Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, January 06, 2024, 17:52 (112 days ago) @ dhw

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

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.

dhw: 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?

If interest and enjoyment are driving forces for creation, they are a need. The conjectures you present are all reasonable as to why we were created. Also, all may be wrong.

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.

dhw: 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.

The 99.9% are the ancestors of the 0.1%. They are not dead ends but form a logical progression to what exists here today. They form the area of my imaginary triangle.

Newly found bacterial weapon

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

dhw: 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.

They are not bright enough to create the complex designs we see today.

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.

dhw: 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?

Since we discuss God, it is fair to review their thinking and instructions as to how to think about God. I need the guidance, but you don't?