Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, January 07, 2024, 13:30 (319 days ago) @ David Turell

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?

DAVID: 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.

More language games. If your God’s only purpose was to create us, according to you he “needed” to design 99.9 out of 100 irrelevant species. Does that make him needy? The conjectures were once yours, and they all come under your category of need. If enjoyment and interest can be a purpose in themselves, they are no more “needy” than any purpose you can come up with. I suggest you drop this silly objection.

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.

DAVID: 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.

January 2nd 2024:
dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current forms.
DAVID: We agree.
You agreed on January 2nd, and you disagreed with yourself on January 3rd.

December 30th 2023
DAVID: Where did the bush of life come from?

It has always been a bush. There is no triangle. It is absurd to claim that 99.9% per cent of every species that ever lived evolved directly into us and our food. Your own bush image gives you a precise description of why it is absurd. The branches of the bush grow away from the roots and from one another. They don’t grow away and then back again to join up! Please stop contradicting yourself. Back to January 2nd 2024 and for months if not years before that: you have agreed that evolution has produced the BUSH of life, and only 0.1% led to current forms.

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.

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

It is your belief that intelligent single cells lose their intelligence when they form communities, except when they combine into an immune system. Do you believe your all-powerful God was incapable of designing cells that could design their own adaptations and innovations?

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

If it is “fair” to read their thinking and instructions, then it is also “fair” to read all the books written about all religions, and to read all the books that debunk religion, but you and I are engaged in a one-to-one discussion, exchanging opinions and defending or criticizing those opinions. It’s no use you telling me that you’ve read a book which says God is perfect if you can’t respond to arguments that suggest God is not perfect (whatever “perfect” may mean).