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

by dhw, Tuesday, December 14, 2021, 15:01 (37 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 (37 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 (37 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 (36 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 (35 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 (35 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 (35 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 (34 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 (34 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 (33 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 (32 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 (32 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 (32 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 (31 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 (31 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 (28 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 (28 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 (28 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 (28 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 (24 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 (24 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 (23 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 (23 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 (22 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 (22 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 (21 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 (21 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 (20 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 (19 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 (19 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 (19 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 (18 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 (18 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 (17 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 (16 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 (15 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (13 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 (13 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 (12 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 (12 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 (37 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 (36 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 (35 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 (35 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 (35 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 (34 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 (34 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 (33 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 (33 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 (32 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 (32 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 (31 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 (31 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 (28 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 (28 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 (28 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 (28 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 (24 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 (24 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 (23 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 (23 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 (22 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 (22 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 (21 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 (21 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 (20 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 (19 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 (19 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 (19 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 (18 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 (18 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 (17 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 (16 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 (15 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (13 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 (13 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 (12 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 (12 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 (11 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 (11 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 (10 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (8 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 (8 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 (7 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 (7 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 (6 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 (6 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 (5 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 (5 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 (4 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 (4 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 (3 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 (3 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 (1 day, 22 hours, 29 min. 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 (1 day, 14 hours, 59 min. 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 (19 hours, 52 minutes 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 (15 hours, 42 minutes 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

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum