Evolution: mutational clocks don't fit Darwin theory (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, April 29, 2022, 16:20 (729 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The fossil gaps are real in the sense that phenotypic gaps are real. Bechly has previously been presented here explaining that in these 'gaps' are not fossil gaps, in that over time most fossils at those gaps have been found. In the current God/designer theory, God jumps ahead when He wishes to do so. No itty-bitty steps exist; all speciation creates a gap.

dhw: I don’t know how Bechly knows that most fossils have been found, but again I don’t know why anyone would expect a complete record covering the last 3.X billion years.

You salivate over experts like Shapiro and live by their opinions. Bechly is just as much as expert and his previous entries here explain his thinking about the current state of the fossil record. Simply, over time the finding of helpful new fossils dwindles to a trickle. That is where we are now. As a result the gaps remain. Try and ditch your underlying biases and learn current science! I try to show you; should I stop?

dhw: However, I asked you what you believe, since you have always maintained that there is a continuous line from bacteria to humans, but this is contradicted by your belief that we are descended from Cambrian species without precursors....Even your version of the current theory is inconsistent. He jumps ahead when he wants to, but there are no itty bitty steps, which can only mean he always wanted to jump. Exit common descent.

I accept God does as He wishes, so He jumps ahead as desired. Your definition of common descent is Darwinian. Mine is not. I see a path from bacteria to humans with many gaps as shown by Bechly. But each more complex stage is a form of evolution, but not the way you think about it because you are stuck with Darwin-think.

DAVID: What is inconsistent is your wish for understanding God clarity. I can see what history shows us God did. I simply accept it. I have no need to explain it as my quotes indicate. That is why I tell you it is wholly your problem you invent for yourself to wallow in.

dhw: For the umpteenth time: history shows us a vast variety of organisms and econiches that have come and gone, with humans and current econiches as the latest. If, for argument’s sake, we accept the existence of God, history does NOT show us that God created all species and econiches individually,

But I accept that God did create that history!!! How would you have Him do it?

dhw: Your unwillingness to discuss the problem of your God’s motives, methods and nature is in itself surprising, since you have devoted years of your life to thinking and also writing (brilliantly) about the problem of his existence. It seems that your interest in God ends where for some of us it would begin. Even as an agnostic, I am – just like many scientists, philosophers and theologians – eager to discuss how we got here and, if God exists, why he would have created life and what sort of being he might be. This website exists to discuss all facets of the subject, and if your only defence of your theories is that I and others should accept your inability to explain them as an explanation, I fear you are unlikely to make many converts!

I am unable to tell you how God reasons. That should be obvious. I look at reality and the results from God's creations and reach conclusions you can't seem to understand or accept. I see God's purposes, as a start in my thought, and do not overlay it with emotional needs as you do. In a sense our view of God is so different we always talk past each other. My experience with you is that I present many points from ID that I feel are perfectly reasonable, like Bechly's views and opinions, and you immediately attack, because your underlying biases are jostled. I've been wide open to new thoughts and theories since I decided to study Darwin's form of evolutionary theory 40-plus years ago. Most of the time in presenting new material here it feels like it bounces off a stone wall.