Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, January 08, 2024, 12:23 (318 days ago) @ David Turell

I have juxtaposed some posts in order to avoid repetition.

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?
And:
dhw: 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?

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.
And:
DAVID: I am trying to help you see how you humanize your God.

Of course – all theories, including that of your God’s existence, might be wrong, but why do you think your own reasonable theories listed above are less “needy” and less “human” than the theory of enjoyment and interest – of which you once wrote that you were certain?

99.9% v 0.1%

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?

dhw: It has always been a bush. There is no triangle. […] You have agreed that evolution has produced the BUSH of life, and only 0.1% led to current forms.

DAVID: Raup was interested in explaining extinction during evolution. He gave the number as 99.9%. What is present are the 0.1% surviving.

Correct.

DAVID: 99.9% are the area of my imaginary triangle. My triangle is my image of the bush of life. Humans are a tiny percent of the 0.1%.

Since when was a triangle the same as a bush? A bush branches out. The branches don't join up once they grow away from the roots! Yes, humans are a tiny percent of the 0.1%, because the 0.1% constitute all the extant species. The 99.9% constitute all the life forms that did not evolve into the extant species. You have agreed. Why are you now trying to disagree?

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.

dhw: 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?

DAVID: God could have done that if He wished. He obviously had reasons not to, because there is no evidence.

There is no evidence that 3.8 billion years ago your God compiled a list of instructions for every innovation, lifestyle, strategy etc. in life’s history, or that he popped in to perform ad hoc operations or issue instructions. Try again.

DAVID: The immune system is fully automatic.

There seems to be no end to your talent for disagreeing with yourself.
Dec. 22:
DAVID: The immune system is designed for a specific purpose, fight any infection that comes along. Only the immune system has this 'brain' that you wish for in other cells.

Dec. 28
dhw: We know that single-celled organisms have an autonomous system, and immune cells have an autonomous system, but until new conditions result in new species, we have no evidence that cells or God himself (if he exists) have done the designing.

DAVID: Agreed.

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

dhw: […] 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).

DAVID: A non-answer. What guides you? I have given answers in theodicy summarizing the literature's responses. You can't accept those answers, but I do.

We had agreed to drop this subject, but now you want to go over all the same arguments again! If God is perfect but is the all-powerful, all-knowing first cause of everything, he must knowingly and deliberately have created evil. Does your definition of perfection include the deliberate and knowing creation of evil?
If you prefer to drop the subject, which we have already discussed ad nauseam, please let’s do so.