories to explain the course of evolution.

DAVID: Note the bolded sections in your description of our 'agreement'. God does not create to produce enjoyment for Himself as a primary purpose. It is a secondary effect.

dhw: At least we are now making a little bit of headway – a purpose is a purpose - but I wish you wouldn’t make such authoritative statements on your God’s behalf. You have no more direct access to him (if he exists) than I have. Now please tell us what you think is his primary purpose for creating the whole bush of life, including humans.

God didn't tell me. My point above is God selflessly creates, with no regard to affecting His emotions as He goes about His business of fulfilling His planned events. You agree neither of us has direct access. Respect that fact as we hypothesize.


dhw: […] I’d like to go back to your two theories of preprogramming and dabbling. I’m not dismissing them, but, taking one of our favourite examples...
dhw: I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”? Please explain why you consider this question to be “facetious”.

DAVID: Absolutely facetious. I've repeated told you I can see early How God speciates through His programming of the genome is not known! The point remains simple: God as the designer programs however He does it pre-programming and later making changes (dabbling) as necessary probabilities.

dhw: The necessary “phenotypic changes” were made. You see early programming for whales’ deep-sea diving as one possibility, and individual dabbling as the other, but you dismiss as “facetious” the theories of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for deep sea diving or of your God performing some kind of operation on a group of whales. (Newly inserted ad hoc programmes would of course also be a form of dabbling operation requiring interference with the existing genome.) How else can you programme without programming, or dabble without dabbling?

Exactly! See today's article on seemingly directed mutation in the 'Nature Journal' study. I still see a designer at work.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, February 21, 2022, 11:23 (129 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God designs as He wishes to advance His purposes.

dhw: Agreed. And now that we have plural purposes instead of just one, and it makes sense to you that he might have created life because he enjoyed creating something he could be interested in, and it also makes sense to you that your God is logical and may have thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, we can examine different theistic theories to explain the course of evolution.

DAVID: Note the bolded sections in your description of our 'agreement'. God does not create to produce enjoyment for Himself as a primary purpose. It is a secondary effect.

dhw: At least we are now making a little bit of headway – a purpose is a purpose - but I wish you wouldn’t make such authoritative statements on your God’s behalf. You have no more direct access to him (if he exists) than I have. Now please tell us what you think is his primary purpose for creating the whole bush of life, including humans.

DAVID: God didn't tell me. My point above is God selflessly creates, with no regard to affecting His emotions as He goes about His business of fulfilling His planned events. You agree neither of us has direct access. Respect that fact as we hypothesize.

Your God hasn’t told anyone anything, so how do you know that he creates selflessly, and his enjoyment and interest are only secondary, though you can’t even guess at a primary purpose? If he exists, you are sure that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. So until you can come up with a “primary” purpose, we can settle for that as a possible purpose for all his actions.

dhw: […] I’d like to go back to your two theories of preprogramming and dabbling. I’m not dismissing them, but, taking one of our favourite examples...

dhw: I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”? Please explain why you consider this question to be “facetious”.

DAVID: Absolutely facetious. I've repeated told you I can see early How God speciates through His programming of the genome is not known! The point remains simple: God as the designer programs however He does it pre-programming and later making changes (dabbling) as necessary probabilities.

dhw: The necessary “phenotypic changes” were made. You see early programming for whales’ deep-sea diving as one possibility, and individual dabbling as the other, but you dismiss as “facetious” the theories of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for deep sea diving or of your God performing some kind of operation on a group of whales. (Newly inserted ad hoc programmes would of course also be a form of dabbling operation requiring interference with the existing genome.) How else can you programme without programming, or dabble without dabbling?

DAVID:Exactly! See today's article on seemingly directed mutation in the 'Nature Journal' study. I still see a designer at work.

So the answer to my question whether you believe in a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for deep-sea diving, or individual operations of some kind on a group of whales, is no longer that the question is facetious, but yes, that is what you believe in, far-fetched though it may seem. Today’s article on random mutations merely reiterates the point that you and I agreed on 14 years ago when this website first opened – namely, that we do not accept random mutations as a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species. An alternative which you simply refuse to consider is that if your God exists, he might have endowed cells with the ability to do their own designing. Sorry if that slipped your memory.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, February 21, 2022, 14:34 (128 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: At least we are now making a little bit of headway – a purpose is a purpose - but I wish you wouldn’t make such authoritative statements on your God’s behalf. You have no more direct access to him (if he exists) than I have. Now please tell us what you think is his primary purpose for creating the whole bush of life, including humans.

DAVID: God didn't tell me. My point above is God selflessly creates, with no regard to affecting His emotions as He goes about His business of fulfilling His planned events. You agree neither of us has direct access. Respect that fact as we hypothesize.

dhw: Your God hasn’t told anyone anything, so how do you know that he creates selflessly, and his enjoyment and interest are only secondary, though you can’t even guess at a primary purpose? If he exists, you are sure that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. So until you can come up with a “primary” purpose, we can settle for that as a possible purpose for all his actions.

Your comment raises the obvious point that if you don't accept selflessly, why do you then accept enjoys and interested? We view God totally differently. As for primary purpose, He created this reality and evolved life to an endpoint of humans. I think that shows purpose enough.


DAVID: See today's article on seemingly directed mutation in the 'Nature Journal' study. I still see a designer at work.

dhw: So the answer to my question whether you believe in a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for deep-sea diving, or individual operations of some kind on a group of whales, is no longer that the question is facetious, but yes, that is what you believe in, far-fetched though it may seem. Today’s article on random mutations merely reiterates the point that you and I agreed on 14 years ago when this website first opened – namely, that we do not accept random mutations as a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species. An alternative which you simply refuse to consider is that if your God exists, he might have endowed cells with the ability to do their own designing. Sorry if that slipped your memory.

I never forget that you accept a weird theory that true designers hand off their work to secondhand sources. How many substitutes wrote your novels or plays?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, February 22, 2022, 08:45 (128 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Your God hasn’t told anyone anything, so how do you know that he creates selflessly, and his enjoyment and interest are only secondary, though you can’t even guess at a primary purpose? If he exists, you are sure that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. So until you can come up with a “primary” purpose, we can settle for that as a possible purpose for all his actions.

DAVID: Your comment raises the obvious point that if you don't accept selflessly, why do you then accept enjoys and interested? We view God totally differently.

I have simply followed up your own certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. I have no idea how one can enjoy and be interested “selflessly”, and three days ago, when I proposed that this might have been his purpose (with humans as the most interesting of his creations), you wrote “now you make sense”, but the following day you reduced his enjoyment and interest to a “secondary effect” and not a primary purpose, although you didn’t know what the primary purpose might be. Today, once again you have changed your tune:

DAVID: As for primary purpose, He created this reality and evolved life to an endpoint of humans. I think that shows purpose enough.

An endpoint does not have to be a purpose, let alone a purpose from the very beginning, and the fact that ours is the last species so far does not explain why he specially designed all the life forms, natural wonders etc. that preceded us and had no connection with us. You seem to be backtracking to the bad old days when you maintained that humans and their food were his one and only purpose and all other life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food, though you accused me of distorting your theory. (See also “More miscellany”, where you say it was all “in preparation for humans”.) Crunch question: Do you or do you not accept that if he specially designed all other life forms, natural wonders etc., then humans and their food could not have been his one and only purpose in creating life?

DAVID: See today's article on seemingly directed mutation in the 'Nature Journal' study. I still see a designer at work.

dhw: So the answer to my question whether you believe in a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for deep-sea diving, or individual operations of some kind on a group of whales, is no longer that the question is facetious, but yes, that is what you believe in, far-fetched though it may seem. Today’s article on random mutations merely reiterates the point that you and I agreed on 14 years ago when this website first opened – namely, that we do not accept random mutations as a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species. An alternative which you simply refuse to consider is that if your God exists, he might have endowed cells with the ability to do their own designing. Sorry if that slipped your memory.

DAVID: I never forget that you accept a weird theory that true designers hand off their work to secondhand sources. How many substitutes wrote your novels or plays?

I propose it as one of several possibilities. Your analogy is way off target, and still provides no defence of a theory which is so far-fetched that when I asked if that was what you believed, you dismissed my question as facetious. I don’t know whether you or anyone else will be interested in a writer’s creative process, but in brief: some writers do plan their works in advance, but others, like me, begin with an idea, and do not know how it will develop. I am frequently astonished at developments that take place as the characters take over the story, and although of course I can dabble, that is usually an unwise thing to do. So far, do you see the possible parallels with your God’s possible creative process? I can also make revisions retrospectively, which God can’t do, but – and this has happened to me a few times – I can also bin the work (the equivalent, I suppose of your God deciding to stage an extinction). For me, this sometimes (rarely) happens if I can actually see what’s coming, and then I lose interest. It’s the constant thrill of discovery that keeps me writing. I am the God in your analogy, and the characters are the cells. I write because I love writing (if things go well), and I am fascinated by the surprising developments I have set in motion. Of course I hope that my work will please others, but in the first instance, I write to please myself.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 22, 2022, 16:00 (127 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your comment raises the obvious point that if you don't accept selflessly, why do you then accept enjoys and interested? We view God totally differently.

dhw: I have simply followed up your own certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. I have no idea how one can enjoy and be interested “selflessly”, and three days ago, when I proposed that this might have been his purpose (with humans as the most interesting of his creations), you wrote “now you make sense”,

My problem with some of your statements is they are couched in slightly different meanings to distort a point I've made. So I step back to correct it.

dhw: but the following day you reduced his enjoyment and interest to a “secondary effect” and not a primary purpose, although you didn’t know what the primary purpose might be. Today, once again you have changed your tune:

DAVID: As for primary purpose, He created this reality and evolved life to an endpoint of humans. I think that shows purpose enough.

dhw: An endpoint does not have to be a purpose, let alone a purpose from the very beginning, and the fact that ours is the last species so far does not explain why he specially designed all the life forms, natural wonders etc. that preceded us and had no connection with us. You seem to be backtracking to the bad old days when you maintained that humans and their food were his one and only purpose and all other life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food, though you accused me of distorting your theory. (See also “More miscellany”, where you say it was all “in preparation for humans”.) Crunch question: Do you or do you not accept that if he specially designed all other life forms, natural wonders etc., then humans and their food could not have been his one and only purpose in creating life?

Crunch question again a twisted distortion. A start: endpoint can be a purpose, obviously as a real interpretation. And God's simple choice of a mechanism resembling what we call evolution to create humans is shown by accepting history as God's doing. Try it on. I continue to view humans as a desired endpoint, the argument Adler used. Other life forms were necessary secondary creations, as steps to humans and food supply for all, since life requires continuous energy supply .


DAVID: I never forget that you accept a weird theory that true designers hand off their work to secondhand sources. How many substitutes wrote your novels or plays?

dhw: I propose it as one of several possibilities. Your analogy is way off target, and still provides no defence of a theory which is so far-fetched that when I asked if that was what you believed, you dismissed my question as facetious. I don’t know whether you or anyone else will be interested in a writer’s creative process, but in brief: some writers do plan their works in advance, but others, like me, begin with an idea, and do not know how it will develop. I am frequently astonished at developments that take place as the characters take over the story, and although of course I can dabble, that is usually an unwise thing to do. So far, do you see the possible parallels with your God’s possible creative process? I can also make revisions retrospectively, which God can’t do, but – and this has happened to me a few times – I can also bin the work (the equivalent, I suppose of your God deciding to stage an extinction). For me, this sometimes (rarely) happens if I can actually see what’s coming, and then I lose interest. It’s the constant thrill of discovery that keeps me writing. I am the God in your analogy, and the characters are the cells. I write because I love writing (if things go well), and I am fascinated by the surprising developments I have set in motion. Of course I hope that my work will please others, but in the first instance, I write to please myself.

The short answer is dhw is a sole designer, nothing secondhand. My point is proven .

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, February 23, 2022, 11:46 (126 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your comment raises the obvious point that if you don't accept selflessly, why do you then accept enjoys and interested? We view God totally differently.

dhw: I have simply followed up your own certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. I have no idea how one can enjoy and be interested “selflessly”, and three days ago, when I proposed that this might have been his purpose (with humans as the most interesting of his creations), you wrote “now you make sense”.

DAVID: My problem with some of your statements is they are couched in slightly different meanings to distort a point I've made. So I step back to correct it.

There is nothing to correct in statements to the effect that you are sure your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations; you have not explained how enjoyment and interest can be “selfless”; you agree that humans would be the most interesting to watch; and the only “correction” you made was when you decided that your God's enjoyment and interest were a “secondary effect” and not a “primary purpose”. You didn’t know what the primary purpose was, but later decided that “evolving life to an endpoint of humans” was “purpose enough”, which takes us straight back to square one and the illogicality of your theory of evolution, in which your God individually designs countless life forms etc. that have no connection with humans in order to design humans.

dhw: Crunch question: Do you or do you not accept that if he specially designed all other life forms, natural wonders etc., then humans and their food could not have been his one and only purpose in creating life?

NB You now proceed to avoid answering a perfectly straightforward question!

DAVID: Crunch question again a twisted distortion. A start: endpoint can be a purpose, obviously as a real interpretation.

What do you mean by a “real interpretation”? What is unreal about the statement that we are currently the last known species? Why do you regard the illogical interpretation bolded above as being “real”?

DAVID: And God's simple choice of a mechanism resembling what we call evolution to create humans is shown by accepting history as God's doing.

The mechanisms of evolution have produced a vast variety of life forms which include humans and their food plus countless life forms that had no connection with humans and their food. That is the history, whether there is or isn’t a God, and whether God did or didn’t design every life form.

DAVID: I continue to view humans as a desired endpoint, the argument Adler used. Other life forms were necessary secondary creations, as steps to humans and food supply for all, since life requires continuous energy supply.

How can you possibly argue that every single extinct life form was a “step to humans”. “Food supply for all” simply means that all life forms have to eat – it does not mean that every life form was “part of the evolution of humans” and their food. A few days ago you claimed that “one and only purpose” was a distortion of your views, but now you are back to equating “current endpoint” with purpose, and all other life forms as “steps to humans”!

Should I now take it, then, that you find it logical that your God specially designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans in order to fulfil his one and only purpose, which was to design humans and their food?


DAVID: I never forget that you accept a weird theory that true designers hand off their work to secondhand sources. How many substitutes wrote your novels or plays?

I explained my creative process, which entails starting with an idea, not knowing where this will lead, but embarking on a voyage of discovery as the characters and story develop of their own accord – in exactly the same way as your God might have started with an idea, and then allowed history to take its own course.

DAVID: The short answer is dhw is a sole designer, nothing secondhand. My point is proven.

“Secondhand” is meaningless. The question is how the process works. I am the sole designer of the initial idea which sparks a series of new ideas which I do not anticipate or control, although I can always dabble if I want to (but usually don’t). This can be seen as an analogy to your God designing the initial idea, and then allowing history to develop its own paths, though he can always dabble if he wants to. Thank you for providing such a vivid analogy in support of my theory.;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 23, 2022, 15:39 (126 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My problem with some of your statements is they are couched in slightly different meanings to distort a point I've made. So I step back to correct it.

dhw: There is nothing to correct in statements to the effect that you are sure your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations; you have not explained how enjoyment and interest can be “selfless”; you agree that humans would be the most interesting to watch; and the only “correction” you made was when you decided that your God's enjoyment and interest were a “secondary effect” and not a “primary purpose”. You didn’t know what the primary purpose was, but later decided that “evolving life to an endpoint of humans” was “purpose enough”, which takes us straight back to square one and the illogicality of your theory of evolution, in which your God individually designs countless life forms etc. that have no connection with humans in order to design humans.

I have always thought your prime objection to God's method of creating humans by evolving them was totally illogical. I accept that God, as the Creator produced the history we know. Obviously you don't. Adler could not have made his case for God accepting your objections.


DAVID: I continue to view humans as a desired endpoint, the argument Adler used. Other life forms were necessary secondary creations, as steps to humans and food supply for all, since life requires continuous energy supply.

dhw: How can you possibly argue that every single extinct life form was a “step to humans”. “Food supply for all” simply means that all life forms have to eat – it does not mean that every life form was “part of the evolution of humans” and their food. A few days ago you claimed that “one and only purpose” was a distortion of your views, but now you are back to equating “current endpoint” with purpose, and all other life forms as “steps to humans”!

dhw: Should I now take it, then, that you find it logical that your God specially designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans in order to fulfil his one and only purpose, which was to design humans and their food?

I've never changed that view. We tried a softening compromise of verbiage but I guess it failed. The connection is to view evolution as a continuous process from Archaea to us. For you it is obviously illogically discontinuous.


DAVID: I never forget that you accept a weird theory that true designers hand off their work to secondhand sources. How many substitutes wrote your novels or plays?

dhw: I explained my creative process, which entails starting with an idea, not knowing where this will lead, but embarking on a voyage of discovery as the characters and story develop of their own accord – in exactly the same way as your God might have started with an idea, and then allowed history to take its own course.

DAVID: The short answer is dhw is a sole designer, nothing secondhand. My point is proven.

dhw: “Secondhand” is meaningless. The question is how the process works. I am the sole designer of the initial idea which sparks a series of new ideas which I do not anticipate or control, although I can always dabble if I want to (but usually don’t). This can be seen as an analogy to your God designing the initial idea, and then allowing history to develop its own paths, though he can always dabble if he wants to. Thank you for providing such a vivid analogy in support of my theory.;-)

You do not resemble God's purposeful activities. Your fault is seeing God in your inventive mind as acting as you do. I see god as using my design methods, fulfilling a recognized needed solution/purpose.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, February 24, 2022, 11:42 (125 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have always thought your prime objection to God's method of creating humans by evolving them was totally illogical. I accept that God, as the Creator produced the history we know. Obviously you don't. Adler could not have made his case for God accepting your objections.

When defending your theory, you have always left out one or other of the two parts that make it illogical. I have no objection whatsoever to the belief that humans, like every other life form, are the product of evolution. And if God exists, I have no objection to the claim that he produced the history we know. The objection – as if you didn’t know it - is to your rigid belief that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus our food, and so he individually designed every extinct life form, econiche, lifestyle, solution to problems, and natural wonder “in preparation” for us, although the vast majority of extinct life forms etc. had no connection with us. When asked to explain this obvious illogicality, you can’t, and you advise me to ask God.

dhw: Should I now take it, then, that you find it logical that your God specially designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans in order to fulfil his one and only purpose, which was to design humans and their food?

DAVID: I've never changed that view. We tried a softening compromise of verbiage but I guess it failed. The connection is to view evolution as a continuous process from Archaea to us. For you it is obviously illogically discontinuous.

Another silly dodge. Evolution is a continuous process from Archaea to every branch of life, including us and including countless extinct life forms that had no connection with us, thereby rendering absurd the argument that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving humans.”

DAVID: I never forget that you accept a weird theory that true designers hand off their work to secondhand sources. How many substitutes wrote your novels or plays?

You have tried to draw an analogy between your God’s creative process and mine. I have accepted the analogy, which fits in perfectly with the concept of a God who begins with an idea and allows it to develop itself of its own accord. So what do you do next? You reject your own analogy!

DAVID: You do not resemble God's purposeful activities. Your fault is seeing God in your inventive mind as acting as you do. I see god as using my design methods, fulfilling a recognized needed solution/purpose.

What in your eyes is the solution/purpose of all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with us, and who has the authority to recognize it?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 24, 2022, 15:21 (125 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I have always thought your prime objection to God's method of creating humans by evolving them was totally illogical. I accept that God, as the Creator produced the history we know. Obviously you don't. Adler could not have made his case for God accepting your objections.

dhw: When defending your theory, you have always left out one or other of the two parts that make it illogical. I have no objection whatsoever to the belief that humans, like every other life form, are the product of evolution. And if God exists, I have no objection to the claim that he produced the history we know. The objection – as if you didn’t know it - is to your rigid belief that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus our food, and so he individually designed every extinct life form, econiche, lifestyle, solution to problems, and natural wonder “in preparation” for us, although the vast majority of extinct life forms etc. had no connection with us. When asked to explain this obvious illogicality, you can’t, and you advise me to ask God.

Back to your tunnel-visioned God who could only see future humans, but stopped along the way to produce everything else instead before finally getting there. Just accept God chose to evolve humans from Archaea and your weird complaint goes away. You just don't see a purposeful God who works toward His goals. Oh, I forgot, your humanized God isn't the God I believe ion.


DAVID: I never forget that you accept a weird theory that true designers hand off their work to secondhand sources. How many substitutes wrote your novels or plays?

dhw: You have tried to draw an analogy between your God’s creative process and mine. I have accepted the analogy, which fits in perfectly with the concept of a God who begins with an idea and allows it to develop itself of its own accord. So what do you do next? You reject your own analogy!

Your way of creation of plays and books remains you in total control. That is my only point.


DAVID: You do not resemble God's purposeful activities. Your fault is seeing God in your inventive mind as acting as you do. I see god as using my design methods, fulfilling a recognized needed solution/purpose.

dhw: What in your eyes is the solution/purpose of all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with us, and who has the authority to recognize it?

Adler.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, February 25, 2022, 11:02 (125 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have always thought your prime objection to God's method of creating humans by evolving them was totally illogical. I accept that God, as the Creator produced the history we know. Obviously you don't. […]

dhw: When defending your theory, you have always left out one or other of the two parts that make it illogical. I have no objection whatsoever to the belief that humans, like every other life form, are the product of evolution. And if God exists, I have no objection to the claim that he produced the history we know. The objection – as if you didn’t know it - is to your rigid belief that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus our food, and so he individually designed every extinct life form, econiche, lifestyle, solution to problems, and natural wonder “in preparation” for us, although the vast majority of extinct life forms etc. had no connection with us. When asked to explain this obvious illogicality, you can’t, and you advise me to ask God.

DAVID: Back to your tunnel-visioned God who could only see future humans, but stopped along the way to produce everything else instead before finally getting there.

This is getting ridiculous. That is YOUR view! It is you who claim that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, and so he separately designed all those organisms that had no connection with us!

DAVID: Just accept God chose to evolve humans from Archaea and your weird complaint goes away.

You mean that I should forget about all the other life forms which you claim were “part of the goal of evolving humans” even though they obviously weren’t!

DAVID: You just don't see a purposeful God who works toward His goals. Oh, I forgot, your humanized God isn't the God I believe in.

How many goals? You keep confirming your view that all your God’s creations were “in preparation for humans”. The alternative theistic versions that I have offered all show a purposeful God working towards his goal(s).

DAVID: I never forget that you accept a weird theory that true designers hand off their work to secondhand sources. How many substitutes wrote your novels or plays?

dhw: You have tried to draw an analogy between your God’s creative process and mine. I have accepted the analogy, which fits in perfectly with the concept of a God who begins with an idea and allows it to develop itself of its own accord. So what do you do next? You reject your own analogy!

DAVID: Your way of creation of plays and books remains you in total control. That is my only point.

And you have totally missed the point, which is that I create a situation in which ideas produce new ideas which constantly surprise me because – although I may dabble if I wish – I do NOT control the behaviour of the characters once the story gets underway. I “watch them with interest” (but record what they do and say).

DAVID: You do not resemble God's purposeful activities. Your fault is seeing God in your inventive mind as acting as you do. I see god as using my design methods, fulfilling a recognized needed solution/purpose.

dhw: What in your eyes is the solution/purpose of all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with us, and who has the authority to recognize it?

DAVID: Adler.

You have left out the purpose. According to you, Adler is concerned with proving your God’s existence and does NOT cover your illogical theory of evolution. Besides, when did Adler acquire the authority to tell the rest of us what we must “recognize”?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, February 25, 2022, 15:27 (124 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Back to your tunnel-visioned God who could only see future humans, but stopped along the way to produce everything else instead before finally getting there.

dhw: This is getting ridiculous. That is YOUR view! It is you who claim that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, and so he separately designed all those organisms that had no connection with us!

'One and only purpose' is your overemphasized version of my views. Adler relies on humans as an endpoint. Nothing wrong with it. All the other organisms are steps in evolution and food supply for all.

DAVID: You just don't see a purposeful God who works toward His goals. Oh, I forgot, your humanized God isn't the God I believe in.

dhw: How many goals? You keep confirming your view that all your God’s creations were “in preparation for humans”. The alternative theistic versions that I have offered all show a purposeful God working towards his goal(s).

Name your god's goals.


DAVID: Your way of creation of plays and books remains you in total control. That is my only point.

dhw: And you have totally missed the point, which is that I create a situation in which ideas produce new ideas which constantly surprise me because – although I may dabble if I wish – I do NOT control the behaviour of the characters once the story gets underway. I “watch them with interest” (but record what they do and say).

Substituting your self-God version of writing control does not answer my objection to your views of your God-imagination process. My God view is well known. He works toward His established goals.


DAVID: You do not resemble God's purposeful activities. Your fault is seeing God in your inventive mind as acting as you do. I see god as using my design methods, fulfilling a recognized needed solution/purpose.

dhw: What in your eyes is the solution/purpose of all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with us, and who has the authority to recognize it?

DAVID: Adler.

dhw: You have left out the purpose. According to you, Adler is concerned with proving your God’s existence and does NOT cover your illogical theory of evolution. Besides, when did Adler acquire the authority to tell the rest of us what we must “recognize”?

Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists. The history of evolution is the same for all of us, except for you who splits it into unrelated segments.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, February 26, 2022, 07:30 (124 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Back to your tunnel-visioned God who could only see future humans, but stopped along the way to produce everything else instead before finally getting there.

dhw: This is getting ridiculous. That is YOUR view! It is you who claim that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, and so he separately designed all those organisms that had no connection with us!

DAVID: 'One and only purpose' is your overemphasized version of my views. Adler relies on humans as an endpoint. Nothing wrong with it. All the other organisms are steps in evolution and food supply for all.

All the other organisms that were not connected with humans were obviously steps in evolution if you believe in evolution, and obviously all organisms require and provide food. If, for the second time, you now definitively agree that NOT all past life forms, foods, econiches, lifestyles, solutions, natural wonders etc. were “in preparation for humans” and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” or, in other words, were your God’s one and only purpose, then we can end this discussion.

DAVID: You just don't see a purposeful God who works toward His goals. Oh, I forgot, your humanized God isn't the God I believe in.

dhw: How many goals? As above, do you now definitively withdraw your theory that all your God’s creations were “in preparation for humans”? The alternative theistic versions that I have offered all show a purposeful God working towards his goal(s).

DAVID: Name your god's goals

I have named them umpteen times! They are ALTERNATIVE THEORIES, though some are interrelated, and you have acknowledged that they all fit in logically with life’s history, but you reject them all because they suggest thought patterns and logic that your God might have passed on to us, although you agree that your God might have passed thought patterns and logic on to us:
1) To enjoy creation and to provide interesting things to watch.
2) To set in motion an unpredictable process which he does not control and which will be more interesting to watch than one he controls (free-for-all).
3) Your constantly repeated one and only goal, which you have now twice renounced: experimenting in order to create a being that might resemble himself and form a relationship with him. (You have inadvertently accepted experimentation under “biggest bacterium”.)
4) In the course of 1), constantly coming up with new ideas, and eventually hitting on 3) which becomes a new goal, as opposed to being the one and only goal from the beginning.

DAVID: Your way of creation of plays and books remains you in total control. That is my only point.

dhw: And you have totally missed the point, which is that I create a situation in which ideas produce new ideas which constantly surprise me because – although I may dabble if I wish – I do NOT control the behaviour of the characters once the story gets underway. I “watch them with interest” (but record what they do and say).

DAVID: Substituting your self-God version of writing control does not answer my objection to your views of your God-imagination process. My God view is well known. He works toward His established goals.

It was you who tried to draw an analogy between my writing process and your God’s creative process. If he exists, then of course he works towards his established goals, but nobody knows what they are. The analogy, however, fits perfectly if his “established goals” are to enjoy what he is creating – as I do- and if he gets enjoyment from setting the creative process in motion and then allowing it to follow its own course instead of trying to push it in a predetermined direction.

DAVID: You do not resemble God's purposeful activities. Your fault is seeing God in your inventive mind as acting as you do. I see god as using my design methods, fulfilling a recognized needed solution/purpose.

dhw: It was you who tried to draw the analogy! It’s not my fault if you got it wrong! What in your eyes is the solution/purpose of all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with us, and who has the authority to recognize it?

DAVID: Adler.

dhw: You have left out the purpose. According to you, Adler is concerned with proving your God’s existence and does NOT cover your illogical theory of evolution. Besides, when did Adler acquire the authority to tell the rest of us what we must “recognize”?

DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

As bolded above, and I’m not surprised that he doesn’t cover your illogical theory, since you regard him as a logical thinker.

DAVID: The history of evolution is the same for all of us, except for you who splits it into unrelated segments.

Evolution is split into unrelated branches, and the vast majority of these had no connection with humans. Hence the absurdity of claiming that they were all “in preparation for humans “ and were all “part of the goal of evolving humans”, unless of course you now opt for theory (3) above.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 26, 2022, 15:48 (123 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 'One and only purpose' is your overemphasized version of my views. Adler relies on humans as an endpoint. Nothing wrong with it. All the other organisms are steps in evolution and food supply for all.

dhw: All the other organisms that were not connected with humans were obviously steps in evolution if you believe in evolution, and obviously all organisms require and provide food. If, for the second time, you now definitively agree that NOT all past life forms, foods, econiches, lifestyles, solutions, natural wonders etc. were “in preparation for humans” and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” or, in other words, were your God’s one and only purpose, then we can end this discussion.

Of course we arrived from a specific line of a single branch, but all the branches that surround us provide the food. I am using the giant bush process of evolution as a whole.


DAVID: Name your god's goals

dhw: I have named them umpteen times! ...
1) To enjoy creation and to provide interesting things to watch.
2) To set in motion an unpredictable process which he does not control and which will be more interesting to watch than one he controls (free-for-all).
3) Your constantly repeated one and only goal, which you have now twice renounced: experimenting in order to create a being that might resemble himself and form a relationship with him. (You have inadvertently accepted experimentation under “biggest bacterium”.)
4) In the course of 1), constantly coming up with new ideas, and eventually hitting on 3) which becomes a new goal, as opposed to being the one and only goal from the beginning.

Counter: 1)& 2) God does not need interesting things to watch. Humans need that.
3) God does not need experimentation to reach His endpoint purposes. (I did allow the minor point that the biggest bacterium was a possible side attempt to try)
4) God has all the desires to create He needs from the beginning. He doesn't come up with new ideas. Only humans do that.

Conclusion: You have made God totally human, as usual.


DAVID: Substituting your self-God version of writing control does not answer my objection to your views of your God-imagination process. My God view is well known. He works toward His established goals.

dhw: It was you who tried to draw an analogy between my writing process and your God’s creative process. If he exists, then of course he works towards his established goals, but nobody knows what they are. The analogy, however, fits perfectly if his “established goals” are to enjoy what he is creating – as I do- and if he gets enjoyment from setting the creative process in motion and then allowing it to follow its own course instead of trying to push it in a predetermined direction.

I was discussing only design method! You've added your human needs and again applied them to God, again making my humanizing point..


dhw: It was you who tried to draw the analogy! It’s not my fault if you got it wrong! What in your eyes is the solution/purpose of all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with us, and who has the authority to recognize it?

DAVID: Adler.

dhw: You have left out the purpose. According to you, Adler is concerned with proving your God’s existence and does NOT cover your illogical theory of evolution. Besides, when did Adler acquire the authority to tell the rest of us what we must “recognize”?

DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: As bolded above, and I’m not surprised that he doesn’t cover your illogical theory, since you regard him as a logical thinker.

Please do remember, Adler accepted evolution as God's method to reach humans. He never discussed how God did it, as beside the point. I am the one who separately is trying to explain the nitty-gritty of how God did it. Explained in the past


DAVID: The history of evolution is the same for all of us, except for you who splits it into unrelated segments.

dhw: Evolution is split into unrelated branches, and the vast majority of these had no connection with humans. Hence the absurdity of claiming that they were all “in preparation for humans “ and were all “part of the goal of evolving humans”, unless of course you now opt for theory (3) above.

I have accepted paragraph two above as stated, and continue to view all of evolution as one whole giant process..

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, February 27, 2022, 08:35 (123 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 'One and only purpose' is your overemphasized version of my views. Adler relies on humans as an endpoint. Nothing wrong with it. All the other organisms are steps in evolution and food supply for all.

dhw: All the other organisms that were not connected with humans were obviously steps in evolution if you believe in evolution, and obviously all organisms require and provide food. If, for the second time, you now definitively agree that NOT all past life forms, foods, econiches, lifestyles, solutions, natural wonders etc. were “in preparation for humans” and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” or, in other words, were your God’s one and only purpose, then we can end this discussion.

DAVID: Of course we arrived from a specific line of a single branch, but all the branches that surround us provide the food. I am using the giant bush process of evolution as a whole.

No you are not .You have told us that all the giant bushes that preceded ours were meant as “preparation” for us and our bush and were part of “the goal” of evolving humans and our food. If you now wish to change that theory, then please stop “beating about the bush” and say so.

DAVID: Name your god's goals

dhw: I have named them umpteen times! ...
1) To enjoy creation and to provide interesting things to watch.
2) To set in motion an unpredictable process which he does not control and which will be more interesting to watch than one he controls (free-for-all).
3) Your constantly repeated one and only goal, which you have now twice renounced: experimenting in order to create a being that might resemble himself and form a relationship with him. (You have inadvertently accepted experimentation under “biggest bacterium”.)
4) In the course of 1), constantly coming up with new ideas, and eventually hitting on 3) which becomes a new goal, as opposed to being the one and only goal from the beginning.

DAVID: Counter: 1)& 2) God does not need interesting things to watch. Humans need that.
3) God does not need experimentation to reach His endpoint purposes. (I did allow the minor point that the biggest bacterium was a possible side attempt to try)
4) God has all the desires to create He needs from the beginning. He doesn't come up with new ideas. Only humans do that.
Conclusion: You have made God totally human, as usual.

Conclusion: Although you agree that your God probably endowed us with thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his (a perfectly understandable thing to do, since a creator would hardly create thought patterns and emotions he knew nothing about), you have closed your mind to any alternative theistic theory that might explain the history of life as we know it. You are convinced that you know how your God’s mind works, although you have no idea why he would adopt the method you impose on him in order to fulfil the purpose you impose on him.

dhw: What in your eyes is the solution/purpose of all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with us, and who has the authority to recognize it?

DAVID: Adler.

dhw: You have left out the purpose. According to you, Adler is concerned with proving your God’s existence and does NOT cover your illogical theory of evolution. Besides, when did Adler acquire the authority to tell the rest of us what we must “recognize”?

DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: As bolded above, and I’m not surprised that he doesn’t cover your illogical theory, since you regard him as a logical thinker.

DAVID: Please do remember, Adler accepted evolution as God's method to reach humans. He never discussed how God did it, as beside the point. I am the one who separately is trying to explain the nitty-gritty of how God did it. Explained in the past.

Explained in the past by telling me to ask God why he used the illogical method you have imposed on him in order to fulfil the one and only purpose you have imposed on him.

DAVID: The history of evolution is the same for all of us, except for you who splits it into unrelated segments.

dhw: Evolution is split into unrelated branches, and the vast majority of these had no connection with humans. Hence the absurdity of claiming that they were all “in preparation for humans “ and were all “part of the goal of evolving humans”, unless of course you now opt for theory (3) above.

DAVID: I have accepted paragraph two above as stated, and continue to view all of evolution as one whole giant process.

You have rejected all four of my alternatives. I agree with you that evolution is one whole giant process in which vast numbers of life forms and their foods have come and gone, and we represent only one branch among countless other branches of life forms and their foods, the vast majority of which had no connection with us and our foods. It is therefore manifestly illogical to claim that all other life forms and foods were “preparation” for us, and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” and our foods.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 27, 2022, 15:32 (122 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course we arrived from a specific line of a single branch, but all the branches that surround us provide the food. I am using the giant bush process of evolution as a whole.

dhw: No you are not .You have told us that all the giant bushes that preceded ours were meant as “preparation” for us and our bush and were part of “the goal” of evolving humans and our food. If you now wish to change that theory, then please stop “beating about the bush” and say so.

The bold is exactly what I believe, and it expresses evolution as a progressive whole from its beginning.


DAVID: Name your god's goals

DAVID: Counter: 1)& 2) God does not need interesting things to watch. Humans need that.
3) God does not need experimentation to reach His endpoint purposes. (I did allow the minor point that the biggest bacterium was a possible side attempt to try)
4) God has all the desires to create He needs from the beginning. He doesn't come up with new ideas. Only humans do that.
Conclusion: You have made God totally human, as usual.

dhw: Conclusion: Although you agree that your God probably endowed us with thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his (a perfectly understandable thing to do, since a creator would hardly create thought patterns and emotions he knew nothing about), you have closed your mind to any alternative theistic theory that might explain the history of life as we know it. You are convinced that you know how your God’s mind works, although you have no idea why he would adopt the method you impose on him in order to fulfil the purpose you impose on him.

You are totally blind to how you use a humanized God to back your theories.


DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: As bolded above, and I’m not surprised that he doesn’t cover your illogical theory, since you regard him as a logical thinker.

DAVID: Please do remember, Adler accepted evolution as God's method to reach humans. He never discussed how God did it, as beside the point. I am the one who separately is trying to explain the nitty-gritty of how God did it. Explained in the past.

dhw: Explained in the past by telling me to ask God why he used the illogical method you have imposed on him in order to fulfil the one and only purpose you have imposed on him.

My comments explained Adler to undo your confusion about him. Your answer is confused or a deliberate sidestep.


DAVID: The history of evolution is the same for all of us, except for you who splits it into unrelated segments.

dhw: Evolution is split into unrelated branches, and the vast majority of these had no connection with humans. Hence the absurdity of claiming that they were all “in preparation for humans “ and were all “part of the goal of evolving humans”, unless of course you now opt for theory (3) above.

DAVID: I have accepted paragraph two above as stated, and continue to view all of evolution as one whole giant process.

dhw: You have rejected all four of my alternatives. I agree with you that evolution is one whole giant process in which vast numbers of life forms and their foods have come and gone, and we represent only one branch among countless other branches of life forms and their foods, the vast majority of which had no connection with us and our foods. It is therefore manifestly illogical to claim that all other life forms and foods were “preparation” for us, and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” and our foods.

If evolution is a 'whole giant process' everything that happened can easily be viewed as God's purposes being fulfilled in a stepwise fashion through one process.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, February 28, 2022, 11:03 (122 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Of course we arrived from a specific line of a single branch, but all the branches that surround us provide the food. I am using the giant bush process of evolution as a whole.

dhw: No you are not .You have told us that all the giant bushes that preceded ours were meant as “preparation” for us and our bush and were part of “the goal” of evolving humans and our food. If you now wish to change that theory, then please stop “beating about the bush” and say so.

DAVID: The bold is exactly what I believe, and it expresses evolution as a progressive whole from its beginning.

On 16 Feb you criticized me: “You have created the ‘one and only aim’ distortion which I view as totally illogical”. Last week you wrote: “’One and only purpose’ is your overemphasized version of my views.” Week after week, you admit that you have no idea why your God would have deliberately designed countless life forms and foods “in preparation” for humans plus food, as “part of the goal of evolving humans”, although the vast majority had no connection with humans plus food. What have I distorted or overemphasized if this is exactly what you believe? And since you cannot explain the logic behind this combination of theories, why do you continue to close your mind to alternatives which you agree are logical?

You asked me to list the alternatives, and I offered you four different theories.

DAVID: […] You are totally blind to how you use a humanized God to back your theories.

You are totally blind to your own belief that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, and that we mimic him in many ways, and you are totally blind to the obvious fact that he would hardly design something he knew nothing about, and that it is not unreasonable to suppose that a creator would project part of himself into what he creates. Shared thought patterns do not, however, mean that a God who can create a universe and life must be human, which is the “distortion” and “overemphasis” that you imply in your efforts to undermine alternative theories which you regard as logical.

DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: As bolded above, and I’m not surprised that he doesn’t cover your illogical theory, since you regard him as a logical thinker.

DAVID: Please do remember, Adler accepted evolution as God's method to reach humans. He never discussed how God did it, as beside the point. I am the one who separately is trying to explain the nitty-gritty of how God did it. Explained in the past.

dhw: Explained in the past by telling me to ask God why he used the illogical method you have imposed on him in order to fulfil the one and only purpose you have imposed on him.

DAVID: My comments explained Adler to undo your confusion about him. Your answer is confused or a deliberate sidestep.

You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT cover your theory, so why do you keep bringing him into the discussion of your theory? Confusion, or a deliberate sidestep?

DAVID: I...continue to view all of evolution as one whole giant process.

dhw: You have rejected all four of my alternatives. I agree with you that evolution is one whole giant process in which vast numbers of life forms and their foods have come and gone, and we represent only one branch among countless other branches of life forms and their foods, the vast majority of which had no connection with us and our foods. It is therefore manifestly illogical to claim that all other life forms and foods were “preparation” for us, and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” and our foods.

DAVID: If evolution is a 'whole giant process' everything that happened can easily be viewed as God's purposes being fulfilled in a stepwise fashion through one process.

Of course it can. What is impossible to view is that he only had one purpose (humans plus food) and therefore individually designed countless numbers of life forms "in preparation" for humans plus food, and as "part of the goal of evolving humans" plus food although most of them had no connection with humans plus food.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, February 28, 2022, 16:16 (121 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: […] You are totally blind to how you use a humanized God to back your theories.

dhw: You are totally blind to your own belief that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, and that we mimic him in many ways, and you are totally blind to the obvious fact that he would hardly design something he knew nothing about,

Off the deep end! The bold says God does not see the future and know how to design it?

dhw: and that it is not unreasonable to suppose that a creator would project part of himself into what he creates. Shared thought patterns do not, however, mean that a God who can create a universe and life must be human, which is the “distortion” and “overemphasis” that you imply in your efforts to undermine alternative theories which you regard as logical.

Distorting again. Putting Himself into this universe is logical. The way you describe how He decides to do what He does is based on giving him human thoughts on your part.


DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT cover your theory, so why do you keep bringing him into the discussion of your theory? Confusion, or a deliberate sidestep?

Please read the above again! My theory is not involved but Adler's philosophic point is quite clear. God produced humans


DAVID: I...continue to view all of evolution as one whole giant process.

dhw: You have rejected all four of my alternatives. I agree with you that evolution is one whole giant process in which vast numbers of life forms and their foods have come and gone, and we represent only one branch among countless other branches of life forms and their foods, the vast majority of which had no connection with us and our foods. It is therefore manifestly illogical to claim that all other life forms and foods were “preparation” for us, and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” and our foods.

DAVID: If evolution is a 'whole giant process' everything that happened can easily be viewed as God's purposes being fulfilled in a stepwise fashion through one process.

dhw: Of course it can. What is impossible to view is that he only had one purpose (humans plus food) and therefore individually designed countless numbers of life forms "in preparation" for humans plus food, and as "part of the goal of evolving humans" plus food although most of them had no connection with humans plus food.

What is the evolution of humans but exactly what you decry? Still slicing evolution into disconnected parts.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, March 01, 2022, 06:50 (121 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] You are totally blind to how you use a humanized God to back your theories.

dhw: You are totally blind to your own belief that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, and that we mimic him in many ways, and you are totally blind to the obvious fact that he would hardly design something he knew nothing about... [DAVID's bold}

DAVID: Off the deep end! The bold says God does not see the future and know how to design it?

You have taken this out of its context, which is thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours. How, for instance, would your God design a being that felt love if he himself had no understanding of “love”?

dhw: ...and that it is not unreasonable to suppose that a creator would project part of himself into what he creates. Shared thought patterns do not, however, mean that a God who can create a universe and life must be human, which is the “distortion” and “overemphasis” that you imply in your efforts to undermine alternative theories which you regard as logical.

DAVID: Distorting again. Putting Himself into this universe is logical. The way you describe how He decides to do what He does is based on giving him human thoughts on your part.

Yes, all my alternatives entail giving him thoughts in common with those of humans. But that does not make him into a human being! You keep agreeing that he probably shares thought patterns with us, but the moment I introduce a thought pattern he may share with us, you moan that I am “humanizing” him. At the same time you agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, you tell us he is too kind to wish us harm when he designs nasty bacteria and viruses, and when pressed, you even speculate that he might want us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. These are all patterns of thought and emotions which he could easily have in common with us, but they don’t mean he is human!

DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT cover your theory, so why do you keep bringing him into the discussion of your theory? Confusion, or a deliberate sidestep?

DAVID: Please read the above again! My theory is not involved but Adler's philosophic point is quite clear. God produced humans

The whole point is that your theory is not involved, so why do you constantly bring Adler in on a discussion which exposes the illogicality of your theory?

DAVID: I...continue to view all of evolution as one whole giant process.

dhw: You have rejected all four of my alternatives. I agree with you that evolution is one whole giant process in which vast numbers of life forms and their foods have come and gone, and we represent only one branch among countless other branches of life forms and their foods, the vast majority of which had no connection with us and our foods. It is therefore manifestly illogical to claim that all other life forms and foods were “preparation” for us, and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” and our foods.

DAVID: If evolution is a 'whole giant process' everything that happened can easily be viewed as God's purposes being fulfilled in a stepwise fashion through one process.

dhw: Of course it can. What is impossible to view is that he only had one purpose (humans plus food) and therefore individually designed countless numbers of life forms "in preparation" for humans plus food, and as "part of the goal of evolving humans" plus food although most of them had no connection with humans plus food.

DAVID: What is the evolution of humans but exactly what you decry? Still slicing evolution into disconnected parts.

How can the evolution of life forms and foods that had no connection with humans have been a “preparation” for humans, and “part of the goal” of evolving humans? Evolution developed into disconnected branches, of which you agree humans are just one. You admit that you can’t answer the question, you tell me to ask God, so how long are you going to go on pretending that your theory makes sense?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 01, 2022, 15:01 (120 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Off the deep end! The bold says God does not see the future and know how to design it?

dhw: You have taken this out of its context, which is thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours. How, for instance, would your God design a being that felt love if he himself had no understanding of “love”?

Of course not


DAVID: Putting Himself into this universe is logical. The way you describe how He decides to do what He does is based on giving him human thoughts on your part.

dhw: Yes, all my alternatives entail giving him thoughts in common with those of humans. But that does not make him into a human being! You keep agreeing that he probably shares thought patterns with us, but the moment I introduce a thought pattern he may share with us, you moan that I am “humanizing” him. At the same time you agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, you tell us he is too kind to wish us harm when he designs nasty bacteria and viruses, and when pressed, you even speculate that he might want us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. These are all patterns of thought and emotions which he could easily have in common with us, but they don’t mean he is human!

Your humanizing God thoughts: free-for-all to enjoy; let cells do their own designing, which means loss of purpose control; having to experiment, which means doesn't know what He is doing or how to do it. I am not arguing about 'thought patterns' but God's attitudes and attributes you present as if God is human as he creates.


DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT cover your theory, so why do you keep bringing him into the discussion of your theory? Confusion, or a deliberate sidestep?

DAVID: Please read the above again! My theory is not involved but Adler's philosophic point is quite clear. God produced humans

dhw: The whole point is that your theory is not involved, so why do you constantly bring Adler in on a discussion which exposes the illogicality of your theory?

My theory directly concerns the production of humans, my point and Adler's point. You obviously haven't understood anything about Adler.


DAVID: I...continue to view all of evolution as one whole giant process.

dhw: You have rejected all four of my alternatives. I agree with you that evolution is one whole giant process in which vast numbers of life forms and their foods have come and gone, and we represent only one branch among countless other branches of life forms and their foods, the vast majority of which had no connection with us and our foods. It is therefore manifestly illogical to claim that all other life forms and foods were “preparation” for us, and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” and our foods.

DAVID: If evolution is a 'whole giant process' everything that happened can easily be viewed as God's purposes being fulfilled in a stepwise fashion through one process.

dhw: Of course it can. What is impossible to view is that he only had one purpose (humans plus food) and therefore individually designed countless numbers of life forms "in preparation" for humans plus food, and as "part of the goal of evolving humans" plus food although most of them had no connection with humans plus food.

DAVID: What is the evolution of humans but exactly what you decry? Still slicing evolution into disconnected parts.

dhw: How can the evolution of life forms and foods that had no connection with humans have been a “preparation” for humans, and “part of the goal” of evolving humans? Evolution developed into disconnected branches, of which you agree humans are just one. You admit that you can’t answer the question, you tell me to ask God, so how long are you going to go on pretending that your theory makes sense?

Same lame objection. I accept God's works without questioning. We are the endpoint of Darwin's tree sketch. An Oak tree from roots to acorns is totally connected! You make no sense.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, March 02, 2022, 11:29 (120 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] You are totally blind to how you use a humanized God to back your theories.

dhw: You are totally blind to your own belief that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, and that we mimic him in many ways, and you are totally blind to the obvious fact that he would hardly design something he knew nothing about.

DAVID: Off the deep end! The bold says God does not see the future and know how to design it?

dhw: You have taken this out of its context, which is thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours. How, for instance, would your God design a being that felt love if he himself had no understanding of “love”?

DAVID: Of course not.

The same reasoning applies to all the human thought patterns and emotions that both you and I incorporate into our theories. So please stop using “humanization” as a reason for rejecting logical alternatives to your own illogical and fixed belief that your God designed countless life forms which had no connection with humans as “preparation” for humans and “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: Your humanizing God thoughts: 1) free-for-all to enjoy; 2) let cells do their own designing, which means loss of purpose control; 3) having to experiment, which means doesn't know what He is doing or how to do it. I am not arguing about 'thought patterns' but God's attitudes and attributes you present as if God is human as he creates. (Numerals inserted by dhw for brevity’s sake)

1) You have said you are sure that your God enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. What’s wrong with such “human” attributes?
2) How can it mean loss of purpose if his purpose, for instance, is to create things which he enjoys creating and which he will find interesting to watch? Which is more interesting: a story/game of which you know in advance every detail including the outcome, or a story/game which constantly surprises you?
3) Why such a negative view of experimentation? As you yourself point out under “biggest bacterium”, trying new approaches is a possibility, and I see no reason to assume that your God would not enjoy the challenge of creating something new, and learning as he goes along. How insufferably boring it would be to know everything in advance! But perhaps you should remind us of your own “humanized” reasons for your God’s decision to create humans, plus all the different forms of life and food unconnected with humans.

dhw: You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT cover your theory, so why do you keep bringing him into the discussion of your theory?

DAVID: My theory directly concerns the production of humans, my point and Adler's point. You obviously haven't understood anything about Adler.

You have told us repeatedly that Adler uses humans as evidence for the existence of God. He does not deal with your theory that your God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc. as preparation for humans and part of the goal of evolving humans, although most of them had no connection with humans. And you admit that you can’t find any explanation for such a theory, but you go on pretending that it makes sense. Nothing to do with Adler.

DAVID: Same lame objection. I accept God's works without questioning. We are the endpoint of Darwin's tree sketch. An Oak tree from roots to acorns is totally connected! You make no sense.

Evolution is not an oak tree! If the tree is indeed your God’s work, you totally fail to grasp the fact that it has not just produced one fruit but countless different fruits, and the majority of these have no connection with the only fruit you think your God wanted to design (plus those that would feed your “acorn”).

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 02, 2022, 18:31 (119 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The same reasoning applies to all the human thought patterns and emotions that both you and I incorporate into our theories. So please stop using “humanization” as a reason for rejecting logical alternatives to your own illogical and fixed belief that your God designed countless life forms which had no connection with humans as “preparation” for humans and “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: Your humanizing God thoughts: 1) free-for-all to enjoy; 2) let cells do their own designing, which means loss of purpose control; 3) having to experiment, which means doesn't know what He is doing or how to do it. I am not arguing about 'thought patterns' but God's attitudes and attributes you present as if God is human as he creates. (Numerals inserted by dhw for brevity’s sake)

dhw: 1) You have said you are sure that your God enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. What’s wrong with such “human” attributes?
2) How can it mean loss of purpose if his purpose, for instance, is to create things which he enjoys creating and which he will find interesting to watch? Which is more interesting: a story/game of which you know in advance every detail including the outcome, or a story/game which constantly surprises you?
3) Why such a negative view of experimentation? As you yourself point out under “biggest bacterium”, trying new approaches is a possibility, and I see no reason to assume that your God would not enjoy the challenge of creating something new, and learning as he goes along. How insufferably boring it would be to know everything in advance! But perhaps you should remind us of your own “humanized” reasons for your God’s decision to create humans, plus all the different forms of life and food unconnected with humans.

Our endless debate is strictly about who God is, based on what He has done. Each of us has entirely different versions, whose attributes are obvious. I won't needlessly repeat them. We will never agree. So perhaps this aspect of our discussions should end as having no fruitful decisions apparent.


dhw: You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT cover your theory, so why do you keep bringing him into the discussion of your theory?

DAVID: My theory directly concerns the production of humans, my point and Adler's point. You obviously haven't understood anything about Adler.

dhw: You have told us repeatedly that Adler uses humans as evidence for the existence of God. He does not deal with your theory that your God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc. as preparation for humans and part of the goal of evolving humans, although most of them had no connection with humans. And you admit that you can’t find any explanation for such a theory, but you go on pretending that it makes sense. Nothing to do with Adler.

The bold is your usual distortion. Both Adler and I view God as creating the evolution of all forms of life, finally ending with humans purposely. If you don't believe me, read Adler.


DAVID: Same lame objection. I accept God's works without questioning. We are the endpoint of Darwin's tree sketch. An Oak tree from roots to acorns is totally connected! You make no sense.

dhw Evolution is not an oak tree! If the tree is indeed your God’s work, you totally fail to grasp the fact that it has not just produced one fruit but countless different fruits, and the majority of these have no connection with the only fruit you think your God wanted to design (plus those that would feed your “acorn”).

I'm using your hero Darwin's sketch! All of evolution is a giant bush with connecting branches continuing to branch until endpoints are reached. We are one endpoint, fed by the others as well as some on twigs of our branch.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, March 03, 2022, 13:41 (118 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: How, for instance, would your God design a being that felt love if he himself had no understanding of “love”?

DAVID: Of course not.

dhw: The same reasoning applies to all the human thought patterns and emotions that both you and I incorporate into our theories. So please stop using “humanization” as a reason for rejecting logical alternatives to your own illogical and fixed belief that your God designed countless life forms which had no connection with humans as “preparation” for humans plus our food and “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus our food.

DAVID: Our endless debate is strictly about who God is, based on what He has done. Each of us has entirely different versions, whose attributes are obvious. I won't needlessly repeat them. We will never agree. So perhaps this aspect of our discussions should end as having no fruitful decisions apparent.

But you do keep repeating them, which forces me to respond: (1) to the illogicality of your theory, and 2): to your rejection of my theories on grounds of “humanization”, while agreeing that your God may have thought patterns and emotions similar to ours (see “love”) and imposing your own definitions of his “needs” and his “goals”, as if you have personal knowledge of them (See below).

Biggest bacterium ever discovered

dhw: If your God was prepared to try different approaches early on, why could he not have done so later on as well? Why do you use the word “struggle”? You constantly use these negative terms, as if it belittles your God that he should try new things, enjoy the whole process of learning by doing so, taking pleasure in the fascinating results of his work as he advances it from the simple to the complex. And that would explain all the different life forms which make nonsense of your own theory of evolution.

DAVID: God does not need to entertain Himself, as in your humanizing now bolded statement. He knows His goals exactly and creates with complete purpose.

The word “need” is yours, not mine, but I accept your own view that (if he exists) he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. I have no doubt that he would know exactly what he wants, but I do not accept that his “complete purpose” means nothing but the existence of humans and their food. “Complete purpose” would have to encompass his purpose for creating humans plus food as well as all the life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. It is these weighty but empty pronouncements of yours that make it impossible for us to end the discussion.

dhw: You have told us repeatedly that Adler uses humans as evidence for the existence of God. He does not deal with your theory that your God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc. as preparation for humans and part of the goal of evolving humans, although most of them had no connection with humans. [dhw’s bold] And you admit that you can’t find any explanation for such a theory, [David’s bold] but you go on pretending that it makes sense. Nothing to do with Adler.

DAVID: The bold is your usual distortion. Both Adler and I view God as creating the evolution of all forms of life, finally ending with humans purposely. If you don't believe me, read Adler.

There is no distortion (second bold). You keep telling me to ask God! Over and over again you have told us that Adler doesn’t cover your theory (first bold). Even if he does, so what? If you and he can’t explain it, we’re still back to where we started. It doesn’t make sense, Adler or no Adler.

DAVID: We are the endpoint of Darwin's tree sketch. An Oak tree from roots to acorns is totally connected! You make no sense.

dhw: Evolution is not an oak tree! If the tree is indeed your God’s work, you totally fail to grasp the fact that it has not just produced one fruit but countless different fruits, and the majority of these have no connection with the only fruit you think your God wanted to design (plus those that would feed your “acorn”).

DAVID: I'm using your hero Darwin's sketch! All of evolution is a giant bush with connecting branches continuing to branch until endpoints are reached. We are one endpoint, fed by the others as well as some on twigs of our branch.

I accept the "tree" or "bush", but not the absurdly limiting "oak". Thank you for agreeing that we are only one endpoint. But where do you get the idea that we are fed by “the others”? Once again you are trying to sneak in the idea that every single life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. was “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans” and their food. And you know that this is nonsense. You have told us in no uncertain terms that the past was for the past and not the present, and extinct life has no part to play in current life. Our discussion should have ended long ago when you made these statements and admitted your own inability to understand the logic of your bolded theory, but still you go on dodging!:-(

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 03, 2022, 15:22 (118 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Our endless debate is strictly about who God is, based on what He has done. Each of us has entirely different versions, whose attributes are obvious. I won't needlessly repeat them. We will never agree. So perhaps this aspect of our discussions should end as having no fruitful decisions apparent.

dhw: But you do keep repeating them, which forces me to respond: (1) to the illogicality of your theory, and 2): to your rejection of my theories on grounds of “humanization”, while agreeing that your God may have thought patterns and emotions similar to ours (see “love”) and imposing your own definitions of his “needs” and his “goals”, as if you have personal knowledge of them (See below).

Your idea of a human God on the basis that we resemble Him is not my point. Our 'Gods' have no resemblance to each other.


Biggest bacterium ever discovered

DAVID: God does not need to entertain Himself, as in your humanizing now bolded statement. He knows His goals exactly and creates with complete purpose.

dhw: The word “need” is yours, not mine, but I accept your own view that (if he exists) he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. I have no doubt that he would know exactly what he wants, but I do not accept that his “complete purpose” means nothing but the existence of humans and their food. “Complete purpose” would have to encompass his purpose for creating humans plus food as well as all the life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. It is these weighty but empty pronouncements of yours that make it impossible for us to end the discussion.

Your idea of a human God on the basis that we resemble Him is not my point. Our 'Gods' have no resemblance to each other.


DAVID: Both Adler and I view God as creating the evolution of all forms of life, finally ending with humans purposely. If you don't believe me, read Adler.

dhw: There is no distortion (second bold). You keep telling me to ask God! Over and over again you have told us that Adler doesn’t cover your theory (first bold). Even if he does, so what? If you and he can’t explain it, we’re still back to where we started. It doesn’t make sense, Adler or no Adler.

You use 'authorities', so I can. Adler's simple point is God evolved humans, so unusual, God must exist. That is my point also.

DAVID: I'm using your hero Darwin's sketch! All of evolution is a giant bush with connecting branches continuing to branch until endpoints are reached. We are one endpoint, fed by the others as well as some on twigs of our branch.

dhw: I accept the "tree" or "bush", but not the absurdly limiting "oak". Thank you for agreeing that we are only one endpoint. But where do you get the idea that we are fed by “the others”? Once again you are trying to sneak in the idea that every single life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. was “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans” and their food. And you know that this is nonsense. You have told us in no uncertain terms that the past was for the past and not the present, and extinct life has no part to play in current life. Our discussion should have ended long ago when you made these statements and admitted your own inability to understand the logic of your bolded theory, but still you go on dodging!:-(

In your myopic view we are not related to Archaea! So we have no past! Evolution is one long involved process, all parts related.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, March 04, 2022, 09:17 (118 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your idea of a human God on the basis that we resemble Him is not my point. Our 'Gods' have no resemblance to each other.

I have no “idea of a human God”. If he exists, I assume – just as you do – that we would have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his, since he would hardly have created a being with attributes he knows nothing about. (You agreed when I mentioned love.) That does not make him a human God! Therefore, if I offer a theory concerning his purposes and methods, it is absurd to dismiss it on the grounds that it involves thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his.

DAVID: You use 'authorities', so I can. Adler's simple point is God evolved humans, so unusual, God must exist. That is my point also.

And my point is that this thread is not about God’s existence but about your illogical theory of evolution (that your God individually designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although humans plus food were his one and only goal), which you have repeatedly told us is NOT discussed by Adler. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: I'm using your hero Darwin's sketch! All of evolution is a giant bush with connecting branches continuing to branch until endpoints are reached. We are one endpoint, fed by the others as well as some on twigs of our branch.

dhw: I accept the "tree" or "bush", but not the absurdly limiting "oak". Thank you for agreeing that we are only one endpoint. But where do you get the idea that we are fed by “the others”? Once again you are trying to sneak in the idea that every single life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. was “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans” and their food. And you know that this is nonsense. You have told us in no uncertain terms that the past was for the past and not the present, and extinct life has no part to play in current life. Our discussion should have ended long ago when you made these statements and admitted your own inability to understand the logic of your bolded theory, but still you go on dodging! :-(

DAVID: In your myopic view we are not related to Archaea! So we have no past! Evolution is one long involved process, all parts related.

When have I ever said we have no past??? I firmly believe in evolution, which means that all life forms are descended from the first cells, but as you yourself have rightly observed, humans are only one branch of life, and countless branches – all descended from Archaea – plus foods have disappeared. I dispute the logic of your theory that every branch, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. was individually designed by your God in preparation for humans, as part of his “goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. You do not help your case by pretending that I don’t believe in evolution.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, March 04, 2022, 15:28 (117 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your idea of a human God on the basis that we resemble Him is not my point. Our 'Gods' have no resemblance to each other.

dhw: I have no “idea of a human God”. If he exists, I assume – just as you do – that we would have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his, since he would hardly have created a being with attributes he knows nothing about. (You agreed when I mentioned love.) That does not make him a human God! Therefore, if I offer a theory concerning his purposes and methods, it is absurd to dismiss it on the grounds that it involves thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his.

When I analyze what sort of person would plan as you have your God planning it has all the aspects of someone expressing human desires and needs, all previously pointed out.


DAVID: You use 'authorities', so I can. Adler's simple point is God evolved humans, so unusual, God must exist. That is my point also.

dhw: And my point is that this thread is not about God’s existence but about your illogical theory of evolution (that your God individually designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although humans plus food were his one and only goal), which you have repeatedly told us is NOT discussed by Adler. Please stop dodging.

Total avoidance of the point Adler makes: God used evolution to make humans, which because of how unusual we are, proves God must exist. That allows me to present humans as God's endpoint purpose. I agree my discussion of the nitty-gritty of how God does it is a separate issue Adler doesn't enter. That you can't accept this difference is absurd.


DAVID: In your myopic view we are not related to Archaea! So we have no past! Evolution is one long involved process, all parts related.

dhw: When have I ever said we have no past??? I firmly believe in evolution, which means that all life forms are descended from the first cells, but as you yourself have rightly observed, humans are only one branch of life, and countless branches – all descended from Archaea – plus foods have disappeared. I dispute the logic of your theory that every branch, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. was individually designed by your God in preparation for humans, as part of his “goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. You do not help your case by pretending that I don’t believe in evolution.

The bold makes no sense to me. If God created evolution, which is the point in this discussion, He created every aspect and branch of the bush. old and new. How would your God run evolution, assuming He did?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, March 05, 2022, 08:18 (117 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your idea of a human God on the basis that we resemble Him is not my point. Our 'Gods' have no resemblance to each other.

dhw: I have no “idea of a human God”. If he exists, I assume – just as you do – that we would have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his, since he would hardly have created a being with attributes he knows nothing about. (You agreed when I mentioned love.) That does not make him a human God! Therefore, if I offer a theory concerning his purposes and methods, it is absurd to dismiss it on the grounds that it involves thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his.

DAVID: When I analyze what sort of person would plan as you have your God planning it has all the aspects of someone expressing human desires and needs, all previously pointed out.

At various times you have your God enjoying creating, being interested in his creations, wanting us to admire them, wanting to have a relationship with us, being too kind to deliberately design things that would harm us, and knowing what love is. If his only purpose was to design humans, I see no reason why experimentation or progressive learning and coming up with new ideas should be dismissed as a human “desire or need”, but it opposes your view of a God who is all-knowing and always in control. However, the latter image leaves you incapable of explaining why he would design countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food if his one and only purpose was to design humans plus food. You have complained that the latter proposal – all life was in preparation for humans etc. – is a distortion of your beliefs, but you keep repeating it, as under “New life evolves Earth’s climate”:

DAVID: all by designed plan: living matter influences geological processes, all working together to provide a livable Earth for humans[dhw's bold]

As if the processes had not provided a livable Earth for countless other life forms, extinct and extant, and unconnected with humans.

DAVID: Adler's simple point is God evolved humans, so unusual, God must exist. That is my point also.

dhw: And my point is that this thread is not about God’s existence but about your illogical theory of evolution (that your God individually designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although humans plus food were his one and only goal), which you have repeatedly told us is NOT discussed by Adler. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Total avoidance of the point Adler makes: God used evolution to make humans, which because of how unusual we are, proves God must exist. That allows me to present humans as God's endpoint purpose. I agree my discussion of the nitty-gritty of how God does it is a separate issue Adler doesn't enter.

You and your fellow ID-ers use ALL the complexities of life to “prove God must exist”. “Endpoint” we may be, but that does not mean he individually designed etc., as bolded above. That is the “nitty-gritty” subject we are discussing.

DAVID: In your myopic view we are not related to Archaea! So we have no past! Evolution is one long involved process, all parts related.

dhw: When have I ever said we have no past??? I firmly believe in evolution, which means that all life forms are descended from the first cells, but as you yourself have rightly observed, humans are only one branch of life, and countless branches – all descended from Archaea – plus foods have disappeared. I dispute the logic of the theory bolded above, and you do not help your case by pretending that I don’t believe in evolution.

DAVID: The bold makes no sense to me. If God created evolution, which is the point in this discussion, He created every aspect and branch of the bush. old and new.

If God exists, yes, he created evolution, but 1) that does NOT mean he individually designed every aspect and branch old and new (he could have designed a free-for-all) and 2) if he did create every aspect and branch, why, oh why, did he do so if his one and only purpose was to create humans plus food, although the vast majority of aspects and branches had no connection with humans plus food? And why, oh why, do you keep dodging this question?

DAVID: How would your God run evolution, assuming He did?

I offered you three alternative theories last week: free-for-all, experimentation, learning and coming up with new ideas as the process develops. Your objections to these do not in any way answer the above question, so please stop dodging.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 05, 2022, 15:30 (116 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: When I analyze what sort of person would plan as you have your God planning it has all the aspects of someone expressing human desires and needs, all previously pointed out.

dhw: I see no reason why experimentation or progressive learning and coming up with new ideas should be dismissed as a human “desire or need”, but it opposes your view of a God who is all-knowing and always in control.

And that is a God you refuse to recognize as if impossible. Wny?

dhw: However, the latter image leaves you incapable of explaining why he would design countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food if his one and only purpose was to design humans plus food. You have complained that the latter proposal – all life was in preparation for humans etc. – is a distortion of your beliefs,

Explained fully as choosing to use evolution to create humans from bacteria. What distortion, except as you twist?

DAVID: Total avoidance of the point Adler makes: God used evolution to make humans, which because of how unusual we are, proves God must exist. That allows me to present humans as God's endpoint purpose. I agree my discussion of the nitty-gritty of how God does it is a separate issue Adler doesn't enter.

dhw: You and your fellow ID-ers use ALL the complexities of life to “prove God must exist”. “Endpoint” we may be, but that does not mean he individually designed etc., as bolded above. That is the “nitty-gritty” subject we are discussing.

Yes it does! I feel very comfortable with my ID crowd


DAVID: In your myopic view we are not related to Archaea! So we have no past! Evolution is one long involved process, all parts related.

dhw: When have I ever said we have no past??? I firmly believe in evolution, which means that all life forms are descended from the first cells, but as you yourself have rightly observed, humans are only one branch of life, and countless branches – all descended from Archaea – plus foods have disappeared. I dispute the logic of the theory bolded above, and you do not help your case by pretending that I don’t believe in evolution.

DAVID: The bold makes no sense to me. If God created evolution, which is the point in this discussion, He created every aspect and branch of the bush. old and new.

dhw: If God exists, yes, he created evolution, but 1) that does NOT mean he individually designed every aspect and branch old and new (he could have designed a free-for-all) and 2) if he did create every aspect and branch, why, oh why, did he do so if his one and only purpose was to create humans plus food, although the vast majority of aspects and branches had no connection with humans plus food? And why, oh why, do you keep dodging this question?

Yes, that does mean God designed every aspect of evolution reaching at long last humans. If God did not design every step how did that amazing result happen as Adler proposes?


DAVID: How would your God run evolution, assuming He did?

dhw: I offered you three alternative theories last week: free-for-all, experimentation, learning and coming up with new ideas as the process develops. Your objections to these do not in any way answer the above question, so please stop dodging.

Not in control, with fully human attributes. How did God create the universe and life if he 'had to learn and come up with new ideas'? Your God stumbles along. A characterature of a God!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, March 06, 2022, 11:41 (115 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: When I analyze what sort of person would plan as you have your God planning it has all the aspects of someone expressing human desires and needs, all previously pointed out.

dhw: I see no reason why experimentation or progressive learning and coming up with new ideas should be dismissed as a human “desire or need”, but it opposes your view of a God who is all-knowing and always in control.

DAVID: And that is a God you refuse to recognize as if impossible. Why?

Once again, you raise a point, I answer it, and so you change the subject! Two of my theories do NOT express human desires or needs, as you claimed above. Your view of a God who is all-knowing and always in control, doesn’t fit in with your own theory that he had only one purpose (humans and their food) but proceeded to design countless life forms and foods and natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans. This problem is resolved if we adopt the experimentation or learning theory. Alternatively, the problem is solved if his aim was not exclusively to produce humans and their food, but was to create a free-for-all, which would be more interesting for him to watch than a puppet show. An all-powerful God who decides to give his creations the freedom to do their own thing is exemplified by the concept of human free will. He can give up control if he wants to, and he can create surprises for himself if he wants to. If he invented football, he would spoil the concept if he already knew every result before the match was played.

dhw: You have complained that the latter proposal – all life was in preparation for humans etc. – is a distortion of your beliefs...

DAVID: Explained fully as choosing to use evolution to create humans from bacteria. What distortion, except as you twist?

If he exists, he used evolution to create ALL life forms from bacteria (whether through individual design or through a free-for-all)! You accused me of distortion when I repeated your theory that humans plus food were his one and only purpose, but you keep repeating this theory!

dhw: You and your fellow ID-ers use ALL the complexities of life to “prove God must exist”. “Endpoint” we may be, but that does not mean he individually designed etc., as bolded above. That is the “nitty-gritty” subject we are discussing.

DAVID: Yes it does! I feel very comfortable with my ID crowd.

You have as usual ignored the “etc.”, which I didn’t want to repeat in full. You have told us that your ID crowd does not cover your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to create humans plus food, and so he designed all the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food.

The rest of this post simply repeats points already dealt with ad nauseam.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 06, 2022, 15:12 (115 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: When I analyze what sort of person would plan as you have your God planning it has all the aspects of someone expressing human desires and needs, all previously pointed out.

dhw: I see no reason why experimentation or progressive learning and coming up with new ideas should be dismissed as a human “desire or need”, but it opposes your view of a God who is all-knowing and always in control.

DAVID: And that is a God you refuse to recognize as if impossible. Why?

dhw: Once again, you raise a point, I answer it, and so you change the subject! Two of my theories do NOT express human desires or needs, as you claimed above. Your view of a God who is all-knowing and always in control, doesn’t fit in with your own theory that he had only one purpose (humans and their food) but proceeded to design countless life forms and foods and natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans. This problem is resolved if we adopt the experimentation or learning theory. Alternatively, the problem is solved if his aim was not exclusively to produce humans and their food, but was to create a free-for-all, which would be more interesting for him to watch than a puppet show.

I did not change the subject. You answered as I suspected would happen to again describe a god with all sorts of human desires, such s needing a 'puppet show'. A God who can invent a universe and then add life is no slouch who must experiment or learn by experience. As for God's use of an evolutionary method you are are splitter and I'm a lumper. That is a deep personal proclivity. Part 0f why you are an agnostic.


dhw: You have complained that the latter proposal – all life was in preparation for humans etc. – is a distortion of your beliefs...

DAVID: Explained fully as choosing to use evolution to create humans from bacteria. What distortion, except as you twist?

dhw: If he exists, he used evolution to create ALL life forms from bacteria (whether through individual design or through a free-for-all)! You accused me of distortion when I repeated your theory that humans plus food were his one and only purpose, but you keep repeating this theory!

It is an obvious outcome of the process we call evolution.


dhw: You and your fellow ID-ers use ALL the complexities of life to “prove God must exist”. “Endpoint” we may be, but that does not mean he individually designed etc., as bolded above. That is the “nitty-gritty” subject we are discussing.

DAVID: Yes it does! I feel very comfortable with my ID crowd.

dhw: You have as usual ignored the “etc.”, which I didn’t want to repeat in full. You have told us that your ID crowd does not cover your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to create humans plus food, and so he designed all the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food.

I have had personal discussions with Behe and others at an ID conference, listened to their presentations. They believe exactly as I do! Why must you invent a different ID group than the one I know. Where they differ is I try to explain how God might manipulate DNA at a level of encoding into the genome and they do not. Our basic assumptions of God's goals are the same.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, March 07, 2022, 14:34 (114 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: When I analyze what sort of person would plan as you have your God planning it has all the aspects of someone expressing human desires and needs, all previously pointed out.

dhw: I see no reason why experimentation or progressive learning and coming up with new ideas should be dismissed as a human “desire or need”, but it opposes your view of a God who is all-knowing and always in control.

DAVID: And that is a God you refuse to recognize as if impossible. Why?

dhw: Once again, you raise a point, I answer it, and so you change the subject! Two of my theories do NOT express human desires or needs, as you claimed above. Your view of a God who is all-knowing and always in control, doesn’t fit in with your own theory that he had only one purpose (humans and their food) but proceeded to design countless life forms and foods and natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans. This problem is resolved if we adopt the experimentation or learning theory. Alternatively, the problem is solved if his aim was not exclusively to produce humans and their food, but was to create a free-for-all, which would be more interesting for him to watch than a puppet show.

DAVID:I did not change the subject. You answered as I suspected would happen to again describe a god with all sorts of human desires, such s needing a 'puppet show'.

I pointed out that experimenting, learning and coming up with new ideas were not “human desires or needs”; they solve the problem set by your illogical theory, but oppose your idea of an all-knowing God always in control. Your response was to ask why I rejected the idea of such a God. I didn’t say I did! However, the puppet show is an image for your God’s human desire to have complete control, whereas a free-for-all allows for your God’s human desire to create something more interesting for himself to watch.

DAVID: A God who can invent a universe and then add life is no slouch who must experiment or learn by experience.

I didn’t say he “must”, but I object to your assumption that he is incapable of experimenting, learning, and creating things that will interest him, although you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates.

DAVID: As for God's use of an evolutionary method you are are splitter and I'm a lumper. That is a deep personal proclivity. Part 0f why you are an agnostic.

A complete red herring. We can see evolution as a continuous process of different life forms coming and going, all of them descended from the first cells (lumping). At the same time, we can recognize that those life forms are divergent, and one branch of the bush is totally different from another branch and will eat different foods (splitting). What you try to do is lump all branches together as part of the one and only goal of producing humans and their food. You know it doesn’t make sense, you tell me to ask God to explain it, and yet you go on dodging the issue with one vague generalization after another.

dhw: You have told us that your ID crowd does not cover your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to create humans plus food, and so he designed all the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food.

DAVID: I have had personal discussions with Behe and others at an ID conference, listened to their presentations. They believe exactly as I do! Why must you invent a different ID group than the one I know. Where they differ is I try to explain how God might manipulate DNA at a level of encoding into the genome and they do not. Our basic assumptions of God's goals are the same.

A simple request: Please tell me if Behe and the rest believe that every single extinct life form and food (plus econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder) was individually designed by God as “preparation” for humans and their food, and was part of God’s one and only goal of evolving humans and their food.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, March 07, 2022, 23:39 (114 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID:I did not change the subject. You answered as I suspected would happen to again describe a god with all sorts of human desires, such s needing a 'puppet show'.

dhw: I pointed out that experimenting, learning and coming up with new ideas were not “human desires or needs”; they solve the problem set by your illogical theory, but oppose your idea of an all-knowing God always in control. Your response was to ask why I rejected the idea of such a God. I didn’t say I did! However, the puppet show is an image for your God’s human desire to have complete control, whereas a free-for-all allows for your God’s human desire to create something more interesting for himself to watch.

Once again you describe a humanized god who needs to entertain himself. Again you made my point.


DAVID: A God who can invent a universe and then add life is no slouch who must experiment or learn by experience.

dhw: I didn’t say he “must”, but I object to your assumption that he is incapable of experimenting, learning, and creating things that will interest him, although you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates.

I never used the words 'I am certain' in regard to my God. I have always said my thouhts are guesses at what He might be thin king.


DAVID: As for God's use of an evolutionary method you are are splitter and I'm a lumper. That is a deep personal proclivity. Part 0f why you are an agnostic.

dhw: A complete red herring. We can see evolution as a continuous process of different life forms coming and going, all of them descended from the first cells (lumping). At the same time, we can recognize that those life forms are divergent, and one branch of the bush is totally different from another branch and will eat different foods (splitting). What you try to do is lump all branches together as part of the one and only goal of producing humans and their food. You know it doesn’t make sense, you tell me to ask God to explain it, and yet you go on dodging the issue with one vague generalization after another.

My statements are quite specific. You just have proven my point as in the bold, again splitting. My psychoanalysis is on the mark which is why you are uncomfortable with it.. It is your lone discomfort that makes no sense only to you..


dhw: You have told us that your ID crowd does not cover your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to create humans plus food, and so he designed all the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food.

DAVID: I have had personal discussions with Behe and others at an ID conference, listened to their presentations. They believe exactly as I do! Why must you invent a different ID group than the one I know. Where they differ is I try to explain how God might manipulate DNA at a level of encoding into the genome and they do not. Our basic assumptions of God's goals are the same.

dhw: A simple request: Please tell me if Behe and the rest believe that every single extinct life form and food (plus econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder) was individually designed by God as “preparation” for humans and their food, and was part of God’s one and only goal of evolving humans and their food.

Without direct questioning, it is my impression they agree with me. God designed all of evolution to create/ produce humans. They would all agree with Adler.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, March 08, 2022, 09:14 (114 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: […] the puppet show is an image for your God’s human desire to have complete control, whereas a free-for-all allows for your God’s human desire to create something more interesting for himself to watch.

DAVID: Once again you describe a humanized god who needs to entertain himself. Again you made my point.

You keep using the words “need” and “entertain”, which make your God seem needy and superficial. I prefer to use the terms you yourself have used: he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. And in one of my theories (akin to your own analogy of playwriting), I suggest that it is far more interesting to create something unpredictable and surprising than something that merely obeys instructions.

DAVID: A God who can invent a universe and then add life is no slouch who must experiment or learn by experience.

dhw: I didn’t say he “must”, but I object to your assumption that he is incapable of experimenting, learning, and creating things that will interest him, although you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates.

DAVID: I never used the words 'I am certain' in regard to my God. I have always said my thoughts are guesses at what He might be thinking.

This discussion has been going on for years, and I base my arguments on what you write. I have learned to keep a record of certain key statements, because you frequently deny having made them or claim that I have misinterpreted them. I’m sorry if this seems sneaky, but it is frustrating when we reach common ground and then you run away from it. You do the same with your statements about your God’s possible thought patterns, emotions and logic, and the irrelevance of past species and foods to current life. The dates are when I first responded to the quote:

“Back to theodicy and David’s theories”: March 7 2021: “Thank you for your long review clarifying past discussions. I’m sure God enjoys his work at creating.” Followed on 9 March by: “God is in the business of creation and enjoys doing it or I think he would stop.”
“Theodicy”: October 19 2020: “I’m sure he sees what is going on with His own level of interest, unknown to us.”

Of course you are right – all our theories are “guesswork”, including that of God’s existence, but even if you only guess that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, you are providing a logical “humanized” motive for his creating life.

DAVID: As for God's use of an evolutionary method you are are splitter and I'm a lumper. That is a deep personal proclivity. Part 0f why you are an agnostic.

dhw: A complete red herring. We can see evolution as a continuous process of different life forms coming and going, all of them descended from the first cells (lumping). At the same time, we can recognize that those life forms are divergent, and one branch of the bush is totally different from another branch and will eat different foods (splitting). What you try to do is lump all branches together as part of the one and only goal of producing humans and their food. You know it doesn’t make sense, you tell me to ask God to explain it, and yet you go on dodging the issue with one vague generalization after another.

DAVID: My statements are quite specific. You just have proven my point as in the bold, again splitting. My psychoanalysis is on the mark which is why you are uncomfortable with it.. It is your lone discomfort that makes no sense only to you.

The bold shows that you try to use lumping as a diversion from the fact that you have agreed that extinct life has no role to play in current life, and there is no direct connection between most extinct life forms plus foods and ourselves. I am not merely “uncomfortable” with it – I am pointing out that you yourself have no idea why your God would have created all these diverse life forms that have no connection with humans, if his one and only goal was to design humans.

dhw: A simple request: Please tell me if Behe and the rest believe that every single extinct life form and food (plus econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder) was individually designed by God as “preparation” for humans and their food, and was part of God’s one and only goal of evolving humans and their food.

DAVID: Without direct questioning, it is my impression they agree with me. God designed all of evolution to create/ produce humans. They would all agree with Adler.

Adler, you keep admitting, does not cover the illogical elements of your theory. Over the years, I have consulted lots of ID websites, and I have never once come across anything like your theory – on the contrary, every effort is made to avoid mention of God and of specific divine purposes. But even if this vague “impression” of yours were to be correct, it really doesn’t matter two hoots, because if you can’t find a logical explanation why your purposeful, all-powerful God fulfilled his one and only purpose by initially not fulfilling his one and only purpose, I don’t suppose even ID-ers can.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 08, 2022, 21:52 (113 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You keep using the words “need” and “entertain”, which make your God seem needy and superficial. I prefer to use the terms you yourself have used: he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. And in one of my theories (akin to your own analogy of playwriting), I suggest that it is far more interesting to create something unpredictable and surprising than something that merely obeys instructions.

DAVID: I never used the words 'I am certain' in regard to my God. I have always said my thoughts are guesses at what He might be thinking.


dhw: This discussion has been going on for years, and I base my arguments on what you write. I have learned to keep a record of certain key statements, because you frequently deny having made them or claim that I have misinterpreted them. I’m sorry if this seems sneaky, but it is frustrating when we reach common ground and then you run away from it. You do the same with your statements about your God’s possible thought patterns, emotions and logic, and the irrelevance of past species and foods to current life. The dates are when I first responded to the quote:

“Back to theodicy and David’s theories”: March 7 2021: “Thank you for your long review clarifying past discussions. I’m sure God enjoys his work at creating.” Followed on 9 March by: “God is in the business of creation and enjoys doing it or I think he would stop.”
“Theodicy”: October 19 2020: “I’m sure he sees what is going on with His own level of interest, unknown to us.”

Of course you are right – all our theories are “guesswork”, including that of God’s existence, but even if you only guess that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, you are providing a logical “humanized” motive for his creating life.

Please accept all of my conjectures about God's thoughts are guesses although presented with some of possible certainty. You agree about guesswork.


DAVID: My statements are quite specific. You just have proven my point as in the bold, again splitting. My psychoanalysis is on the mark which is why you are uncomfortable with it.. It is your lone discomfort that makes no sense only to you.

dhw: The bold shows that you try to use lumping as a diversion from the fact that you have agreed that extinct life has no role to play in current life, and there is no direct connection between most extinct life forms plus foods and ourselves.

Again. I see evolution as whole process and you split away the early past portions


dhw: A simple request: Please tell me if Behe and the rest believe that every single extinct life form and food (plus econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder) was individually designed by God as “preparation” for humans and their food, and was part of God’s one and only goal of evolving humans and their food.

DAVID: Without direct questioning, it is my impression they agree with me. God designed all of evolution to create/ produce humans. They would all agree with Adler.

dhw: Adler, you keep admitting, does not cover the illogical elements of your theory. Over the years, I have consulted lots of ID websites, and I have never once come across anything like your theory – on the contrary, every effort is made to avoid mention of God and of specific divine purposes. But even if this vague “impression” of yours were to be correct, it really doesn’t matter two hoots, because if you can’t find a logical explanation why your purposeful, all-powerful God fulfilled his one and only purpose by initially not fulfilling his one and only purpose, I don’t suppose even ID-ers can.

Same distortion. Adler and I operate on the evidence in evolution that God fully intended to produce humans, so unusual, they could not have just appeared naturally. How God did it is His personal choice of creation, a perfectly logical thought for anyone who does not deny God. It is your agnostic problem. ID says evolution was designed, designer unknown, but knowing ID'ers and having attended their conferences, I know exactly how their minds work.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, March 09, 2022, 10:12 (113 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I never used the words 'I am certain' in regard to my God. I have always said my thoughts are guesses at what He might be thinking.

I reproduced quotes in which you had used the word “sure”.

Dhw: Of course you are right – all our theories are “guesswork”, including that of God’s existence, but even if you only guess that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, you are providing a logical “humanized” motive for his creating life.

DAVID: Please accept all of my conjectures about God's thoughts are guesses although presented with some of possible certainty. You agree about guesswork.

Not only do I agree, but I have also pointed out repeatedly that ALL your authoritative statements about your God’s purposes, methods and nature are guesswork, including all those which you use to dismiss alternatives to your guesses.

dhw: …you try to use lumping as a diversion from the fact that you have agreed that extinct life has no role to play in current life, and there is no direct connection between most extinct life forms plus foods and ourselves.

DAVID: Again. I see evolution as whole process and you split away the early past portions.

The whole process of lumping means all life is descended from bacteria. Splitting means that life evolved into different largely unconnected branches. You agree that humans are just one branch, and most extinct life forms and foods have no role to play in current life and had no connection with humans, which makes nonsense of your theory that all extinct life forms and foods were part of your God’s goal to evolve (= design) humans and their food.

dhw: […] you can’t find a logical explanation why your purposeful, all-powerful God fulfilled his one and only purpose by initially not fulfilling his one and only purpose, I don’t suppose even ID-ers can.
Your reply consists of one evasion after another:

DAVID: Adler and I operate on the evidence in evolution that God fully intended to produce humans, so unusual, they could not have just appeared naturally.

The same argument applies to the complexity of all life forms – hence the theory of ID. I am not disputing the logic of this argument.

DAVID: How God did it is His personal choice of creation, a perfectly logical thought for anyone who does not deny God. It is your agnostic problem.

It is absolutely not a problem, and has nothing to do with my agnosticism. The problem is your illogical theory about how and why God did it, and your refusal to consider any alternative theistic theory.

DAVID: ID says evolution was designed, designer unknown, but knowing ID'ers and having attended their conferences, I know exactly how their minds work.

I know what ID says, and I challenge your assumption that they all believe your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food, and so he proceeded to design countless life forms and foods in preparation for humans plus food and as part of the goal of evolving humans plus food, although they had no connection with humans plus food. Please stop dodging.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 09, 2022, 16:58 (112 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Please accept all of my conjectures about God's thoughts are guesses although presented with some of possible certainty. You agree about guesswork.

dhw: Not only do I agree, but I have also pointed out repeatedly that ALL your authoritative statements about your God’s purposes, methods and nature are guesswork, including all those which you use to dismiss alternatives to your guesses.

dhw: …you try to use lumping as a diversion from the fact that you have agreed that extinct life has no role to play in current life, and there is no direct connection between most extinct life forms plus foods and ourselves.

DAVID: Again. I see evolution as whole process and you split away the early past portions.

dhw: The whole process of lumping means all life is descended from bacteria. Splitting means that life evolved into different largely unconnected branches. You agree that humans are just one branch, and most extinct life forms and foods have no role to play in current life and had no connection with humans, which makes nonsense of your theory that all extinct life forms and foods were part of your God’s goal to evolve (= design) humans and their food.

You just ignore the history of evolution. Is it a whole or not?


dhw: […] you can’t find a logical explanation why your purposeful, all-powerful God fulfilled his one and only purpose by initially not fulfilling his one and only purpose, I don’t suppose even ID-ers can.
Your reply consists of one evasion after another:

DAVID: Adler and I operate on the evidence in evolution that God fully intended to produce humans, so unusual, they could not have just appeared naturally.

dhw: The same argument applies to the complexity of all life forms – hence the theory of ID. I am not disputing the logic of this argument.

DAVID: How God did it is His personal choice of creation, a perfectly logical thought for anyone who does not deny God. It is your agnostic problem.

dhw: It is absolutely not a problem, and has nothing to do with my agnosticism. The problem is your illogical theory about how and why God did it, and your refusal to consider any alternative theistic theory.

What I object to is your presenting a humanized god that is unrecognizable to me. WE cannot debate what God did when the views we have of God's personality are so different.


DAVID: ID says evolution was designed, designer unknown, but knowing ID'ers and having attended their conferences, I know exactly how their minds work.

dhw: I know what ID says, and I challenge your assumption that they all believe your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food, and so he proceeded to design countless life forms and foods in preparation for humans plus food and as part of the goal of evolving humans plus food, although they had no connection with humans plus food. Please stop dodging.

Your refusal to believe me about ID is fascinating. Am I honest or not? ID believes God designed every bit of life with humans as the desired endpoint.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, March 10, 2022, 13:18 (111 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You just ignore the history of evolution. Is it a whole or not?

You have just ignored the answer I gave you, so I’ll repeat it! In the sense that all life is descended from bacteria, you can say it is a whole. In the sense that life evolved into countless separate branches, you can say that it is split. The idea that every single branch and every single econiche, lifestyle, problem solution and natural wonder throughout the history of life was preparation for just one branch (plus its food) and was part of the one and only goal of producing that branch (plus its food) frankly beggars belief. If you simply go through your own wonderful list of current natural wonders (not to mention all the natural wonders that must have come and gone) and add the comment: without this, humans would not exist or would not have enough food to exist, you will see how absurd it is. (See "More miscellany".)
.
DAVID: How God did it is His personal choice of creation, a perfectly logical thought for anyone who does not deny God. It is your agnostic problem.

dhw: It is absolutely not a problem, and has nothing to do with my agnosticism. The problem is your illogical theory about how and why God did it, and your refusal to consider any alternative theistic theory.

DAVID: What I object to is your presenting a humanized god that is unrecognizable to me. WE cannot debate what God did when the views we have of God's personality are so different.

My alternative theories are a separate issue from the illogicality of your own theory, but you keep trying to use them as a digression from the fact that you cannot find any logic in your own theory and so I should go and ask God to explain it. Please top dodging.

Transferred from “Introducing the brain”:

DAVID: I started with research in how to think about God, as Adler instructed in his book. Based on that discussion and others, what you imagine about God is totally unrecognizable to me.

dhw: Then maybe you should extend your research, since your thoughts have led you to a theory of evolution which you yourself find incomprehensible (hence your advice to me to ask God for an explanation), but it’s good to hear that your research has led you to humanizing guesses about your God’s enjoyment, interest, thought patterns, emotions, logic, and even a desire for admiration from and relations with humans. Unrecognizable?

DAVID: I find my view of my God as totally comprehensible. I find your god as totally unrecognizable. So our differences are huge.

Your humanized guesses above all seem comprehensible to me. Why do you think they denote differences?

DAVID: ID says evolution was designed, designer unknown, but knowing ID'ers and having attended their conferences, I know exactly how their minds work.

dhw: I know what ID says, and I challenge your assumption that they all believe your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food, and so he proceeded to design countless life forms and foods in preparation for humans plus food and as part of the goal of evolving humans plus food, although they had no connection with humans plus food. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Your refusal to believe me about ID is fascinating. Am I honest or not? ID believes God designed every bit of life with humans as the desired endpoint.

Of course I’m not querying your honesty. I think you simply cotton on to those elements of your theory that you share with ID-ers, and you don’t realize the extent of your illogicality as you try to extend this common ground, which is strictly limited. To be precise, here is an extract from their own website:
What Is Intelligent Design? | Intelligent Design
intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. (dhw's bold)

According to this, ID-ers do not enter into discussion of a possible supernatural cause, so how could they enter into discussion of the desires of a supernatural cause? Have you interviewed every ID-er, and have they all told you that they believe your theory but publicly pretend they don’t? Are they dishonest?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 10, 2022, 16:22 (111 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You just ignore the history of evolution. Is it a whole or not?

dhw: You have just ignored the answer I gave you, so I’ll repeat it! The idea that every single branch and every single econiche, lifestyle, problem solution and natural wonder throughout the history of life was preparation for just one branch (plus its food) and was part of the one and only goal of producing that branch (plus its food) frankly beggars belief.

I've fully explained how I view God's evolution. The huge branching leads to us. We can trace back to the roots in Archaea. The rest is ecosystems to feed us and everyone else. Your view beggars belief.


DAVID: What I object to is your presenting a humanized god that is unrecognizable to me. WE cannot debate what God did when the views we have of God's personality are so different.

dhw: My alternative theories are a separate issue from the illogicality of your own theory, but you keep trying to use them as a digression from the fact that you cannot find any logic in your own theory and so I should go and ask God to explain it. Please top dodging.

No dodge. Simply accept God chose to evolve us.


Transferred from “Introducing the brain”:

DAVID: I find my view of my God as totally comprehensible. I find your god as totally unrecognizable. So our differences are huge.

dhw: Your humanized guesses above all seem comprehensible to me. Why do you think they denote differences?

The implied personalities as shown by stated God thoughts/desires are obviously very far apart.


DAVID: ID says evolution was designed, designer unknown, but knowing ID'ers and having attended their conferences, I know exactly how their minds work.

dhw: I know what ID says, and I challenge your assumption that they all believe your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food, and so he proceeded to design countless life forms and foods in preparation for humans plus food and as part of the goal of evolving humans plus food, although they had no connection with humans plus food. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Your refusal to believe me about ID is fascinating. Am I honest or not? ID believes God designed every bit of life with humans as the desired endpoint.

dhw: Of course I’m not querying your honesty.... To be precise, here is an extract from their own website:
What Is Intelligent Design? | Intelligent Design
intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. (dhw's bold)

According to this, ID-ers do not enter into discussion of a possible supernatural cause, so how could they enter into discussion of the desires of a supernatural cause? Have you interviewed every ID-er, and have they all told you that they believe your theory but publicly pretend they don’t? Are they dishonest?

Thank you for making this effort. What you are seeing is the outside posture of ID. God is not to be ever mentioned and they avoid any smell of biblical creationism, But I follow Uncommon Descent daily and in comments from readers Biblical quotes are very common. That is OK because it is follower's beliefs. What you read is the cover propaganda, not the religious
underlying beliefs. You need to dig into ID or believe me. At least believe me. Do you know about Discovery Institute? That is home base. Their Fellows come from all religions. They demand an immaterial designing mind, but just don't call it God. And all the while they pick Darwinism apart. Read or skim this as an example:

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/03/nature-communications-retroactively-concedes-a-lack-o...

"Years ago I began to recognize a repeating phenomenon in the rhetoric of evolutionary literature: Scientists, echoed by science journalists, would only admit a problem with their models or a challenge to their ideas once they thought they had found a solution. I’ve called these “retroactive admissions of ignorance.” We now have another example of this, from a paper just published in Nature Communications purporting to demonstrate Darwinian gradualism: “General statistical model shows that macroevolutionary patterns and processes are consistent with Darwinian gradualism.” Retroactive admissions of ignorance, weakness, or other problems typically come in the first sentences of the abstract or introduction of a paper. The rest of the paper is then supposed to show why the admission no longer applies, as the weakness has been cleared up. This paper is no exception to the pattern."

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, March 11, 2022, 11:36 (111 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You just ignore the history of evolution. Is it a whole or not?

dhw: You have just ignored the answer I gave you, so I’ll repeat it! The idea that every single branch and every single econiche, lifestyle, problem solution and natural wonder throughout the history of life was preparation for just one branch (plus its food) and was part of the one and only goal of producing that branch (plus its food) frankly beggars belief.

DAVID: I've fully explained how I view God's evolution. The huge branching leads to us. We can trace back to the roots in Archaea. The rest is ecosystems to feed us and everyone else. Your view beggars belief.

All life forms and not just ours have their roots in Archaea. Your belief that every single extinct branch throughout the history of life was “preparation” for humans beggars belief, and although of course every ecosystem has provided food for every organism that ever lived, it beggars belief that every ecosystem throughout the history of life was part of the goal of evolving humans and their food. You keep agreeing that PAST food was for the PAST, and extinct life has no role to play in current life, and then you try to wriggle out of your agreement with obfuscations. Just stick with your confession that you have no idea why your God would have deliberately designed all the life forms and econiches that had no connection with his one and only goal (humans plus food), and stop prolonging the agony!

DAVID: What I object to is your presenting a humanized god that is unrecognizable to me. WE cannot debate what God did when the views we have of God's personality are so different.

dhw: My alternative theories are a separate issue from the illogicality of your own theory, but you keep trying to use them as a digression from the fact that you cannot find any logic in your own theory and so I should go and ask God to explain it. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: No dodge. Simply accept God chose to evolve us.

If God exists, I am happy to accept that he set up the process of evolution that produced us and every other life form and econiche that had no connection with us.

Transferred from “Introducing the brain”:

DAVID: I find my view of my God as totally comprehensible. I find your god as totally unrecognizable. So our differences are huge.

dhw: Your humanized guesses above all seem comprehensible to me. Why do you think they denote differences?

DAVID: The implied personalities as shown by stated God thoughts/desires are obviously very far apart.

The humanized guesses “as shown” were your own: your God’s enjoyment, interest, thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours, and even a desire for admiration from and relations with humans. I’m sorry to hear that you are very far apart from your own guesses.

QUOTE from ID website: the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. (dhw's bold)

dhw: According to this, ID-ers do not enter into discussion of a possible supernatural cause, so how could they enter into discussion of the desires of a supernatural cause? Have you interviewed every ID-er, and have they all told you that they believe your theory but publicly pretend they don’t? Are they dishonest?

DAVID: […] What you are seeing is the outside posture of ID. God is not to be ever mentioned and they avoid any smell of biblical creationism, But I follow Uncommon Descent daily and in comments from readers Biblical quotes are very common. That is OK because it is follower's beliefs. What you read is the cover propaganda, not the religious underlying beliefs.
Do you know about Discovery Institute? That is home base. Their Fellows come from all religions. They demand an immaterial designing mind, but just don't call it God. And all the while they pick Darwinism apart.

You frequently quote from Uncommon Descent. It’s clear that religious folk have tried to take over ID, just as it’s clear that there are ID-ers who wish to avoid all such diversions from their scientific work. You give the example of Darwin’s gradualism, which even an agnostic can find fault with, though the term is relative: how gradual is gradual on a geological time scale? But this has nothing whatsoever to do with our dispute, which only concerns your theory that from the very beginning your all-powerful, all-purposeful God individually designed every single life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder as preparation for his one and only goal of designing humans and their food. This is so illogical that you yourself tell me to ask God to explain it, and yet you claim that ID-ers support it. I find that hard to believe. Hence my bolded question above.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 12, 2022, 01:27 (110 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You just ignore the history of evolution. Is it a whole or not?

dhw: You have just ignored the answer I gave you, so I’ll repeat it! The idea that every single branch and every single econiche, lifestyle, problem solution and natural wonder throughout the history of life was preparation for just one branch (plus its food) and was part of the one and only goal of producing that branch (plus its food) frankly beggars belief.

DAVID: I've fully explained how I view God's evolution. The huge branching leads to us. We can trace back to the roots in Archaea. The rest is ecosystems to feed us and everyone else. Your view beggars belief.

dhw: You keep agreeing that PAST food was for the PAST, and extinct life has no role to play in current life, and then you try to wriggle out of your agreement with obfuscations. Just stick with your confession that you have no idea why your God would have deliberately designed all the life forms and econiches that had no connection with his one and only goal (humans plus food), and stop prolonging the agony!

It is true I have no idea why God chose His evolution method, but I have every right to interpret it as I do. I see evolution as a whole process and you split it into unrelated parts.


DAVID: No dodge. Simply accept God chose to evolve us.

dhw: If God exists, I am happy to accept that he set up the process of evolution that produced us and every other life form and econiche that had no connection with us.

Perhaps that ends this aspect.


Transferred from “Introducing the brain”:

DAVID: I find my view of my God as totally comprehensible. I find your god as totally unrecognizable. So our differences are huge.

dhw: Your humanized guesses above all seem comprehensible to me. Why do you think they denote differences?

DAVID: The implied personalities as shown by stated God thoughts/desires are obviously very far apart.

dhw: The humanized guesses “as shown” were your own: your God’s enjoyment, interest, thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours, and even a desire for admiration from and relations with humans. I’m sorry to hear that you are very far apart from your own guesses.

We are discussing both Gods and my statement refers to yours as different from mine.


QUOTE from ID website: the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. (dhw's bold)

DAVID: […] What you are seeing is the outside posture of ID. God is not to be ever mentioned and they avoid any smell of biblical creationism, But I follow Uncommon Descent daily and in comments from readers Biblical quotes are very common. That is OK because it is follower's beliefs. What you read is the cover propaganda, not the religious underlying beliefs.
Do you know about Discovery Institute? That is home base. Their Fellows come from all religions. They demand an immaterial designing mind, but just don't call it God. And all the while they pick Darwinism apart.

dhw: You frequently quote from Uncommon Descent. It’s clear that religious folk have tried to take over ID, just as it’s clear that there are ID-ers who wish to avoid all such diversions from their scientific work. You give the example of Darwin’s gradualism, which even an agnostic can find fault with, though the term is relative: how gradual is gradual on a geological time scale? But this has nothing whatsoever to do with our dispute, which only concerns your theory that from the very beginning your all-powerful, all-purposeful God individually designed every single life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder as preparation for his one and only goal of designing humans and their food. This is so illogical that you yourself tell me to ask God to explain it, and yet you claim that ID-ers support it. I find that hard to believe. Hence my bolded question above.

Again, my beliefs about ID ae quite correct. The very religious folks ae allowed to sneak in their strong religious bias but only in commentaries, not articles or research. The ID godfathers set up the no-god rules at the beginning:

https://www.discovery.org/a/8931/

"In conclusion, the term “intelligent design” not only long pre-dates the Edwards ruling, but the basic arguments for design pre-date Christianity. Moreover, modern members of the ID movement started using the term “intelligent design” not to evade a court ruling, but because they sought terminology that would accurately communicate their project’s original intent to remain entirely within the empirical domain and avoid investigating religious questions about the supernatural."

ID is not as you have obviously imagined it to be.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, March 12, 2022, 08:17 (110 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've fully explained how I view God's evolution. The huge branching leads to us. We can trace back to the roots in Archaea. The rest is ecosystems to feed us and everyone else. Your view beggars belief.

dhw: You keep agreeing that PAST food was for the PAST, and extinct life has no role to play in current life, and then you try to wriggle out of your agreement with obfuscations. Just stick with your confession that you have no idea why your God would have deliberately designed all the life forms and econiches that had no connection with his one and only goal (humans plus food), and stop prolonging the agony!

DAVID: It is true I have no idea why God chose His evolution method, but I have every right to interpret it as I do. I see evolution as a whole process and you split it into unrelated parts.

I see both: all life forms are descended from the first cells = whole. Life forms split into branches that had no connection with each other = split. You have no idea why your God would have chosen the evolution method you impose on him. Please don’t confuse your theory with fact.

Transferred from “Introducing the brain”:

DAVID: I find my view of my God as totally comprehensible. I find your god as totally unrecognizable. So our differences are huge.

dhw: Your humanized guesses [..] all seem comprehensible to me. Why do you think they denote differences?

DAVID: The implied personalities as shown by stated God thoughts/desires are obviously very far apart.

dhw: The humanized guesses “as shown” were your own: your God’s enjoyment, interest, thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours, and even a desire for admiration from and relations with humans. I’m sorry to hear that you are very far apart from your own guesses.

DAVID: We are discussing both Gods and my statement refers to yours as different from mine.

Which of the above humanized guesses are different from yours?

dhw: It’s clear that religious folk have tried to take over ID, just as it’s clear that there are ID-ers who wish to avoid all such diversions from their scientific work.

DAVID: Again, my beliefs about ID ae quite correct. The very religious folks ae allowed to sneak in their strong religious bias but only in commentaries, not articles or research. The ID godfathers set up the no-god rules at the beginning:

This is another way of saying what I have just said above, but it is totally irrelevant to our dispute, which is whether, as you have claimed, ID-ers support your belief that God designed every single extinct life form, lifestyle, econiche and natural wonder as preparation for humans and their food, i.e. as “part of the goal of evolving [= design] humans” and their food.

DAVID: ID is not as you have obviously imagined it to be.

It is exactly as I have imagined it to be, but that is not the issue anyway. See the bold above.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 12, 2022, 17:53 (109 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is true I have no idea why God chose His evolution method, but I have every right to interpret it as I do. I see evolution as a whole process and you split it into unrelated parts.

dhw: I see both: all life forms are descended from the first cells = whole. Life forms split into branches that had no connection with each other = split. You have no idea why your God would have chosen the evolution method you impose on him. Please don’t confuse your theory with fact.

The fact is all twigs go back to Archaea. The bush of the differing nonconnected branches provides the necessary food for all. Holistically makes total sense. I don't question God's choices.


Transferred from “Introducing the brain”:

DAVID: I find my view of my God as totally comprehensible. I find your god as totally unrecognizable. So our differences are huge.

dhw: Your humanized guesses [..] all seem comprehensible to me. Why do you think they denote differences?

DAVID: The implied personalities as shown by stated God thoughts/desires are obviously very far apart.

dhw: The humanized guesses “as shown” were your own: your God’s enjoyment, interest, thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours, and even a desire for admiration from and relations with humans. I’m sorry to hear that you are very far apart from your own guesses.

DAVID: We are discussing both Gods and my statement refers to yours as different from mine.

dhw: Which of the above humanized guesses are different from yours?

All of my God's actions are from purposefully creating without regard to Himself, His personal needs or his secondary personal reactions which follow creation. He never requires experimentation and never changes his mind about His direction as compared to your wishy-washy characterization. I accept theologians view of God. Your attempt to equate our Gods come from my guesswork about how He might personally feel. You make ludicrous comparisons by tortuously twisting my comments into facts.


dhw: It’s clear that religious folk have tried to take over ID, just as it’s clear that there are ID-ers who wish to avoid all such diversions from their scientific work.

DAVID: Again, my beliefs about ID ae quite correct. The very religious folks ae allowed to sneak in their strong religious bias but only in commentaries, not articles or research. The ID godfathers set up the no-god rules at the beginning:

dhw: This is another way of saying what I have just said above, but it is totally irrelevant to our dispute, which is whether, as you have claimed, ID-ers support your belief that God designed every single extinct life form, lifestyle, econiche and natural wonder as preparation for humans and their food, i.e. as “part of the goal of evolving [= design] humans” and their food.

DAVID: ID is not as you have obviously imagined it to be.

dhw: It is exactly as I have imagined it to be, but that is not the issue anyway. See the bold above.

ID is not your concept of it. See the ID entry today.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, March 13, 2022, 11:22 (109 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It is true I have no idea why God chose His evolution method, but […] I see evolution as a whole process and you split it into unrelated parts.

dhw: I see both: all life forms are descended from the first cells = whole. Life forms split into branches that had no connection with each other = split. You have no idea why your God would have chosen the evolution method you impose on him. Please don’t confuse your theory with fact.

DAVID: The fact is all twigs go back to Archaea. The bush of the differing nonconnected branches provides the necessary food for all. Holistically makes total sense. I don't question God's choices.

The non-connected branches all descended from Archaea, but in what way could they have been “preparation” for humans if they ended up as non-humans and did not provide food for humans? You keep admitting you have no idea, and yet you keep obfuscating through your “food-for-all” evasion.

dhw: The humanized guesses “as shown” were your own: your God’s enjoyment, interest, thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours, and even a desire for admiration from and relations with humans. I’m sorry to hear that you are very far apart from your own guesses.

DAVID: All of my God's actions are from purposefully creating without regard to Himself…

But you guessed that his purpose for designing us was that we should admire his work and maybe have a relationship with him. You also guessed that he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. How can these be “without regard to Himself”?

DAVID: …His personal needs or his secondary personal reactions which follow creation. He never requires experimentation and never changes his mind about His direction as compared to your wishy-washy characterization.

Experimentation and having new ideas are not “changing his mind”. They are theories to explain why he might have individually designed every life form plus food that had no connection with humans – that part of your theory which otherwise makes no sense if his sole purpose was to design humans plus our food.

DAVID: I accept theologians view of God. Your attempt to equate our Gods come from my guesswork about how He might personally feel. You make ludicrous comparisons by tortuously twisting my comments into facts.

I have never twisted your comments into facts: on the contrary, I have repeatedly pointed out to you that your theories and your guesses are NOT facts although you constantly present them as if they were. The worst of all is your assumption that your illogical theory of evolution (God designed every unconnected life form and food as preparation for humans plus food, and as part of his one and only goal of designing humans plus food) is fact, and I mustn’t query it.

The debate about what ID-ers believe is a digression from this issue. If, as you claim, they all believe in the above theory, please tell me how they explain the obvious discrepancy.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 13, 2022, 15:49 (108 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The fact is all twigs go back to Archaea. The bush of the differing nonconnected branches provides the necessary food for all. Holistically makes total sense. I don't question God's choices.

dhw: The non-connected branches all descended from Archaea, but in what way could they have been “preparation” for humans if they ended up as non-humans and did not provide food for humans? You keep admitting you have no idea, and yet you keep obfuscating through your “food-for-all” evasion.

You evade the truism that at each stage of evolution ecosystem provided food for all.


dhw: The humanized guesses “as shown” were your own: your God’s enjoyment, interest, thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours, and even a desire for admiration from and relations with humans. I’m sorry to hear that you are very far apart from your own guesses.

DAVID: All of my God's actions are from purposefully creating without regard to Himself…

dhw: But you guessed that his purpose for designing us was that we should admire his work and maybe have a relationship with him. You also guessed that he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. How can these be “without regard to Himself”?

Exactly guesses as how secondary effects of His works MIGHT affect him!


DAVID: …His personal needs or his secondary personal reactions which follow creation. He never requires experimentation and never changes his mind about His direction as compared to your wishy-washy characterization.

dhw: Experimentation and having new ideas are not “changing his mind”. They are theories to explain why he might have individually designed every life form plus food that had no connection with humans – that part of your theory which otherwise makes no sense if his sole purpose was to design humans plus our food.

Somewhere in the past you discussed God changing course!


DAVID: I accept theologians view of God. Your attempt to equate our Gods come from my guesswork about how He might personally feel. You make ludicrous comparisons by tortuously twisting my comments into facts.

dhw: I have never twisted your comments into facts: on the contrary, I have repeatedly pointed out to you that your theories and your guesses are NOT facts although you constantly present them as if they were. The worst of all is your assumption that your illogical theory of evolution (God designed every unconnected life form and food as preparation for humans plus food, and as part of his one and only goal of designing humans plus food) is fact, and I mustn’t query it.

But we discuss and question each other. That I won't accept your un-god-like view of God is fact.


dhw: The debate about what ID-ers believe is a digression from this issue. If, as you claim, they all believe in the above theory, please tell me how they explain the obvious discrepancy.

See today's ID video entry. Right on point

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, March 14, 2022, 11:15 (108 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The fact is all twigs go back to Archaea. The bush of the differing nonconnected branches provides the necessary food for all. Holistically makes total sense. I don't question God's choices.

dhw: The non-connected branches all descended from Archaea, but in what way could they have been “preparation” for humans if they ended up as non-humans and did not provide food for humans? You keep admitting you have no idea, and yet you keep obfuscating through your “food-for-all” evasion.

DAVID: You evade the truism that at each stage of evolution ecosystem provided food for all.

I don’t “evade” it. I merely point out that “food for all” does not mean that all past foods and all past eaters and past eaten were “preparation” for humans, and were part of your God’s “goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: All of my God's actions are from purposefully creating without regard to Himself…

dhw: But you guessed that his purpose for designing us was that we should admire his work and maybe have a relationship with him. You also guessed that he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. How can these be “without regard to Himself”?

DAVID: Exactly guesses as how secondary effects of His works MIGHT affect him!

How can enjoying creating and being interested in his creations, and wanting admiration and a relationship, be “secondary effects”? Do you think he didn’t know he enjoyed, was interested, wanted admiration and a relationship until after he’d done his creating?

DAVID: …His personal needs or his secondary personal reactions which follow creation. He never requires experimentation and never changes his mind about His direction as compared to your wishy-washy characterization.

dhw: Experimentation and having new ideas are not “changing his mind”. They are theories to explain why he might have individually designed every life form plus food that had no connection with humans – that part of your theory which otherwise makes no sense if his sole purpose was to design humans plus our food.

DAVID: Somewhere in the past you discussed God changing course!

Perhaps this relates to one of my theories: that in the course of creating new life forms etc., he might have learned new things and come up with new ideas, including that of creating a life form with thought patterns, emotions and logic like his own. As you agreed, that would be a perfectly logical theistic explanation for that part of evolution’s history which you can’t explain.

DAVID: I accept theologians view of God. Your attempt to equate our Gods come from my guesswork about how He might personally feel. You make ludicrous comparisons by tortuously twisting my comments into facts.

dhw: I have never twisted your comments into facts: on the contrary, I have repeatedly pointed out to you that your theories and your guesses are NOT facts although you constantly present them as if they were. The worst of all is your assumption that your illogical theory of evolution (God designed every unconnected life form and food as preparation for humans plus food, and as part of his one and only goal of designing humans plus food) is fact, and I mustn’t query it.

DAVID: But we discuss and question each other. That I won't accept your un-god-like view of God is fact.

Yes, it is a fact that you think you know what God must be like or can’t be like, and so you cling to an illogical theory which you can’t explain.

dhw: The debate about what ID-ers believe is a digression from this issue. If, as you claim, they all believe in the above theory, please tell me how they explain the obvious discrepancy.

DAVID: See today's ID video entry. Right on point,

It simply makes your own theory even more self-contradictory.


Let's study ID: no tree of life

An ID video of 15 minutes doesn't even accept a bush:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwins-tree-of-life-is-just-ground-cover/

DAVID: Homology and genetic comparisons don't work to make a tree. Really trying to deny Darwin's common descent. Mirrors dhw's complaint that the road to humans was too torturous as a reasonable approach for God to follow.

Too torturous if he started out with the sole purpose of designing humans plus food. You yourself have accepted the image of life as a bush, you believe that we and all other life forms are descended from bacteria, you accept that at least the fossil record confirms our descent from the apes, and you insist that evolution is a whole. But as we don’t have a fossil record of all species in all stages going back to bacteria, you also insist that evolution is not a whole, and your God kept popping in to design new species without precursors. And although most of these and their food had no connection with us and our food, they were all apparently preparation for us and our food. Your theory of evolution is a total mess! :-(

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, March 14, 2022, 14:33 (107 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You evade the truism that at each stage of evolution ecosystem provided food for all.

dhw: I don’t “evade” it. I merely point out that “food for all” does not mean that all past foods and all past eaters and past eaten were “preparation” for humans, and were part of your God’s “goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food. Please stop dodging!

Not a dodge. I view all of evolution as a connected mechanism to produce humans.


dhw: Experimentation and having new ideas are not “changing his mind”. They are theories to explain why he might have individually designed every life form plus food that had no connection with humans – that part of your theory which otherwise makes no sense if his sole purpose was to design humans plus our food.

DAVID: Somewhere in the past you discussed God changing course!

dhw: Perhaps this relates to one of my theories: that in the course of creating new life forms etc., he might have learned new things and come up with new ideas, including that of creating a life form with thought patterns, emotions and logic like his own. As you agreed, that would be a perfectly logical theistic explanation for that part of evolution’s history which you can’t explain.

A logical explanation only for your style of a god. I view God as all-knowing and all-purposeful with specific goals from the beginning of His creating.


DAVID: But we discuss and question each other. That I won't accept your un-god-like view of God is fact.

dhw: Yes, it is a fact that you think you know what God must be like or can’t be like, and so you cling to an illogical theory which you can’t explain.

Same illogical complaint. Just accept history as showing God's choices.


dhw: The debate about what ID-ers believe is a digression from this issue. If, as you claim, they all believe in the above theory, please tell me how they explain the obvious discrepancy.

DAVID: See today's ID video entry. Right on point,

It simply makes your own theory even more self-contradictory.


Let's study ID: no tree of life

An ID video of 15 minutes doesn't even accept a bush:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwins-tree-of-life-is-just-ground-cover/

DAVID: Homology and genetic comparisons don't work to make a tree. Really trying to deny Darwin's common descent. Mirrors dhw's complaint that the road to humans was too torturous as a reasonable approach for God to follow.

dhw: Too torturous if he started out with the sole purpose of designing humans plus food. You yourself have accepted the image of life as a bush, you believe that we and all other life forms are descended from bacteria, you accept that at least the fossil record confirms our descent from the apes, and you insist that evolution is a whole. But as we don’t have a fossil record of all species in all stages going back to bacteria, you also insist that evolution is not a whole, and your God kept popping in to design new species without precursors. And although most of these and their food had no connection with us and our food, they were all apparently preparation for us and our food. Your theory of evolution is a total mess! :-(

I'm just giving you a taste of what ID does in their propaganda. I am free, as you are, to develop my individual theories.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, March 15, 2022, 07:03 (107 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You evade the truism that at each stage of evolution ecosystem provided food for all.

dhw: I don’t “evade” it. I merely point out that “food for all” does not mean that all past foods and all past eaters and past eaten were “preparation” for humans, and were part of your God’s “goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: Not a dodge. I view all of evolution as a connected mechanism to produce humans.

I know you do. And yet you also agree that past foods were for the past and not for the present, and extinct life had no role to play in current life, and there is no direct connection between the brontosaurus and us, and you have no idea why your God – whose only purpose was us and our food – would have designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us.

dhw: Experimentation and having new ideas are not “changing his mind”. They are theories to explain why he might have individually designed every life form plus food that had no connection with humans – that part of your theory which otherwise makes no sense if his sole purpose was to design humans plus our food. [...]

DAVID: [...] I view God as all-knowing and all-purposeful with specific goals from the beginning of His creating.

Experimentation provides a logical explanation for your God wanting to design humans but designing life forms etc. that turned out to have no connection with humans. On the other hand, the new ideas theory focuses on a “specific goal” of creating interesting things to watch, and learning as he goes along. A “free-for-all” suggests the same goal, with the added enjoyment provided by the unexpected. All of these theories are all-purposeful with specific goals from the beginning. However, they depict a God who is not all-knowing but – perhaps along the lines of A.N.Whitehead’s “process theology” – is always “becoming”, i.e. learning and experiencing.

DAVID: But we discuss and question each other. That I won't accept your un-god-like view of God is fact.

dhw: Yes, it is a fact that you think you know what God must be like or can’t be like, and so you cling to an illogical theory which you can’t explain.

DAVID: Same illogical complaint. Just accept history as showing God's choices.

If God exists, then clearly the countless branches unconnected with humans and their food must have been his choice. That makes nonsense of the claim that humans and their food were his one and only choice.

dhw: The debate about what ID-ers believe is a digression from this issue. If, as you claim, they all believe in the above theory, please tell me how they explain the obvious discrepancy.

Instead of doing so, you offered us a video pooh-poohing common descent, and helping to show up the contradictory elements of your own beliefs:

dhw: You yourself have accepted the image of life as a bush, you believe that we and all other life forms are descended from bacteria, you accept that at least the fossil record confirms our descent from the apes, and you insist that evolution is a whole. But as we don’t have a fossil record of all species in all stages going back to bacteria, you also insist that evolution is not a whole, and your God kept popping in to design new species without precursors. And although most of these and their food had no connection with us and our food, they were all apparently preparation for us and our food. Your theory of evolution is a total mess!

DAVID: I'm just giving you a taste of what ID does in their propaganda. I am free, as you are, to develop my individual theories.

You keep telling me that ID supports your illogical theory, then you quote an ID-er whose “propaganda” negates half of what you believe, and you totally ignore the contradictions in your own beliefs that I have just listed. :-(

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 15, 2022, 14:05 (106 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Not a dodge. I view all of evolution as a connected mechanism to produce humans.

dhw: I know you do. And yet you also agree that past foods were for the past and not for the present, and extinct life had no role to play in current life, and there is no direct connection between the brontosaurus and us, and you have no idea why your God – whose only purpose was us and our food – would have designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us.

You will never understand the giant bush of life provides necessary food for all, past and present.


dhw: Experimentation and having new ideas are not “changing his mind”. They are theories to explain why he might have individually designed every life form plus food that had no connection with humans – that part of your theory which otherwise makes no sense if his sole purpose was to design humans plus our food. [...]

DAVID: [...] I view God as all-knowing and all-purposeful with specific goals from the beginning of His creating.

dhw: Experimentation provides a logical explanation for your God wanting to design humans but designing life forms etc. that turned out to have no connection with humans. On the other hand, the new ideas theory focuses on a “specific goal” of creating interesting things to watch, and learning as he goes along. A “free-for-all” suggests the same goal, with the added enjoyment provided by the unexpected. All of these theories are all-purposeful with specific goals from the beginning. However, they depict a God who is not all-knowing but – perhaps along the lines of A.N.Whitehead’s “process theology” – is always “becoming”, i.e. learning and experiencing.

Follow Whitehead if you wish. I view your God as highly humanized

dhw: Yes, it is a fact that you think you know what God must be like or can’t be like, and so you cling to an illogical theory which you can’t explain.

DAVID: Same illogical complaint. Just accept history as showing God's choices.

dhw: If God exists, then clearly the countless branches unconnected with humans and their food must have been his choice. That makes nonsense of the claim that humans and their food were his one and only choice.

Not Choice! The vast body of food is a necessary accompaniment. You quote Whitehead while I follow Adler who totally negates your illogical complaints.


dhw: The debate about what ID-ers believe is a digression from this issue. If, as you claim, they all believe in the above theory, please tell me how they explain the obvious discrepancy.

Instead of doing so, you offered us a video pooh-poohing common descent, and helping to show up the contradictory elements of your own beliefs:

dhw: You yourself have accepted the image of life as a bush, you believe that we and all other life forms are descended from bacteria, you accept that at least the fossil record confirms our descent from the apes, and you insist that evolution is a whole. But as we don’t have a fossil record of all species in all stages going back to bacteria, you also insist that evolution is not a whole, and your God kept popping in to design new species without precursors. And although most of these and their food had no connection with us and our food, they were all apparently preparation for us and our food. Your theory of evolution is a total mess!

DAVID: I'm just giving you a taste of what ID does in their propaganda. I am free, as you are, to develop my individual theories.

dhw: You keep telling me that ID supports your illogical theory, then you quote an ID-er whose “propaganda” negates half of what you believe, and you totally ignore the contradictions in your own beliefs that I have just listed. :-(

They are your illogical contradictions. If Adler accepted your views his argument for God disappears. ID supports a designer who creates as he wishes, God unmentioned.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, March 16, 2022, 11:11 (106 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You will never understand the giant bush of life provides necessary food for all, past and present.

You do not wish to recognize the obvious truth of your own statement that past foods were for the past and not for the present, and so it is patently absurd to argue that every extinct past food was specially designed in preparation for human food. Ditto your fixed belief that every extinct organism was specially designed “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.”

dhw: Experimentation and having new ideas are not “changing his mind”. They are theories to explain why he might have individually designed every life form plus food that had no connection with humans – that part of your theory which otherwise makes no sense if his sole purpose was to design humans plus our food. [...]

DAVID: [...] I view God as all-knowing and all-purposeful with specific goals from the beginning of His creating.

dhw: Experimentation provides a logical explanation for your God wanting to design humans but designing life forms etc. that turned out to have no connection with humans. On the other hand, the new ideas theory focuses on a “specific goal” of creating interesting things to watch, and learning as he goes along. A “free-for-all” suggests the same goal, with the added enjoyment provided by the unexpected. All of these theories are all-purposeful with specific goals from the beginning. However, they depict a God who is not all-knowing but – perhaps along the lines of A.N.Whitehead’s “process theology” – is always “becoming”, i.e. learning and experiencing.

DAVID: Follow Whitehead if you wish. I view your God as highly humanized.

See below.

DAVID: (from “More miscellany"): Our human personality does mirror Him, but that should not be used to imagine He has equivalent thoughts and desires.

dhw:. […] If our human personality does mirror him, how do you know you are wrong when you “guess” that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and when I “guess” that this might be his purpose for creating life?

DAVID: I'm not saying I'm wrong about my guesses, but guesses have little weight in being sure about the conclusions guesses bring. That is why I don't accept your guesses about God. I have my purposeful goal-directed God and your guesses produce a humanized God.

I have already responded to your insinuation that my theories leave God without a purpose. They don’t. (See above.) And I have shown in detail that your own guesses about God (enjoyment, interest, shared thought patterns, emotions and logic, kindness, desire to be admired, to have a relationship with us) are just as humanized as mine, and I find it perfectly feasible that a creator might invest his creations with some of his own attributes.

DAVID: Just accept history as showing God's choices.

dhw: If God exists, then clearly the countless branches unconnected with humans and their food must have been his choice. That makes nonsense of the claim that humans and their food were his one and only choice.

DAVID: Not Choice! The vast body of food is a necessary accompaniment.

dhw: The vast body of past foods was necessary for past organisms. That does not mean that all past food and organisms were necessary for the production and survival of humans! […]

DAVID: […] If Adler accepted your views his argument for God disappears.

Of course it doesn’t disappear. The complexity of humans, just like the complexity of all life forms, is such that it is perfectly logical to argue that they must have been designed, and therefore there must be a designer. You have told us repeatedly that Adler does NOT cover your own illogical theory, so please stop hiding behind him.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 16, 2022, 15:44 (105 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You will never understand the giant bush of life provides necessary food for all, past and present.

dhw: You do not wish to recognize the obvious truth of your own statement that past foods were for the past and not for the present, and so it is patently absurd to argue that every extinct past food was specially designed in preparation for human food. Ditto your fixed belief that every extinct organism was specially designed “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.”

You split evolution into differing eras but the whole process is is one continuous process with every future step built on the past.


DAVID: (from “More miscellany"): Our human personality does mirror Him, but that should not be used to imagine He has equivalent thoughts and desires.

dhw:. […] If our human personality does mirror him, how do you know you are wrong when you “guess” that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and when I “guess” that this might be his purpose for creating life?

DAVID: I'm not saying I'm wrong about my guesses, but guesses have little weight in being sure about the conclusions guesses bring. That is why I don't accept your guesses about God. I have my purposeful goal-directed God and your guesses produce a humanized God.

dhw: I have already responded to your insinuation that my theories leave God without a purpose. They don’t. (See above.) And I have shown in detail that your own guesses about God (enjoyment, interest, shared thought patterns, emotions and logic, kindness, desire to be admired, to have a relationship with us) are just as humanized as mine, and I find it perfectly feasible that a creator might invest his creations with some of his own attributes.

Our guesses about the above attributes you list agree. The difference is in how God decides to create in the process of His designed evolution. He does not need to experiment, change his mind in midstream or create anything just for His enjoyment as in free-for-all..


DAVID: Just accept history as showing God's choices.

dhw: If God exists, then clearly the countless branches unconnected with humans and their food must have been his choice. That makes nonsense of the claim that humans and their food were his one and only choice.

DAVID: Not Choice! The vast body of food is a necessary accompaniment.

dhw: The vast body of past foods was necessary for past organisms. That does not mean that all past food and organisms were necessary for the production and survival of humans! […]

DAVID: […] If Adler accepted your views his argument for God disappears.

dhw: Of course it doesn’t disappear. The complexity of humans, just like the complexity of all life forms, is such that it is perfectly logical to argue that they must have been designed, and therefore there must be a designer. You have told us repeatedly that Adler does NOT cover your own illogical theory, so please stop hiding behind him.

I'm not hiding behind him any more than you hide behind Shapiro. Adler uses evolution as I do with humans as the purposeful endpoint. My only difference with Adler is I try to analyze how God did it. And as usual your illogical complaint about my view of evolution is still highly illogical to me. It always comes across as why not direct creation?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, March 17, 2022, 09:05 (105 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You will never understand the giant bush of life provides necessary food for all, past and present.

dhw: You do not wish to recognize the obvious truth of your own statement that past foods were for the past and not for the present, and so it is patently absurd to argue that every extinct past food was specially designed in preparation for human food. Ditto your fixed belief that every extinct organism was specially designed “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.”

DAVID: You split evolution into differing eras but the whole process is is one continuous process with every future step built on the past.

Firstly, you are the one who insists that it is discontinuous, since you harp on and on about the gaps. But as usual, you are sidestepping the issue, this time ignoring the fact that evolution is a bush that split up into countless branches, the majority of which have died out and did NOT lead to humans or to their food. We are at the end of only one branch, and past foods were for the past and not for the present. Don’t you ever get tired of dodging?

DAVID: I have my purposeful goal-directed God and your guesses produce a humanized God.

dhw: I have already responded to your insinuation that my theories leave God without a purpose. They don’t. [...] And I have shown in detail that your own guesses about God (enjoyment, interest, shared thought patterns, emotions and logic, kindness, desire to be admired, to have a relationship with us) are just as humanized as mine, and I find it perfectly feasible that a creator might invest his creations with some of his own attributes.

DAVID: Our guesses about the above attributes you list agree.

Then please stop moaning about my “humanizing” God, since you do exactly the same.

DAVID: The difference is in how God decides to create in the process of His designed evolution. He does not need to experiment, change his mind in midstream or create anything just for His enjoyment as in free-for-all.

Experimentation is an explanation for that part of your own theory which you can’t explain: if your God’s purpose was to design humans plus our food, why did he design all those life forms and foods that had no connection with us? You can reject it, of course, but then that leaves you with no idea how to explain your illogi