God and Evolution (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, August 31, 2018, 17:04 (2064 days ago) @ dhw

A lot here.. have to trim.

DHW: I meant that some atheists twist the theory to suggest that it explains the whole of life (which it doesn’t), thereby excluding the need for a designer; some theists twist the theory to suggest that it CLAIMS to explain the whole of life (which it doesn’t), thereby excluding the need for a designer, and therefore the whole theory can be dismissed.

The theory isn't simply dismissed because they try to preclude a designer. The theory is dismissed because there are some very significant scientific gaps in it and some very unscientific reasoning.

DHW: I don’t know why you think epigenetics runs counter to the theory of common descent, since it only explains how existing organs can make changes to themselves. As regards genes, I’m surprised that similar (or the same) genes preclude relationship. Why? I’d have thought it was the similarity or the sameness that supported common descent.

Epigenetics does NOT add new information to DNA, meaning it can not explain an increase in complexity of information. As regards the genes, the very things that Darwin claims would lead to innovation, i.e. genetic isolation, means that genetic descent should ONLY happen PRIOR to genetic isolation. Which in turn means that genetic similarity between two species that are genetically isolated, and in which the 'molecular clocks' disagree on time of separation preclude inheritance by descent.

TONY: first, imagine each environmental state of the Earth as a stage in Earth's development. I believe he created organisms that could exist in the initial environment to change the environment to a new state, the next stage in Earth's development…

DHW: So did he control the environment or not? It’s true that organisms can change an environment, but so can other factors like catastrophes (e.g. Chixculub), movements in the earth’s crust, floods, desertification...Some of these may also have been due to organismal activity, but what about those that were not?

Some, like a meteor strike, wouldn't have wiped out life on earth, and the microbes that processed the environment would have continued to do so, albeit after suffering a setback. "Time and unforseen circumstances.." For the things that happened that were part of the Earth's natural cycles (Ice Ages/flooding/desertification/etc) it is perfectly reasonable to assume that those were understood potentials and had contingencies planned for, just like the fruit fly brain that had a backup in case it lost the ability to see the sun.

TONY: ...and then repeated this process at each new stage, driving the development of the environment using the organisms natural biological processes….

DHW: Does this mean he programmed organisms to create new environments, then created and programmed new root types to change environments again, then created and programmed new root types to change environments again, and so on? Just checking.

Yes. Earths environments were processed through flora, fauna, bacterial life, and natural processes over and over, that is the only logical way to ensure homeostasis. If it were designed any other way it would require constant intervention, which I am certain would consume vast amounts of energy and resources, which if the rest of creation is any indication, is not how God operates.

dhw: I’d be interested to know if Tony thinks his God controls the environment, and if he specially created root types in advance of or in response to environmental change.

It would most likely need to be at cusps. The point where the the new environment was becoming too dissimilar from the old one for the old organisms to flourish. Archetypes viable for the new environment would be created, and over time, thrive as they altered the environment further, and then decline as they approached the next cusp and the next creation iteration.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.