Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1 (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, April 09, 2022, 05:17 (957 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Why can't you separate purpose from reaction?

dhw: Your usual dodge of “answering” a question by asking a question!.....I think it more likely that he would have begun by saying to himself: “I would like to create things that I will enjoy creating and that I will find interesting.”

Once again you have God serving Himself. God may or may not enjoy or take interest.

dhw: [...]Why do you wish to downplay the possible implications of your own guesses?

DAVID: I'm not 'sure' creating and desiring interest have any role in God primarily creating. That is how you humanize Him.

dhw: You already humanized him when you said you were sure he enjoyed creating etc. But I don’t ask you to be sure that this was his purpose – I offer it as a theory that fits in perfectly with your own guesses, and would help you out of your dreadful dilemma of having him design countless organisms that had no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only purpose (us and our food).

That is your strange humanizing interpretation. We do not know if He has emotions like ours.

God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: My view is the system works. A biochemical system of life requires massive numbers of reactions at nanosecond speed. Rare mistakes that get past editing add up to cloud your biased viewpoint.

dhw: I have simply suggested that a God who creates what he wants to create (a free-for-all) seems to me to be far less weak than a God who creates what he doesn’t want to create – namely, the “rare” errors that cause crippling diseases and millions of deaths. Sorry if that seems to you like bias.

Your bias is to degrade God's choice of how to create life. I think it is the only way possible or God would have found some way else.

Shapiro

DAVID: We disagree on cell intelligence which obviously can be purely cell instructions.

dhw: I know you disagree with the theory. Will you now please stop telling me that I inflate and misuse it.

His theory is based on bacteria editing their DNA applied to a guess about speciation. He has only proved bacteria and none else have this ability. The rest is his extrapolation

Learning how proteins work

DAVID: A study in automaticity of molecules:
https://phys.org/news/2022-04-abundant-secret-doors-human-proteins.html

DAVID: This is a study of how protein molecules automatically react in living processes. This automaticity is required to allow the fantastic speed of the processes , a speed that is required for life to exist.

dhw: You constant pick on examples of automatic behaviour, and I constantly reiterate that of course much of cellular activity has to be automatic, because otherwise the system will break down. There are two contexts in which intelligence comes into play: 1) the origin of every activity; 2) how cells respond when things go wrong. An analogy would be a factory. It takes intelligence to design the machinery, things then work automatically, and only when something goes wrong is intelligence required. You have the same theory, but attribute each stage to your God's direct intervention.

DAVID: And your analogous intelligence arose how?

dhw: Sorry, I forgot to mention that the theistic version is that God would have designed it.

Thank you.