Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, February 10, 2024, 08:36 (77 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There are no dead ends. Everything here in the 0.1% was intended to be here, evolving in each line from the beginning.

No dead ends? You have agreed that 99.9% of species did not evolve into the 0.1 that are here now. How many more times?
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.

Those from which we are not descended are the dead ends. They did not lead to any of the lines that are here now.Will you ever stop contradicting yourself?

DAVID: Your culling complaint tells us you think God should have used direct creation.

No it doesn’t. It tells us that your God must have had another reason for creating the other 99.9%, or alternatively that he didn’t create them (= the free-for-all). 99.9% extinction is the only fact we have. Your God having to cull irrelevant species is entirely your invention.

DAVID: The other implication is He made and destroyed too many unnecessary forms.

That is exactly YOUR theory: one purpose: us. He creates 99.9% of forms that don’t lead to us. So he kills them off.

DAVID: God evolved us and you are just complaining about the method, distorting it to make God look like an incompetent boob.

That is exactly what you have done with your theory. I offer you alternatives: targeted experimentation (the closest to your theory, but although all his experiments are successful, he learns from them as he goes along); a voyage of discovery, either through non-targeted experimentation or through a free-for-all (with any dabbles he feels like making); enjoyment of creating and watching his creations with interest. In none of these is he an incompetent boob whose method of achieving his purpose is messy, cumbersome and inefficient, to use the terms you apply to your own theory.

DAVID: Your God example ignores a directly purposeful approach and you offer your usual humanized God made in our image.

dhw: My examples (plural) constitute a purposeful approach. Your “directly” purposeful is a big laugh, since you believe he designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. “Made in our image” can only be partial – I don’t think of him as an old man with a white beard – the “parts” being thought patterns and emotions like ours, to use your own expression, which you prefer to forget.

DAVID: Yor sense of purpose in life is laughable. Every reaction is purposeful. Every step in evolution is purposeful.

I agree that every step is purposeful: from the viewpoint of every organism, the purpose is survival, though we humans have devised a vast range of additional purposes for ourselves. From your God’s point of view, I have offered you alternative purposes for every step – but as you have said elsewhere, you first choose a form of God you wish to believe in. The rest follows.

dhw: Once upon a time, you had him wanting us to recognize his work, worship him, and maybe have a relationship with him. Not ”humanized”? And once upon a time you were certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. It seems to have become an automatic reaction that the moment you find yourself in agreement with me, you try to withdraw your statements!

DAVID: More distortion. I offered those possible attributes as answers to your enquires into my thoughts about God's personality.

dhw: Yes, you did. And they are humanized.

DAVID: Of course, recognizing that in theological thoughts one must learn to understand the words are allegorical when used to describe God.
And:
DAVID: Allegorical means those words relate to God in a special way.

When you used the words “recognize him”, “worship him”, “have a relationship with him”, he “enjoys”, he is “interested”, did you think to yourself that they didn’t mean recognize, worship, relationship, enjoy, interested? YOU knew what YOU meant, and if you think the words mean something else, then there is no point in using them.

DAVID: That bold above is your made in our kind sort of God. Mine is purposeful with no intent to satisfy His own 'needs' and has no need to experiment or enjoy a free-for-all.

dhw: When did God tell you this? When you next talk to him, do please ask him why he messily and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the one and only purpose you have allowed him to have. And since you seem to disagree with yourself over his purposes for designing us, perhaps he'll enlighten both of you.

Your answer to this was an irrelevant repeat of what you wrote on the “evolution thread”, which I have dealt with there. I have always rejected the word “needs”, but I agree that some of your own proposals could make him sound needy. How do you know he doesn’t want us to worship him etc., and doesn’t create because he enjoys creating?