Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 06, 2024, 11:38 (289 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!

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: 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.

That is the first statistic, which we agree on. You have totally ignored the second statistic, so may I take it that you are now confirming your previous agreement that 99.9% of all extinct species were NOT ancestors of current species?

God’s culling

DAVID: God did not destroy species.

dhw: He didn’t destroy them, but he planned to cull them […] Sounds pretty destructive to me.

DAVID: Yes, destroyed many.

dhw: Blatant contradiction ignored.

DAVID: 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.

And you are even more unclear now, since you are totally ignoring all the points we have been debating. This is just a rehash of the first statistic: current species are the ends of the 0.1% of lines that survived your God’s culling process. (You have said earlier that he protected them.) We are still left with him deliberately designing and destroying the 99.9% that had no connection with the 0.1% he apparently planned to design right from the beginning.

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 still 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.

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

More fudging. Yes, 99.9% of the ancestors of current species are gone. But 99.9% of all the species that ever lived were NOT the ancestors of current species, though you have your God specially designing them and then destroying them, and you cannot think of a single reason why he would have done so if his one and only purpose was to design current species. Even you have called this method “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient”. Now you can add “bumbling”.