Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, February 11, 2023, 07:48 (447 days ago) @ David Turell

I’m tempted to edit this post to a single paragraph, and even to the single request/question at the beginning and end, but perhaps the repetitions will eventually bear fruit.

DAVID: Suddenly a 99.9% failure rate disappears into a concocted theory that God has hands off.

dhw: In two of my theistic alternatives (experimentation and new ideas) his figurative hands are on, but the non-survival of 99% of his designs is neither a mistake nor a failure. (David’s bold) Only the free-for-all is hands off, unless he wants to dabble. Now please tell us why a God who makes mistake after mistake is more godlike than a God who makes no mistakes.(dhw’s bold)

DAVID: God's 'mistakes' actually progress in any evolutionary system. (dhw's bold)

Once again you dodge my bolded request, which lies at the very heart of our disagreement. Meanwhile, how many of God’s evolutionary systems do you know? The evolutionary system we know tells us that 99% per cent of his designs came to a dead end, i.e. made no further progress, and that is why you call them mistakes and failures. Please stop contradicting yourself.

dhw: Your supposedly all-powerful, always-in-control God’s inability to control the environment meant that he could only design species that suited the conditions, as opposed to species that would lead to us and our food.

DAVID: Wrong again: our giant bush of food supply is the result of that exact requirement to suit environments.

dhw: Our bush, derived from the 1% of successes, suits OUR environment. You call the other 99% “mistakes” because the organisms and their environments had no connection with us and our environment. Only the 1% bridged the gaps.

DAVID: The dead ends demonstrated what ware necessary were adaptations to evolve onward. They led to the improved 1%.

The dead ends became dead because of new conditions – they did not demonstrate what conditions were necessary for their survival! Only the 1% of survivors showed the necessary adaptations, which you believe your God then worked on, but even them the process repeated itself, with him designing another 99% of blunders.

Extremophiles

DAVID: […] What cannot continue to survive sets the conditions necessary for new attempts. Evolution is a progression of simple forms to more complexity of forms. Failure drives the process, per Raup.

dhw: Species go extinct because they cannot survive new conditions. They don’t “set” the new conditions! Nor, according to you, does your God. And extinct forms do not evolve into new forms. Only the one per cent of survivors can evolve into new forms. See birds below.

DAVID: By 'setting' I mean show the deficiencies that need correction.

dhw: Back you go to your blundering God, correcting his mistakes by making the next set of mistakes. He never learns, does he? Though you think he knew in advance that he’d make all these blunders, which apparently means he is all-powerful, and always in control.

DAVID: You need to stop and review how anything evolves, Dead ends a normal part of it.

We agree that 99% of life’s evolution produced dead ends. But the dead ends did not lead to sapiens plus food, and since you say your God designed them although his only purpose was to produce us plus our food, you blame him for making mistakes and conducting failed experiments. Yes or no?

dhw: Is every extremophile an absolute requirement for us and our food? Or one of your God's 99% mistakes?

DAVID: Not worth answering, but as you know I think all animals and plants fit into very important ecosystems that provide our food.

dhw: The usual slithery non-answer.

DAVID: Once again you deny the importance of our major ecosystems. After all, its just food.

Please stop slithering and stop putting words into my mouth. Of course our major ecosystems are important to us. Have I ever denied that we need food or that our food is derived from current ecosystems? Extremophiles demonstrate that organisms find all kinds of ways to survive. You also tell us that your God designed them, and that God designed every organism in order to produce us and our food, but 99% were mistakes. So do you think your God designed every extremophile to be part of our food supply, or are they his mistakes?

Conflict

dhw: I do indeed think that mistakes, failed experiments, mess, lack of control, dependence on luck etc. make your God look bad, but that is your “personal invention”.

DAVID: I'm just presenting evolution in a different factual light as it relates to God the designer.

dhw: I’m surprised that you see your all-powerful God and his designs in such a bad light.

DAVID: It is your 'bad light' interpretation, but then again you like wimpy Gods.

Why do think countless mistakes, failed experiments, mess, lack of control, dependence on luck etc. are the attributes of an all-powerful, strong, always-in-control God, whereas a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes is to be considered “wimpy”? This post has now come full circle. Please stop dodging the question.