Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Monday, February 05, 2024, 17:16 (82 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% versus 0.1%

dhw: 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.”

dhw: 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?

Birds descended from dinosaurs and for dinos the percentage loss is more or less than 99.9%, Raup's average. Each 8 million-plus species now here had a specific line of loss leading to the 99.9% average. This is my view of God's evolution.

God’s culling

DAVID: God did not destroy species.

dhw: Blatant contradiction ignored.

I view how God did it differently than you. Each line for a planned species to be here now was carefully followed. Yes, sub-species fell along the way, but the planned species arrived. I realize I was un-clear before.

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.

dhw: 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.

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.”

dhw: 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.

Your analysis is exactly opposite to mine, purposely to project a bumbling God. The 0.1% here are the survivors of 99.9% gone.