Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, August 24, 2020, 12:39 (1550 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You've left out my usual answer. God chose to evolve us. As God, he certainly had the right to choose to evolve any thing and everything. (You've previously agreed) My clear and logical reasoning comes by examples of His works: created the universe and evolving it; created the Earth and evolved it by creating life and evolving it. (Life has been accepted as helping to evolve Earth's conditions). In my view of God, God evolves all aspects of reality. It is your problem, not mine. End of discussion.

dhw: Sadly it is indeed your usual answer, which is to dodge the question. If God exists, all the above is logical. What is not logical is to claim that the purpose of all the above was to produce one species (us) plus food supply, that evolution means direct design of all species, and that instead of directly designing us, he first directly designed millions of now extinct non-humans and their food supplies that had no connection with us. There is no discussion if you refuse even to deal with the subject we are discussing.

DAVID: I don't understand your illogical objection to my reasoning. I never have. The bold is totally illogical.

dhw: Of course it is. An all-powerful God who has only one purpose, and who directly designs all species (your interpretation of evolution), would logically have directly designed the species he wanted to design. But according to you, he didn't, and you have no idea why. So maybe you might consider the possibility that something is wrong with your theory.

DAVID: No!!! Why can't you give God the right to choose His method of producing all of reality?

Of course he has the right to do so! But I do not accept your interpretation of the method he used to fulfil your interpretation of the purpose he had in producing all of reality! Stop dodging the issue!

DAVID: Note you have agreed God could have chosen to evolve us. You seem to think your God wouldn't have made that choice. But the personality of your God is not the personality of my God.

dhw: Since we both believe in evolution, and if God exists, then of course God chose evolution as his method of developing (but you insist on directly "designing") ALL the life forms etc. (including humans) that have gone to make the history of life on Earth! We are not arguing about personalities but about the totally illogical theory bolded above, which you cling to while acknowledging that my alternative explanations of life's history and of God's purposes are all perfectly logical.

DAVID: Your alternatives are all logically humanizing God. And, as usual, you have ignored my point that God evolves ever aspect of reality He created: the universe, the Earth, life. It is clear evidence He prefers to evolve His creations.

If he exists, and since we both believe that evolution happened, of course he chose to evolve his creations! But that does not mean that his sole purpose was to produce H. sapiens and food supply, that he directly designed every species, econiche, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder, or that every species etc. was directly designed as “part of the goal of evolving humans”. You have admitted that you have “no idea” why he would have chosen such a method to achieve such a goal, so perhaps we can end this repetitive discussion if you simply say this is your belief and you couldn’t care less about logic.
xxx

DAVID (under “Independent and dependent life”): Parasites and viruses are not independent life, but some macrophages among the bacteriophages blur the lines:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200212131458.htm

DAVID: Amazing. These phage have stolen a bacterial defense mechanism CRISPR from bacteria. Every type of life has its own pathogens, even bacteria that attack us. More proof of the diversity of the living and the partially living.

It is indeed amazing, but in the light of our discussions I can’t help wondering why your God would have designed them as “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

Under “Emperor penguin huddles”:

DAVID: Keeping warm by huddling is the Emperor's trick, and it follows a math pattern, but the birds don't do math, they constantly shift to find the warmest spot:
http://abstractions.nautil.us/article/604/math-of-the-penguins?mc_cid=52cd39af09&mc...

QUOTE: "Penguins seem to know what mathematicians learned long ago: The densest packing of shapes on a plane is a hexagonal grid. According to Blanchette’s model, the birds arrange themselves as if they were each standing on their own hexagon in a grid."

DAVID: The diagrams are a must-see to fully understand. The math is pure human observation math. Penguins don't understand the packing trick of hexagons. They have learned how to keep warm.

Thank you for yet another delightful natural wonder. Mathematicians seem to have learned what penguins knew long ago, but penguins don’t extrapolate generalizations from particulars. It’s the difference between concrete and abstract thinking. All organisms appear to work out their own strategies for survival, and one can only marvel at their intelligence. Or do you think that like leaf-biting bees and mother lions training their cubs to hunt, the penguins needed a divine instruction manual or private lessons on how to keep warm?