Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, January 11, 2024, 12:01 (315 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] God created what He wished without needing recognition, worship, relationship as driving forces. In the past I have offered God MIGHT have secondarily had thoughts in those regards.

dhw: Please stop making these official announcements, as if you knew that your opinions were facts! It’s all MIGHT-bes! Even the existence of God. You suggested that the above might be possible motives for his creation of humans, and I suggest that his enjoyment of creation and interest in his creations, of which you are certain, might be his motive for creating life, including humans. Why are your might-be’s less “needy” and less “human” than mine?

DAVID: What driving emotional force made God create, if there was one? That is our discussion. My answer for your might-be's is no force. God simply creates with no motives. He has secondary responses.

Your once all-purposeful God is now a purposeless zombie. If God had no motive for creating life, why did he bother? And if he had no motive, how could his motive have been to design us and our food? And you still haven’t told us why your earlier might-be purposes (to be worshipped, recognized, have a relationship with us) are less “needy” and less “human” than the purpose of enjoyment and interest.

99.9% v 0.1%
Jan. 2nd:
dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current life forms.
DAVID: We agree.
And Jan 9th: I am not disagreeing.

And also Jan. 9th:
DAVID: The 99.9% are the ancestors of the currently living 0.1%.

dhw: In one and the same post, you agree and proceed to disagree. Let's try again.

My second effort was a waste of space, as it has produced the following response:

DAVID: Raup dealt with evolution from the Cambrian on. Ediacaran's are our ancestors, 100% dead. Dinosaurs are 100% dead. They might be the ancestors of birds, but that is disputed now. Why do you try to slice up fully departed species into Raup's findings? The 99.9% are the ancestors of the currently living 0.1%, of which we are a tiny portion.

Incoherent! 99.9% of what, if not of every organism that ever lived? Having agreed last week that we plus food are descended from 0.1% of past species, you now tell us that we plus food are descended from 990 out of 1000 Ediacarans, but maybe from NONE of the 1000 dinosaurs. Simple question: do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived? Yes or no?

Newly found bacterial weapon
dhw: […] if you reject Shapiro's theory because there is no evidence, you will have also to reject your own theory of divine pre-preprogramming and dabbling because there is no evidence.

DAVID: Shapiro's theory is subject to real study. God's existence is another form of study. Your comparison fails.

dhw: The above does not question God’s existence but questions the theory that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every species, as opposed to possibly inventing intelligent cells to do the job. Since speciation has stopped for the time being, neither theory can be supported by evidence. Your attempt to change the subject has failed.

DAVID: But research into how evolution works is continuing, so I don't understand your negative answer.

What negative answer? You rejected Shapiro’s theory of evolution because there was no evidence. I have pointed out to you that the same criticism can be applied to your theory of evolution because there is no evidence. Yes, maybe continued research will supply us with evidence.

The immune system

DAVID: I guess I need to spend more time to be sure I am clear in my answers. I said the immune system is automatic. My cell brain comment was meant to be taken as sarcasm.

dhw: Clear answers have become a rarity, as illustrated by all your self-contradictions during discussions on your God’s motives, the 0.1% v 99.9% dispute, crystal ball speciation, and “irreducible complexity”.

DAVID: Your math for evolution is confused by slicing and dicing family groups; IC totally confuses you; and you still don't understand the ID view of speciation by a designing mind.

Your confusion over 99.9% ancestry is dealt with above; IC had you so totally confused that you invalidated your own definition; and I understand your belief that speciation was designed directly by your God, but you still don’t understand that design by intelligent cells (perhaps themselves designed by your God) is also intelligent design, though not by a single mind.

Theodicy

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

dhw: (...)You raised the problem of theodicy in the first place, came up with the daft “solution” that there’s no problem so long as you ignore the evil, agreed to drop the subject, but for some reason decided to raise it again because Godel thinks God is perfect.

DAVID: Godel should be of interest in this website.

See “Miscellany Part Two” for his daft hypothesis concerning an afterlife. I still don’t know why, after we had agreed not to repeat the discussion on theodicy, you decided to start it again by telling us Godel thinks God is perfect.