Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, January 06, 2024, 09:49 (112 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

How many times do I have to repeat that enjoyment and interest do not denote need? And when did your God inform you that a purposeful God’s purpose is not to enjoy creating something interesting? While you’re at it, please tell us your God’s primary purpose for designing humans. Did he, in your opinion, “need” to have his work recognized, “need” to be worshipped, “need” to have a relationship with us?

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

DAVID: We agree.

DAVID: '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?

DAVID: 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.

As before: ever since you joined this discussion, you have used the image of life as a bush. Archaea are the root of the bush, which then diversifies into countless branches which do not join together in a triangle. 0.1% of the branches led to us and our food, and the rest (the 99.9%) led to dead ends. You keep agreeing, and then disagreeing. This is becoming a distressing characteristic in several of our discussions.

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.

DAVID: Still just theory.

Of course – as are your God’s existence, and your faith in your God’s single purpose and messy, cumbersome, inefficient method of achieving it.

Newly found bacterial weapon

DAVID: This newly found mechanism adds to the knowledge that some bacteria use a piercing weapon to attack other bacteria.

Another example of the astonishing, inventive intelligence of these tiny, single-celled organisms. And yet for some reason, you cannot conceive of multiple cells pooling their intelligence to create yet more inventions.

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?

DAVID: Everyone develops a set of beliefs.

Some of us keep an open mind on certain subjects. I have no idea why you think we need to be told that theologians write books about God. Is this supposed to provide evidence for your beliefs?