Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, October 03, 2022, 07:34 (780 days ago) @ David Turell

Nature of God

DAVID: God, as designer of evolution, created everything He had to create.

dhw: I suggest that he didn’t “have to” create anything. Who forced him? I suggest he created what he wanted to create, and so, if he exists, either he wanted dead ends, which means that humans can’t have been his one and only purpose, or perhaps he set out wanting to create a being with thought patterns etc. like his own, but had to experiment before hitting on the right formula.[…]

DAVID: A proper purposeful God, as I see Him, knew exactly how to achieve His goals. I can't imagine Him producing a series of life-supporting universes until He got it right!!

I do wish you would stop assuming that any alternative to your nonsensical theories of evolution involves a God who is not “proper purposeful”. You can be “properly purposeful” if you have a purpose and try different ways of achieving that purpose. Strangely, you can imagine your God producing billions of extinct as well as extant and presumably lifeless stars, suns, galaxies etc. until he got it right. Or do you believe that every single extinct star was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for his design of H. sapiens plus food?

dhw: Now please give us your own theoretical reason for his designing dead ends that did not lead to his one and only purpose, which you have previously ”explained” as making sense “only to God”.

DAVID: See below:

There is no reason given – just a vague reference to no particular purpose.

dhw: Ecosystems are only “useful” to the organisms that live in them (and which are a part of them – the other part being the environment). An ecosystem disappears when conditions are such that the organisms can no longer survive. A dead end leads nowhere, which is why it is absurd to say that your God designed every dead-end ecosystem as an “absolute requirement” for us and our ecosystems.

DAVID: Of course, a no-longer-needed ecosystem becomes a dead end. But it served its purpose as evolution moved on. Your complaints circle around implying a discontinuous form of evolution, I've called 'slicing and dicing' in the past.

Needed for what? What was your God’s purpose in designing ecosystems which did not lead to us and our food, if your God’s only purpose was us and our food? You have no idea. It “makes sense only to God”. Evolution is continuous, but that does not mean every extinct, dead-end organism and ecosystem was designed as preparation for us and our food!

DAVID (from “More miscellany”): My theory is giant ecosystems which created dead-ends when no longer needed.

dhw: No longer needed for what? […] thank you so much for supporting the theory of a free-for-all, in which ecosystems “create” their own dead ends – which can only mean that the organisms of which they consist could no longer find means of survival when for some reason their living conditions underwent a change.

DAVID: Explained very clearly above.

You have just stated that ecosystems created dead ends. If your God didn’t create the dead ends himself, then you have a free-for-all! Once more: Ecosystems are created by the interplay between organisms and the environment, and they cease to exist when organisms can no longer find ways of surviving in the existing conditions. Do you agree? If so, how does this square with your God designing all of them as preparation for us and our ecosystems?

Ecosystem importance

QUOTES: "'Most organisms on the tree of life are microscopic. In fact, most life on Earth has always been microscopic. Microorganisms were the first predators on Earth, their greedy appetites were one of the leading factors of the evolution of more complex life in the early ages of Earth," Weiss explained.
"'As prey developed better defences, predators needed to develop better ways of catching them. After the evolution of multicellular, complex life they became the main food source for others such as krill and plankton, which in turn are food for larger species. red If the organisms at the very bottom were removed, all other parts of the food chain above them would collapse too," he added. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. It covers the Darwinist fairy tale for evolution, but it contains a kernel of truth in red. Ecosystems start at their bottom and their bottoms must survive.

What fairy tale? The microcosm reflects the macrocosm: right from the beginning, evolution has progressed by organisms finding more and more ways of surviving. I have no idea why you have bolded the obvious fact that the food chain depends on the organisms at the bottom. Do you think anyone would disagree? And none of this is relevant to your theory that all extinct, dead-end organisms and ecosystems were specially designed in preparation for us and our food. Please stop using the importance and nature of ecosystems (on which there is no disagreement) as a diversion from the illogicality of your theory.