Genome complexity: how humans correct errors; dhw confusion (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, November 12, 2020, 17:34 (1473 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: … even today we see some life forms changing themselves IN RESPONSE to new conditions, and nobody has ever seen such changes take place BEFORE conditions have changed.

DAVID: Again your mishmash trying to compare simple adaptations within species to speciation. I don't know how God created species, pre-programming or dabbling or whatever. All I do know is design by a designing mind is required.

I am not comparing them. I am pointing out that we KNOW organisms change their structures IN RESPONSE to new conditions. I don’t know what your “whatever” can refer to, since you have only ever offered us the two methods, and you have only ever argued that evolutionary innovations take place BEFORE the new conditions for which they are used. I am not objecting to the case for design, which is covered by my cellular intelligence theory, which in turn leaves open the possibility of your God as designer of cellular intelligence.

What major structures change in species adaptation? Nothing major we know of. Yes we also differ about design. Logically God must directly design, rather than putting it off to a secondary independent mechanism by cells.

dhw: I'm afraid the idea of pre-whales waking up one morning to find their legs have turned into fins elicits more of a giggle than a nod from me.

DAVID: I agree, but the giggle has to explain the fossil record gaps.

dhw: Firstly, every major fossil find is a sensation, because preservation over millions and millions of years is so unlikely, and secondly, if your God can restructure cell communities, why do you think he is incapable of designing cell communities to do the same thing – especially since we know there is such a mechanism for restructuring without his intervention (i.e. adaptation).

All quite minor. Again extrapolating to major change in design.

dhw: I am always surprised that you refuse to consider your God capable of designing a mechanism to produce all the billions of changes you make him preprogramme 3.8 billion years ago, or keep personally dabbling one by one.

DAVID: My reasoning is designing a mechanism to design for the future makes control one step away from the first designer, introducing possible errors.

dhw: According to you, your God’s design introduced errors anyway. We have a whole thread devoted to that subject, and the problem with your “control” theory is dealt with on that thread (which has broadened out again into a discussion of your whole theory of evolution). [Your "design for the future" theory was dealt with on this thread.] But you are right – my theory (theistic version) has God deliberately sacrificing control, and I offer a logical reason for his doing so under “Theodicy”.

DAVID: I don't view your theory in theodicy as logical based on my view of God in control.

dhw: You are simply saying that my theory is illogical because it differs from your theory! My idea that your God did not WANT control is no more and no less feasible than your idea that he did. Nothing to do with logic. Your theory leads you to admitting that you have no idea why he would have created bad bugs. You call that logic. My theory explains logically how the bad bugs could have come into existence, and why your God allowed them to do so, and it also explains the vast variety of life forms and natural wonders which have/had nothing to do with humans.

Each theory has a background of facts to be considered. Our considerations differ. My view of Godadn his intentions are not yours.