Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, March 06, 2023, 08:57 (626 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] it makes no sense to argue that your God knew all along what biochemistry was needed, and therefore he designed all the preceding forms that did not have the complexity he knew he needed, because he believed it was essential to create 99% of mistakes and failed experiments if he wanted to produce the life forms he finally produced without any predecessors.

DAVID: God chose to do it stepwise fully recognizing in advance the necessary failure to survive rate:

Why do you keep omitting your belief that the 99% were your God’s mistakes and failed experiments? You make it sound as if your God, the creator of all things, was confronted by an immutable law: “thou must make 99 mistakes before thou createst the one thing thou wishest to create.” If God exists, yes, he created the system of evolution. And if he is all-powerful and all-knowing, it is absurd to argue that he had no choice but to make mistakes and conduct failed experiments.

DAVID: God knew completely organisms would fail. To repeat for the nth time: He designed limited adaptability and designed new species as needed.

dhw: Thank you for confirming your belief that he knew his design would lead to 99% mistakes/failures, and that the reason they died was his faulty design which prevented them from adapting to new conditions outside his control. This process was repeated until the Cambrian allowed him to design new species which were not even based on the 1% of survivors since he designed them from scratch. Some of these survived the great “mess”, and evolved (through his dabbling) into us and our food. Please indicate any points you wish to reject.

DAVID: Not stated as I would but it fits my thinking.

dhw: And you regard this as brilliant design, whereas you think a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes is a blunderer.

DAVID: You've reversed our views. Your God is a simple humanized form while you consider mine a blunderer.

You have just agreed that yours makes mistakes, his designs are faulty etc. That = a blunderer. Mine does not make mistakes but creates successes. Apparently that turns him into a simple human being.

dhw: Your form of evolution is based on your God making countless mistakes and depending on luck to provide him with the conditions he needs in order to fulfil his one and only purpose.

DAVID: God does not need luck. He can design for any conditions available. Extremophiles are the proof.

Yes, he can design for any conditions, and extremophiles are the proof. But you have forgotten that in your theory the only species he wants to design are H. sapiens and our food, and he is unable to design them until conditions are suitable – but he does not control conditions. Extremophiles prove that he can REACT to any conditions. But if he does not control conditions, he needs luck to provide those that will enable him to fulfil his only purpose.

DAVID: Darwin theory of survival driving evolution tells us we shouldn't be here. Our somewhat equivalent ape cousins have done just fine for six million years with simple brains.

dhw: And bacteria have been here for billions of years with their form of intelligence. By that reckoning, nothing else “should be” here. But single cells joined up with one another to create new ways of surviving, and our ancestors followed the same pattern.

DAVID: Exactly my thinking. Successful bacteria had no need to become more complex. They are still here in original forms as magnificent survivors. Darwin's need for survival did not drive them to complexify. In my view God was the agent of further evolution.

So your God complexified them in order to create 99 life forms that had no connection with his only purpose, plus one that did (except that it didn’t, because he started again from scratch in the Cambrian). In any case, your God’s first consideration would have to be that each new design survived under the new conditions, so there is no contradiction here between your theory and Darwin’s: every design/complexification was geared to survival. You simply add that their purpose was to qualify as one of the 99% of mistakes God had to make in order to achieve his purpose.

dhw: We don’t know origins, but it makes perfect sense to suppose that a particular colony of anthropoids was forced by conditions (or possibly even by curiosity) to explore life out of the trees, and since this proved to be advantageous (maybe parallel to pre-whales exploring life in the water), the cells gradually changed their bodies to adapt to the new conditions. […]

DAVID: Transitional forms like Lucy had climbing shoulders and full bipedalism. I don't know how much she did distinct planning for her future. She simply took advantage of the body she had. Designed by God.

My suggestion is that her body had evolved from earlier “transitional” bodies, as our ancestors’ bodies adapted to their new surroundings. Now please tell us why you think our ancestors might have decided to stay on the ground if it wasn’t for the purpose of improving their chances of survival.