https://mindmatters.ai/2021/03/why-software-cannot-just-evolve-a-demonstration/

"A Michigan State University publication headlined a media release declaring: “Evolution of learning is key to better artificial intelligence” (September 19, 2019). Reportedly, researchers used the computer simulation software, Avida, to show the “evolution of learning.” On that view, artificial intelligence arises via neo-Darwinian evolution. Really?

***

"Admiring the Avida computer simulation’s results, a program director at the National Science Foundation boasted that the researchers “have evolved associated learning in a computer from the raw ingredients of mutation, inheritance and competitive selection” (September 19, 2019). Note: The paper is open access.

"Left unexamined was the question of whether computer software actually can “evolve” in the way the researchers posit for living organisms, i.e., by undirected mutations and natural selection. To believe that computer programs can “evolve” the ability to learn or any other function requires the assumption that programs can “evolve” at all. Other researchers have shown the defective reasoning and unsupported claims for Avida, which was first touted in 2004 to demonstrate successful neo-Darwinian evolution. The fundamental assumption must be tested: Can software programs undergo undirected mutation to evolve a meaningful new function?

***

"I developed a simulation system, InforMutation, to test the effects of undirected mutations using a simple computer program. First, I wrote a program in the venerable old-school BASIC programming language. True, it takes intelligent design to write this program, just as the Avida simulation was designed and written but set that fact aside for now. We’re going to test whether computer programs can be successfully mutated so we’ll assume we start with a working program that does something interesting.

***

"What happened? The simulation demonstrated a reality for any kind of computer programming: The program code must follow the syntax and semantic rules of the programming language. If the program code is modified randomly, there is no reason to think the resulting program will still follow those rules.

"When a program fails because of a syntax error, as in this example, the program does not run again — ever. A program that fails because of a semantic error usually produces spurious results and dies just as dead.

***

"Claims that Avida has shown how neo-Darwinian-like evolution can produce “learning” are intrinsically false. The digital organisms in Avida could be mutated, still run, and achieve new functions only if outside intelligent designers set up a system for mutations that either (1) never imposes syntax or run-time errors or (2) can impose errors but the organism continues to run and mutate enough to fix the errors. Either of these scenarios could exist only under one of two circumstances: The mutations are carefully directed (not undirected) or the digital organisms and the simulation system are pre-designed to tolerate a wide range of software failures and still run so that “favorable” mutations can accumulate.

"Working with InforMutation exposes the reasons why Avida could not demonstrate neo-Darwinian evolution of “learning” software. Rather, as a product of careful design, the Avida simulation showed the the fundamental elements of intelligent design: Purpose, Plan, Engineering, and Foresight. Only with these elements could randomly-mutated programs survive and run repeatedly so as to accumulate mutations. (my bold)

"A National Science Foundation director is quoted as touting the Avida simulation as “open[ing] the door to creating artificial intelligence systems without the limitations imposed by human design.” That claim is demonstrably false. The Avida simulation is nothing other than a software system tuned specifically by human design — because software exposed to raw, truly undirected, mutations always dies early. If “learning” was observed in the Avida simulation, it resulted from carefully chosen features, functions, and algorithms, not from undirected software evolution."

Comment: This programmer is imitating DNA run by God. Note my bold. Designer foresight is required. No human computer program can self-mutate without human design control.

"'The key breakthrough is an encoding algorithm that allows accurate retrieval of the information even when the DNA strands are partially damaged during storage," said Ilya Finkelstein, an associate professor of molecular biosciences and one of the authors of the study.

"Humans are creating information at exponentially higher rates than we used to, contributing to the need for a way to store more information efficiently and in a way that will last a long time. Companies such as Google and Microsoft are among those exploring using DNA to store information.

"We need a way to store this data so that it is available when and where it's needed in a format that will be readable," said Stephen Jones, a research scientist who collaborated on the project with Finkelstein; Bill Press, a professor jointly appointed in computer science and integrative biology; and Ph.D. alumnus John Hawkins. "This idea takes advantage of what biology has been doing for billions of years: storing lots of information in a very small space that lasts a long time. DNA doesn't take up much space, it can be stored at room temperature, and it can last for hundreds of thousands of years."

"DNA is about 5 million times more efficient than current storage methods. Put another way, a one milliliter droplet of DNA could store the same amount of information as two Walmarts full of data servers. And DNA doesn't require permanent cooling and hard disks that are prone to mechanical failures.

"There's just one problem: DNA is prone to errors. And when a genetic code has errors, it's a lot different from when a computer code has errors. Errors in computer codes tend to show up as blank spots in the code. Errors in DNA sequences show up as insertions or deletions. The problem there is that when something is deleted or added in DNA, the whole sequence shifts, with no blank spots to alert anyone.

***

"'We found a way to build the information more like a lattice," Jones said. "Each piece of information reinforces other pieces of information. That way, it only needs to be read once."

"The language the researchers developed also avoids sections of DNA that are prone to errors or that are difficult to read. The parameters of the language can also change with the type of information that is being stored. For instance, a dropped word in a novel is not as big a deal as a dropped zero in a tax return.

"To demonstrate information retrieval from degraded DNA, the team subjected its "Wizard of Oz" code to high temperatures and extreme humidity. Even though the DNA strands were damaged by these harsh conditions, all the information was still decoded successfully."

Comment: Note they had to account for biological molecules' unreliability of function. God's code designs are still much better than ours.

dhw: Nor do I know what you mean by a “fierce streak of defensiveness”. I am an agnostic, which means I frankly admit my own ignorance and the fact that one way or another my non-beliefs are wrong. I can’t imagine anyone characterising me as fierce! Mild and gentle, that's me! But I must admit that I do have a very critical response when I'm confronted with what I regard as silly arguments. You will certainly have noticed this, and so would Dawkins if he knew about this website, which came into existence as a response to his book with the astonishingly presumptuous title The God Delusion.

DAVID: I agree. Drop the personal side although I think we both agree parents influence children. You do fiercely defend your agnosticism, but as you get criticized from all direction I'm sure you have developed a thick hide and defenses.

dhw: Yes, upbringing, genes, education, personal experience all influence children in one way or another way (which is why the same family can produce atheists, agnostics and believers). Otherwise almost done and dusted, except that my criticism of what I regard as silly arguments (on both sides of the fence) is not a fierce defence of agnosticism but is simply criticism of what I regard as silly arguments. If an issue is unresolved, I do plead for open-mindedness, but I respect faith (either in a God or in chance) so long as it doesn’t cause harm or offence to others, or doesn’t pretend to be anything other than faith – e.g. to be based on scientific truths, or any other kind of incontrovertible fact.

A clear statement of your position.

DAVID: I agree. Drop the personal side although I think we both agree parents influence children. You do fiercely defend your agnosticism, but as you get criticized from all direction I'm sure you have developed a think hide and defenses.

Yes, upbringing, genes, education, personal experience all influence children in one way or another way (which is why the same family can produce atheists, agnostics and believers). Otherwise almost done and dusted, except that my criticism of what I regard as silly arguments (on both sides of the fence) is not a fierce defence of agnosticism but is simply criticism of what I regard as silly arguments. If an issue is unresolved, I do plead for open-mindedness, but I respect faith (either in a God or in chance) so long as it doesn’t cause harm or offence to others, or doesn’t pretend to be anything other than faith – e.g. to be based on scientific truths, or any other kind of incontrovertible fact.

DAVID: No intent to denigrate lovely Jenny. We've discussed how a human develops from childhood with parental influences at work in shaping personality. Jenny did not arrive de novo at her current age. Do you deny your influence?

dhw: Of course we all inherit parental traits and are influenced by our upbringing. But that does not mean every child agrees with everything the parent says or thinks! My father was a practising Jew, but I am an agnostic. My brother was an atheist, but two of his four sons are ardent Christians. Did you always agree with your father?

DAVID: All I suggested is that you influenced Jenny as she developed, and you have agreed. Your further rebuttal suggests you have a fierce streak of defensiveness about your agnosticism. In the subject of religion my Father and I had no debates. Frankly, I have no idea what he really believed, if he had beliefs. While we were kids He went to High Holy Days services as the entire extent of what might be called practicing Judaism.

dhw: This is becoming far too personal! I don’t recall ever discussing religion with any of my children until long after they’d left home. My late wife was a Methodist, and they all went to church when they were young and attended Sunday school. I never at any time objected to this, or to their being baptised as Christians, although I did inform the Minister that I was not a believer. In fact he and I became lifelong friends, although sadly he is now suffering from dementia. I don’t know when Jenny made the decision that religion was not for her. Nor do I know what you mean by a “fierce streak of defensiveness”. I am an agnostic, which means I frankly admit my own ignorance and the fact that one way or another my non-beliefs are wrong. I can’t imagine anyone characterising me as fierce! Mild and gentle, that's me! But I must admit that I do have a very critical response when I'm confronted with what I regard as silly arguments. You will certainly have noticed this, and so would Dawkins if he knew about this website, which came into existence as a response to his book with the astonishingly presumptuous title The God Delusion.

I agree. Drop the personal side although I think we both agree parents influence children. You do fiercely defend your agnosticism, but as you get criticized from all direction I'm sure you have developed a think hide and defenses.

dhw: Of course we all inherit parental traits and are influenced by our upbringing. But that does not mean every child agrees with everything the parent says or thinks! My father was a practising Jew, but I am an agnostic. My brother was an atheist, but two of his four sons are ardent Christians. Did you always agree with your father?

DAVID: All I suggested is that you influenced Jenny as she developed, and you have agreed. Your further rebuttal suggests you have a fierce streak of defensiveness about your agnosticism. In the subject of religion my Father and I had no debates. Frankly, I have no idea what he really believed, if he had beliefs. While we were kids He went to High Holy Days services as the entire extent of what might be called practicing Judaism.

This is becoming far too personal! I don’t recall ever discussing religion with any of my children until long after they’d left home. My late wife was a Methodist, and they all went to church when they were young and attended Sunday school. I never at any time objected to this, or to their being baptised as Christians, although I did inform the Minister that I was not a believer. In fact he and I became lifelong friends, although sadly he is now suffering from dementia. I don’t know when Jenny made the decision that religion was not for her. Nor do I know what you mean by a “fierce streak of defensiveness”. I am an agnostic, which means I frankly admit my own ignorance and the fact that one way or another my non-beliefs are wrong. I can’t imagine anyone characterising me as fierce! Mild and gentle, that's me! But I must admit that I do have a very critical response when I'm confronted with what I regard as silly arguments. You will certainly have noticed this, and so would Dawkins if he knew about this website, which came into existence as a response to his book with the astonishingly presumptuous title The God Delusion.

DAVID: I will continue trying not to add human-sounding motives to any analysis I make of what I view as God's actions. We shall continue into the future! Eleven more years and I'll be 100. Possible.

dhw: Ah, my daughter will have to revise her description: “One stubborn old man and one stubborn even older man”.

DAVID: Under your influence does Jenny believe or is she with you? Her analysis of the website is correct.

dhw: I don’t know why you say “under my influence”, unless you are anticipating the reply and already trying to discredit it. Jenny is a highly intelligent lady in her fifties, with a mind of her own and a very sharp and critical brain. She is an agnostic, but that does not mean she merely accepts whatever Dad tells her! I should add that her “analysis” is made with an affectionate twinkle in the eye directed towards both of us, and how nice it is to record that hers is a conclusion on which we both agree!

DAVID: No intent to denigrate lovely Jenny. We've discussed how a human develops from childhood with parental influences at work in shaping personality. Jenny did not arrive de novo at her current age. Do you deny your influence?

dhw: Of course we all inherit parental traits and are influenced by our upbringing. But that does not mean every child agrees with everything the parent says or thinks! My father was a practising Jew, but I am an agnostic. My brother was an atheist, but two of his four sons are ardent Christians. Did you always agree with your father?

All I suggested is that you influenced Jenny as she developed, and you have agreed. Your further rebuttal suggests you have a fierce streak of defensiveness about your agnosticism. In the subject of religion my Father and I had no debates. Frankly, I have no idea what he really believed, if he had beliefs. While we were kids He went to High Holy Days services as the entire extent of what might be called practicing Judaism.

dhw: Ah, my daughter will have to revise her description: “One stubborn old man and one stubborn even older man”.

DAVID: Under your influence does Jenny believe or is she with you? Her analysis of the website is correct.

dhw: I don’t know why you say “under my influence”, unless you are anticipating the reply and already trying to discredit it. Jenny is a highly intelligent lady in her fifties, with a mind of her own and a very sharp and critical brain. She is an agnostic, but that does not mean she merely accepts whatever Dad tells her! I should add that her “analysis” is made with an affectionate twinkle in the eye directed towards both of us, and how nice it is to record that hers is a conclusion on which we both agree!

DAVID: No intent to denigrate lovely Jenny. We've discussed how a human develops from childhood with parental influences at work in shaping personality. Jenny did not arrive de novo at her current age. Do you deny your influence?

Of course we all inherit parental traits and are influenced by our upbringing. But that does not mean every child agrees with everything the parent says or thinks! My father was a practising Jew, but I am an agnostic. My brother was an atheist, but two of his four sons are ardent Christians. Did you always agree with your father?

DAVID: I will continue trying not to add human-sounding motives to any analysis I make of what I view as God's actions. We shall continue into the future! Eleven more years and I'll be 100. Possible.

dhw: Ah, my daughter will have to revise her description: “One stubborn old man and one stubborn even older man”.

DAVID: Under your influence does Jenny believe or is she with you? Her analysis of the website is correct.

dhw: I don’t know why you say “under my influence”, unless you are anticipating the reply and already trying to discredit it. Jenny is a highly intelligent lady in her fifties, with a mind of her own and a very sharp and critical brain. She is an agnostic, but that does not mean she merely accepts whatever Dad tells her! I should add that her “analysis” is made with an affectionate twinkle in the eye directed towards both of us, and how nice it is to record that hers is a conclusion on which we both agree!

No intent to denigrate lovely Jenny. We've discussed how a human develops from childhood with parental influences at work in shaping personality. Jenny did not arrive de novo at her current age. Do you deny your influence?

dhw: Ah, my daughter will have to revise her description: “One stubborn old man and one stubborn even older man”.

DAVID: Under your influence does Jenny believe or is she with you? Her analysis of the website is correct.

I don’t know why you say “under my influence”, unless you are anticipating the reply and already trying to discredit it. Jenny is a highly intelligent lady in her fifties, with a mind of her own and a very sharp and critical brain. She is an agnostic, but that does not mean she merely accepts whatever Dad tells her! I should add that her “analysis” is made with an affectionate twinkle in the eye directed towards both of us, and how nice it is to record that hers is a conclusion on which we both agree!

DAVID: I have chosen my approach to interpretation of what God created in evolution. I will keep to it as I view it totally logical for me as I view God. Your view of God differs. As a result we will not resolve our differences.

dhw: Of course I must accept that you have a fixed belief from which you will not budge. I can only add firstly that you have agreed several times that you cannot logically connect your interpretation of purpose with your interpretation of method, and secondly I myself do not have a view of a possible God but can only offer alternatives to your own. It would perhaps be best if we dropped the subject, but I'm afraid it will continue to come up whenever you talk about design. See the post on “Little Foot”.

I’d also like to add that the whole point of this website is to exchange views on possible solutions to all the mysteries of life and the universe. If we all agreed on everything, there would be no discussion, but since there is absolutely no consensus on any of the solutions, we can only try to give one another logical reasons for and against each one.Through the eleven years of our discussions, many correspondents have been happy to present their solutions, but have presumably been less happy when you or I have questioned them, and sadly they have then left us. If it were not for you, I would probably be involved in one long monologue now, or I would have closed the site. To my surprise, though, I see that many of our recent discussions have still been followed by hundreds and, in some cases, more than a thousand viewers, so perhaps we “two stubborn old men” – as my daughter calls us – should keep going for a while!

DAVID: I will continue trying not to add human-sounding motives to any analysis I make of what I view as God's actions. We shall continue into the future! Eleven more years and I'll be 100. Possible.

dhw: Ah, my daughter will have to revise her description: “One stubborn old man and one stubborn even older man”.

Under your influence does Jenny believe or is she with you? Her analysis of the website is correct

dhw: Of course I must accept that you have a fixed belief from which you will not budge. I can only add firstly that you have agreed several times that you cannot logically connect your interpretation of purpose with your interpretation of method, and secondly I myself do not have a view of a possible God but can only offer alternatives to your own. It would perhaps be best if we dropped the subject, but I'm afraid it will continue to come up whenever you talk about design. See the post on “Little Foot”.

I’d also like to add that the whole point of this website is to exchange views on possible solutions to all the mysteries of life and the universe. If we all agreed on everything, there would be no discussion, but since there is absolutely no consensus on any of the solutions, we can only try to give one another logical reasons for and against each one.Through the eleven years of our discussions, many correspondents have been happy to present their solutions, but have presumably been less happy when you or I have questioned them, and sadly they have then left us. If it were not for you, I would probably be involved in one long monologue now, or I would have closed the site. To my surprise, though, I see that many of our recent discussions have still been followed by hundreds and, in some cases, more than a thousand viewers, so perhaps we “two stubborn old men” – as my daughter calls us – should keep going for a while!

DAVID: I will continue trying not to add human-sounding motives to any analysis I make of what I view as God's actions. We shall continue into the future! Eleven more years and I'll be 100. Possible.

Ah, my daughter will have to revise her description: “One stubborn old man and one stubborn even older man”.

DAVID: I have chosen my approach to interpretation of what God created in evolution. I will keep to it as I view it totally logical for me as I view God. Your view of God differs. As a result we will not resolve our differences.

dhw: Of course I must accept that you have a fixed belief from which you will not budge. I can only add firstly that you have agreed several times that you cannot logically connect your interpretation of purpose with your interpretation of method, and secondly I myself do not have a view of a possible God but can only offer alternatives to your own. It would perhaps be best if we dropped the subject, but I'm afraid it will continue to come up whenever you talk about design. See the post on “Little Foot”.

I’d also like to add that the whole point of this website is to exchange views on possible solutions to all the mysteries of life and the universe. If we all agreed on everything, there would be no discussion, but since there is absolutely no consensus on any of the solutions, we can only try to give one another logical reasons for and against each one.Through the eleven years of our discussions, many correspondents have been happy to present their solutions, but have presumably been less happy when you or I have questioned them, and sadly they have then left us. If it were not for you, I would probably be involved in one long monologue now, or I would have closed the site. To my surprise, though, I see that many of our recent discussions have still been followed by hundreds and, in some cases, more than a thousand viewers, so perhaps we “two stubborn old men” – as my daughter calls us – should keep going for a while!

I will continue trying not to add human-sounding motives to any analysis I make of what I view as God's actions. We shall continue into the future! Eleven more years and I'll be 100. Possible.

Of course I must accept that you have a fixed belief from which you will not budge. I can only add firstly that you have agreed several times that you cannot logically connect your interpretation of purpose with your interpretation of method, and secondly I myself do not have a view of a possible God but can only offer alternatives to your own. It would perhaps be best if we dropped the subject, but I'm afraid it will continue to come up whenever you talk about design. See the post on “Little Foot”.

I’d also like to add that the whole point of this website is to exchange views on possible solutions to all the mysteries of life and the universe. If we all agreed on everything, there would be no discussion, but since there is absolutely no consensus on any of the solutions, we can only try to give one another logical reasons for and against each one.Through the eleven years of our discussions, many correspondents have been happy to present their solutions, but have presumably been less happy when you or I have questioned them, and sadly they have then left us. If it were not for you, I would probably be involved in one long monologue now, or I would have closed the site. To my surprise, though, I see that many of our recent discussions have still been followed by hundreds and, in some cases, more than a thousand viewers, so perhaps we “two stubborn old men” – as my daughter calls us – should keep going for a while!

dhw: The remainder of your post simply reiterates the same points, but I’ll repeat them for the sake of clarity:

DAVID: I accept the way He chose to do it!!! The puzzle is your problem because you want God to be logical in a different way of evolutionary actions that fits your ideas about how He should have done it. But He didn't do it your way!

dhw: I don’t have a way. I offer alternatives, all of which you agree are logical. It is you who assume you know his purpose and the way he chose to fulfil it. You don’t know. As you once admitted, it’s all guesses.

DAVID: All your proposals can be viewed as logical, but wander about in the pursuit of a purposeful God, as I view Him with a primary attribute. I view Him as fully aware of His goals from the beginning and working toward them by his chosen method. You don't like His logic, but then you don't believe.

dhw: If God exists, of course he is purposeful, and I would also view him as aware of his goals and working towards them by his chosen method. The difference between us is that I do not claim to know his chosen goal or his chosen method, and I offer alternatives which you agree are logical. It is your logic I don’t like. Neither of us can know his logic, and so I come up with different possibilities.

DAVID: All you have said is you don't approve of God's chosen method. You don't have to. And I don't have to, but based on my concepts of God's attributes and purposefulness is a major one, it makes perfect sense to me.

dhw: All I have said is I don’t approve of your one-track insistence that you know God’s chosen purpose and method. You don’t. And you have acknowledged over and over again that you cannot find a logical explanation for the combination of your chosen purpose and your chosen method.

I have chosen my approach to interpretation of what God created in evolution. I will keep to it as I view it totally logical for me as I view God. Your view of God differs. As a result we will not resolve our differences.

dhw: I have said repeatedly that we are the latest and most advanced species to appear, but the fact that we “are here” does not mean we were your God’s purpose from the very beginning, and that – yet again – is the sticking point: if we were his purpose from the very beginning, and he is in total control, why did he spend 3.5+ billion years creating dinosaurs, eight stages of whale, camouflaged cuttlefish and the duckbilled platypus? Your illogical answer is so that they could eat one another in order to keep life going until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to specially design.

DAVID: I'll repeat the very clear logic: evolution started with simple and goes to the most complex. [Agreed.] Humans are here and therefore the goal from the beginning, as 'currently' seen! [Why from the beginning? If “currently” is your criterion, then your God’s goal could have kept shifting as time went by: dinosaurs could have been the “current” goal until humans came along, since you believe he specially designed them too.]
The balance of nature to supply food for the 3.8 billion years is totally logical. (In what context is it logical? Yes, all life needs food. That doesn’t mean your God specially designed dinosaurs so that they could eat one another until he specially designed his one and only purpose: humans. THAT is what is not logical.] I accept He chose to do it that way as we see. (No, you accept your interpretation of his purpose and his choice of method.) I don't explain God, as you try to; I simply accept and offer my interpretation of His actions. [You accept your interpretation of his purpose and his method, and you admit that you can’t understand why he would have chosen that method for that purpose.] I'm sorry it is illogical for you, but then you constantly try to make Him as human as possible. [You have admitted that you don’t understand the logic either. I offer various logical alternatives to explain the different, conflicting elements of your hypothesis, but each one contradicts one or other of your fixed beliefs. The alternatives I offer are no more human than your control freak who knows what he wants, knows how to get it, but unfortunately chooses a way to get it which even you can’t understand.]

The remainder of your post simply reiterates the same points, but I’ll repeat them for the sake of clarity:

DAVID: I accept the way He chose to do it!!! The puzzle is your problem because you want God to be logical in a different way of evolutionary actions that fits your ideas about how He should have done it. But He didn't do it your way!

I don’t have a way. I offer alternatives, all of which you agree are logical. It is you who assume you know his purpose and the way he chose to fulfil it. You don’t know. As you once admitted, it’s all guesses.

DAVID: All your proposals can be viewed as logical, but wander about in the pursuit of a purposeful God, as I view Him with a primary attribute. I view Him as fully aware of His goals from the beginning and working toward them by his chosen method. You don't like His logic, but then you don't believe.

If God exists, of course he is purposeful, and I would also view him as aware of his goals and working towards them by his chosen method. The difference between us is that I do not claim to know his chosen goal or his chosen method, and I offer alternatives which you agree are logical. It is your logic I don’t like. Neither of us can know his logic, and so I come up with different possibilities.

DAVID: All you have said is you don't approve of God's chosen method. You don't have to. And I don't have to, but based on my concepts of God's attributes and purposefulness is a major one, it makes perfect sense to me.

All I have said is I don’t approve of your one-track insistence that you know God’s chosen purpose and method. You don’t. And you have acknowledged over and over again that you cannot find a logical explanation for the combination of your chosen purpose and your chosen method.

DAVID: Haven't you noticed the latest arrival in the fossil record in Homo sapiens. We are the most advanced and the most complex. The platypus is certainly somewhat complex but anticeded us and is much less complex.

dhw: I have said repeatedly that we are the latest and most advanced species to appear, but the fact that we “are here” does not mean we were your God’s purpose from the very beginning, and that – yet again – is the sticking point: if we were his purpose from the very beginning, and he is in total control, why did he spend 3.5+ billion years creating dinosaurs, eight stages of whale, camouflaged cuttlefish and the duckbilled platypus? Your illogical answer is so that they could eat one another in order to keep life going until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to specially design.

I'll repeat the very clear logic: evolution started with simple and goes to the most complex. Humans are here and therefore the goal from the beginning, as 'currently' seen! The the balance of nature to supply food for the 3.8 billion years is totally logical. I accept He chose to do it that way as we see. I don't explain God, as you try to; I simply accept and offer my interpretation of His actions. I'm sorry it is illogical for you, but then you constantly try to make Him as human as possible.

DAVID: The pattern of evolution is to advance to increasing complexity which obviously makes us the current endpoint and therefore, obviously, the currently observed goal. I don't have to know why God chose evolution as His method. It is your problem.

dhw: Again you slip in “current”, as opposed to one and only goal from the very beginning. This is one of your fixed beliefs, and I have indeed offered you two logical hypotheses that allow for it, but they both contradict another of your fixed beliefs: that God is in total control. Normally when people discuss hypotheses, they try to give reasons for their beliefs – as you do so admirably when defending your belief in a designing God. Now apparently you are leaving it to me to reconcile your various irreconcilable fixed beliefs! Well, if you can’t do it, nobody can, which suggests to me that at least one of those irreconcilable fixed beliefs must be wrong.

I'm sorry you don't understand how clear my reasoning is. Of course I have some fixed beliefs take on faith. What is irreconcilable to you may not be to me.

dhw: It is obvious that all forms of life need food, and by your admission that has nothing to do with the one and only goal of designing H. sapiens.

DAVID: Humans can't arrive by evolution over 3.8 billion years without the diversity of life to supply food in the balance of nature so life can continue to evolve. Perfect logic.

dhw: No longer perfect when you add that your God is in total control, had only one purpose – to specially design humans - but chose to achieve his purpose by NOT achieving his purpose until he had spent 3.5+ billion years specially designing millions of other life forms to eat one another. Once again, the illogicality lies in your attempts to combine your fixed beliefs.

I accept the way He chose to do it!!! The puzzle is your problem because you want God to be logical in a different way of evolutionary actions that fits your ideas about how He should have dome it. But He didn't do it your way!

David: It is a logical fact to me because I start by accepting the pattern of evolution as God's choice of method. You refuse to accept that and wander all over the place ascribing human reasoning to God all made up out of thin air.

dhw: If God exists, of course evolution was his choice, but as usual you leave out what the method was supposed to achieve! Specially designing millions of unrelated life forms as a method of specially designing one life form is what I do not accept.

Don't accept it. All your proposals can be viewed as logical, but wander about in the pursuit of a purposeful God, as I view Him with a primary attribute. I view Him as fully aware of His goals from the beginning and working toward them by his chosen method. You don't like His logic, but then you don't believe.

dhw: I have offered several ways, but all of them involve removing at least one of the logical contradictions between your fixed beliefs. I do not believe that your own attempts at logic are anything other than human, but I do believe that if God exists, his purposes and methods are more likely to be “humanly logical” than humanly illogical.

All you have said is you don't approve of God's chosen method. You don't have to. And I don't have to, but based on my concepts of God's attributes and purposefulness is a major one, it makes perfect sense to me.

dhw: Firstly, you keep maintaining that humans were his goal from the very beginning (not just his “current” goal). The duckbilled platypus is also here. Does that mean it’s also his current goal? Secondly, you don’t know why he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years specially designing other unrelated life forms extant and extinct, but…

DAVID: Haven't you noticed the latest arrival in the fossil record in Homo sapiens. We are the most advanced and the most complex. The platypus is certainly somewhat complex but anticeded us and is much less complex.

I have said repeatedly that we are the latest and most advanced species to appear, but the fact that we “are here” does not mean we were your God’s purpose from the very beginning, and that – yet again – is the sticking point: if we were his purpose from the very beginning, and he is in total control, why did he spend 3.5+ billion years creating dinosaurs, eight stages of whale, camouflaged cuttlefish and the duckbilled platypus? Your illogical answer is so that they could eat one another in order to keep life going until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to specially design.

DAVID: The pattern of evolution is to advance to increasing complexity which obviously makes us the current endpoint and therefore, obviously, the currently observed goal. I don't have to know why God chose evolution as His method. It is your problem.

Again you slip in “current”, as opposed to one and only goal from the very beginning. This is one of your fixed beliefs, and I have indeed offered you two logical hypotheses that allow for it, but they both contradict another of your fixed beliefs: that God is in total control. Normally when people discuss hypotheses, they try to give reasons for their beliefs – as you do so admirably when defending your belief in a designing God. Now apparently you are leaving it to me to reconcile your various irreconcilable fixed beliefs! Well, if you can’t do it, nobody can, which suggests to me that at least one of those irreconcilable fixed beliefs must be wrong.

dhw: It is obvious that all forms of life need food, and by your admission that has nothing to do with the one and only goal of designing H. sapiens.

DAVID: Humans can't arrive by evolution over 3.8 billion years without the diversity of life to supply food in the balance of nature so life can continue to evolve. Perfect logic.

No longer perfect when you add that your God is in total control, had only one purpose – to specially design humans - but chose to achieve his purpose by NOT achieving his purpose until he had spent 3.5+ billion years specially designing millions of other life forms to eat one another. Once again, the illogicality lies in your attempts to combine your fixed beliefs.

David: It is a logical fact to me because I start by accepting the pattern of evolution as God's choice of method. You refuse to accept that and wander all over the place ascribing human reasoning to God all made up out of thin air.

If God exists, of course evolution was his choice, but as usual you leave out what the method was supposed to achieve! Specially designing millions of unrelated life forms as a method of specially designing one life form is what I do not accept.

dhw: If it’s not incomprehensible to you, why can’t you explain it, and why should I accept it when there are several different, alternative hypotheses which even you accept as being logical?

DAVID: I admit, at a human level they seem logical. But humanly logical alternatives do not mean God did it in the ways you wish. They are only human alternatives.

I have offered several ways, but all of them involve removing at least one of the logical contradictions between your fixed beliefs. I do not believe that your own attempts at logic are anything other than human, but I do believe that if God exists, his purposes and methods are more likely to be “humanly logical” than humanly illogical.

DAVID: Human are here, but they are not His current goal? What fact are you looking for?

dhw: Firstly, you keep maintaining that humans were his goal from the very beginning (not just his “current” goal). The duckbilled platypus is also here. Does that mean it’s also his current goal? Secondly, you don’t know why he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years specially designing other unrelated life forms extant and extinct, but…

Haven't you noticed the latest arrival in the fossil record in Homo sapiens. We are the most advanced and the most complex. The platypus is certainly somewhat complex but anticeded us and is much less complex. The pattern of evolution is to advance to increasing complexity which obviously makes us the current endpoint and therefore, obviously, the currently observed goal. I don't have to know why God chose evolution as His method. It is your problem.

DAVID:The balance of nature food supply is obvious. It is His chosen method not mine. Why should I question it? I'm simply interpreting the facts that exist. I'm sorry for your confusion. Accept 'Dayenu'. He did it, and it is enough. […] It is not incomprehensible to me. […] I'm not supposed to know why He chose the method He did. Since He chose to evolve us over time, my interpretation fits the facts in history.

dhw: It is obvious that all forms of life need food, and by your admission that has nothing to do with the one and only goal of designing H. sapiens.

Humans can't arrive by evolution over 3.8 billion years without the diversity of life to supply food in the balance of nature so life can continue to evolve. Perfect logic,.

. dhw: The only facts at your disposal are that life’s history has produced millions of different life forms, and humans are the latest of these. “Since he chose to evolve us over time” = his chosen method of fulfilling his sole purpose of specially designing us was to specially design 3.5+ billion years’ worth of food….This illogical hypothesis is not a fact, but your fixed belief.

It is a logical fact to me because I start by accepting the pattern of evolution as God's choice of method. You refuse to accept that and wander all over the place ascribing human reasoning to God all made up out of thin air.

dhw: If it’s not incomprehensible to you, why can’t you explain it, and why should I accept it when there are several different, alternative hypotheses which even you accept as being logical?

I admit, at a human level they seem logical. But humanly logical alternatives do not mean God did it in the ways you wish. They are only human alternatives.

DAVID: Why should I question my belief God exists? That is your problem, not mine.

dhw: I’m not asking you to question it. I’m simply pointing out that the existence of God – let alone your personal reading of his mind - is not a fact.

DAVID: Exactly the point. I am looking at God through logically established faith, and you aren't'.

I accept the logic (the design argument) behind your faith in a God. But this is simply one of a list of beliefs which you try to present as facts, as below:

DAVID: I didn't impose a method on Him. He chose to evolve humans over time. That is the history. I accept it.

dhw: You “accept” your own non-factual assumption that his goal from the beginning was us, that he was in total control, that his chosen method of specially designing humans was to take 3.5+ billion years specially designing all those other life forms so that they could eat one another, and you also “accept” that you cannot understand why he would choose the method you have read into his mind. And yet you regard this as a logical reading!

DAVID: Human are here, but they are not His current goal? What fact are you looking for?

Firstly, you keep maintaining that humans were his goal from the very beginning (not just his “current” goal). The duckbilled platypus is also here. Does that mean it’s also his current goal? Secondly, you don’t know why he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years specially designing other unrelated life forms extant and extinct, but…

DAVID:The balance of nature food supply is obvious. It is His chosen method not mine. Why should I question it? I'm simply interpreting the facts that exist. I'm sorry for your confusion. Accept 'Dayenu'. He did it, and it is enough. […] It is not incomprehensible to me. […] I'm not supposed to know why He chose the method He did. Since He chose to evolve us over time, my interpretation fits the facts in history.

It is obvious that all forms of life need food, and by your admission that has nothing to do with the one and only goal of designing H. sapiens. The only facts at your disposal are that life’s history has produced millions of different life forms, and humans are the latest of these. “Since he chose to evolve us over time” = his chosen method of fulfilling his sole purpose of specially designing us was to specially design 3.5+ billion years’ worth of food….This illogical hypothesis is not a fact, but your fixed belief. If it’s not incomprehensible to you, why can’t you explain it, and why should I accept it when there are several different, alternative hypotheses which even you accept as being logical?