Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, February 05, 2024, 11:51 (290 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% versus 0.1%

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

DAVID: I continue to dispute what I bolded!! The 0.1% here are the result of 99.9% of EACH LINE evolving. 99.9% did not go nowhere!!! Their decedents are all here!

You continue to conflate the two sets of statistics. 1) Yes, all current species are the product of their own line, and 99.9% of their ancestors have disappeared. (Maybe even 100%!) 2) No, 99.9% of all the life forms that ever existed were NOT the ancestors of current species but were dead ends, as you agreed above and as vividly illustrated with all your comments on dinosaurs:

DAVID: “God's intended result were birds, the 0.1% from the 99.9% as dinosaurs.”

Admittedly, the syntax of your sentence is hard to follow, but in conjunction with your earlier, repeated agreements, it can only mean that the birds evolved from 0.1% of dinosaurs, and the 99.9% were the dinosaurs that did not evolve into birds. But now what are you telling us? That 99.9% of dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds??? Once more: 0.1% of dinosaurs evolved into birds. 99.9% of dinosaurs did NOT evolve into birds. Why do you keep denying the obvious truth of your repeated agreements to the second set of statistics?

God’s culling

DAVID: God did not destroy species.

dhw: Contradicted by:

DAVID: Raup considered extinctions bad luck, which means to me God planned for their extinctions by creating new challenges they could not handle, thus culling.

dhw: He didn’t destroy them, but he planned to cull them by creating challenges he knew they couldn’t handle. Sounds pretty destructive to me.

DAVID: Yes, destroyed many.

dhw: Blatant contradiction ignored.

And still ignored.

DAVID: We have two discordant views. See above. I view a purposeful God as evolving desired species over time. Purpose! Thus, I look at each line as protected until it reached the present. A future species was designated to appear, so the intended outcome was always protected.

This has nothing to do with your claim that we and our contemporaries are descended from 99.9% of all the life forms that ever existed. Our subject here is not “purpose” (see below for that), but even here you still have your God “protecting” the 0.1% that evolved into current species, and destroying the 99.9% that were not the ancestors of current species and were therefore irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him.

Later:

DAVID: Each evolving line that reached the present 0.1% had a 99.9% loss of ancestors getting here.

Agreed. That is statistic 1).

DAVID: Yes, the branching twigs disappeared but the intended species are here. True?

“Intended” ties in with your illogical theory of your God's purpose and method. (See below.) Summary: 1) In the context of percentages, yes indeed, the current species are here, and 99.9% of their ancestors have disappeared. 2) 99.9% of all life forms have disappeared, and only the other 0.1% survived and evolved into current species, as you have explicitly agreed:
Repeat:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

Please stop dodging.

Intention

DAVID: The intent was only to produce all that are here. Losing forms was an intended part of the process. All culled were for good reason, to produce the current result .[…].
And under “speciation”: you repeat the above comment concerning “two discordant views”, adding “Exactly the purposeful approach you don't understand.”

I understand your approach perfectly: His one and only purpose was to design us and our contemporaries. But as you have agreed, he designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were NOT the ancestors of us and our contemporaries. Even if you think he protected the 0.1% of survivors, you can stlll find no “good reason” why he would have adopted such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to achieve the one and only purpose you allow him to have. This is the absurd illogicality that you keep dodging with your digressions and self-contradictions.