Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, January 05, 2024, 17:31 (321 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I don’t regard your God as “needy”. […]

DAVID: Yes, God enjoys and is interested, but He does not create to subserve His "needs'. He isn't needy in that sense as is your humanized form of God.

dhw: I have just told you I reject the term “needy”, and in the omitted text I have explained that he does what he wants to do. Enjoyment and interest do not denote a defect of any kind.

As a purposeful creation to satisfactorily supply enjoyment or interest needs is not what a purposeful God primarily does. The enjoyment and interest are secondary.

dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current life forms.

DAVID: We agree.

dhw: So why have you contradicted yourself by telling us the 99.9% gave us the surviving 0.1%?

DAVID: The 99.9% of evolution produced the 0.1% extant.

dhw: You have just agreed that only 0.1% led to current forms, and now you say 99.9% produced current forms. They didn’t. Only 0.1% produced current forms. Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: Since we agreed, your comment is unnecessary. 'The 99.9% of evolution produced the 0.1% extant' is correct.

dhw: How can it be correct if you agree that only the 0.1% led to current life forms? You are biting your own tail. Do you really believe that 99.9% of all extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food, and only 0.1% constituted a dead end?

As before, Imagine evolution as a triangle. The tip is Archaea, the hypotenuse is the existing 0.1% and the area of the tringle is the 99.9%, all lost on the way. The 99.9% were required to produce the hypotenuse. Nothing unnecessary appeared along the way as every step was required to produce next steps.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: The immune system requires cells designed that way. Only bacteria still edit of all existing organisms. Interestingly, cancer cells can edit.

dhw: Thank you for increasing the number of examples of cellular autonomy. Each one provides additional support for Shapiro’s theory.

Still just theory.

Theodicy

DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect.

dhw: Is Godel a pseudonym for God? Note: Dawkins tells us God is a delusion. Is that supposed to convince you? NOBODY knows whether God exists, and if he does, NOBODY knows his nature.

DAVID: Well, the theologians write books about God's nature.

dhw: And atheists write books about God’s non-existence. Does that mean we must believe them?

Everyone develops a set of beliefs.