Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, February 13, 2024, 17:56 (73 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% and 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.

dhw: The current estimate is that there are 8.7 million species of plants and animals alive today, compared to 5000,000,000 that were “culled”. (Of course nobody can possibly know the exact figures.) That would be a percentage of 0.18 connected with us. Why would your all-powerful, one-purpose God design and cull 99.82 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose?

DAVID: Same old complaint. You have just described how evolution works, the next new species comes from the old one.

dhw: Correct. That is called common descent.

DAVID: A purposeful process builds one step upon the last one, resulting in the 8.7 billion species here, with 99.9% of ancestors. Nothing was culled for NO GOOD REASON.

dhw: The current estimate is 8.7 million (not billion) current species, compared to 5 billion extinct species. 99.9% of the ancestors of current species are extinct, and the rest of the 5 billion species were NOT our ancestors, as you agreed in the quote you keep ignoring.

dhw: So stop distorting the figures.

Where do you get the "5 billion extinct species" authority?

Dinosaurs

QUOTE: Not all dinosaurs evolved into birds, but all living birds are dinosaurs. […] Long before the asteroid hit, some of the members of a group of dinosaurs called Penneraptorans began to evolve feathers and the ability to fly.

dhw: I’ve no idea what percentage of dinosaur species was made up of Penneraptorans, but one website suggests there were 700 known species of dinosaur. This would at least suggest that the vast majority of dinosaurs were NOT the ancestors of birds or of any other contemporary species.

Many forms had multiple species which became extinct as ancestors of the small number living. 99.9% gone is a huge percentage compared to the now living total. If 5 billion are extinct they form part of the 99.9%.

Purpose

dhw: Each of my alternatives is based fairly and squarely on the history of evolution as we know it, and none of them impose a purpose and method on your God that could be described as “messy”, “cumbersome” or “inefficient”. Please tell us why you have denigrated your God’s work in this manner.[…]

DAVID: Yes, cumbersome and inefficient bur when viewed as a purposeful design, nothing was extraneous. Your implication is God developed unnecessary species and threw them away.

dhw: That is YOUR theory. Purposeful design: current species. Your God designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species unconnected with current species. That’s why you call his method inefficient etc.

Not correct!!! God produced what He wanted here. All past lines were intended and the trimming of twigs on the lines produced the 99.9% gone.

dhw: The lines he wanted constituted 0.1%, but as you have agreed, he also culled the rest of the 99.9%. His design and culling of all the non-ancestors is the reason why you call your God’s work messy, cumbersome and inefficient, but despite its absurd illogicality and insult to your God, you refuse to countenance the possibility that you might have got it all wrong.

Wrong!! The 99.9% are the direct ancestors of all the 0.1% living. You cannot split them apart as you state into two disinct separate entities.

dhw: 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: These words are not what they MEAN to God as you phrase it. It is, can they describe God in any meaningful way?

dhw: Correct, so stop this silly talk of the words being “allegorical” We both know what they mean. Do they describe God in any meaningful way? Yes, of course they do. He wants us to recognize and worship him is perfectly meaningful. The question is whether the description is true or false.

Right, therefore allegorical.

DAVID: My image of God is totally unknown to you, based on your criticisms.

dhw: I’m fully aware of his alleged desire for recognition and worship – it’s at the heart of religious services - and it may well be correct, in which case it’s ridiculous for you to claim he has no self-interest. It’s equally ridiculous for you to say you are certain he enjoys creating and yet to reject the possibility that his purpose might be to give himself the enjoyment of creating.

God does not create to satisfy an inner need or self-interest.

DAVID: I agree all of us has the right to imagine God in their own way.

dhw: So stop pretending you know best, and therefore my alternatives (e.g. experimentation, discovery, enjoyment) are impossible. Nobody knows the truth, and our theories are equally subjective. The only difference is that mine logically fit history without criticizing your God, whereas yours defy logic and ridicule your God.

Thank you for protecting my God.