Back to David's theory of evolution: God's error corrections (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 15, 2020, 15:24 (44 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, August 15, 2020, 15:32

DAVID: Before starting in bits and pieces rather than statements, let my note that my thinking and analysis of what God might do is under constant change,...Frankly, I'd never fully delved into the issue of molecular mistakes and God's handling of them in any thoughtful detail. What I wrote yesterday is exactly where I am at this point.

dhw: I appreciate your honesty, but wish you had written this in a different spirit. I do not gleefully present the contradictions you keep defending. We are both on a quest for logical explanations of life’s history and a possible God’s possible nature and purpose(s)... No, you have clearly never delved into the issue, and I have repeatedly asked you to rethink this particular theory. Thank you for doing so.

dhw: Please explain how God “allowing” random mutations to change the course of evolution is consistent with God directly designing all life forms, including us.

DAVID: I am amazed at your statement. God is the final editor of what genomes pass on to each new level of evolution. What is wrong with a random chance mutation, if it fits God's plan to be allowed to pass through??? Chance can play a role!!!

dhw: There is nothing wrong with a random mutation or with chance playing a role. But if chance can play a role in changing the course of evolution, and all God can do is “allow” it to survive, then this blatantly contradicts your original theory that your all-powerful, all-knowing God had everything planned from the beginning and directly designed every species as “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

You've made an excellent point. I still view God as designing each complicated advance to a new species. Using the strange whale series as an example, and remembering epigenetic adaptations, each step required many alterations in physical form and physiology. When a stage began to modify itself epigenetically in a way that God saw would not lead logically to the next planned step, He would step in and change it. Conversely, if it was a good step, He allowed it. You should be very comfortable with that view. I am. It fully allows for God's recognition that free-to-act molecules under strict instructions will still make occasional mistakes, tehv startv of this discussion

dhw: Here you say that during evolution he didn’t care about or notice the disease-causing errors. Are you then rescinding your guess that disease began “quite early as we know of cell-splitting problems, which means bacteria could certainly have reproductive problems. […] He put in backups, so He was correcting as much as he could”? Why did he put in backups and correct as much as he could if he didn’t care?

Again you are confusing two genome outcomes, during reproduction and during life. The backups relate to DNA copying in reproduction of species so they stay unchanged. DNA mistakes during life that result in aging, or cancer or disease are mistakes in backups that lead to death, and death is required. That is why we are in charge of corrections now, as I view God is not active and He has given us responsibility.


DAVID: He has a specific goal, and He proceeded knowing fully what to expect from molecular errors. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: He could not stop the random errors from occurring but could only “allow” them to change the course of evolution, so are you saying he knew in advance which errors would be beneficial or harmful? You say you are “the one willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing and he can’t stop molecular errors in a system he created.” Please tell us, then, what your God did NOT know about the errors.

DAVID: Doesn't any coding expert know what his coding goal is??? Coding is to produce a specified output. Tony can help here. God fully knew what the accepted errors would produce. If He didn't, He had no capacity to code for future results He wanted.

dhw: You have missed the first point of this post. If we accept that he knew his goal was H. sapiens, but the route to H. sapiens was marked by random mutations which he “allowed” because he thought they would be beneficial, you will have to jettison the design theory I have bolded earlier in this post. I look forward to the day in, say, a week’s time when you will blame me for quoting your current, contradictory ideas.

All clearly explained above. I expect you to agree with my presentation, now more clearly thought through with your helpful critique. I find no contradictions. Will you?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum