Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, May 29, 2020, 11:11 (37 days ago)

I have brought “slime mold” and “ant farming” back under David’s theory of evolution, since we have left the original subjects so far behind.

dhw: I have always brought God in as the possible inventor of cellular intelligence! The disagreement between us is over your insistence that your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every single life form, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder, whereas I propose that (theistic version) he gave them the intelligence to do their own designing.

DAVID: As usual bringing in God when you have no explanation for a natural appearance of intelligence. You can't have it both ways.

God's existence is not the subject of our discussion! The question is whether evolution is directed by cellular intelligence or divine programming/dabbling. My proposal allows for God as the inventor of cellular intelligence. However,the alternative sources of this would be chance and/or some form of panpsychism. I leave that open. What we cannot have “both ways” is divine programming/dabbling and autonomous intelligence.

DAVID (re leaf-biting): You have your brain sitting in Miss Bee, but not acting as a human brain would have to act to see the relationship. Axiom: two events separated in time cannot be accepted as related without multiple examples recorded (mentaly or written). This is how observational science works.

It’s not my brain sitting in Miss Bee, and she is not an observational scientist! She simply noticed that a fortnight after she bit a leaf, the plant flowered. So she told her buddies, they tried it, and it worked! You seem to believe that in order to perform the trick, bees should think like humans, can’t do so, and therefore God had to do the thinking for them!

dhw: (Under “ants control aggression”) If God exists, he might have dabbled with their genome each time in order to “advance their intelligence”, but I reckon it’s more likely that intelligence was built into the first cells and inherited in different forms by all the different combinations of cells that led to all the different life forms.

DAVID: Sounds like my pre-programming thought.

Your divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for ant and bee strategies is the exact opposite of strategies designed by autonomous (perhaps God-given) intelligence.

dhw: Instead of your God preprogramming or dabbling everything, I have him endowing the first cells with intelligence, and this was inherited in different forms….see bolds above.

DAVID: Thank you for accepting pre-programming by God. Why not accept God? You are still having it both ways, because you have no explanation of intelligence without him.

I wrote “instead of preprogramming”, and you interpret that as acceptance of preprogramming! See above. And see my first paragraph as regards your attempt to conflate two separate issues: 1) the existence of cellular intelligence, and 2) its possible origin.

dhw: I just can’t understand why your all-powerful God would create 100-200 billion galaxies just for the sake of producing H. sapiens. The same problem as with all those different extinct life forms etc. over 3.X thousand million years, when he only wanted one.

DAVID: Just accept it as His course of action. He is in charge of creation his way. And, surprise, His reasons may not fit your human expectations.

Since you cannot find any logical reason why your all-powerful God would have designed countless millions of galaxies, life forms, natural wonders etc. for the sole purpose of designing one life form, H. sapiens (plus food), why should I “accept” that this was his chosen method of fulfilling what you think was his single purpose? You continue to ignore this, the subject of our disagreement.

DAVID: I don't ignore it. You won't accept any aspect of my reasoning. Your double talk describes in the bold an exact description of evolution, which is his method of creation. I don't need to know his reasoning, if I accept history as the evidence for his choice, I know His choice, and guesses as to his possible reasons are just guesses. [...]

And so once again you slide over the illogical COMBINATION of your rigid beliefs! Which choice do you “know”? We both believe evolution happened, and so if God exists, evolution was his choice of method to fulfil whatever may have been his purpose. You do not “know” that H. sapiens was his purpose, or that he directly designed every life form, natural wonder etc., or that he is all-powerful, always in control, and can do whatever he wants in any way that he wants. These three guesses of yours leave with “no idea” how to fit them together with the history of evolution, and so you would prefer to stop reasoning, and to reject any alternatives to your three guesses because – more of your “logic” - they entail thought patterns similar to ours although according to you he probably/possibly has thought patterns similar to ours.

xxxxxxxx

DAVID (under “…econiche importance”) : Same view. Econiches are absolutely necessary for all of living organisms food supply. The vast diversity of the bush of life allows this to happen naturally, until humans step in to change things.

Agreed. Thank you for not trying to link this to your theory that the vast diversity of past econiches was somehow necessary for your God to fulfil his one and only purpose of H. sapiens and his econiches.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, May 29, 2020, 22:58 (36 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: As usual bringing in God when you have no explanation for a natural appearance of intelligence. You can't have it both ways.

dhw: God's existence is not the subject of our discussion! The question is whether evolution is directed by cellular intelligence or divine programming/dabbling. My proposal allows for God as the inventor of cellular intelligence. However,the alternative sources of this would be chance and/or some form of panpsychism. I leave that open. What we cannot have “both ways” is divine programming/dabbling and autonomous intelligence.

It's either one or the other.


DAVID (re leaf-biting): You have your brain sitting in Miss Bee, but not acting as a human brain would have to act to see the relationship. Axiom: two events separated in time cannot be accepted as related without multiple examples recorded (mentaly or written). This is how observational science works.

dhw:It’s not my brain sitting in Miss Bee, and she is not an observational scientist! She simply noticed that a fortnight after she bit a leaf, the plant flowered. So she told her buddies, they tried it, and it worked! You seem to believe that in order to perform the trick, bees should think like humans, can’t do so, and therefore God had to do the thinking for them!

You are having Miss Bee reaching a solution relating the two very separate events on one observation! No true scientist would make that obvious mistake. Nor would any rational human.


DAVID: Sounds like my pre-programming thought.

dhw: Your divine 3.8-billion-year-old programme for ant and bee strategies is the exact opposite of strategies designed by autonomous (perhaps God-given) intelligence.

Autonomous intelligence comes from the appearance of automatic but reasonable reactions.


dhw: Instead of your God preprogramming or dabbling everything, I have him endowing the first cells with intelligence, and this was inherited in different forms….see bolds above.

dhw: I just can’t understand why your all-powerful God would create 100-200 billion galaxies just for the sake of producing H. sapiens. The same problem as with all those different extinct life forms etc. over 3.X thousand million years, when he only wanted one.

DAVID: Just accept it as His course of action. He is in charge of creation his way. And, surprise, His reasons may not fit your human expectations.

dhw: Since you cannot find any logical reason why your all-powerful God would have designed countless millions of galaxies, life forms, natural wonders etc. for the sole purpose of designing one life form, H. sapiens (plus food), why should I “accept” that this was his chosen method of fulfilling what you think was his single purpose? You continue to ignore this, the subject of our disagreement.

DAVID: I don't ignore it. You won't accept any aspect of my reasoning. Your double talk describes in the bold an exact description of evolution, which is his method of creation. I don't need to know his reasoning, if I accept history as the evidence for his choice, I know His choice, and guesses as to his possible reasons are just guesses. [...]

dhw: And so once again you slide over the illogical COMBINATION of your rigid beliefs! Which choice do you “know”? We both believe evolution happened, and so if God exists, evolution was his choice of method to fulfil whatever may have been his purpose. You do not “know” that H. sapiens was his purpose, or that he directly designed every life form, natural wonder etc., or that he is all-powerful, always in control, and can do whatever he wants in any way that he wants. These three guesses of yours leave with “no idea” how to fit them together with the history of evolution, and so you would prefer to stop reasoning, and to reject any alternatives to your three guesses because – more of your “logic” - they entail thought patterns similar to ours although according to you he probably/possibly has thought patterns similar to ours.

Again the dishonest distorted 'no idea' mantra. Any ideas would be unproven useless guesses.
And the next distortion about similar thought patterns. The similarity I accept for God and us is only logical thought. His reasons for his purposes are His alone. All of my logic fits history. Our difference is our individual concepts of human specialness. You keep minimizing the gap from other animals that preceded us and I see it very much larger than you do. Our consciousness is totally unexplained and really should be viewed as unexpected. Since only a designing mind could have produced this result you reject it.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, May 30, 2020, 13:43 (36 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID (re leaf-biting): You are having Miss Bee reaching a solution relating the two very separate events on one observation! No true scientist would make that obvious mistake. Nor would any rational human.

I’m pleased you have realized that Miss Bee was not a true scientist or a rational human. In my hypothetical scenario, she passed on her one observation, and when other bees tried the trick, it worked. If it hadn’t worked, my guess is that they wouldn’t have bothered any more. What’s your problem?

DAVID: Autonomous intelligence comes from the appearance of automatic but reasonable reactions.

Try telling that to yourself when you defend your belief in free will. “Autonomous” means free to control itself; “automatic” means not free to control itself.

dhw: I just can’t understand why your all-powerful God would create 100-200 billion galaxies just for the sake of producing H. sapiens. The same problem as with all those different extinct life forms etc. over 3.X thousand million years, when he only wanted one. […]

DAVID: I don't need to know his reasoning, if I accept history as the evidence for his choice, I know His choice, and guesses as to his possible reasons are just guesses. [...]

dhw: And so once again you slide over the illogical COMBINATION of your rigid beliefs! Which choice do you “know”? We both believe evolution happened, and so if God exists, evolution was his choice of method to fulfil whatever may have been his purpose. You do not “know” that 1) H. sapiens was his purpose, or 2) that he directly designed every life form, natural wonder etc., or 3) that he is all-powerful, always in control, and can do whatever he wants in any way that he wants. These three guesses of yours leave you with “no idea” how to fit them together with the history of evolution, and so you would prefer to stop reasoning, and to reject any alternatives to your three guesses because – more of your “logic” - they entail thought patterns similar to ours although according to you he probably/possibly has thought patterns similar to ours.

DAVID: Again the dishonest distorted 'no idea' mantra. Any ideas would be unproven useless guesses.

The three ideas I have bolded and numbered above are unproven guesses. And you cannot even guess why your all-powerful God (guess no. 3) would directly design every non-human life form etc. (guess no, 2), although his only purpose was to design H. sapiens (guess no. 1). The distortion lies in your refusal to recognize that your theory is based on irreconcilable guesses. The only “fact” we agree on (some people reject it, though) is that life developed from single cells through a vast bush of diverse forms, culminating (so far) in humans.

DAVID: And the next distortion about similar thought patterns. The similarity I accept for God and us is only logical thought.

But you have no idea what logic could lie behind the combination of your three guesses above, so that’s not much help. And you persistently try to disown your own statement that “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought” – which is a perfectly reasonable proposal, since even you have proposed that our consciousness is part of his consciousness.

DAVID: His reasons for his purposes are His alone. All of my logic fits history. Our difference is our individual concepts of human specialness. You keep minimizing the gap from other animals that preceded us and I see it very much larger than you do. Our consciousness is totally unexplained and really should be viewed as unexpected. Since only a designing mind could have produced this result you reject it.

You accuse me of distortion, and then persistently run back to this distortion of your own. Once more, I have NEVER disputed the huge gap between our consciousness and that of other organisms, and I accept the logic of the design argument. I have even offered you two logical theistic theories of evolution (experimentation and new ideas) that allow for our specialness AND for the 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life. Please stop continually dodging the issue of your three irreconcilable guesses by shifting the focus to a disagreement you have manufactured.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 30, 2020, 21:14 (35 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID (re leaf-biting): You are having Miss Bee reaching a solution relating the two very separate events on one observation! No true scientist would make that obvious mistake. Nor would any rational human.

dhw: I’m pleased you have realized that Miss Bee was not a true scientist or a rational human. In my hypothetical scenario, she passed on her one observation, and when other bees tried the trick, it worked. If it hadn’t worked, my guess is that they wouldn’t have bothered any more. What’s your problem?

Total irrationality. How can one make any observation of two disparate events and reach a conclusion of any connection? It requires multiple munchings and multiple early flowerings to realize the connectionality at the human level, much less the little bee level. Simply repeating your fairy tale is no real answer to my point, which means you have no answer.


DAVID: Autonomous intelligence comes from the appearance of automatic but reasonable reactions.

dhw: Try telling that to yourself when you defend your belief in free will. “Autonomous” means free to control itself; “automatic” means not free to control itself.

Free will doesn't apply here.


dhw: I just can’t understand why your all-powerful God would create 100-200 billion galaxies just for the sake of producing H. sapiens. The same problem as with all those different extinct life forms etc. over 3.X thousand million years, when he only wanted one. […]

DAVID: I don't need to know his reasoning, if I accept history as the evidence for his choice, I know His choice, and guesses as to his possible reasons are just guesses. [...]

dhw: And so once again you slide over the illogical COMBINATION of your rigid beliefs! Which choice do you “know”? We both believe evolution happened, and so if God exists, evolution was his choice of method to fulfil whatever may have been his purpose. You do not “know” that 1) H. sapiens was his purpose, or 2) that he directly designed every life form, natural wonder etc., or 3) that he is all-powerful, always in control, and can do whatever he wants in any way that he wants. These three guesses of yours leave you with “no idea” how to fit them together with the history of evolution, and so you would prefer to stop reasoning, and to reject any alternatives to your three guesses because – more of your “logic” - they entail thought patterns similar to ours although according to you he probably/possibly has thought patterns similar to ours.

DAVID: Again the dishonest distorted 'no idea' mantra. Any ideas would be unproven useless guesses.

dhw: The three ideas I have bolded and numbered above are unproven guesses. And you cannot even guess why your all-powerful God (guess no. 3) would directly design every non-human life form etc. (guess no, 2), although his only purpose was to design H. sapiens (guess no. 1). The distortion lies in your refusal to recognize that your theory is based on irreconcilable guesses. The only “fact” we agree on (some people reject it, though) is that life developed from single cells through a vast bush of diverse forms, culminating (so far) in humans.

You have never fully explained why you think parts of my theory don't stick together. If I understood your reasoning perhaps we can have a real debate.


DAVID: And the next distortion about similar thought patterns. The similarity I accept for God and us is only logical thought.

dhw: But you have no idea what logic could lie behind the combination of your three guesses above, so that’s not much help. And you persistently try to disown your own statement that “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought” – which is a perfectly reasonable proposal, since even you have proposed that our consciousness is part of his consciousness.

What I disowned out of context is beside the point. He may have similar patterns of thought, but that doesn't tell us His reasoning for his goal, the main issue.


DAVID: His reasons for his purposes are His alone. All of my logic fits history. Our difference is our individual concepts of human specialness. You keep minimizing the gap from other animals that preceded us and I see it very much larger than you do. Our consciousness is totally unexplained and really should be viewed as unexpected. Since only a designing mind could have produced this result you reject it.

dhw: You accuse me of distortion, and then persistently run back to this distortion of your own. Once more, I have NEVER disputed the huge gap between our consciousness and that of other organisms, and I accept the logic of the design argument. I have even offered you two logical theistic theories of evolution (experimentation and new ideas) that allow for our specialness AND for the 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life. Please stop continually dodging the issue of your three irreconcilable guesses by shifting the focus to a disagreement you have manufactured.

Once again , I don't see them as irreconcilable, which you offer without a thorough discussion of you problems with it.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, May 31, 2020, 12:28 (35 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID (re leaf-biting): You are having Miss Bee reaching a solution relating the two very separate events on one observation! No true scientist would make that obvious mistake. Nor would any rational human.

dhw: I’m pleased you have realized that Miss Bee was not a true scientist or a rational human. In my hypothetical scenario, she passed on her one observation, and when other bees tried the trick, it worked. If it hadn’t worked, my guess is that they wouldn’t have bothered any more. What’s your problem?

DAVID: Total irrationality. How can one make any observation of two disparate events and reach a conclusion of any connection? It requires multiple munchings and multiple early flowerings to realize the connectionality at the human level, much less the little bee level. Simply repeating your fairy tale is no real answer to my point, which means you have no answer.

Initially it’s not a conclusion! It’s just a one-off observation of possible cause and effect. So then it’s repeated, and if it continues to work, it becomes an established strategy. The same process would apply to the origin of thousands of other “natural wonders”, in which organisms establish strategies, lifestyles, survival techniques – think of symbiosis - no doubt often from chance beginnings. So now let’s hear your explanation as to how bees got started on the trick.

DAVID: Autonomous intelligence comes from the appearance of automatic but reasonable reactions.

dhw: Try telling that to yourself when you defend your belief in free will. “Autonomous” means free to control itself; “automatic” means not free to control itself.

DAVID: Free will doesn't apply here.

Free will shows that autonomous intelligence does not necessarily come from the appearance of “automatic but reasonable reactions”. To use your own favourite method of dismissing theories other than your own: you have no proof for your belief, though you state it as if it were a fact.

dhw: The three ideas I have bolded and numbered above are unproven guesses. And you cannot even guess why your all-powerful God (guess no. 3) would directly design every non-human life form etc. (guess no, 2), although his only purpose was to design H. sapiens (guess no. 1). The distortion lies in your refusal to recognize that your theory is based on irreconcilable guesses. The only “fact” we agree on (some people reject it, though) is that life developed from single cells through a vast bush of diverse forms, culminating (so far) in humans.

DAVID: You have never fully explained why you think parts of my theory don't stick together. If I understood your reasoning perhaps we can have a real debate.

I'm surprised, but here we go again. Please bear in mind that individually, your three guesses make perfect sense. However, if your God’s one and only purpose was to directly design H. sapiens, and if he had the power to design H. sapiens any way he wished, there is no conceivable reason why he would first have directly designed millions of now extinct life forms, lifestyles, econiches, strategies and natural wonders which have no conceivable connection to humans.

You cannot think of a reason yourself, and so you say that any reason for linking your guesses would be a guess, God thinks logically like us but our human logic can’t follow his logic, and any attempt to replace any of your three guesses entails “humanizing” your God, although your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours. I hope this makes it clear why I find your theory illogical, and at the same time why I find your objections to my alternatives equally illogical.

DAVID: And the next distortion about similar thought patterns. The similarity I accept for God and us is only logical thought.

dhw: But you have no idea what logic could lie behind the combination of your three guesses above, so that’s not much help. And you persistently try to disown your own statement that “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought” – which is a perfectly reasonable proposal, since even you have proposed that our consciousness is part of his consciousness.

DAVID: What I disowned out of context is beside the point. He may have similar patterns of thought, but that doesn't tell us His reasoning for his goal, the main issue.

There is no “out of context”. Either God may have thought patterns similar to ours or he may not, and you have just repeated that he may! We do not “know” any of your three guesses, including his goal, and that is why I have proposed different theistic theories to explain the only fact we have - single cells developed into a vast variety of largely extinct life forms etc., the latest of which is H. sapiens. These theories include two that allow for the specialness of H. sapiens.

DAVID: Our difference is our individual concepts of human specialness.

dhw: You accuse me of distortion, and then persistently run back to this distortion of your own. Once more, I have NEVER disputed the huge gap between our consciousness and that of other organisms, and I accept the logic of the design argument.
I trust we’ve seen the end of this line of attack.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 31, 2020, 15:49 (35 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Total irrationality. How can one make any observation of two disparate events and reach a conclusion of any connection? It requires multiple munchings and multiple early flowerings to realize the connectionality at the human level, much less the little bee level. Simply repeating your fairy tale is no real answer to my point, which means you have no answer.

dhw: Initially it’s not a conclusion! It’s just a one-off observation of possible cause and effect. So then it’s repeated, and if it continues to work, it becomes an established strategy. The same process would apply to the origin of thousands of other “natural wonders”, in which organisms establish strategies, lifestyles, survival techniques – think of symbiosis - no doubt often from chance beginnings.

Again, no answer to the problem of recognition of the relationship of two separated-in-time events. It requires multiple observations It requires mental analysis of correlation, then reaching a conclusion. You have the bee brain capable of that analysis. I don't think so. At least finally you recognize the need for repetition of observations.

dhw: So now let’s hear your explanation as to how bees got started on the trick.

Surprise, God helped. As He did with the wiggle dances.


DAVID: Autonomous intelligence comes from the appearance of automatic but reasonable reactions.

dhw: The three ideas I have bolded and numbered above are unproven guesses. And you cannot even guess why your all-powerful God (guess no. 3) would directly design every non-human life form etc. (guess no, 2), although his only purpose was to design H. sapiens (guess no. 1). The distortion lies in your refusal to recognize that your theory is based on irreconcilable guesses. The only “fact” we agree on (some people reject it, though) is that life developed from single cells through a vast bush of diverse forms, culminating (so far) in humans.

DAVID: You have never fully explained why you think parts of my theory don't stick together. If I understood your reasoning perhaps we can have a real debate.

dhw: I'm surprised, but here we go again. Please bear in mind that individually, your three guesses make perfect sense. However, if your God’s one and only purpose was to directly design H. sapiens, and if he had the power to design H. sapiens any way he wished, there is no conceivable reason why he would first have directly designed millions of now extinct life forms, lifestyles, econiches, strategies and natural wonders which have no conceivable connection to humans.

Same old non-explanation. You continually totally ignore my start point: God is in charge of history, which then tells us what He did and what His choice was. He evolved humans from bacteria. With God in charge, this conclusion is not illogical. Your view of God is contaminated by religions view of God. My God conforms to history, nothing more. His capabilities are defined by history. We cannot know His incapabilities.


dhw: You cannot think of a reason yourself, and so you say that any reason for linking your guesses would be a guess, God thinks logically like us but our human logic can’t follow his logic, and any attempt to replace any of your three guesses entails “humanizing” your God, although your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours.

Again, your illogical quest for God's reasonings. I don't try as explained above, using history as a guide.


DAVID: What I disowned out of context is beside the point. He may have similar patterns of thought, but that doesn't tell us His reasoning for his goal, the main issue.

dhw: There is no “out of context”. Either God may have thought patterns similar to ours or he may not, and you have just repeated that he may! We do not “know” any of your three guesses, including his goal, and that is why I have proposed different theistic theories to explain the only fact we have - single cells developed into a vast variety of largely extinct life forms etc., the latest of which is H. sapiens. These theories include two that allow for the specialness of H. sapiens.

Same old problem in your analysis of God. You want reasons that do not exist. No theories are required if one simply takes known history as a record of God's actions. That is all I have done, and you object and call it illogical, because it doesn't satisfy your underlying desire to know God's reasoning. Recognize we cannot know it. And previously over 12 years all possibilities have been brought up. Want a rehash? Will that make you less ore more agnostic?

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, June 01, 2020, 12:12 (34 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID ( re bees eating leaves): Total irrationality. How can one make any observation of two disparate events and reach a conclusion of any connection? It requires multiple munchings and multiple early flowerings to realize the connectionality at the human level, much less the little bee level. Simply repeating your fairy tale is no real answer to my point, which means you have no answer.

dhw: Initially it’s not a conclusion! It’s just a one-off observation of possible cause and effect. So then it’s repeated, and if it continues to work, it becomes an established strategy. The same process would apply to the origin of thousands of other “natural wonders”, in which organisms establish strategies, lifestyles, survival techniques – think of symbiosis - no doubt often from chance beginnings.

DAVID: Again, no answer to the problem of recognition of the relationship of two separated-in-time events. It requires multiple observations It requires mental analysis of correlation, then reaching a conclusion. You have the bee brain capable of that analysis. I don't think so. At least finally you recognize the need for repetition of observations.

My proposal right from the start has been a one-off observation by Miss Bee who points it out to other bees, and they try it too (= repetition). It works, and so it becomes an established strategy. There is no “problem”, and as I've said above (no comment from you), the process must have been repeated thousand and thousands of times over.

dhw: So now let’s hear your explanation as to how bees got started on the trick.

DAVID: Surprise, God helped. As He did with the wiggle dances.

God’s help apparently comes in the form of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for leaf-biting and for wiggle-dancing, or a direct dabble with the bee’s genome, somehow inserting each programme as the idea occurs to him. (Or has he planned his dabbles right from the start?) And so every time your bees and ants and a few million kindred life forms come up with their new strategies, it’s because your God has twiddled their genome for them. You just can’t imagine that he might have given all organisms the ability to learn from their observations and to pass the new information on to their buddies.

DAVID: You have never fully explained why you think parts of my theory don't stick together. If I understood your reasoning perhaps we can have a real debate.

dhw: I'm surprised, but here we go again. Please bear in mind that individually, your three guesses make perfect sense. However, if your God’s one and only purpose was to directly design H. sapiens, and if he had the power to design H. sapiens any way he wished, there is no conceivable reason why he would first have directly designed millions of now extinct life forms, lifestyles, econiches, strategies and natural wonders which have no conceivable connection to humans.

DAVID: Same old non-explanation. You continually totally ignore my start point: God is in charge of history, which then tells us what He did and what His choice was. He evolved humans from bacteria. With God in charge, this conclusion is not illogical.

No, it's not illogical. But as I keep saying (see above), individually your guesses make sense. It is the COMBINATION that doesn’t, and so as usual you now ignore the fact that he also evolved (for you = specially designed) millions of non-human and now extinct life forms etc., and these do not fit in with your theory that his one and only purpose was to evolve (=specially design) H. sapiens, and he had the power to do it any way he wanted.

DAVID: Your view of God is contaminated by religions view of God. My God conforms to history, nothing more. His capabilities are defined by history. We cannot know His incapabilities.

The above has nothing to do with religion. You have no idea why he would have directly designed all the non-human life forms and econiches if his one and only purpose was to design the human form and its econiches, and if he could have done it any way he wished because he is always in control. Your all-powerful view of God may well be “contaminated” by religion, but you reject any explanation of the history which denies him absolute control, because such a God is not “your” God.

The rest of your post is a continuation of your efforts to avoid facing up to the glaring weakness in your theory, which is the combination of three irreconcilable guesses.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, June 01, 2020, 18:20 (34 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Again, no answer to the problem of recognition of the relationship of two separated-in-time events. It requires multiple observations It requires mental analysis of correlation, then reaching a conclusion. You have the bee brain capable of that analysis. I don't think so. At least finally you recognize the need for repetition of observations.

dhw: My proposal right from the start has been a one-off observation by Miss Bee who points it out to other bees, and they try it too (= repetition). It works, and so it becomes an established strategy. There is no “problem”, and as I've said above (no comment from you), the process must have been repeated thousand and thousands of times over.

One observation would not prove it to a human yet to a bee. Your story is a non-answer to the problem of mentally connecting two different events some time apart. Common sense should tell you that multiple observations are necessary to make the connection


dhw: So now let’s hear your explanation as to how bees got started on the trick.

DAVID: Surprise, God helped. As He did with the wiggle dances.

dhw: God’s help apparently comes in the form of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for leaf-biting and for wiggle-dancing, or a direct dabble with the bee’s genome, somehow inserting each programme as the idea occurs to him. (Or has he planned his dabbles right from the start?) And so every time your bees and ants and a few million kindred life forms come up with their new strategies, it’s because your God has twiddled their genome for them. You just can’t imagine that he might have given all organisms the ability to learn from their observations and to pass the new information on to their buddies.

Yes, the leaf-biting--sooner-flowering connection requires multiple observations over multiple times.


DAVID: You have never fully explained why you think parts of my theory don't stick together. If I understood your reasoning perhaps we can have a real debate.

dhw: I'm surprised, but here we go again. Please bear in mind that individually, your three guesses make perfect sense. However, if your God’s one and only purpose was to directly design H. sapiens, and if he had the power to design H. sapiens any way he wished, there is no conceivable reason why he would first have directly designed millions of now extinct life forms, lifestyles, econiches, strategies and natural wonders which have no conceivable connection to humans.

DAVID: Same old non-explanation. You continually totally ignore my start point: God is in charge of history, which then tells us what He did and what His choice was. He evolved humans from bacteria. With God in charge, this conclusion is not illogical.

dhw: No, it's not illogical. But as I keep saying (see above), individually your guesses make sense. It is the COMBINATION that doesn’t, and so as usual you now ignore the fact that he also evolved (for you = specially designed) millions of non-human and now extinct life forms etc., and these do not fit in with your theory that his one and only purpose was to evolve (=specially design) H. sapiens, and he had the power to do it any way he wanted.

DAVID: Your view of God is contaminated by religions view of God. My God conforms to history, nothing more. His capabilities are defined by history. We cannot know His incapabilities.

dhw: The above has nothing to do with religion. You have no idea why he would have directly designed all the non-human life forms and econiches if his one and only purpose was to design the human form and its econiches, and if he could have done it any way he wished because he is always in control. Your all-powerful view of God may well be “contaminated” by religion, but you reject any explanation of the history which denies him absolute control, because such a God is not “your” God.

Same old answer from you. You agree God has the right to chose his methodology, and then deny Him the right to choose it. The primary disagreement is you don't identify a legitimate purpose for God and I do.

Back to David's theory of evolution: bee activity

by David Turell @, Monday, June 01, 2020, 19:24 (33 days ago) @ David Turell

Note this bee observation: only two species of bubblebees do this. This a specialized instinct:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200526134651.htm

In these experiments, the researchers again observed that hungry bumblebees with insufficient pollen supplies frequently damaged the leaves of non-blooming plants. But the damaging behaviour was consistently reduced when the researchers made more flowers available to the bees.

Furthermore, it was not only captive-bred bumblebees from the researchers' experimental colonies that damaged plant leaves. The investigators also observed wild bees from at least two additional bumblebee species biting the leaves of plants in their experimental plots. Other pollinating insects, such as honeybees, did not exhibit such behaviour, however: they seemed to ignore the non-flowering plants entirely, despite being frequent visitors to nearby patches of flowering plants.

Comment: Why only bumblebees? Do only they have the humanized-style brains to figure this out?

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, June 02, 2020, 13:47 (33 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: My proposal right from the start has been a one-off observation by Miss Bee who points it out to other bees, and they try it too (= repetition). It works, and so it becomes an established strategy. There is no “problem”, and as I've said above (no comment from you), the process must have been repeated thousands and thousands of times over.

DAVID: One observation would not prove it to a human yet to a bee. Your story is a non-answer to the problem of mentally connecting two different events some time apart. Common sense should tell you that multiple observations are necessary to make the connection.

Why are you talking about “proof”? Bees don’t set out to prove a theory! The trick had to start somewhere with an observation. And of course it is then repeated. And if it works, it becomes an established strategy. I really don’t know what you yourself are trying to prove, except that even though all organisms must be able to observe causes and effects if they are to survive, you don’t believe a bee could make such an observation and so your God must have stepped in (“God helped. As he did with the wiggle dances”) to plant a leaf-biting programme in its genome!

dhw: And so every time your bees and ants and a few million kindred life forms come up with their new strategies, it’s because your God has twiddled their genome for them. You just can’t imagine that he might have given all organisms the ability to learn from their observations and to pass the new information on to their buddies.

DAVID: Yes, the leaf-biting--sooner-flowering connection requires multiple observations over multiple times.

What is this “yes”? We’ve dealt with repetitions, and I am now challenging your own theory, which I find excruciatingly difficult to take seriously. And I have no idea why you should dismiss my alternative theistic proposal (bolded above).

The bumblebee article deals with the same “trick”.

DAVID: Your view of God is contaminated by religions view of God. My God conforms to history, nothing more. His capabilities are defined by history. We cannot know His incapabilities.

dhw: The above has nothing to do with religion. You have no idea why he would have directly designed all the non-human life forms and econiches if his one and only purpose was to design the human form and its econiches, and if he could have done it any way he wished because he is always in control. Your all-powerful view of God may well be “contaminated” by religion, but you reject any explanation of the history which denies him absolute control, because such a God is not “your” God.

DAVID: Same old answer from you. You agree God has the right to chose his methodology, and then deny Him the right to choose it.

Same old diversionary tactic. Of course your all-powerful God has the right to choose his methodology, but there is no logic in YOUR argument that his sole purpose was to create H. sapiens and in order to do so he decided not to create H. sapiens until he had created millions of non-human life forms etc. I am attempting to deny you the right to impose a choice of method on your God which has no conceivable logical link to the choice of purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: The primary disagreement is you don't identify a legitimate purpose for God and I do.

Again avoiding the illogicality of your proposed purpose and your proposed method of achieving that purpose. And as usual ignoring the fact that I have offered you alternative explanations, including two which cater for your proposed purpose. What do you mean by a “legitimate” purpose? Are you in a position to tell us what God is allowed to have as his purpose?!

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 02, 2020, 14:29 (33 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: And so every time your bees and ants and a few million kindred life forms come up with their new strategies, it’s because your God has twiddled their genome for them. You just can’t imagine that he might have given all organisms the ability to learn from their observations and to pass the new information on to their buddies.

No I definitely think they do not have that capacity


DAVID: Yes, the leaf-biting--sooner-flowering connection requires multiple observations over multiple times.

dhw: What is this “yes”? We’ve dealt with repetitions, and I am now challenging your own theory, which I find excruciatingly difficult to take seriously. And I have no idea why you should dismiss my alternative theistic proposal (bolded above).

You have a perfect right to to think bees are very intelligent, because God made them that way. Once again you scurry back to proposing something from a God you don't believe in.


dhw: The bumblebee article deals with the same “trick”.

They are the only bees doing the trick. Why don't the others have it? Or was your version of God only interested in bumblebees?


DAVID: Your view of God is contaminated by religions view of God. My God conforms to history, nothing more. His capabilities are defined by history. We cannot know His incapabilities.

dhw: The above has nothing to do with religion. You have no idea why he would have directly designed all the non-human life forms and econiches if his one and only purpose was to design the human form and its econiches, and if he could have done it any way he wished because he is always in control. Your all-powerful view of God may well be “contaminated” by religion, but you reject any explanation of the history which denies him absolute control, because such a God is not “your” God.

DAVID: Same old answer from you. You agree God has the right to chose his methodology, and then deny Him the right to choose it.

dhw: Same old diversionary tactic. Of course your all-powerful God has the right to choose his methodology, but there is no logic in YOUR argument that his sole purpose was to create H. sapiens and in order to do so he decided not to create H. sapiens until he had created millions of non-human life forms etc. I am attempting to deny you the right to impose a choice of method on your God which has no conceivable logical link to the choice of purpose you impose on him.

Same old answer. Why can't God chose evolution as His method of creation? That is what happened. Of course there is 'no logical link' to humans appearing. That is why I say we are very improbable!


DAVID: The primary disagreement is you don't identify a legitimate purpose for God and I do.

dhw: Again avoiding the illogicality of your proposed purpose and your proposed method of achieving that purpose. And as usual ignoring the fact that I have offered you alternative explanations, including two which cater for your proposed purpose. What do you mean by a “legitimate” purpose? Are you in a position to tell us what God is allowed to have as his purpose?!

I don't 'allow God'. The logic follows from the The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes. We are very improbably here. Based on Darwin theory we shouldn't be here.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, June 03, 2020, 11:01 (32 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: And so every time your bees and ants and a few million kindred life forms come up with their new strategies, it’s because your God has twiddled their genome for them. You just can’t imagine that he might have given all organisms the ability to learn from their observations and to pass the new information on to their buddies.

DAVID: No I definitely think they do not have that capacity.

And so you believe your God twiddled the genomes of every organism in life’s history before it came up with every one of its strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. – and all for the sole purpose of twiddling his way to H. sapiens!

DAVID: Yes, the leaf-biting--sooner-flowering connection requires multiple observations over multiple times.

dhw: What is this “yes”? We’ve dealt with repetitions, and I am now challenging your own theory, which I find excruciatingly difficult to take seriously. And I have no idea why you should dismiss my alternative theistic proposal (bolded above).

DAVID: You have a perfect right to to think bees are very intelligent, because God made them that way. Once again you scurry back to proposing something from a God you don't believe in.

I didn’t say “very” intelligent, and there is no scurrying. The question is simply whether organisms are intelligent enough to do their own observing, decision-making and communicating. You say they are not, and so your God has to do it all for them. I see no reason why your God should not have given them the intelligence to do it themselves. The issue is organismal intelligence, not the existence of God.

dhw: The bumblebee article deals with the same “trick”.

DAVID: They are the only bees doing the trick. Why don't the others have it? Or was your version of God only interested in bumblebees?

It is YOU who should answer that question! My version of God has him leaving organisms to work out their own strategies! Bumblebees do their own thing, and other bees do their own thing. So was your version of God only interested in bumblebees?

DAVID: Your view of God is contaminated by religions view of God. My God conforms to history, nothing more. His capabilities are defined by history. We cannot know His incapabilities.

dhw: The above has nothing to do with religion. You have no idea why he would have directly designed all the non-human life forms and econiches if his one and only purpose was to design the human form and its econiches, and if he could have done it any way he wished because he is always in control. Your all-powerful view of God may well be “contaminated” by religion, but you reject any explanation of the history which denies him absolute control, because such a God is not “your” God. […]

DAVID: Same old answer. Why can't God chose evolution as His method of creation? That is what happened. Of course there is 'no logical link' to humans appearing. That is why I say we are very improbable!

Same old diversionary tactic. Of course God, if he exists, chose evolution as His method of creation. But the issue - as you well know but are determined to dodge – is not our improbability but why, if his sole aim was to design H. sapiens, which he could have done any way he liked, he proceeded to design millions of non-human life forms, econiches, strategies etc. beforehand. Please, please, stop this dodging!

DAVID: The primary disagreement is you don't identify a legitimate purpose for God and I do.

dhw: Again avoiding the illogicality of your proposed purpose and your proposed method of achieving that purpose. And as usual ignoring the fact that I have offered you alternative explanations, including two which cater for your proposed purpose. What do you mean by a “legitimate” purpose? Are you in a position to tell us what God is allowed to have as his purpose?!

DAVID: I don't 'allow God'. The logic follows from the The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes. We are very improbably here. Based on Darwin theory we shouldn't be here.

Again you simply ignore the fact that I offer you logical explanations that cater for your proposed purpose, and you have also ignored my question, which was what you meant by “legitimate”. You accused me of not identifying a “legitimate” purpose. In order to explain the vast and varied history of life’s bush, including everything that existed before us, I have proposed that your God might have enjoyed creating or allowing organisms to create a vast and varied history. Much as a painter might enjoy his own paintings (the image you once offered).You are clearly implying that your God’s enjoyment of his own work (direct or indirect) is not a “legitimate” purpose. How do you know?

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 03, 2020, 19:17 (31 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: And so every time your bees and ants and a few million kindred life forms come up with their new strategies, it’s because your God has twiddled their genome for them. You just can’t imagine that he might have given all organisms the ability to learn from their observations and to pass the new information on to their buddies.

DAVID: No I definitely think they do not have that capacity.

DAVID: You have a perfect right to to think bees are very intelligent, because God made them that way. Once again you scurry back to proposing something from a God you don't believe in.

dhw: I didn’t say “very” intelligent, and there is no scurrying. The question is simply whether organisms are intelligent enough to do their own observing, decision-making and communicating. You say they are not, and so your God has to do it all for them. I see no reason why your God should not have given them the intelligence to do it themselves. The issue is organismal intelligence, not the existence of God.

Once again you have God giving them intelligence. That is a non-answer as to how it happens naturally .

DAVID: Your view of God is contaminated by religions view of God. My God conforms to history, nothing more. His capabilities are defined by history. We cannot know His incapabilities.

dhw: The above has nothing to do with religion. You have no idea why he would have directly designed all the non-human life forms and econiches if his one and only purpose was to design the human form and its econiches, and if he could have done it any way he wished because he is always in control. Your all-powerful view of God may well be “contaminated” by religion, but you reject any explanation of the history which denies him absolute control, because such a God is not “your” God. […]

DAVID: Same old answer. Why can't God chose evolution as His method of creation? That is what happened. Of course there is 'no logical link' to humans appearing. That is why I say we are very improbable!

dhw: Same old diversionary tactic. Of course God, if he exists, chose evolution as His method of creation. But the issue - as you well know but are determined to dodge – is not our improbability but why, if his sole aim was to design H. sapiens, which he could have done any way he liked, he proceeded to design millions of non-human life forms, econiches, strategies etc. beforehand. Please, please, stop this dodging!

Same old dodge from you. You allow Him to evolve life and then complain about His evolving humans over the time required. More than weird logic.


DAVID: The primary disagreement is you don't identify a legitimate purpose for God and I do.

dhw: Again avoiding the illogicality of your proposed purpose and your proposed method of achieving that purpose. And as usual ignoring the fact that I have offered you alternative explanations, including two which cater for your proposed purpose. What do you mean by a “legitimate” purpose? Are you in a position to tell us what God is allowed to have as his purpose?!

DAVID: I don't 'allow God'. The logic follows from the The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes. We are very improbably here. Based on Darwin theory we shouldn't be here.

dhw: Again you simply ignore the fact that I offer you logical explanations that cater for your proposed purpose, and you have also ignored my question, which was what you meant by “legitimate”. You accused me of not identifying a “legitimate” purpose. In order to explain the vast and varied history of life’s bush, including everything that existed before us, I have proposed that your God might have enjoyed creating or allowing organisms to create a vast and varied history. Much as a painter might enjoy his own paintings (the image you once offered).You are clearly implying that your God’s enjoyment of his own work (direct or indirect) is not a “legitimate” purpose. How do you know?

Your enjoyments for God are simply going back to humanizing Him. Yes, He might have enjoyed all of evolutionary creations, but that is a side issue to his purpose of eventually creating humans. Our difference still boils down to God's purpose and you suggest He had none. Even though we are so different with consciousness, therefore unexplained.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, June 04, 2020, 08:49 (31 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: And so every time your bees and ants and a few million kindred life forms come up with their new strategies, it’s because your God has twiddled their genome for them. You just can’t imagine that he might have given all organisms the ability to learn from their observations and to pass the new information on to their buddies.[…]

DAVID: Once again you have God giving them intelligence. That is a non-answer as to how it happens naturally.

Why is it not natural for an intelligent organism to observe, learn and communicate?

DAVID: Why can't God chose evolution as His method of creation? That is what happened. Of course there is 'no logical link' to humans appearing. That is why I say we are very improbable!

dhw: Same old diversionary tactic. Of course God, if he exists, chose evolution as His method of creation. But the issue - as you well know but are determined to dodge – is not our improbability but why, if his sole aim was to design H. sapiens, which he could have done any way he liked, he proceeded to design millions of non-human life forms, econiches, strategies etc. beforehand. Please, please, stop this dodging!

DAVID: Same old dodge from you. You allow Him to evolve life and then complain about His evolving humans over the time required. More than weird logic.

I complain about your making him specially design millions of extinct non-human life forms etc. when his sole purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. Stop dodging!

DAVID: The primary disagreement is you don't identify a legitimate purpose for God and I do.

dhw: You are clearly implying that your God’s enjoyment of his own work (direct or indirect) is not a “legitimate” purpose. How do you know?

DAVID: Your enjoyments for God are simply going back to humanizing Him. Yes, He might have enjoyed all of evolutionary creations, but that is a side issue to his purpose of eventually creating humans. Our difference still boils down to God's purpose and you suggest He had none. Even though we are so different with consciousness, therefore unexplained.

“Humanizing” is no argument, because there is no reason to suppose that he does not have thought patterns similar to our own, as you have pointed out yourself. I absolutely reject your latest straw man – that I propose a God without a purpose. If he exists, then of course he must have had a purpose in creating life. I have offered you two theistic explanations for the history of life which allow for your own view of his purpose. I have offered other explanations allowing for the overall purpose of an infinitely varied spectacle for him to watch and even dabble in if he feels like it. You deliberately ignore these and cling to Adler (who apparently doesn’t even address your theory of evolution) in order to avoid facing the illogicality of the theory bolded above.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 04, 2020, 20:16 (30 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: And so every time your bees and ants and a few million kindred life forms come up with their new strategies, it’s because your God has twiddled their genome for them. You just can’t imagine that he might have given all organisms the ability to learn from their observations and to pass the new information on to their buddies.[…]

DAVID: Once again you have God giving them intelligence. That is a non-answer as to how it happens naturally.

dhw: Why is it not natural for an intelligent organism to observe, learn and communicate?

They must have the mental power of an understood correlation of separate events. Why do you know they have that?

DAVID: Why can't God chose evolution as His method of creation? That is what happened. Of course there is 'no logical link' to humans appearing. That is why I say we are very improbable!

dhw: Same old diversionary tactic. Of course God, if he exists, chose evolution as His method of creation. But the issue - as you well know but are determined to dodge – is not our improbability but why, if his sole aim was to design H. sapiens, which he could have done any way he liked, he proceeded to design millions of non-human life forms, econiches, strategies etc. beforehand. Please, please, stop this dodging!

DAVID: Same old dodge from you. You allow Him to evolve life and then complain about His evolving humans over the time required. More than weird logic.

dhw: I complain about your making him specially design millions of extinct non-human life forms etc. when his sole purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. Stop dodging!

Total non-sequitur. You have granted his right to evolve life and then complain about it!


DAVID: The primary disagreement is you don't identify a legitimate purpose for God and I do.

dhw: You are clearly implying that your God’s enjoyment of his own work (direct or indirect) is not a “legitimate” purpose. How do you know?

DAVID: Your enjoyments for God are simply going back to humanizing Him. Yes, He might have enjoyed all of evolutionary creations, but that is a side issue to his purpose of eventually creating humans. Our difference still boils down to God's purpose and you suggest He had none. Even though we are so different with consciousness, therefore unexplained.

dhw: “Humanizing” is no argument, because there is no reason to suppose that he does not have thought patterns similar to our own, as you have pointed out yourself. I absolutely reject your latest straw man – that I propose a God without a purpose. If he exists, then of course he must have had a purpose in creating life. I have offered you two theistic explanations for the history of life which allow for your own view of his purpose. I have offered other explanations allowing for the overall purpose of an infinitely varied spectacle for him to watch and even dabble in if he feels like it. You deliberately ignore these and cling to Adler (who apparently doesn’t even address your theory of evolution) in order to avoid facing the illogicality of the theory bolded above.

Once again what you have done is reproduce humanized reasons. Adler's point is not what you imply, which is no defense to his argument about our unexplained difference. You cannot accept the difference argument as it destroys your position about God's purpose. As for Adler, he specifically thought God did the speciation:

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_80-82.pdf

Adler examines in great detail the question of how many ‘species’ exist so he can answer the question ‘… how many creative acts of God are required to explain the evolutionary jumps?… Adler’s …view, which he considers “almost completely demonstrated”, is …Within a species, changes have occurred, but each species itself is an fixed type—immutable in its essence, and coming into being only by an act of God. Adler suspects that each species was created in several different types, underived from each other—for example, the separate creation of flowering and non-flowering plants.

I'll stick with Adler. The rest of the article describes Adler's view of Darwinism. You won't like it. But it is an honest appraisal in that it lacks real science.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, June 05, 2020, 12:32 (30 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID (re cicadas): Totally unexplained as an instinctual behavior. The bugs did not teach themselves to do this.

dhw: Are you suggesting that your God, whose one and only aim was to directly design H. sapiens, stepped in to teach one particular form of cicada to spend 13-17 years underground? Or did he perhaps preprogramme the cicadas and their cycles 3.8 billion years ago as an integral step on the way to fulfilling his sole purpose of designing H. sapiens?

DAVID: Since it is very difficult to imagine a set of circumstances to force or induce cicadas into this pattern of life, God may well have had a role. Just how is only guesswork, which must include my proposals as to how God works His intentions. The insects are just another part of the necessary bush of life created by God's method of evolution.

You have only ever offered preprogramming or personal dabbling as your God’s “role”, and I eagerly await your explanation for the role of the cicadas in fulfilling your God’s one and only intention of producing H. sapiens. God’s method of evolution provided bushes of life necessary for every life form that ever existed, long, long before H. sapiens arrived.

dhw: And so every time your bees and ants and a few million kindred life forms come up with their new strategies, it’s because your God has twiddled their genome for them. You just can’t imagine that he might have given all organisms the ability to learn from their observations and to pass the new information on to their buddies.[…]

DAVID: Once again you have God giving them intelligence. That is a non-answer as to how it happens naturally.

dhw: Why is it not natural for an intelligent organism to observe, learn and communicate?

DAVID: They must have the mental power of an understood correlation of separate events. Why do you know they have that?

How do you "know" they DON'T? Intelligence is manifested every time they initiate a strategy, lifestyle, response to changing conditions, and their behaviour indicates that they are able to observe, learn and communicate. How do you "know" that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every single strategy, lifestyle, response?

DAVID: Same old dodge from you. You allow Him to evolve life and then complain about His evolving humans over the time required. More than weird logic.

dhw: I complain about your making him specially design millions of extinct non-human life forms etc. when his sole purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Total non-sequitur. You have granted his right to evolve life and then complain about it!

Repeat: Of course if he exists he evolved life. My complaint is your insistence that although he had only one purpose, to specially design H. sapiens, and could have done it any way he chose, he specially designed millions of now extinct non-human life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders before even starting to design the only thing he wanted to design. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: The primary disagreement is you don't identify a legitimate purpose for God and I do.

dhw: […] I have offered you two theistic explanations for the history of life which allow for your own view of his purpose. I have offered other explanations allowing for the overall purpose of an infinitely varied spectacle for him to watch and even dabble in if he feels like it. You deliberately ignore these and cling to Adler (who apparently doesn’t even address your theory of evolution) in order to avoid facing the illogicality of the theory bolded above.

DAVID: Once again what you have done is reproduce humanized reasons.

You accused me of conjuring up a God without a purpose (bolded). Now you switch to the silly “humanized” argument already obliterated by your own agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours.

DAVID: You cannot accept the difference argument as it destroys your position about God's purpose.

I have always accepted the difference argument, and have offered you two theistic explanations of evolution that allow for your theory of God’s purpose. Please stop all this dodging!

DAVID: As for Adler, he specifically thought God did the speciation:[…]

No problem. Does Adler also explain why God specifically designed all the different extinct species plus all the different extinct econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. even though in his omnipotence his one and only purpose was to specifically design H. sapiens? Even if he does, all this discussion about Adler is irrelevant. My discussion is with you, not with him, and if you can’t find an explanation for this part of your theory, then your faith in Adler is not going to help you.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, June 05, 2020, 20:03 (29 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Since it is very difficult to imagine a set of circumstances to force or induce cicadas into this pattern of life, God may well have had a role. Just how is only guesswork, which must include my proposals as to how God works His intentions. The insects are just another part of the necessary bush of life created by God's method of evolution.


dhw: You have only ever offered preprogramming or personal dabbling as your God’s “role”, and I eagerly await your explanation for the role of the cicadas in fulfilling your God’s one and only intention of producing H. sapiens. God’s method of evolution provided bushes of life necessary for every life form that ever existed, long, long before H. sapiens arrived.

All I can offer is they play a role in their econiche.


dhw: Why is it not natural for an intelligent organism to observe, learn and communicate?

DAVID: They must have the mental power of an understood correlation of separate events. Why do you know they have that?

dhw: How do you "know" they DON'T? Intelligence is manifested every time they initiate a strategy, lifestyle, response to changing conditions, and their behaviour indicates that they are able to observe, learn and communicate. How do you "know" that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every single strategy, lifestyle, response?

How do you know they weren't taught to do that? What we see mostly is instinctual activity. WSe do not kn ow how it developed.


DAVID: Total non-sequitur. You have granted his right to evolve life and then complain about it!

dhw: Repeat: Of course if he exists he evolved life. My complaint is your insistence that although he had only one purpose, to specially design H. sapiens, and could have done it any way he chose, he specially designed millions of now extinct non-human life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders before even starting to design the only thing he wanted to design. Please stop dodging.

Same weird response. Evolving humans took the time it took. You grant the validity of the process and then complain about it.


DAVID: Once again what you have done is reproduce humanized reasons.

dhw: You accused me of conjuring up a God without a purpose (bolded). Now you switch to the silly “humanized” argument already obliterated by your own agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours.

DAVID: You cannot accept the difference argument as it destroys your position about God's purpose.

dhw: I have always accepted the difference argument, and have offered you two theistic explanations of evolution that allow for your theory of God’s purpose. Please stop all this dodging!

DAVID: As for Adler, he specifically thought God did the speciation:[…]

dhw: No problem. Does Adler also explain why God specifically designed all the different extinct species plus all the different extinct econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. even though in his omnipotence his one and only purpose was to specifically design H. sapiens? Even if he does, all this discussion about Adler is irrelevant. My discussion is with you, not with him, and if you can’t find an explanation for this part of your theory, then your faith in Adler is not going to help you.

My explanations are satisfactory for me. Your objections are always complete non-sequiturs: you allow God can choose to evolve humans, but He shouldn't have done it the way history tells us it happened.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, June 06, 2020, 12:33 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Since it is very difficult to imagine a set of circumstances to force or induce cicadas into this pattern of life, God may well have had a role. Just how is only guesswork, which must include my proposals as to how God works His intentions. The insects are just another part of the necessary bush of life created by God's method of evolution.

dhw: You have only ever offered preprogramming or personal dabbling as your God’s “role”, and I eagerly await your explanation for the role of the cicadas in fulfilling your God’s one and only intention of producing H. sapiens. God’s method of evolution provided bushes of life necessary for every life form that ever existed, long, long before H. sapiens arrived.

DAVID: All I can offer is they play a role in their econiche.

Yes of course they do. Every organism lives or lived in an econiche! I just wonder why your God created all those extinct organisms and econiches if all he wanted to create was H. sapiens and his econiches.

dhw: Why is it not natural for an intelligent organism to observe, learn and communicate?

DAVID: They must have the mental power of an understood correlation of separate events. Why do you know they have that?

dhw: How do you "know" they DON'T? Intelligence is manifested every time they initiate a strategy, lifestyle, response to changing conditions, and their behaviour indicates that they are able to observe, learn and communicate. How do you "know" that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every single strategy, lifestyle, response?

DAVID: How do you know they weren't taught to do that? What we see mostly is instinctual activity. We do not know how it developed.

And that is why we theorize. Thank you for the “mostly”. It is the non-instinctive, problem-solving, decision-making activities that suggest intelligence, and these also suggest that current strategies would have arisen from the same source. Your theory of evolution discounts intelligence altogether, which leaves you with no alternative to your God’s preprogramming or dabbling every life form etc. as bolded below.

dhw: My complaint is your insistence that although he had only one purpose, to specially design H. sapiens, and could have done it any way he chose, he specially designed millions of now extinct non-human life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders before even starting to design the only thing he wanted to design. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Same weird response. Evolving humans took the time it took. You grant the validity of the process and then complain about it.

Evolving EVERY life form took the time it took! That does not explain why your God specially designed all those extinct life forms if the only life form he wanted to design was us. PLEASE STOP DODGING!

dhw: […] all this discussion about Adler is irrelevant. My discussion is with you, not with him, and if you can’t find an explanation for this part of your theory, then your faith in Adler is not going to help you.

DAVID: My explanations are satisfactory for me. Your objections are always complete non-sequiturs: you allow God can choose to evolve humans, but He shouldn't have done it the way history tells us it happened.

In your theory, your God could and did evolve (= directly design in your strange use of language) EVERY life form – not just humans. And so it does not make sense to claim that he only wanted to design humans!

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 06, 2020, 19:47 (28 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You have only ever offered preprogramming or personal dabbling as your God’s “role”, and I eagerly await your explanation for the role of the cicadas in fulfilling your God’s one and only intention of producing H. sapiens. God’s method of evolution provided bushes of life necessary for every life form that ever existed, long, long before H. sapiens arrived.

DAVID: All I can offer is they play a role in their econiche.

dfhw: Yes of course they do. Every organism lives or lived in an econiche! I just wonder why your God created all those extinct organisms and econiches if all he wanted to create was H. sapiens and his econiches.

Same simple answer. God controls creation and history tells us He chose to evolve humans. I don't know how you can logically question that conclusion.


dhw: And that is why we theorize. Thank you for the “mostly”. It is the non-instinctive, problem-solving, decision-making activities that suggest intelligence, and these also suggest that current strategies would have arisen from the same source. Your theory of evolution discounts intelligence altogether, which leaves you with no alternative to your God’s preprogramming or dabbling every life form etc. as bolded below.

dhw: My complaint is your insistence that although he had only one purpose, to specially design H. sapiens, and could have done it any way he chose, he specially designed millions of now extinct non-human life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders before even starting to design the only thing he wanted to design. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Same weird response. Evolving humans took the time it took. You grant the validity of the process and then complain about it.

dhw: Evolving EVERY life form took the time it took! That does not explain why your God specially designed all those extinct life forms if the only life form he wanted to design was us. PLEASE STOP DODGING!

You are the dodging one! Remember history tells us life's evolution goes from fairly simple to very complex. Humans are the end point as very complex. Still the simpler ones had to come first. We did come out of modified apes.


dhw: […] all this discussion about Adler is irrelevant. My discussion is with you, not with him, and if you can’t find an explanation for this part of your theory, then your faith in Adler is not going to help you.

DAVID: My explanations are satisfactory for me. Your objections are always complete non-sequiturs: you allow God can choose to evolve humans, but He shouldn't have done it the way history tells us it happened.

dhw: In your theory, your God could and did evolve (= directly design in your strange use of language) EVERY life form – not just humans. And so it does not make sense to claim that he only wanted to design humans!

What's wrong with recognizing Humans were His ultimate purpose and He used evolution of life to get there? The bold is a gross distortion of my meanings. He obviously had to design all prior stages until He got to humans. My usage of words is not strange. God is the necessary designer of the evolutionary process

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, June 07, 2020, 10:41 (28 days ago) @ David Turell

This thread has become a master class in the evasion of a single question, but perhaps the sheer repetition will eventually produce an answer!

dhw: I just wonder why your God created all those extinct organisms and econiches if all he wanted to create was H. sapiens and his econiches.

DAVID: Same simple answer. God controls creation and history tells us He chose to evolve humans. I don't know how you can logically question that conclusion.

If God exists, history tells us that he chose evolution as the method of producing every single organism that ever lived. It does not tell us that he directly designed every single one, or that the only organism he wanted evolution to produce was H. sapiens.

DAVID: Same weird response. Evolving humans took the time it took. You grant the validity of the process and then complain about it.

dhw: Evolving EVERY life form took the time it took! That does not explain why your God specially designed all those extinct life forms if the only life form he wanted to design was us. PLEASE STOP DODGING!

DAVID: You are the dodging one! Remember history tells us life's evolution goes from fairly simple to very complex. Humans are the end point as very complex. Still the simpler ones had to come first. We did come out of modified apes.

But we did not come out of 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc., all of which you insist were directly designed by your God, although the only thing he wanted to design was H. sapiens. There is no straight line from simple bacteria to very complex humans! And you have no idea why the line wiggled all over the place if your God was always in total control.

dhw: In your theory, your God could and did evolve (= directly design in your strange use of language) EVERY life form – not just humans. And so it does not make sense to claim that he only wanted to design humans!

DAVID: What's wrong with recognizing Humans were His ultimate purpose and He used evolution of life to get there?

You are claiming that he specially designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms in order to get to humans! I have offered you two theistic explanations of the non-human bush that do allow for the special purpose, but you keep ignoring them or trotting out your silly “humanization” objection.

DAVID: The bold is a gross distortion of my meanings. He obviously had to design all prior stages until He got to humans. My usage of words is not strange. God is the necessary designer of the evolutionary process

Yes, if he exists he designed the evolutionary process. But “evolution” does not mean the direct design of every product of the evolutionary process, and it does not mean that every organism that preceded humans constituted a necessary prior stage on the way from bacteria to humans.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 07, 2020, 21:15 (27 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: This thread has become a master class in the evasion of a single question, but perhaps the sheer repetition will eventually produce an answer!

dhw: I just wonder why your God created all those extinct organisms and econiches if all he wanted to create was H. sapiens and his econiches.

DAVID: Same simple answer. God controls creation and history tells us He chose to evolve humans. I don't know how you can logically question that conclusion.

dhw: If God exists, history tells us that he chose evolution as the method of producing every single organism that ever lived. It does not tell us that he directly designed every single one, or that the only organism he wanted evolution to produce was H. sapiens.

Your response lists my true beliefs.


DAVID: Same weird response. Evolving humans took the time it took. You grant the validity of the process and then complain about it.

dhw: Evolving EVERY life form took the time it took! That does not explain why your God specially designed all those extinct life forms if the only life form he wanted to design was us. PLEASE STOP DODGING!

DAVID: You are the dodging one! Remember history tells us life's evolution goes from fairly simple to very complex. Humans are the end point as very complex. Still the simpler ones had to come first. We did come out of modified apes.

dhw: But we did not come out of 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc., all of which you insist were directly designed by your God, although the only thing he wanted to design was H. sapiens. There is no straight line from simple bacteria to very complex humans! And you have no idea why the line wiggled all over the place if your God was always in total control.

Since God in this discussion is in control, why can't He chose to wiggle all over the place?!


dhw: In your theory, your God could and did evolve (= directly design in your strange use of language) EVERY life form – not just humans. And so it does not make sense to claim that he only wanted to design humans!

DAVID: What's wrong with recognizing Humans were His ultimate purpose and He used evolution of life to get there?

dhw: You are claiming that he specially designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms in order to get to humans! I have offered you two theistic explanations of the non-human bush that do allow for the special purpose, but you keep ignoring them or trotting out your silly “humanization” objection.

Don't object to your humanized explanations. They all list a human interest such as spectacle.


DAVID: The bold is a gross distortion of my meanings. He obviously had to design all prior stages until He got to humans. My usage of words is not strange. God is the necessary designer of the evolutionary process

dhw: Yes, if he exists he designed the evolutionary process. But “evolution” does not mean the direct design of every product of the evolutionary process, and it does not mean that every organism that preceded humans constituted a necessary prior stage on the way from bacteria to humans.

How do you know what God thought as He evolved bacteria and everything else to get to us? My presumption is the history of evolution tells us what God did as designer of each step. Your approach in the bold is to accept that God only designed process that took care of itself.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, June 08, 2020, 10:58 (27 days ago) @ David Turell

Edited to avoid some of the repetition.

DAVID: God controls creation and history tells us He chose to evolve humans. I don't know how you can logically question that conclusion.

dhw: If God exists, history tells us that he chose evolution as the method of producing every single organism that ever lived. It does not tell us that he directly designed every single one, or that the only organism he wanted evolution to produce was H. sapiens.

DAVID: Your response lists my true beliefs.

Yes, they are beliefs and they are not history, though you constantly try to conflate the two.

DAVID: Remember history tells us life's evolution goes from fairly simple to very complex. Humans are the end point as very complex.

dhw: […] There is no straight line from simple bacteria to very complex humans! And you have no idea why the line wiggled all over the place if your God was always in total control.

DAVID: Since God in this discussion is in control, why can't He chose to wiggle all over the place?!

Of course he can. And that is why I suggest that he wanted evolution to wiggle all over the place. But wiggling all over the place is not consistent with having a single purpose (H. sapiens) in mind, plus the ability to fulfil that purpose any way he wished, plus the claim that he was always in control! Repeat: it suggests that he WANTED the vast variety of life forms, lifestyles, econiches, natural wonders etc. And that is not consistent with the theory that all he wanted was humans.

DAVID: What's wrong with recognizing Humans were His ultimate purpose and He used evolution of life to get there?

dhw: You are claiming that he specially designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms in order to get to humans! I have offered you two theistic explanations of the non-human bush that do allow for the special purpose, but you keep ignoring them or trotting out your silly “humanization” objection.

DAVID: Don't object to your humanized explanations. They all list a human interest such as spectacle.

Thank you for no longer objecting. I would suggest that a theory which posits God as being interested in all the products of his invention is actually more likely than a theory which posits that he deliberately designed all of these products although the only thing he really wanted to design was humans.

DAVID: He obviously had to design all prior stages until He got to humans. My usage of words is not strange. God is the necessary designer of the evolutionary process

dhw: Yes, if he exists he designed the evolutionary process. But “evolution” does not mean the direct design of every product of the evolutionary process, and it does not mean that every organism that preceded humans constituted a necessary prior stage on the way from bacteria to humans.

DAVID: How do you know what God thought as He evolved bacteria and everything else to get to us? My presumption is the history of evolution tells us what God did as designer of each step. Your approach in the bold is to accept that God only designed process that took care of itself.

It was you who specified that he designed the evolutionary process, and that allows for the theory that it “took care of itself”. You presume that he designed not only each step from bacteria to us, but also each life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. that had nothing whatsoever to do with us. All of these constitute part of the “history of evolution”. Back we go to the question at the heart of this whole discussion: What do you “presume” was his purpose in directly designing all of them?

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, June 08, 2020, 18:26 (27 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If God exists, history tells us that he chose evolution as the method of producing every single organism that ever lived. It does not tell us that he directly designed every single one, or that the only organism he wanted evolution to produce was H. sapiens.

DAVID: Your response lists my true beliefs.

dhw: Yes, they are beliefs and they are not history, though you constantly try to conflate the two.

The two are already conflated in my belief that God runs evolution, and I see Him as viewing humans as His desired endpoint, but He fully had to desire to produce all that came beforehand as the necessary food supply. All carefully planned.


DAVID: Remember history tells us life's evolution goes from fairly simple to very complex. Humans are the end point as very complex.

dhw: […] There is no straight line from simple bacteria to very complex humans! And you have no idea why the line wiggled all over the place if your God was always in total control.

DAVID: Since God in this discussion is in control, why can't He chose to wiggle all over the place?!

dhw: Of course he can. And that is why I suggest that he wanted evolution to wiggle all over the place. But wiggling all over the place is not consistent with having a single purpose (H. sapiens) in mind, plus the ability to fulfil that purpose any way he wished, plus the claim that he was always in control! Repeat: it suggests that he WANTED the vast variety of life forms, lifestyles, econiches, natural wonders etc. And that is not consistent with the theory that all he wanted was humans.

Again you have forgotten or ignore the obvious. Of course God knew the population we would achieve and the vast bush of life provides the food energy we need to survive.


DAVID: What's wrong with recognizing Humans were His ultimate purpose and He used evolution of life to get there?

dhw: You are claiming that he specially designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms in order to get to humans! I have offered you two theistic exp lanations of the non-human bush that do allow for the special purpose, but you keep ignoring them or trotting out your silly “humanization” objection.

DAVID: Don't object to your humanized explanations. They all list a human interest such as spectacle.

dhw: Thank you for no longer objecting. I would suggest that a theory which posits God as being interested in all the products of his invention is actually more likely than a theory which posits that he deliberately designed all of these products although the only thing he really wanted to design was humans.

You misread. I still object to spectacles, etc., as I responded to your last sentence now bolded. Of course God was/is interested in all of life's vast bush that He created on his way to humans. He deliberately and purposely designed all of it.


DAVID: He obviously had to design all prior stages until He got to humans. My usage of words is not strange. God is the necessary designer of the evolutionary process

dhw: Yes, if he exists he designed the evolutionary process. But “evolution” does not mean the direct design of every product of the evolutionary process, and it does not mean that every organism that preceded humans constituted a necessary prior stage on the way from bacteria to humans.

DAVID: How do you know what God thought as He evolved bacteria and everything else to get to us? My presumption is the history of evolution tells us what God did as designer of each step. Your approach in the bold is to accept that God only designed process that took care of itself.

dhw: It was you who specified that he designed the evolutionary process, and that allows for the theory that it “took care of itself”. You presume that he designed not only each step from bacteria to us, but also each life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. that had nothing whatsoever to do with us. All of these constitute part of the “history of evolution”. Back we go to the question at the heart of this whole discussion: What do you “presume” was his purpose in directly designing all of them?

Covered endlessly in econiches discussion re' food supply for billions of eventual humans covering the Earth, as now. Don't you notice it is such a problem there are huge industries in agriculture and animal husbandry to unnaturally develop enough food supply? Your bolded phrase shows what you choose not to recognize.

David's theory of evolution: problems of food supply

by David Turell @, Monday, June 08, 2020, 19:22 (26 days ago) @ David Turell

This article discusses the developing problems:

https://phys.org/news/2020-06-threats-global-food-emerging-fungal.html

"Amongst the world's most challenging problems is the need to feed an ever-growing global population sustainably.

"Securing the food supply is of paramount importance, and more attention must be given to the threat from fungal pathogens competing with us for our own crops.

***

"Professor Gurr said: "Over the past centuries, crop diseases have led to the starvation of the people, the ruination of economies and the downfall of governments.

"'Today, the threat to plants of fungal infection outstrips that posed by bacterial and viral diseases combined.

"'Indeed, fungal and oomycete diseases have been increasing in severity and scale since the mid 20th Century and now pose a very serious threat to global food security.

"'We face a future blighted by known adversaries, by new variants of old foes and by new diseases.

"'Modern agricultural intensification practices have heightened this challenge.

***

"Dr. Helen Fones said: "Our review looks to the future; summarizing our main challenges and knowledge gaps, and highlighting the research needed to face the threat of emerging crop pathogens.

"'We consider this challenge in terms of both the crops essential for providing calories and those commodities that fuel global trade and the global economy that we rely upon.

***

"'This reminds us that we need to make agriculture less reliant on fungicides which are also used to treat fungal infections in humans, as this can lead to resistance moving from agricultural to clinical settings (as highlighted in an article in Science in 2018, authored by Sarah Gurr, with Mat Fisher from Imperial College).

"'Here, we discuss the need for new fungicides, especially ones that have complex modes of action, and are harder for the pathogen to develop resistance to."

"But not all is "doom and gloom" as illustrated in recent work, led by co-author Professor Gero Steinberg.

"In a recent publication in the journal Nature Communications, Exeter scientists described the development of a new fungicide, which holds the potential to help protect our food crops against fungal pathogens.

"Professor Steinberg said: "The challenge of fungal crop diseases is enormous.

"'With the help of the BBSRC and the University of Exeter, Sarah Gurr's and my research group are following a dual strategy: to raise awareness, illustrated by this article in Nature Food, and also to develop new 'weapons' in our fight to secure global food security.'"

Comment: Full support for my theory as to why God made the bush of life so big and so complex. Econiches and planned production of foods are all vital.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, June 09, 2020, 10:58 (26 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If God exists, history tells us that he chose evolution as the method of producing every single organism that ever lived. It does not tell us that he directly designed every single one, or that the only organism he wanted evolution to produce was H. sapiens.

DAVID: Your response lists my true beliefs.

dhw: Yes, they are beliefs and they are not history, though you constantly try to conflate the two.

DAVID: The two are already conflated in my belief that God runs evolution, and I see Him as viewing humans as His desired endpoint, but He fully had to desire to produce all that came beforehand as the necessary food supply. All carefully planned.
And
dhw: You presume that he designed not only each step from bacteria to us, but also each life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. that had nothing whatsoever to do with us. All of these constitute part of the “history of evolution”. Back we go to the question at the heart of this whole discussion: What do you “presume” was his purpose in directly designing all of them?

DAVID: Covered endlessly in econiches discussion re' food supply for billions of eventual humans covering the Earth, as now. Don't you notice it is such a problem there are huge industries in agriculture and animal husbandry to unnaturally develop enough food supply? Your bolded phrase shows what you choose not to recognize.

But you believe that your God directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and econiches before humans even appeared on the scene! Stop pretending it never happened! The whole discussion centres on why, if his sole purpose was humans, he specially designed all the extinct life forms and econiches that had nothing whatsoever to do with humans! You have no idea why, and so now you are arguing as if life and econiches only began with humans!

dhw: But wiggling all over the place is not consistent with having a single purpose (H. sapiens) in mind, plus the ability to fulfil that purpose any way he wished, plus the claim that he was always in control! Repeat: it suggests that he WANTED the vast variety of life forms, lifestyles, econiches, natural wonders etc. And that is not consistent with the theory that all he wanted was humans.

DAVID: Again you have forgotten or ignore the obvious. Of course God knew the population we would achieve and the vast bush of life provides the food energy we need to survive.

So God provided 3.X billion years of food for the humans who did not even exist! You abandoned this absurd argument ages ago, so I don’t know why you’ve suddenly gone back to it.
And again, under “problems of food supply”:

DAVID: Full support for my theory as to why God made the bush of life so big and so complex. Econiches and planned production of foods are all vital.

Of course econiches are vital, and always have been for every form of life! But there is no support for your theory that your God specially designed 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct life forms and econiches, and did so for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens. Please stop trying to conflate the importance of econiches with your theory of evolution!

dhw: I would suggest that a theory which posits God as being interested in all the products of his invention is actually more likely than a theory which posits that he deliberately designed all of these products although the only thing he really wanted to design was humans.

DAVID: You misread. I still object to spectacles, etc., […] Of course God was/is interested in all of life's vast bush that He created on his way to humans. He deliberately and purposely designed all of it.

You object to his being interested in the spectacle of life’s vast bush, but of course he was/is interested in all of life’s vast bush. Curiouser and curiouser.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 09, 2020, 20:45 (25 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You presume that he designed not only each step from bacteria to us, but also each life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. that had nothing whatsoever to do with us. All of these constitute part of the “history of evolution”. Back we go to the question at the heart of this whole discussion: What do you “presume” was his purpose in directly designing all of them?

DAVID: Covered endlessly in econiches discussion re' food supply for billions of eventual humans covering the Earth, as now. Don't you notice it is such a problem there are huge industries in agriculture and animal husbandry to unnaturally develop enough food supply? Your bolded phrase shows what you choose not to recognize.

dhw: But you believe that your God directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and econiches before humans even appeared on the scene! Stop pretending it never happened! The whole discussion centres on why, if his sole purpose was humans, he specially designed all the extinct life forms and econiches that had nothing whatsoever to do with humans! You have no idea why, and so now you are arguing as if life and econiches only began with humans!

Once again you are assuming God did not choose to evolve humans from bacteria as history tells us and you agree He could have done. Your twisted view of my reasoning solves nothning.


dhw: But wiggling all over the place is not consistent with having a single purpose (H. sapiens) in mind, plus the ability to fulfil that purpose any way he wished, plus the claim that he was always in control! Repeat: it suggests that he WANTED the vast variety of life forms, lifestyles, econiches, natural wonders etc. And that is not consistent with the theory that all he wanted was humans.

DAVID: Again you have forgotten or ignore the obvious. Of course God knew the population we would achieve and the vast bush of life provides the food energy we need to survive.

dhw: So God provided 3.X billion years of food for the humans who did not even exist! You abandoned this absurd argument ages ago, so I don’t know why you’ve suddenly gone back to it.

I've never abandoned it. Building such a food supply required an enlarged bush as we have today to support 7.3 billion humans and growing more.

And again, under “problems of food supply”:

DAVID: Full support for my theory as to why God made the bush of life so big and so complex. Econiches and planned production of foods are all vital.

dhw: Of course econiches are vital, and always have been for every form of life! But there is no support for your theory that your God specially designed 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct life forms and econiches, and did so for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens. Please stop trying to conflate the importance of econiches with your theory of evolution!

Still comes back to the interpretation of why humans are here, based on our very different attributes, which you always try to diminish by telling us how bright every other organism happens to be, which is supposed to diminish our difference.


dhw: I would suggest that a theory which posits God as being interested in all the products of his invention is actually more likely than a theory which posits that he deliberately designed all of these products although the only thing he really wanted to design was humans.

DAVID: You misread. I still object to spectacles, etc., […] Of course God was/is interested in all of life's vast bush that He created on his way to humans. He deliberately and purposely designed all of it.

dhw: You object to his being interested in the spectacle of life’s vast bush, but of course he was/is interested in all of life’s vast bush. Curiouser and curiouser.

Curious only if you refuse to recognize God's purposeful activity to reach humans as a final step in evolution. God is always interested in his activity.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, June 10, 2020, 15:31 (25 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You presume that he designed not only each step from bacteria to us, but also each life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. that had nothing whatsoever to do with us. All of these constitute part of the “history of evolution”. Back we go to the question at the heart of this whole discussion: What do you “presume” was his purpose in directly designing all of them?

DAVID: Covered endlessly in econiches discussion re' food supply for billions of eventual humans covering the Earth, as now. Don't you notice it is such a problem there are huge industries in agriculture and animal husbandry to unnaturally develop enough food supply? Your bolded phrase shows what you choose not to recognize.

dhw: But you believe that your God directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and econiches before humans even appeared on the scene! Stop pretending it never happened! The whole discussion centres on why, if his sole purpose was humans, he specially designed all the extinct life forms and econiches that had nothing whatsoever to do with humans! You have no idea why, and so now you are arguing as if life and econiches only began with humans!

DAVID: Once again you are assuming God did not choose to evolve humans from bacteria as history tells us and you agree He could have done. Your twisted view of my reasoning solves nothing.

You keep deliberately dodging the issue of why an all-powerful God whose sole purpose was to evolve humans from bacteria would choose to directly design millions of life forms and econiches that had nothing whatsoever to do with humans. […]

DAVID (re econiches): Building such a food supply required an enlarged bush as we have today to support 7.3 billion humans and growing more.

dhw: Of course econiches are vital, and always have been for every form of life! But there is no support for your theory that your God specially designed 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct life forms and econiches, and did so for the sole purpose of specially designing H. sapiens. Please stop trying to conflate the importance of econiches with your theory of evolution!

DAVID: Still comes back to the interpretation of why humans are here, based on our very different attributes, which you always try to diminish by telling us how bright every other organism happens to be, which is supposed to diminish our difference.

Shifting the subject again!This has nothing whatsoever to do with the absurd argument that your God designed all those extinct econiches in order to feed humans who did not even exist. As for the “difference” I have always acknowledged it. (Repeated for the umpteenth time in yesterday’s post on brain expansion, precisely because I knew you would resort to this distortion: ("This is not to downplay the vast gap between our consciousness levels and theirs. I am merely responding to your reference to "parts".) I have even offered you two explanations of the bush which allow for your God’s special focus on humans.

dhw: I would suggest that a theory which posits God as being interested in all the products of his invention is actually more likely than a theory which posits that he deliberately designed all of these products although the only thing he really wanted to design was humans.

DAVID: You misread. I still object to spectacles, etc., […] Of course God was/is interested in all of life's vast bush that He created on his way to humans. He deliberately and purposely designed all of it.

dhw: You object to his being interested in the spectacle of life’s vast bush, but of course he was/is interested in all of life’s vast bush. Curiouser and curiouser.

DAVID: Curious only if you refuse to recognize God's purposeful activity to reach humans as a final step in evolution. God is always interested in his activity.

As before, I have offered you two explanations of the pre-human bush which allow for your God’s “final step” AND explain the vast bush that preceded it AND offer a purpose for ALL the life forms, including humans. Why would he bother to create any organism, if he wasn’t interested in its activities? And humans, with their special gifts would be especially interesting. You agree but you object.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 10, 2020, 17:53 (25 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, June 10, 2020, 18:01

DAVID: Once again you are assuming God did not choose to evolve humans from bacteria as history tells us and you agree He could have done. Your twisted view of my reasoning solves nothing.

dhw: You keep deliberately dodging the issue of why an all-powerful God whose sole purpose was to evolve humans from bacteria would choose to directly design millions of life forms and econiches that had nothing whatsoever to do with humans. […]

I dodge nothing. You first agree that God could have chosen to evolve humans, and then you express surprise that so many forms over so many stages took place first! We are discussing my theory according to the heading. And again you denigrate the econiche importance for food supply for seven + billion humans now living on Earth. According to you God couldn't have planned ahead to answer the problems, but I forget, your version of some sort of a god bumbles along enjoying spectacles, not sure of himself, experimenting, and you object to my calling your version humanized. How you try to pick apart my version of how God ran evolution for His purposes make absolutely no sense to me if we first agree to discuss my theory as to how God ran evolution. It is simple to just accept the historical record. All of my explanations then logically fit.

DAVID: Still comes back to the interpretation of why humans are here, based on our very different attributes, which you always try to diminish by telling us how bright every other organism happens to be, which is supposed to diminish our difference.

dhw: Shifting the subject again!This has nothing whatsoever to do with the absurd argument that your God designed all those extinct econiches in order to feed humans who did not even exist.

It is interesting that your view of God is that He cannot reason what the future would bring once human were dominant and their population grew in enormous numbers.

dhw: I would suggest that a theory which posits God as being interested in all the products of his invention is actually more likely than a theory which posits that he deliberately designed all of these products although the only thing he really wanted to design was humans.

DAVID: You misread. I still object to spectacles, etc., […] Of course God was/is interested in all of life's vast bush that He created on his way to humans. He deliberately and purposely designed all of it.

dhw: You object to his being interested in the spectacle of life’s vast bush, but of course he was/is interested in all of life’s vast bush. Curiouser and curiouser.

DAVID: Curious only if you refuse to recognize God's purposeful activity to reach humans as a final step in evolution. God is always interested in his activity.

dhw: As before, I have offered you two explanations of the pre-human bush which allow for your God’s “final step” AND explain the vast bush that preceded it AND offer a purpose for ALL the life forms, including humans. Why would he bother to create any organism, if he wasn’t interested in its activities? And humans, with their special gifts would be especially interesting. You agree but you object.

I've discussed your humanizing explanations above. But you are correct about God's interests. I certainly assume God is interested in all his evolutionary creations as they formed econiches, as He worked His evolutionary way to create humans.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, June 11, 2020, 10:37 (24 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Once again you are assuming God did not choose to evolve humans from bacteria as history tells us and you agree He could have done. Your twisted view of my reasoning solves nothing.

dhw: You keep deliberately dodging the issue of why an all-powerful God whose sole purpose was to evolve humans from bacteria would choose to directly design millions of life forms and econiches that had nothing whatsoever to do with humans. […]

DAVID: I dodge nothing. You first agree that God could have chosen to evolve humans, and then you express surprise that so many forms over so many stages took place first!

My surprise is that an all-powerful God whose sole purpose (your theory) was to evolve (in your vocabulary = directly design) H. sapiens, directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms that had nothing to do with H. sapiens. This is the central point which even now you are still dodging.

DAVID: We are discussing my theory according to the heading. And again you denigrate the econiche importance for food supply for seven + billion humans now living on Earth
And later:
DAVID: It is interesting that your view of God is that He cannot reason what the future would bring once human were dominant and their population grew in enormous numbers.

I only ask why it was necessary for your God, whose sole purpose was apparently to design H. sapiens and his food supply, to design 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and their food supplies before humans existed. What relevance do all these specially designed, long dead life forms and econiches have to the 7+ billion humans currently living on Earth? You have no answer.

DAVID: According to you God couldn't have planned ahead to answer the problems, but I forget, your version of some sort of a god bumbles along enjoying spectacles, not sure of himself, experimenting, and you object to my calling your version humanized.

I keep asking you to provide a connection between the 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct life forms, econiches and problems, and humans and their econiches and problems, and you cannot find one, which is why you keep changing the subject. There is no “bumbling” involved if your God creates a spectacle for himself to enjoy, or in the concept of a God who does not know everything in advance but experiments or, alternatively, deliberately sets in motion a process that may lead to unpredictable results (as with free will). All of these explain what you call the “historical record”, and fit in with your agreement that God probably has thought patterns similar to ours. […]

DAVID: …you are correct about God's interests. I certainly assume God is interested in all his evolutionary creations as they formed econiches, as He worked His evolutionary way to create humans.

So maybe – to fit in with part of your theory – he specially designed them because he was interested in specially designing things for his own interest. But how does this fit in with the theory that the ONLY thing your all-powerful, all-knowing God wanted to design was H. sapiens?

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 11, 2020, 16:10 (24 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I dodge nothing. You first agree that God could have chosen to evolve humans, and then you express surprise that so many forms over so many stages took place first!

dhw: My surprise is that an all-powerful God whose sole purpose (your theory) was to evolve (in your vocabulary = directly design) H. sapiens, directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms that had nothing to do with H. sapiens. This is the central point which even now you are still dodging.

You have invented a so-called dodge. Once again, from history, with God in charge of creating history. it is obvious God chose to evolve humans by first creating previous forms over the time required. You imply God should have directly created humans. It didn't happen that way.


dhw: I keep asking you to provide a connection between the 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct life forms, econiches and problems, and humans and their econiches and problems, and you cannot find one, which is why you keep changing the subject. There is no “bumbling” involved if your God creates a spectacle for himself to enjoy, or in the concept of a God who does not know everything in advance but experiments or, alternatively, deliberately sets in motion a process that may lead to unpredictable results (as with free will). All of these explain what you call the “historical record”, and fit in with your agreement that God probably has thought patterns similar to ours. […]

And all your suppositions about God's thoughts are obviously humanized suggestions. You deny that point, because you feel you can think like God, but all you are doing is attributing you human thinking to Him. God's reasons are known only to Him.


DAVID: …you are correct about God's interests. I certainly assume God is interested in all his evolutionary creations as they formed econiches, as He worked His evolutionary way to create humans.

dhw: So maybe – to fit in with part of your theory – he specially designed them because he was interested in specially designing things for his own interest. But how does this fit in with the theory that the ONLY thing your all-powerful, all-knowing God wanted to design was H. sapiens?

In running the process of evolution and creating the econiches, God's interest is in providing appropriate designs at each stage. You are, as usual, suggesting interest for the sake of interest. Just more humanizing. Why not accept God as simply working purposefully? He does not require self-satisfaction, a characteristic of your humanizing suggestions.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, June 12, 2020, 11:51 (23 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I dodge nothing. You first agree that God could have chosen to evolve humans, and then you express surprise that so many forms over so many stages took place first!

dhw: My surprise is that an all-powerful God whose sole purpose (your theory) was to evolve (in your vocabulary = directly design) H. sapiens, directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms that had nothing to do with H. sapiens. This is the central point which even now you are still dodging.

DAVID: You have invented a so-called dodge. Once again, from history, with God in charge of creating history. it is obvious God chose to evolve humans by first creating previous forms over the time required. You imply God should have directly created humans. It didn't happen that way.

You are still dodging! It is obvious that there were millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. thousands of millions of years before humans. It is not obvious from history that your God directly designed them all, and as I wrote yesterday: I keep asking you to provide a connection between the 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct life forms, econiches and problems, and humans and their econiches and problems, and you cannot find one, which is why you keep changing the subject.

dhw: There is no “bumbling” involved if your God creates a spectacle for himself to enjoy, or in the concept of a God who does not know everything in advance but experiments or, alternatively, deliberately sets in motion a process that may lead to unpredictable results (as with free will). All of these explain what you call the “historical record”, and fit in with your agreement that God probably has thought patterns similar to ours. […]

DAVID: And all your suppositions about God's thoughts are obviously humanized suggestions. You deny that point, because you feel you can think like God, but all you are doing is attributing you human thinking to Him. God's reasons are known only to Him.

I have never denied that point! I find it totally feasible that if God exists, he will probably have thought patterns similar to our own – as you rightly pointed out. The fact that God’s reasons are known only to him does not lend one jot of credibility to your theory – conjured up by your human mind, which can find no logical way of connecting its basic premises.

DAVID: …you are correct about God's interests. I certainly assume God is interested in all his evolutionary creations as they formed econiches, as He worked His evolutionary way to create humans.

dhw: So maybe – to fit in with part of your theory – he specially designed them because he was interested in specially designing things for his own interest. But how does this fit in with the theory that the ONLY thing your all-powerful, all-knowing God wanted to design was H. sapiens?

DAVID: In running the process of evolution and creating the econiches, God's interest is in providing appropriate designs at each stage. You are, as usual, suggesting interest for the sake of interest. Just more humanizing. Why not accept God as simply working purposefully? He does not require self-satisfaction, a characteristic of your humanizing suggestions.

At each stage of what? Certainly not each stage of creating humans, which you say was his sole purpose. Of course I accept that he has a purpose. If he is interested in providing designs for all kinds of life forms and econiches, that is a purpose in itself. And how do you know that he does not require self-satisfaction (you even offered the image of a painter enjoying his own paintings)? If God’s reasons are known only to him, what authority do you have for telling us that his reason for directly designing millions of extinct non-human life forms etc. was to produce H. sapiens, although you have no idea why he chose such a method.

dhw:I do not question the importance of the balance of nature for the survival of any species, including humans. I question your theory that for 3.X billion years your God had to design loads and loads of different ecosystems, the vast majority of which are extinct and had nothing whatever to do with humans, because although humans were his only purpose, for reasons you cannot even begin to fathom he had decided not to design them for 3.X billion years.

DAVID: (under “importance of ecosystems”): In dhw's confused state he does not seem to recognize the importance of balanced ecosystems:
https://phys.org/news/2020-06-recovery-sea-otter-populations-yields.html

Of course I recognize the importance of balanced ecosystems! You even reproduced my argument as quoted above, and then immediately ignored it! It is now bolded.

Under "intelligent design":
DAVID: Evolution is a system of taking from the past and repurposing in the future. It took 3.8 billion years to get from bacteria to humans.It is obvious the time was required.

All agreed, including the fact that it took 3.X billion years to get from bacteria to humans, and it is obvious that this was the time it took, because this was the time it took. How does that explain the disconnected theory bolded above?

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, June 12, 2020, 23:44 (22 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I dodge nothing. You first agree that God could have chosen to evolve humans, and then you express surprise that so many forms over so many stages took place first!

dhw: My surprise is that an all-powerful God whose sole purpose (your theory) was to evolve (in your vocabulary = directly design) H. sapiens, directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms that had nothing to do with H. sapiens. This is the central point which even now you are still dodging.

DAVID: You have invented a so-called dodge. Once again, from history, with God in charge of creating history. it is obvious God chose to evolve humans by first creating previous forms over the time required. You imply God should have directly created humans. It didn't happen that way.

dhw: You are still dodging! It is obvious that there were millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. thousands of millions of years before humans. It is not obvious from history that your God directly designed them all,

The bold is your problem, as usual. Of course there is no absolute proof God did anything. But it is my belief He created reality and everything I explain follows logically from that. Please finally remember we are discussing my belief as to how humans appeared. You will not talk or argue me out of that. So quit trying. It is your problem of not knowing what, if anything to accept, as explanations for the existence of the universe, life, or us.

DAVID: …you are correct about God's interests. I certainly assume God is interested in all his evolutionary creations as they formed econiches, as He worked His evolutionary way to create humans.

dhw:I do not question the importance of the balance of nature for the survival of any species, including humans. I question your theory that for 3.X billion years your God had to design loads and loads of different ecosystems, the vast majority of which are extinct and had nothing whatever to do with humans, because although humans were his only purpose, for reasons you cannot even begin to fathom he had decided not to design them for 3.X billion years.

Same unreasonable objections to my beliefs. It is impossible to evolve humans from bacteria unless the stages of evolution occur in the order they did. That is what God had to do to eventually produce us.


DAVID: (under “importance of ecosystems”): In dhw's confused state he does not seem to recognize the importance of balanced ecosystems:

https://phys.org/news/2020-06-recovery-sea-otter-populations-yields.html

dhw: Of course I recognize the importance of balanced ecosystems! You even reproduced my argument as quoted above, and then immediately ignored it! It is now bolded.

Under "intelligent design":

DAVID: Evolution is a system of taking from the past and repurposing in the future. It took 3.8 billion years to get from bacteria to humans.It is obvious the time was required.

dhw: All agreed, including the fact that it took 3.X billion years to get from bacteria to humans, and it is obvious that this was the time it took, because this was the time it took. How does that explain the disconnected theory bolded above?

The only disconnect is you don't accept my faith that God created reality in the manner history instructs us. You cannot get rid of my belief system, which is what you are attacking. And you certainly won't accept that Adler, one of the premier educators and philosophers of the 20th century, established a powerful book that carefully outlined all the logical reasons for identifying humans as God's prime purpose.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, June 13, 2020, 11:35 (22 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I dodge nothing. You first agree that God could have chosen to evolve humans, and then you express surprise that so many forms over so many stages took place first!

dhw: My surprise is that an all-powerful God whose sole purpose (your theory) was to evolve (in your vocabulary = directly design) H. sapiens, directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms that had nothing to do with H. sapiens. This is the central point which even now you are still dodging.

DAVID: You have invented a so-called dodge. Once again, from history, with God in charge of creating history. it is obvious God chose to evolve humans by first creating previous forms over the time required. You imply God should have directly created humans. It didn't happen that way.

dhw: You are still dodging! It is obvious that there were millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. thousands of millions of years before humans. It is not obvious from history that your God directly designed them all (etc.)

DAVID: The bold is your problem, as usual. Of course there is no absolute proof God did anything. But it is my belief He created reality and everything I explain follows logically from that. […]

And so you continue to dodge: God created reality, his sole purpose was to create H. sapiens and apparently it follows logically that he directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms and econiches etc. before directly designing various humans before directly designing H. sapiens. And you think this is a logical sequence.

DAVID: …you are correct about God's interests. I certainly assume God is interested in all his evolutionary creations as they formed econiches, as He worked His evolutionary way to create humans.

dhw:I do not question the importance of the balance of nature for the survival of any species, including humans. I question your theory that for 3.X billion years your God had to design loads and loads of different ecosystems, the vast majority of which are extinct and had nothing whatever to do with humans, because although humans were his only purpose, for reasons you cannot even begin to fathom he had decided not to design them for 3.X billion years.

DAVID: Same unreasonable objections to my beliefs. It is impossible to evolve humans from bacteria unless the stages of evolution occur in the order they did. That is what God had to do to eventually produce us.

Same dodge: bearing in mind that your God is apparently “direct designer of all that appears”, why did he directly 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct non-human life forms and econiches before directly designing the first humans? It doesn’t make sense!

DAVID: (under “importance of ecosystems”): In dhw's confused state he does not seem to recognize the importance of balanced ecosystems:
https://phys.org/news/2020-06-recovery-sea-otter-populations-yields.html

dhw: Of course I recognize the importance of balanced ecosystems! You even reproduced my argument as quoted above, and then immediately ignored it!

I hope you will now once and for all stop trying to use the need for balanced ecosystems as an explanation for your God’s design of 3.X billion years of life forms and ecosystems that had nothing to do with humans.

Under "intelligent design":
DAVID: Evolution is a system of taking from the past and repurposing in the future. It took 3.8 billion years to get from bacteria to humans.It is obvious the time was required.

dhw: All agreed, including the fact that it took 3.X billion years to get from bacteria to humans, and it is obvious that this was the time it took, because this was the time it took. How does that explain the disconnected theory bolded above?

DAVID: The only disconnect is you don't accept my faith that God created reality in the manner history instructs us.

If God exists, I have no doubt that he created reality in the manner history instructs us. But history does not instruct us that he directly designed every life form etc., as now bolded above as many times as I can manage in one post.

DAVID: You cannot get rid of my belief system, which is what you are attacking. And you certainly won't accept that Adler, one of the premier educators and philosophers of the 20th century, established a powerful book that carefully outlined all the logical reasons for identifying humans as God's prime purpose.

With my open-minded approach, I have offered you two logical explanations of evolution which DO identify humans as a prime purpose. These explanations remove the disconnect in your theory, as bolded above – a disconnect which you have never been able to explain.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 13, 2020, 21:04 (21 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The bold is your problem, as usual. Of course there is no absolute proof God did anything. But it is my belief He created reality and everything I explain follows logically from that. […]

dhw: And so you continue to dodge: God created reality, his sole purpose was to create H. sapiens and apparently it follows logically that he directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms and econiches etc. before directly designing various humans before directly designing H. sapiens. And you think this is a logical sequence.

It is totally logical if you accept that a God-in-charge allows the conclusion that since evolution occurred He close to run all of it until humans appeared. You just never accept that He 'chose' to do it the way we see.

DAVID: Same unreasonable objections to my beliefs. It is impossible to evolve humans from bacteria unless the stages of evolution occur in the order they did. That is what God had to do to eventually produce us.

dhw: Same dodge: bearing in mind that your God is apparently “direct designer of all that appears”, why did he directly 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct non-human life forms and econiches before directly designing the first humans? It doesn’t make sense!

Only to you. Try accepting that God had the right to chose evolving humans. That is the first step in a series of logical conclusions, that you always avoid. The next step is to accept history as describing His actions. Extending your weird objection, why is the universe so old? Your reasoning applies here. Why wait 13.8 billion years to create humans on Earth? By your contorted thinking, God could have produced the Milky Way at the same time, the Earth at the same time, and humans at the same time.

Under "intelligent design":
DAVID: Evolution is a system of taking from the past and repurposing in the future. It took 3.8 billion years to get from bacteria to humans.It is obvious the time was required.

dhw: All agreed, including the fact that it took 3.X billion years to get from bacteria to humans, and it is obvious that this was the time it took, because this was the time it took. How does that explain the disconnected theory bolded above?

DAVID: The only disconnect is you don't accept my faith that God created reality in the manner history instructs us.

If God exists, I have no doubt that he created reality in the manner history instructs us. But history does not instruct us that he directly designed every life form etc., as now bolded above as many times as I can manage in one post.

DAVID: You cannot get rid of my belief system, which is what you are attacking. And you certainly won't accept that Adler, one of the premier educators and philosophers of the 20th century, established a powerful book that carefully outlined all the logical reasons for identifying humans as God's prime purpose.

dhw: With my open-minded approach, I have offered you two logical explanations of evolution which DO identify humans as a prime purpose. These explanations remove the disconnect in your theory, as bolded above – a disconnect which you have never been able to explain.

I am not disconnected. As in the bold above history does not confirm my belief. I arrive at my belief by accepting that history tells us what God does/did. This is why our arguments differ. You won't accept that approach, which then describes your so-called 'open-minded' status as not open-minded.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, June 14, 2020, 11:09 (21 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The bold is your problem, as usual. Of course there is no absolute proof God did anything. But it is my belief He created reality and everything I explain follows logically from that. […]

dhw: And so you continue to dodge: God created reality, his sole purpose was to create H. sapiens and apparently it follows logically that he directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms and econiches etc. before directly designing various humans before directly designing H. sapiens. And you think this is a logical sequence.

DAVID: It is totally logical if you accept that a God-in-charge allows the conclusion that since evolution occurred He close to run all of it until humans appeared. You just never accept that He 'chose' to do it the way we see.

I accept totally that if God exists, he would have chosen what we see: millions and millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders coming and going for millions and millions of years, and eventually different forms of humans ultimately leading to one species of human. That does not explain why, if he is all-powerful and had only one purpose from the very beginning (H. sapiens), he would have directly designed all those extinct life forms etc. that had nothing to do with humans. So maybe H. sapiens was not his only purpose from the beginning, or maybe if H. sapiens was his purpose from the beginning, everything that preceded humans was part of a great experiment, or maybe the idea for humans only came late on in his thinking.

DAVID: Try accepting that God had the right to chose evolving humans. That is the first step in a series of logical conclusions, that you always avoid.

If you mean he had the right to make H. sapiens his one and only purpose, I have dealt with that above.

DAVID: The next step is to accept history as describing His actions. Extending your weird objection, why is the universe so old? Your reasoning applies here. Why wait 13.8 billion years to create humans on Earth? By your contorted thinking, God could have produced the Milky Way at the same time, the Earth at the same time, and humans at the same time.

That is not my way of thinking at all! My starting point is the history, whereas yours is God’ purpose, which you try to impose on the history! And it doesn’t work. If God exists, I would see him as a scientist systematically putting together all the bits and pieces that were necessary for life. Of course they took time. None of us know why he wanted to create life in the first place. But if he started life with single cells, and those single cells eventually merged and cooperated into a huge variety of organisms, I would assume that he wanted a huge variety of organisms. I would not assume that he directly designed them all (he could have given them the intelligence to do their own designing), and I would not assume that the one and only reason why he wanted a huge variety of organisms was for him eventually to directly design H. sapiens. That is why I propose a variety of explanations for the variety of organisms that preceded H. sapiens. You have accepted that all of them are logical, but you are unable to find any connection between the vast variety of pre-human organisms plus their econiches and your proposal that he only wanted one plus its econiches.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 14, 2020, 19:41 (20 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The bold is your problem, as usual. Of course there is no absolute proof God did anything. But it is my belief He created reality and everything I explain follows logically from that. […]

dhw: And so you continue to dodge: God created reality, his sole purpose was to create H. sapiens and apparently it follows logically that he directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms and econiches etc. before directly designing various humans before directly designing H. sapiens. And you think this is a logical sequence.

DAVID: It is totally logical if you accept that a God-in-charge allows the conclusion that since evolution occurred He close to run all of it until humans appeared. You just never accept that He 'chose' to do it the way we see.

dhw: I accept totally that if God exists, he would have chosen what we see: millions and millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders coming and going for millions and millions of years, and eventually different forms of humans ultimately leading to one species of human. That does not explain why, if he is all-powerful and had only one purpose from the very beginning (H. sapiens), he would have directly designed all those extinct life forms etc. that had nothing to do with humans. So maybe H. sapiens was not his only purpose from the beginning, or maybe if H. sapiens was his purpose from the beginning, everything that preceded humans was part of a great experiment, or maybe the idea for humans only came late on in his thinking.

All you have done again is assume humanizing views of what God might have been thinking as He employed evolution to create what He wanted to create. In the bold you directly contradict the beginning of your paragraph, in that you don't accept humans as his prime purpose. Fine. On that we will continuously disagree, as I accept Adler's detailed arguments and you refuse to consider them.

DAVID: The next step is to accept history as describing His actions. Extending your weird objection, why is the universe so old? Your reasoning applies here. Why wait 13.8 billion years to create humans on Earth? By your contorted thinking, God could have produced the Milky Way at the same time, the Earth at the same time, and humans at the same time.

dhw: That is not my way of thinking at all! My starting point is the history, whereas yours is God’ purpose, which you try to impose on the history! And it doesn’t work. If God exists, I would see him as a scientist systematically putting together all the bits and pieces that were necessary for life. Of course they took time. None of us know why he wanted to create life in the first place. But if he started life with single cells, and those single cells eventually merged and cooperated into a huge variety of organisms, I would assume that he wanted a huge variety of organisms. I would not assume that he directly designed them all (he could have given them the intelligence to do their own designing), and I would not assume that the one and only reason why he wanted a huge variety of organisms was for him eventually to directly design H. sapiens. That is why I propose a variety of explanations for the variety of organisms that preceded H. sapiens. You have accepted that all of them are logical, but you are unable to find any connection between the vast variety of pre-human organisms plus their econiches and your proposal that he only wanted one plus its econiches.

This fully humanizing discussion of your version of God does not recognize the whole of history. It dwells insufficiently by concentrating solely on life's evolution. Let's start in the beginning. What is your version of why God created the universe? Purpose present or not? Just experimenting? Does He know what He is about? I fully expect your usual humanized unpurposed God.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, June 15, 2020, 11:26 (20 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Of course there is no absolute proof God did anything. But it is my belief He created reality and everything I explain follows logically from that. […]

dhw: And so you continue to dodge: God created reality, his sole purpose was to create H. sapiens and apparently it follows logically that he directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms and econiches etc. before directly designing various humans before directly designing H. sapiens. And you think this is a logical sequence.

DAVID: It is totally logical if you accept that a God-in-charge allows the conclusion that since evolution occurred He close to run all of it until humans appeared. You just never accept that He 'chose' to do it the way we see.

dhw: I accept totally that if God exists, he would have chosen what we see: millions and millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders coming and going for millions and millions of years, and eventually different forms of humans ultimately leading to one species of human. That does not explain why, if he is all-powerful and had only one purpose from the very beginning (H. sapiens), he would have directly designed all those extinct life forms etc. that had nothing to do with humans. So maybe H. sapiens was not his only purpose from the beginning, or maybe if H. sapiens was his purpose from the beginning, everything that preceded humans was part of a great experiment, or maybe the idea for humans only came late on in his thinking.

DAVID: All you have done again is assume humanizing views of what God might have been thinking as He employed evolution to create what He wanted to create.

Do please drop this silly objection to any theory that “humanizes” God. Nobody knows God’s thoughts, but there is no reason to oppose your own suggestion that he probably has thought patterns similar to our own.

DAVID: In the bold you directly contradict the beginning of your paragraph, in that you don't accept humans as his prime purpose. Fine. On that we will continuously disagree, as I accept Adler's detailed arguments and you refuse to consider them.

As usual, you dodge the fact that I have offered you two possible explanations of evolution in which God’s prime purpose IS humans. But as above, you reject these as “humanizing”.

dhw: [..]I propose a variety of explanations for the variety of organisms that preceded H. sapiens. You have accepted that all of them are logical, but you are unable to find any connection between the vast variety of pre-human organisms plus their econiches and your proposal that he only wanted one plus its econiches.

DAVID: This fully humanizing discussion of your version of God does not recognize the whole of history. It dwells insufficiently by concentrating solely on life's evolution. Let's start in the beginning. What is your version of why God created the universe? Purpose present or not? Just experimenting? Does He know what He is about? I fully expect your usual humanized unpurposed God.

And yet again you try to dodge the issue of the disconnection in your theory of evolution! Your questions have been answered umpteen times. If God exists, then of course he had a purpose for creating the universe and life. We are in agreement. Our only disagreement concerns what his purpose was, and how he fulfilled it, so of course we focus on life’s evolution! For some reason, you limit his purpose to the creation of H. sapiens, but you refuse to tell us what was his purpose in creating H. sapiens. And you cannot tell us why, if his only purpose was H. sapiens, he directly created 3.X billion years’ worth of non-humans etc. I offer you various hypotheses – all of which you recognize as logical – which allow for H. sapiens as a prime purpose, or which offer a different purpose, or which offer different interpretations of God’s powers (maybe he experiments, maybe he learns). But you cling to the only hypothesis which you yourself find inexplicable: that an all-powerful God with a single purpose (H. sapiens) directly designs millions of extinct non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. before directly designing various non-sapiens before directly designing sapiens, the only thing he wanted to design (apart from sapiens’ econiches). Please, either find a logical connection or admit (once more) that there isn't one, and then we can stop going round in circles.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, June 15, 2020, 18:46 (20 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: And so you continue to dodge: God created reality, his sole purpose was to create H. sapiens and apparently it follows logically that he directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms and econiches etc. before directly designing various humans before directly designing H. sapiens. And you think this is a logical sequence.

DAVID: It is totally logical if you accept that a God-in-charge allows the conclusion that since evolution occurred He close to run all of it until humans appeared. You just never accept that He 'chose' to do it the way we see.

dhw: I accept totally that if God exists, he would have chosen what we see: millions and millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders coming and going for millions and millions of years, and eventually different forms of humans ultimately leading to one species of human. That does not explain why, if he is all-powerful and had only one purpose from the very beginning (H. sapiens), he would have directly designed all those extinct life forms etc. that had nothing to do with humans. So maybe H. sapiens was not his only purpose from the beginning, or maybe if H. sapiens was his purpose from the beginning, everything that preceded humans was part of a great experiment, or maybe the idea for humans only came late on in his thinking.

DAVID: All you have done again is assume humanizing views of what God might have been thinking as He employed evolution to create what He wanted to create.

dhw: Do please drop this silly objection to any theory that “humanizes” God. Nobody knows God’s thoughts, but there is no reason to oppose your own suggestion that he probably has thought patterns similar to our own.

It is not silly. We have totally different version of God's personality. Your god clearly pursues human thinking,


DAVID: In the bold you directly contradict the beginning of your paragraph, in that you don't accept humans as his prime purpose. Fine. On that we will continuously disagree, as I accept Adler's detailed arguments and you refuse to consider them.

dhw: As usual, you dodge the fact that I have offered you two possible explanations of evolution in which God’s prime purpose IS humans. But as above, you reject these as “humanizing”.

They are.


dhw: [..]I propose a variety of explanations for the variety of organisms that preceded H. sapiens. You have accepted that all of them are logical, but you are unable to find any connection between the vast variety of pre-human organisms plus their econiches and your proposal that he only wanted one plus its econiches.

DAVID: This fully humanizing discussion of your version of God does not recognize the whole of history. It dwells insufficiently by concentrating solely on life's evolution. Let's start in the beginning. What is your version of why God created the universe? Purpose present or not? Just experimenting? Does He know what He is about? I fully expect your usual humanized unpurposed God.

dhw: And yet again you try to dodge the issue of the disconnection in your theory of evolution! Your questions have been answered umpteen times. If God exists, then of course he had a purpose for creating the universe and life. We are in agreement. Our only disagreement concerns what his purpose was, and how he fulfilled it, so of course we focus on life’s evolution! For some reason, you limit his purpose to the creation of H. sapiens, but you refuse to tell us what was his purpose in creating H. sapiens. And you cannot tell us why, if his only purpose was H. sapiens, he directly created 3.X billion years’ worth of non-humans etc.

My same old answer: God is in charge of the creation of reality. Evolution produced humans, the most unexpected, unusual result as outlined by Adler.

dhw: I offer you various hypotheses – all of which you recognize as logical – which allow for H. sapiens as a prime purpose, or which offer a different purpose, or which offer different interpretations of God’s powers (maybe he experiments, maybe he learns).

All humanizing hypotheses. My God knows exactly what He is doing. No need to learn or experiment.

dhw: But you cling to the only hypothesis which you yourself find inexplicable: that an all-powerful God with a single purpose (H. sapiens) directly designs millions of extinct non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. before directly designing various non-sapiens before directly designing sapiens, the only thing he wanted to design (apart from sapiens’ econiches). Please, either find a logical connection or admit (once more) that there isn't one, and then we can stop going round in circles.

My God is not your god. That is why the argument is in circles. We are not arguing about the same God. My God has the right to chose to evolve humans from bacteria. Not 'inexplicable' because I have no need to explain it. It is your problem, not mine.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, June 16, 2020, 11:40 (19 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I accept totally that if God exists, he would have chosen what we see: millions and millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders coming and going for millions and millions of years, and eventually different forms of humans ultimately leading to one species of human. That does not explain why, if he is all-powerful and had only one purpose from the very beginning (H. sapiens), he would have directly designed all those extinct life forms etc. that had nothing to do with humans. So maybe H. sapiens was not his only purpose from the beginning, or maybe if H. sapiens was his purpose from the beginning, everything that preceded humans was part of a great experiment, or maybe the idea for humans only came late on in his thinking.

DAVID: All you have done again is assume humanizing views of what God might have been thinking as He employed evolution to create what He wanted to create.

dhw: Do please drop this silly objection to any theory that “humanizes” God. Nobody knows God’s thoughts, but there is no reason to oppose your own suggestion that he probably has thought patterns similar to our own.

DAVID: It is not silly. We have totally different version of God's personality. Your god clearly pursues human thinking.

I offer different versions. You offer only one, which leads to the illogicality of the bolded theory above. Since we cannot know your God’s personality, how can we exclude the possibility that the creator has certain thought patterns that are similar to those of his creation? You said the same yourself, though now you wish you hadn’t!

DAVID: In the bold you directly contradict the beginning of your paragraph, in that you don't accept humans as his prime purpose. Fine. On that we will continuously disagree, as I accept Adler's detailed arguments and you refuse to consider them.

dhw: As usual, you dodge the fact that I have offered you two possible explanations of evolution in which God’s prime purpose IS humans. But as above, you reject these as “humanizing”.

DAVID: They are.

You were complaining that I didn’t accept humans as God’s prime purpose. I have given you two explanations which DO accept this premise. More dodging!

dhw: If God exists, then of course he had a purpose for creating the universe and life. We are in agreement. Our only disagreement concerns what his purpose was, and how he fulfilled it, so of course we focus on life’s evolution! For some reason, you limit his purpose to the creation of H. sapiens, but you refuse to tell us what was his purpose in creating H. sapiens. And you cannot tell us why, if his only purpose was H. sapiens, he directly created 3.X billion years’ worth of non-humans etc.

DAVID: My same old answer: God is in charge of the creation of reality. Evolution produced humans, the most unexpected, unusual result as outlined by Adler.

Fine. But you keep telling us that H. sapiens was his one and only purpose, so why did he spend 3.X billion years designing anything but the only thing he wanted to design?

dhw: I offer you various hypotheses – all of which you recognize as logical – which allow for H. sapiens as a prime purpose, or which offer a different purpose, or which offer different interpretations of God’s powers (maybe he experiments, maybe he learns).

DAVID: All humanizing hypotheses. My God knows exactly what He is doing. No need to learn or experiment.

A) How do you know? B) Why can't you answer my question?

dhw: Please, either find a logical connection or admit (once more) that there isn't one, and then we can stop going round in circles.

DAVID: My God is not your god. That is why the argument is in circles. We are not arguing about the same God. My God has the right to chose to evolve humans from bacteria. Not 'inexplicable' because I have no need to explain it. It is your problem, not mine.

You know very well that it is not a question of God’s rights but of finding a coherent explanation for the history of evolution. But you are right. I have asked you to provide a link between your different fixed beliefs. You clearly cannot do so, but there is no need for you to answer. I simply shouldn’t question your fixed beliefs.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 16, 2020, 20:14 (18 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I accept totally that if God exists, he would have chosen what we see: millions and millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders coming and going for millions and millions of years, and eventually different forms of humans ultimately leading to one species of human. That does not explain why, if he is all-powerful and had only one purpose from the very beginning (H. sapiens), he would have directly designed all those extinct life forms etc. that had nothing to do with humans. So maybe H. sapiens was not his only purpose from the beginning, or maybe if H. sapiens was his purpose from the beginning, everything that preceded humans was part of a great experiment, or maybe the idea for humans only came late on in his thinking.

DAVID: We have totally different version of God's personality. Your god clearly pursues human thinking.

dhw: I offer different versions. You offer only one, which leads to the illogicality of the bolded theory above. Since we cannot know your God’s personality, how can we exclude the possibility that the creator has certain thought patterns that are similar to those of his creation? You said the same yourself, though now you wish you hadn’t!

Illogical only to you. My purposeful God uses the process of evolution in each stage from the Big Bang on, enumerated many times previously.


dhw: If God exists, then of course he had a purpose for creating the universe and life. We are in agreement. Our only disagreement concerns what his purpose was, and how he fulfilled it, so of course we focus on life’s evolution! For some reason, you limit his purpose to the creation of H. sapiens, but you refuse to tell us what was his purpose in creating H. sapiens. And you cannot tell us why, if his only purpose was H. sapiens, he directly created 3.X billion years’ worth of non-humans etc.

DAVID: My same old answer: God is in charge of the creation of reality. Evolution produced humans, the most unexpected, unusual result as outlined by Adler.

dhw: Fine. But you keep telling us that H. sapiens was his one and only purpose, so why did he spend 3.X billion years designing anything but the only thing he wanted to design?

As usual because humans were the end goal of the evolutionary process He prefers to use, as noted above.


dhw: I offer you various hypotheses – all of which you recognize as logical – which allow for H. sapiens as a prime purpose, or which offer a different purpose, or which offer different interpretations of God’s powers (maybe he experiments, maybe he learns).

DAVID: All humanizing hypotheses. My God knows exactly what He is doing. No need to learn or experiment.

dhw: A) How do you know? B) Why can't you answer my question?

As below, because you cannot accept the God I believe exists.


dhw: Please, either find a logical connection or admit (once more) that there isn't one, and then we can stop going round in circles.

DAVID: My God is not your god. That is why the argument is in circles. We are not arguing about the same God. My God has the right to chose to evolve humans from bacteria. Not 'inexplicable' because I have no need to explain it. It is your problem, not mine.

dhw: You know very well that it is not a question of God’s rights but of finding a coherent explanation for the history of evolution. But you are right. I have asked you to provide a link between your different fixed beliefs. You clearly cannot do so, but there is no need for you to answer. I simply shouldn’t question your fixed beliefs.

Your non-acceptance of God leads you to incoherent thoughts about my view of God. It seems that you can only think of Him as having human problems in running evolution without a direct purpose, so He experiments or changes his mind in mid stream with humans a late thought.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, June 17, 2020, 11:56 (18 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I accept totally that if God exists, he would have chosen what we see: millions and millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders coming and going for millions and millions of years, and eventually different forms of humans ultimately leading to one species of human. That does not explain why, if he is all-powerful and had only one purpose from the very beginning (H. sapiens), he would have directly designed all those extinct life forms etc. that had nothing to do with humans. So maybe H. sapiens was not his only purpose from the beginning, or maybe if H. sapiens was his purpose from the beginning, everything that preceded humans was part of a great experiment, or maybe the idea for humans only came late on in his thinking.

DAVID: We have totally different version of God's personality. Your god clearly pursues human thinking.

dhw: I offer different versions. You offer only one, which leads to the illogicality of the bolded theory above. Since we cannot know your God’s personality, how can we exclude the possibility that the creator has certain thought patterns that are similar to those of his creation? You said the same yourself, though now you wish you hadn’t!

DAVID: Illogical only to you. My purposeful God uses the process of evolution in each stage from the Big Bang on, enumerated many times previously.

Yes, he uses evolution. What is not logical is that he uses evolution to produce millions of now extinct life forms etc. although his one and only purpose is to produce H. sapiens! Please stop dodging.

DAVID: (under “congenital defects”) Or His tight control allowed the mistakes to happen because He anticipated our giant brain would solve the problems that appeared!

dhw: As usual, you seem to think life began with humans. And I really don’t see how “allowing mistakes to happen” ties in with tight control – but I’m not going to quarrel with your proposal that that he might not have tightly controlled evolution and might have “let it go on purposely”. That is one of the various explanations I have offered for the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution.

DAVID: It is easiest to discuss our problems which we know as current events. You are right the history is higgledy-piggledy, but I see purpose in creating the necessary econiches and your god is usually not that purposeful.

My version of God is that he was always purposeful. You cannot tell me the purpose of creating econiches for 3.X million years’ worth of extinct non-human life forms if his one and only purpose was to create humans and their econiches. And I keep offering you different hypotheses that link possible purposes with life’s history, and I even offer you a possible purpose for the creation of H. sapiens. What is the point of your constantly saying how purposeful your God is if you can’t tell us what that purpose might be?

DAVID: […] All we know is that there are biological errors in any living system operating at such high speed, and controls designed into it cannot stop everyone of them. That leaves us with: God did the best He could, and any better is impossible considering the necessary complexity of living organisms. I'll accept that.

dhw: Well, if you can accept that God did the best he could but he couldn’t avoid making mistakes (how extraordinarily human of him), I don’t see why you can’t accept the possibility that life’s bush was the product of his experiments, or H. sapiens came late on in his thinking. Why is that more “human” than making mistakes?

DAVID: I didn't say the biological errors were God's mistakes, but implied it is probably impossible for a high speed biochemical system to always be perfect. God cannot achieve that result which requires perfect molecular reactions at all times.

Since your God is supposed to have created absolutely everything from scratch, how can errors not be his? Once again, why is this fallibility less “humanizing” than experimentation, or having new ideas as he goes along?
[…]
dhw: Please, either find a logical connection or admit (once more) that there isn't one, and then we can stop going round in circles.

DAVID: Your non-acceptance of God leads you to incoherent thoughts about my view of God. It seems that you can only think of Him as having human problems in running evolution without a direct purpose, so He experiments or changes his mind in mid stream with humans a late thought.

Again, you dodge the issue of the missing link between the purpose you impose on your God and the history of life. My agnosticism is irrelevant. The object of this forum is to look for explanations of life that make sense, which is why we constantly test all the explanations on offer, as I keep doing. You have accepted that all my hypotheses logically link God’s possible purpose with life’s history. Yours doesn’t. But of course you have every right to believe what you want to believe.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 17, 2020, 18:29 (18 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Illogical only to you. My purposeful God uses the process of evolution in each stage from the Big Bang on, enumerated many times previously.

dhw: Yes, he uses evolution. What is not logical is that he uses evolution to produce millions of now extinct life forms etc. although his one and only purpose is to produce H. sapiens! Please stop dodging.

It is your dodge, not mine. If He uses evolution, as you agree, then the history of evolution is the evidence you should accept. Yet inexplicably you don't. Weird reasoning.


DAVID: It is easiest to discuss our problems which we know as current events. You are right the history is higgledy-piggledy, but I see purpose in creating the necessary econiches and your god is usually not that purposeful.

dhw: My version of God is that he was always purposeful. You cannot tell me the purpose of creating econiches for 3.X million years’ worth of extinct non-human life forms if his one and only purpose was to create humans and their econiches. And I keep offering you different hypotheses that link possible purposes with life’s history, and I even offer you a possible purpose for the creation of H. sapiens. What is the point of your constantly saying how purposeful your God is if you can’t tell us what that purpose might be?

Another bolded non-sequitur. His ultimate goal and purpose is humans, as always stated.


DAVID: I didn't say the biological errors were God's mistakes, but implied it is probably impossible for a high speed biochemical system to always be perfect. God cannot achieve that result which requires perfect molecular reactions at all times.

dhw: Since your God is supposed to have created absolutely everything from scratch, how can errors not be his? Once again, why is this fallibility less “humanizing” than experimentation, or having new ideas as he goes along?

The errors are due to the high speed molecules making mistakes, not God's mistakes. Please note living biochemistry has many mistake screening backups in place, designed by God who knew mistakes would happen.

[…]
dhw: Please, either find a logical connection or admit (once more) that there isn't one, and then we can stop going round in circles.

DAVID: Your non-acceptance of God leads you to incoherent thoughts about my view of God. It seems that you can only think of Him as having human problems in running evolution without a direct purpose, so He experiments or changes his mind in mid stream with humans a late thought.

dhw: Again, you dodge the issue of the missing link between the purpose you impose on your God and the history of life. My agnosticism is irrelevant. The object of this forum is to look for explanations of life that make sense, which is why we constantly test all the explanations on offer, as I keep doing. You have accepted that all my hypotheses logically link God’s possible purpose with life’s history. Yours doesn’t. But of course you have every right to believe what you want to believe.

My theory of God running evolution is the acceptance of a need for a designer. I've accepted your reasoning by describing it as humanized reasoning imposed on God without evidence. You've constantly agreed God theoretically ran evolution, and the constantly refuse to accept historical evidence from what we know of evolution itself. Humans were the endpoint of that history, weren't they? You keep asking why God didn't bring them in earlier. He didn't. Accept that, because it is true. Purpose can be long term, without immediate satisfaction. Again what you want from God is a humanized expectation.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, June 18, 2020, 11:12 (17 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My purposeful God uses the process of evolution in each stage from the Big Bang on, enumerated many times previously.

dhw: Yes, he uses evolution. What is not logical is that he uses evolution to produce millions of now extinct life forms etc. although his one and only purpose is to produce H. sapiens! Please stop dodging.

DAVID: It is your dodge, not mine. If He uses evolution, as you agree, then the history of evolution is the evidence you should accept. Yet inexplicably you don't. Weird reasoning.

And the history of evolution shows us 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct non-human life forms etc., which you constantly dodge because you cannot explain why your all-powerful God would have directly designed them although the only thing he wanted to directly design was us.

DAVID: It is easiest to discuss our problems which we know as current events. You are right the history is higgledy-piggledy, but I see purpose in creating the necessary econiches and your god is usually not that purposeful.

dhw: […] What is the point of your constantly saying how purposeful your God is if you can’t tell us what that purpose might be?

DAVID: Another bolded non-sequitur. His ultimate goal and purpose is humans, as always stated.

You cannot tell us the purpose of the 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct non-human life forms, and you refuse to tell us the purpose of your God’s creation of humans. I offer you a clear purpose for both. It is hardly a non sequitur to ask what your purposeful God’s purpose might have been for two of the key factors of life’s history.

DAVID: I didn't say the biological errors were God's mistakes, but implied it is probably impossible for a high speed biochemical system to always be perfect. God cannot achieve that result which requires perfect molecular reactions at all times.

dhw: Since your God is supposed to have created absolutely everything from scratch, how can errors not be his? Once again, why is this fallibility less “humanizing” than experimentation, or having new ideas as he goes along?

DAVID: The errors are due to the high speed molecules making mistakes, not God's mistakes. Please note living biochemistry has many mistake screening backups in place, designed by God who knew mistakes would happen.

The system God invented from scratch makes mistakes. But God himself doesn’t make mistakes. He just knew that the system he had created from scratch would make mistakes. And this is not “humanizing”, whereas a God who experiments or who has new ideas as he goes along is impossible, because God always knows exactly what he’s doing and is always in control.
[…]
dhw: Please, either find a logical connection or admit (once more) that there isn't one, and then we can stop going round in circles.
[…]
DAVID: My theory of God running evolution is the acceptance of a need for a designer. I've accepted your reasoning by describing it as humanized reasoning imposed on God without evidence. You've constantly agreed God theoretically ran evolution, and the constantly refuse to accept historical evidence from what we know of evolution itself.

What we know includes the 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms etc. which you refuse to include in all your arguments. There is no “evidence” to prove any of the theories, including your own.

DAVID: Humans were the endpoint of that history, weren't they? You keep asking why God didn't bring them in earlier. He didn't. Accept that, because it is true. Purpose can be long term, without immediate satisfaction. Again what you want from God is a humanized expectation.

I do not keep asking why he didn’t bring them in earlier! I keep asking why he directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms if his only purpose was to directly design H. sapiens, and he could have done so any way he wished! When asking this question, I am not wanting anything from God. I am wanting your explanation for a part of your theory that has no coherence. My alternative, logical explanations cover different interpretations of life’s history coupled with different interpretations of your God’s purpose. Whether these are humanized or not is irrelevant, since nobody can possibly know to what extent your God has thought patterns similar to our own.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 18, 2020, 19:22 (16 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is your dodge, not mine. If He uses evolution, as you agree, then the history of evolution is the evidence you should accept. Yet inexplicably you don't. Weird reasoning.

dhw: And the history of evolution shows us 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct non-human life forms etc., which you constantly dodge because you cannot explain why your all-powerful God would have directly designed them although the only thing he wanted to directly design was us.

No dodge, just following evolution's history, as God's choice of methodology, which you accept and then don't accept. The giant existing bush provides the food energy necessary for survival, all logical.


dhw: You cannot tell us the purpose of the 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct non-human life forms, and you refuse to tell us the purpose of your God’s creation of humans.

I can only guess at his purpose, as I have done many times in the past. You've quoted me!

DAVID: The errors are due to the high speed molecules making mistakes, not God's mistakes. Please note living biochemistry has many mistake screening backups in place, designed by God who knew mistakes would happen.

dhw: The system God invented from scratch makes mistakes. But God himself doesn’t make mistakes. He just knew that the system he had created from scratch would make mistakes. And this is not “humanizing”, whereas a God who experiments or who has new ideas as he goes along is impossible, because God always knows exactly what he’s doing and is always in control.

All I have said is God's control of mistakes has limits.

dhw: Please, either find a logical connection or admit (once more) that there isn't one, and then we can stop going round in circles.
[…]
DAVID: My theory of God running evolution is the acceptance of a need for a designer. I've accepted your reasoning by describing it as humanized reasoning imposed on God without evidence. You've constantly agreed God theoretically ran evolution, and the constantly refuse to accept historical evidence from what we know of evolution itself.

dhw: What we know includes the 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms etc. which you refuse to include in all your arguments. There is no “evidence” to prove any of the theories, including your own.

Absolute proof, which you always require, does not exist. Choice involves reason with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.


DAVID: Humans were the endpoint of that history, weren't they? You keep asking why God didn't bring them in earlier. He didn't. Accept that, because it is true. Purpose can be long term, without immediate satisfaction. Again what you want from God is a humanized expectation.

dhw: I do not keep asking why he didn’t bring them in earlier! I keep asking why he directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms if his only purpose was to directly design H. sapiens, and he could have done so any way he wished!

Once again, your version of God does not allow Him to make a choice of method.

dhw: When asking this question, I am not wanting anything from God. I am wanting your explanation for a part of your theory that has no coherence. My alternative, logical explanations cover different interpretations of life’s history coupled with different interpretations of your God’s purpose. Whether these are humanized or not is irrelevant, since nobody can possibly know to what extent your God has thought patterns similar to our own.

I agree with you. We cannot know God's exact thoughts, or His reasons for His purposes. I have my reasonable theory being careful not to apply any human reasoning to God's thoughts. It is an entirely coherent theory, because what I do is just look to what Adler and I see as his prime purpose, humans, whose arrival cannot be explained in any other way than God did it. Let me ask you, since you never offer an opinion, please explain why we are here, with both of us recognizing we evolved from apes.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, June 19, 2020, 10:42 (16 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It is your dodge, not mine. If He uses evolution, as you agree, then the history of evolution is the evidence you should accept. Yet inexplicably you don't. Weird reasoning.

dhw: And the history of evolution shows us 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct non-human life forms etc., which you constantly dodge because you cannot explain why your all-powerful God would have directly designed them although the only thing he wanted to directly design was us.

DAVID: No dodge, just following evolution's history, as God's choice of methodology, which you accept and then don't accept. The giant existing bush provides the food energy necessary for survival, all logical.

I accept that if God exists, he must have set up the mechanisms for evolution. All bushes, existing and no longer existing, provide energy. How does that explain the above bold? And you say you’re not dodging!

DAVID: The errors are due to the high speed molecules making mistakes, not God's mistakes. Please note living biochemistry has many mistake screening backups in place, designed by God who knew mistakes would happen.

dhw: The system God invented from scratch makes mistakes. But God himself doesn’t make mistakes. He just knew that the system he had created from scratch would make mistakes. And this is not “humanizing”, whereas a God who experiments or who has new ideas as he goes along is impossible, because God always knows exactly what he’s doing and is always in control.

DAVID: All I have said is God's control of mistakes has limits.

And you ignore your own belief that God created the whole system from scratch. If the system he invented contains mistakes, who is responsible for the mistakes? I only ask because until now you’ve always insisted your God is all-powerful, all-knowing, totally in control, and any theory which suggests the contrary is “humanizing”. But making mistakes is apparently not “humanizing”.

DAVID: I've accepted your reasoning by describing it as humanized reasoning imposed on God without evidence.

dhw: There is no “evidence” to prove any of the theories, including your own.
DAVID: Absolute proof, which you always require, does not exist. Choice involves reason with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is you who complain that my alternative “humanized” hypotheses are “without evidence”. Of course there is no absolute proof, and I do not require it. But I would love to know what evidence you have “beyond a reasonable doubt” for your belief that your God directly designed 3.x billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, and that he did so although his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens, which he could have done any way he chose.

DAVID: Once again, your version of God does not allow Him to make a choice of method.

I am not denying God’s right to do whatever he wanted! I am pointing out that YOUR version of his method to achieve YOUR version of his purpose makes no sense. And so you keep dodging the issue.

dhw: […] I am not wanting anything from God. I am wanting your explanation for a part of your theory that has no coherence. My alternative, logical explanations cover different interpretations of life’s history coupled with different interpretations of your God’s purpose. Whether these are humanized or not is irrelevant, since nobody can possibly know to what extent your God has thought patterns similar to our own.

DAVID: I agree with you. We cannot know God's exact thoughts, or His reasons for His purposes. I have my reasonable theory being careful not to apply any human reasoning to God's thoughts. It is an entirely coherent theory, because what I do is just look to what Adler and I see as his prime purpose, humans, whose arrival cannot be explained in any other way than God did it. Let me ask you, since you never offer an opinion, please explain why we are here, with both of us recognizing we evolved from apes.

A new dodge to avoid the incoherence of your theory! And if I answer, you can keep dodging by complaining that my answer “humanizes” God. Firstly, you cannot apply any sort of reasoning to your theory, whose parts are disconnected. Secondly, the complexity of all life forms, including humans, is such that you can and do argue that their arrival “cannot be explained in any other way than God did it”. The design argument is not confined to humans! And thirdly, over and over again I have offered a hypothesis - not an opinion, since I don’t even know if God exists – that if he does exist, he could have created life as a spectacle that he could watch with interest, humans offering by far the most interesting spectacle, with their vast variety of behaviours. But I have no objection to your own hypotheses, offered at different times: a painter enjoying his own paintings, wanting to have his works admired, wanting to have some sort of relationship, and one might add wanting to be worshipped, since that keeps cropping up in religious ceremonies. As for our evolving from apes, I do believe that is true. I don’t know what relevance it is supposed to have to our being God’s one and only purpose (you keep switching to “prime” purpose, but have never told us what other purposes he may have had).

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, June 19, 2020, 15:44 (16 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The errors are due to the high speed molecules making mistakes, not God's mistakes. Please note living biochemistry has many mistake screening backups in place, designed by God who knew mistakes would happen.

dhw: The system God invented from scratch makes mistakes. But God himself doesn’t make mistakes. He just knew that the system he had created from scratch would make mistakes. And this is not “humanizing”, whereas a God who experiments or who has new ideas as he goes along is impossible, because God always knows exactly what he’s doing and is always in control.

DAVID: All I have said is God's control of mistakes has limits.

dhw: And you ignore your own belief that God created the whole system from scratch. If the system he invented contains mistakes, who is responsible for the mistakes? I only ask because until now you’ve always insisted your God is all-powerful, all-knowing, totally in control, and any theory which suggests the contrary is “humanizing”. But making mistakes is apparently not “humanizing”.

The molecules follow rules of biochemistry. Please note the very high speed can induce errors, not God errors, but functional errors.

DAVID: Absolute proof, which you always require, does not exist. Choice involves reason with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

dhw: It is you who complain that my alternative “humanized” hypotheses are “without evidence”. Of course there is no absolute proof, and I do not require it. But I would love to know what evidence you have “beyond a reasonable doubt” for your belief that your God directly designed 3.x billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, and that he did so although his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens, which he could have done any way he chose.

You refuse to accept the history of evolution which I use to understand what God in-charge- of-history did.


DAVID: I agree with you. We cannot know God's exact thoughts, or His reasons for His purposes. I have my reasonable theory being careful not to apply any human reasoning to God's thoughts. It is an entirely coherent theory, because what I do is just look to what Adler and I see as his prime purpose, humans, whose arrival cannot be explained in any other way than God did it. Let me ask you, since you never offer an opinion, please explain why we are here, with both of us recognizing we evolved from apes.

dhw: A new dodge to avoid the incoherence of your theory! And if I answer, you can keep dodging by complaining that my answer “humanizes” God. Firstly, you cannot apply any sort of reasoning to your theory, whose parts are disconnected. Secondly, the complexity of all life forms, including humans, is such that you can and do argue that their arrival “cannot be explained in any other way than God did it”. The design argument is not confined to humans! And thirdly, over and over again I have offered a hypothesis - not an opinion, since I don’t even know if God exists – that if he does exist, he could have created life as a spectacle that he could watch with interest, humans offering by far the most interesting spectacle, with their vast variety of behaviours. But I have no objection to your own hypotheses, offered at different times: a painter enjoying his own paintings, wanting to have his works admired, wanting to have some sort of relationship, and one might add wanting to be worshipped, since that keeps cropping up in religious ceremonies. As for our evolving from apes, I do believe that is true. I don’t know what relevance it is supposed to have to our being God’s one and only purpose (you keep switching to “prime” purpose, but have never told us what other purposes he may have had).

Your dodge is to ignore the history of evolution. I accept God did it. It is not a dodge on my part to state God wanted to produce humans, and they arrived at the end of the history we know.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, June 20, 2020, 10:33 (15 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The errors are due to the high speed molecules making mistakes, not God's mistakes. Please note living biochemistry has many mistake screening backups in place, designed by God who knew mistakes would happen.

dhw: The system God invented from scratch makes mistakes. But God himself doesn’t make mistakes. He just knew that the system he had created from scratch would make mistakes. And this is not “humanizing”, whereas a God who experiments or who has new ideas as he goes along is impossible, because God always knows exactly what he’s doing and is always in control.

DAVID: All I have said is God's control of mistakes has limits.

dhw: And you ignore your own belief that God created the whole system from scratch. If the system he invented contains mistakes, who is responsible for the mistakes? I only ask because until now you’ve always insisted your God is all-powerful, all-knowing, totally in control, and any theory which suggests the contrary is “humanizing”. But making mistakes is apparently not “humanizing”.

DAVID: The molecules follow rules of biochemistry. Please note the very high speed can induce errors, not God errors, but functional errors.

If an inventor invents a system which contains functional errors, do you blame the system or the inventor? But please note: I have no trouble with the concept of a God who makes errors, or even with a God who deliberately builds errors into his inventions. I am merely pointing out that a God who makes errors is no less “human” than a God who experiments or who has new ideas as he goes along.

DAVID: Absolute proof, which you always require, does not exist. Choice involves reason with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

dhw: It is you who complain that my alternative “humanized” hypotheses are “without evidence”. Of course there is no absolute proof, and I do not require it. But I would love to know what evidence you have “beyond a reasonable doubt” for your belief that your God directly designed 3.x billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, and that he did so although his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens, which he could have done any way he chose.

DAVID: You refuse to accept the history of evolution which I use to understand what God in-charge- of-history did.
And later:
Your dodge is to ignore the history of evolution. I accept God did it. It is not a dodge on my part to state God wanted to produce humans, and they arrived at the end of the history we know.

For the umpteenth time, the history of evolution is the coming and going of millions of life forms, econiches etc., with humans arriving at the end of the history we know. If God exists, then God caused the history. You are on perfectly logical ground. What is not history but is personal interpretation of history is that 1) God is all-powerful and all-knowing and always in control; 2) God’s one and only purpose right from the start was to produce H. sapiens; 3) God directly designed millions of now extinct life forms, econiches etc., which have no conceivable relevance to the one and only life form you say he wanted to produce. The “dodge” is illustrated by your statements above, which manage to leave out all three of these fixed beliefs, and therefore leave out the insoluble problem of combining 1) and 2) with 3), because if 1) and 2) are true, you cannot explain why he would have done 3).

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 20, 2020, 19:38 (14 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: All I have said is God's control of mistakes has limits.

dhw: And you ignore your own belief that God created the whole system from scratch. If the system he invented contains mistakes, who is responsible for the mistakes? I only ask because until now you’ve always insisted your God is all-powerful, all-knowing, totally in control, and any theory which suggests the contrary is “humanizing”. But making mistakes is apparently not “humanizing”.

DAVID: The molecules follow rules of biochemistry. Please note the very high speed can induce errors, not God errors, but functional errors.

dhw: If an inventor invents a system which contains functional errors, do you blame the system or the inventor? But please note: I have no trouble with the concept of a God who makes errors, or even with a God who deliberately builds errors into his inventions. I am merely pointing out that a God who makes errors is no less “human” than a God who experiments or who has new ideas as he goes along.

God does not make the errors, rapidly reacting molecules do. The living body is not a rigid machine in any sense of the word. It can't be repaired like an auto. The biochemistry of life involves thousands of highly integrated molecular reactions. There are designed error corrections as in DNA production, but some are missed and become new mutations or congenital defects. I don't believe a perfect biological system can exist, considering all the multiple non-fixed moving parts in each and every reaction.


DAVID: Absolute proof, which you always require, does not exist. Choice involves reason with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

dhw: It is you who complain that my alternative “humanized” hypotheses are “without evidence”. Of course there is no absolute proof, and I do not require it. But I would love to know what evidence you have “beyond a reasonable doubt” for your belief that your God directly designed 3.x billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, and that he did so although his one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens, which he could have done any way he chose.

DAVID: You refuse to accept the history of evolution which I use to understand what God in-charge- of-history did.
And later:
Your dodge is to ignore the history of evolution. I accept God did it. It is not a dodge on my part to state God wanted to produce humans, and they arrived at the end of the history we know.

dhw: For the umpteenth time, the history of evolution is the coming and going of millions of life forms, econiches etc., with humans arriving at the end of the history we know. If God exists, then God caused the history. You are on perfectly logical ground. What is not history but is personal interpretation of history is that 1) God is all-powerful and all-knowing and always in control; 2) God’s one and only purpose right from the start was to produce H. sapiens; 3) God directly designed millions of now extinct life forms, econiches etc., which have no conceivable relevance to the one and only life form you say he wanted to produce. The “dodge” is illustrated by your statements above, which manage to leave out all three of these fixed beliefs, and therefore leave out the insoluble problem of combining 1) and 2) with 3), because if 1) and 2) are true, you cannot explain why he would have done 3).

It is your problem entirely. I accept God, you don't, and you have no reason to follow my logic to my end point. Don't try if you cannot. The bold is my belief, and your three objections are all yours because you do not accept the bold. Is there any more to discuss on this point?

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, June 21, 2020, 10:17 (14 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The molecules follow rules of biochemistry. Please note the very high speed can induce errors, not God errors, but functional errors.

dhw: If an inventor invents a system which contains functional errors, do you blame the system or the inventor? But please note: I have no trouble with the concept of a God who makes errors, or even with a God who deliberately builds errors into his inventions. I am merely pointing out that a God who makes errors is no less “human” than a God who experiments or who has new ideas as he goes along.

DAVID: God does not make the errors, rapidly reacting molecules do. The living body is not a rigid machine in any sense of the word. It can't be repaired like an auto. The biochemistry of life involves thousands of highly integrated molecular reactions. There are designed error corrections as in DNA production, but some are missed and become new mutations or congenital defects. I don't believe a perfect biological system can exist, considering all the multiple non-fixed moving parts in each and every reaction.

I am fully and sometimes painfully aware of the fact that the living body contains countless parts that can go wrong! And I am perfectly happy with your belief that your all-powerful God was incapable of making a body that didn’t go wrong. I am simply pointing out that your interpretation limits his powers, and I don’t understand why you regard this is less “humanizing” than a God who experiments and/or learns as he goes along.

dhw: For the umpteenth time, the history of evolution is the coming and going of millions of life forms, econiches etc., with humans arriving at the end of the history we know. If God exists, then God caused the history. You are on perfectly logical ground. What is not history but is personal interpretation of history is that 1) God is all-powerful and all-knowing and always in control; 2) God’s one and only purpose right from the start was to produce H. sapiens; 3) God directly designed millions of now extinct life forms, econiches etc., which have no conceivable relevance to the one and only life form you say he wanted to produce. The “dodge” is illustrated by your statements above, which manage to leave out all three of these fixed beliefs, and therefore leave out the insoluble problem of combining 1) and 2) with 3), because if 1) and 2) are true, you cannot explain why he would have done 3).

DAVID:It is your problem entirely. I accept God, you don't, and you have no reason to follow my logic to my end point. Don't try if you cannot. The bold is my belief, and your three objections are all yours because you do not accept the bold. Is there any more to discuss on this point?

I have accepted your bolded belief, but your bolded belief did not include the three beliefs which are subjective interpretations of your God’s nature, purpose and method. My agnosticism is irrelevant, and I have offered alternative theistic explanations of evolution which you accept as logical. You reject these, and cling to the three subjective beliefs although you cannot find a logical link between the first two and the third. THAT, and not the bold, is the subject under discussion.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 21, 2020, 15:30 (14 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The molecules follow rules of biochemistry. Please note the very high speed can induce errors, not God errors, but functional errors.

dhw: If an inventor invents a system which contains functional errors, do you blame the system or the inventor? But please note: I have no trouble with the concept of a God who makes errors, or even with a God who deliberately builds errors into his inventions. I am merely pointing out that a God who makes errors is no less “human” than a God who experiments or who has new ideas as he goes along.

DAVID: God does not make the errors, rapidly reacting molecules do. The living body is not a rigid machine in any sense of the word. It can't be repaired like an auto. The biochemistry of life involves thousands of highly integrated molecular reactions. There are designed error corrections as in DNA production, but some are missed and become new mutations or congenital defects. I don't believe a perfect biological system can exist, considering all the multiple non-fixed moving parts in each and every reaction.

dhw: nI am fully and sometimes painfully aware of the fact that the living body contains countless parts that can go wrong! And I am perfectly happy with your belief that your all-powerful God was incapable of making a body that didn’t go wrong. I am simply pointing out that your interpretation limits his powers, and I don’t understand why you regard this is less “humanizing” than a God who experiments and/or learns as he goes along.

What you are saying is that if God can't make perfect errorless biochemistry of life, He is imperfect and therefore human. But there is no errorless biochemistry. With all He has created perfectly He is not human and has no humanized thinking as you describe, as in experimenting .


dhw: For the umpteenth time, the history of evolution is the coming and going of millions of life forms, econiches etc., with humans arriving at the end of the history we know. If God exists, then God caused the history. You are on perfectly logical ground. What is not history but is personal interpretation of history is that 1) God is all-powerful and all-knowing and always in control; 2) God’s one and only purpose right from the start was to produce H. sapiens; 3) God directly designed millions of now extinct life forms, econiches etc., which have no conceivable relevance to the one and only life form you say he wanted to produce. The “dodge” is illustrated by your statements above, which manage to leave out all three of these fixed beliefs, and therefore leave out the insoluble problem of combining 1) and 2) with 3), because if 1) and 2) are true, you cannot explain why he would have done 3).

DAVID:It is your problem entirely. I accept God, you don't, and you have no reason to follow my logic to my end point. Don't try if you cannot. The bold is my belief, and your three objections are all yours because you do not accept the bold. Is there any more to discuss on this point?

dhw: I have accepted your bolded belief, but your bolded belief did not include the three beliefs which are subjective interpretations of your God’s nature, purpose and method. My agnosticism is irrelevant, and I have offered alternative theistic explanations of evolution which you accept as logical. You reject these, and cling to the three subjective beliefs although you cannot find a logical link between the first two and the third. THAT, and not the bold, is the subject under discussion.

Your same illogical objection. You constantly disallow God's right to choose a method of evolution. We stay in full disagreement with no resolution.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, June 22, 2020, 11:00 (13 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I am fully and sometimes painfully aware of the fact that the living body contains countless parts that can go wrong! And I am perfectly happy with your belief that your all-powerful God was incapable of making a body that didn’t go wrong. I am simply pointing out that your interpretation limits his powers, and I don’t understand why you regard this is less “humanizing” than a God who experiments and/or learns as he goes along.

DAVID: What you are saying is that if God can't make perfect errorless biochemistry of life, He is imperfect and therefore human. But there is no errorless biochemistry. With all He has created perfectly He is not human and has no humanized thinking as you describe, as in experimenting.

He has “created perfectly” an error-strewn system! That’s a new definition of perfection! If God exists, he created biochemistry. We know that there is no errorless biochemistry, so God created biochemistry with errors. If you say he was incapable of creating errorless biochemistry, you are limiting his powers. Nobody in his right mind would claim that God is human, but you have absolutely no inside knowledge enabling you to claim that he does not have some thought patterns similar to ours – as you stated categorically and keep struggling to forget – or that he has not been experimenting, or learning as he goes along. These theistic hypotheses are no more subjective, speculative and unprovable than your three fixed beliefs listed below.

dhw: For the umpteenth time, the history of evolution is the coming and going of millions of life forms, econiches etc., with humans arriving at the end of the history we know. If God exists, then God caused the history. You are on perfectly logical ground. What is not history but is personal interpretation of history is that 1) God is all-powerful and all-knowing and always in control; 2) God’s one and only purpose right from the start was to produce H. sapiens; 3) God directly designed millions of now extinct life forms, econiches etc., which have no conceivable relevance to the one and only life form you say he wanted to produce. The “dodge” is illustrated by your statements above, which manage to leave out all three of these fixed beliefs, and therefore leave out the insoluble problem of combining 1) and 2) with 3), because if 1) and 2) are true, you cannot explain why he would have done 3).

DAVID:It is your problem entirely. I accept God, you don't, and you have no reason to follow my logic to my end point. Don't try if you cannot. The bold is my belief, and your three objections are all yours because you do not accept the bold. Is there any more to discuss on this point?
And DAVID: You constantly disallow God's right to choose a method of evolution. We stay in full disagreement with no resolution.

I have accepted the bolded belief, and since I believe evolution happened, it would be absurd to disallow your God’s right to choose a method of evolution! That is not the subject in dispute, and my agnosticism is totally irrelevant. I have pointed out that your three fixed beliefs create an unanswerable problem of logic, whereas you agree that all my alternative theistic explanations of your God’s method of evolution are perfectly logical. But they entail the sacrifice of one or other of your fixed beliefs, none of which are grounded in the history. Even if you reject my alternatives on the grounds that they entail human patterns of thought similar to ours – although you agree that your God probably has human patterns of thought similar to ours – that is still no solution to the logical problem (still being dodged) posed by the three irreconcilable hypotheses on which your theory of evolution is based.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, June 22, 2020, 18:07 (13 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What you are saying is that if God can't make perfect errorless biochemistry of life, He is imperfect and therefore human. But there is no errorless biochemistry. With all He has created perfectly He is not human and has no humanized thinking as you describe, as in experimenting.

dhw: He has “created perfectly” an error-strewn system! That’s a new definition of perfection! If God exists, he created biochemistry. We know that there is no errorless biochemistry, so God created biochemistry with errors. If you say he was incapable of creating errorless biochemistry, you are limiting his powers.

No I'm not. What I have stated is living biochemistry cannot be errorless and even God can't do it. Errors are not built in. They are chance unfortunate events from high speed molecular reactions. What God has done in anticipation is corrective measures are in place, some of which work and some don't or can't.

dhw: For the umpteenth time, the history of evolution is the coming and going of millions of life forms, econiches etc., with humans arriving at the end of the history we know. If God exists, then God caused the history. You are on perfectly logical ground. What is not history but is personal interpretation of history is that 1) God is all-powerful and all-knowing and always in control; 2) God’s one and only purpose right from the start was to produce H. sapiens; 3) God directly designed millions of now extinct life forms, econiches etc., which have no conceivable relevance to the one and only life form you say he wanted to produce. The “dodge” is illustrated by your statements above, which manage to leave out all three of these fixed beliefs, and therefore leave out the insoluble problem of combining 1) and 2) with 3), because if 1) and 2) are true, you cannot explain why he would have done 3).

DAVID:It is your problem entirely. I accept God, you don't, and you have no reason to follow my logic to my end point. Don't try if you cannot. The bold is my belief, and your three objections are all yours because you do not accept the bold. Is there any more to discuss on this point?

And DAVID: You constantly disallow God's right to choose a method of evolution. We stay in full disagreement with no resolution.

dhw: I have accepted the bolded belief, and since I believe evolution happened, it would be absurd to disallow your God’s right to choose a method of evolution! That is not the subject in dispute, and my agnosticism is totally irrelevant. I have pointed out that your three fixed beliefs create an unanswerable problem of logic, whereas you agree that all my alternative theistic explanations of your God’s method of evolution are perfectly logical.

Logical only at a human level of thought!

dhw: But they entail the sacrifice of one or other of your fixed beliefs, none of which are grounded in the history. Even if you reject my alternatives on the grounds that they entail human patterns of thought similar to ours – although you agree that your God probably has human patterns of thought similar to ours – that is still no solution to the logical problem (still being dodged) posed by the three irreconcilable hypotheses on which your theory of evolution is based.

Only illogical to you. I fully believe God's final purpose was the production of humans as proven for me by "The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes". That answers objection (2). (1) is a result of observation of all God has created from the universe to us. Your (3) makes no sense since you agree God created all history and all of evolutionary history is relevant to producing humans\ by evolution, a method you agree He might have chosen.

As before, there is no resolution to this debate as you are totally illogical about my logical reasoning following my acceptance that God exists, has humans as His primary purpose and is in charge. What you are doing is calling my faith illogical.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, June 23, 2020, 13:31 (12 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What you are saying is that if God can't make perfect errorless biochemistry of life, He is imperfect and therefore human. But there is no errorless biochemistry. With all He has created perfectly He is not human and has no humanized thinking as you describe, as in experimenting.

dhw: He has “created perfectly” an error-strewn system! That’s a new definition of perfection! If God exists, he created biochemistry. We know that there is no errorless biochemistry, so God created biochemistry with errors. If you say he was incapable of creating errorless biochemistry, you are limiting his powers.

DAVID: No I'm not. What I have stated is living biochemistry cannot be errorless and even God can't do it. Errors are not built in. They are chance unfortunate events from high speed molecular reactions. What God has done in anticipation is corrective measures are in place, some of which work and some don't or can't.

“Even God can’t do it” and some of his corrective measures don’t work, but you are not limiting God’s powers!

dhw: If God exists, then God caused the history. You are on perfectly logical ground. What is not history but is personal interpretation of history is that 1) God is all-powerful and all-knowing and always in control; 2) God’s one and only purpose right from the start was to produce H. sapiens; 3) God directly designed millions of now extinct life forms, econiches etc., which have no conceivable relevance to the one and only life form you say he wanted to produce. The “dodge” is illustrated by your statements above, which manage to leave out all three of these fixed beliefs, and therefore leave out the insoluble problem of combining 1) and 2) with 3), because if 1) and 2) are true, you cannot explain why he would have done 3). […]

dhw: I have pointed out that your three fixed beliefs create an unanswerable problem of logic, whereas you agree that all my alternative theistic explanations of your God’s method of evolution are perfectly logical.

DAVID: Logical only at a human level of thought!

Are you claiming that you think at a divine level?

DAVID: Only illogical to you. I fully believe God's final purpose was the production of humans as proven for me by "The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes". That answers objection (2).

(2) is not an objection! It is your belief, and it is NOT illogical in itself.

DAVID: (1) is a result of observation of all God has created from the universe to us.

Again, not illogical in itself.

DAVID: Your (3) makes no sense since you agree God created all history and all of evolutionary history is relevant to producing humans\ by evolution, a method you agree He might have chosen.

It is your (3) not mine, and what emphatically does NOT make sense is your claim that the direct design of 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, econiches etc. is “relevant to producing humans”. Once more you are trying to gloss over the fact that no matter how feasible each of your three individual beliefs may appear, you cannot explain why your God would have chosen (3) if (1) and (2) are true.

DAVID: As before, there is no resolution to this debate as you are totally illogical about my logical reasoning following my acceptance that God exists, has humans as His primary purpose and is in charge. What you are doing is calling my faith illogical.

Yet again you have left out (3), which makes your interpretation of evolution illogical. Nothing to do with your faith. Once and for all, please tell us why you think your all-powerful God, who had only one purpose (H. sapiens), directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct non-human forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. before directly designing the only thing he wanted to design. If you can’t explain it, then please don’t pretend it is logical.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 23, 2020, 19:49 (11 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: No I'm not. What I have stated is living biochemistry cannot be errorless and even God can't do it. Errors are not built in. They are chance unfortunate events from high speed molecular reactions. What God has done in anticipation is corrective measures are in place, some of which work and some don't or can't.

dhw: “Even God can’t do it” and some of his corrective measures don’t work, but you are not limiting God’s powers!

In that sense He is limited, but it is the nature of the system.


dhw: If God exists, then God caused the history. You are on perfectly logical ground. What is not history but is personal interpretation of history is that 1) God is all-powerful and all-knowing and always in control; 2) God’s one and only purpose right from the start was to produce H. sapiens; 3) God directly designed millions of now extinct life forms, econiches etc., which have no conceivable relevance to the one and only life form you say he wanted to produce. The “dodge” is illustrated by your statements above, which manage to leave out all three of these fixed beliefs, and therefore leave out the insoluble problem of combining 1) and 2) with 3), because if 1) and 2) are true, you cannot explain why he would have done 3). […]

dhw: I have pointed out that your three fixed beliefs create an unanswerable problem of logic, whereas you agree that all my alternative theistic explanations of your God’s method of evolution are perfectly logical.

DAVID: Logical only at a human level of thought!

dhw: Are you claiming that you think at a divine level?

No I don't . You know full well I think your "God" thoughts are humanizing

DAVID: Your (3) makes no sense since you agree God created all history and all of evolutionary history is relevant to producing humans\ by evolution, a method you agree He might have chosen.

dhw: It is your (3) not mine, and what emphatically does NOT make sense is your claim that the direct design of 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms, econiches etc. is “relevant to producing humans”. Once more you are trying to gloss over the fact that no matter how feasible each of your three individual beliefs may appear, you cannot explain why your God would have chosen (3) if (1) and (2) are true.

DAVID: As before, there is no resolution to this debate as you are totally illogical about my logical reasoning following my acceptance that God exists, has humans as His primary purpose and is in charge. What you are doing is calling my faith illogical.

dhw: Yet again you have left out (3), which makes your interpretation of evolution illogical. Nothing to do with your faith. Once and for all, please tell us why you think your all-powerful God, who had only one purpose (H. sapiens), directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct non-human forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. before directly designing the only thing he wanted to design. If you can’t explain it, then please don’t pretend it is logical.

There it is. Your same disconnect. I cannot and do not know why God chose to evolve us!!! Your inference is constantly: why not direct creation? I have no idea why or why not. I cannot read his mind, and neither can you or anyone. God is in charge of all history, and that tells us what He decided to do. No more thought involved. I don't know why you are constantly puzzled about it.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, June 24, 2020, 08:40 (11 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What I have stated is living biochemistry cannot be errorless and even God can't do it. Errors are not built in. They are chance unfortunate events from high speed molecular reactions. What God has done in anticipation is corrective measures are in place, some of which work and some don't or can't.

dhw: “Even God can’t do it” and some of his corrective measures don’t work, but you are not limiting God’s powers!

DAVID: In that sense He is limited, but it is the nature of the system.

He created the system! And yes, if he can’t do something, that means he is limited in any “sense”.

dhw: I have pointed out that your three fixed beliefs create an unanswerable problem of logic, whereas you agree that all my alternative theistic explanations of your God’s method of evolution are perfectly logical.

DAVID: Logical only at a human level of thought!

dhw: Are you claiming that you think at a divine level?

DAVID: No I don't . You know full well I think your "God" thoughts are humanizing.

And you know full well that we cannot know your God’s nature, which means we cannot rule out the possibility (or even probability, as you once stated quite explicitly) that he has thought patterns similar to our own. In any case my “humanizing” is no defence of your illogicality.

dhw: Yet again you have left out (3), which makes your interpretation of evolution illogical. Nothing to do with your faith. Once and for all, please tell us why you think your all-powerful God, who had only one purpose (H. sapiens), directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct non-human forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. before directly designing the only thing he wanted to design. If you can’t explain it, then please don’t pretend it is logical.

DAVID: There it is. Your same disconnect. I cannot and do not know why God chose to evolve us!!! Your inference is constantly: why not direct creation? I have no idea why or why not. I cannot read his mind, and neither can you or anyone. God is in charge of all history, and that tells us what He decided to do. No more thought involved. I don't know why you are constantly puzzled about it.

It is your disconnect, not mine, and your comment is yet another evasion. Firstly, your idea of “evolution” is direct creation – you insist that he directly created every species, econiche and natural wonder in life’s history. Secondly, the question is not why he chose to “evolve” us, but why, despite his all-powerfulness, he chose to directly create 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human forms if his one and only purpose was to create us. But I accept your answer: you don’t know. In other words, you cannot follow the logic of your own theory. And so perhaps your theory is wrong, and perhaps you should not dismiss alternative theistic theories which even you admit ARE logical.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 24, 2020, 18:42 (11 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: In that sense He is limited, but it is the nature of the system.

dhw: He created the system! And yes, if he can’t do something, that means he is limited in any “sense”.

It is a system limit. He created the universe with fine tuning and it produced the Earth and allowed Him to create life on it. No mistakes here. Life is at such a complex level, He cannot stop independent reactions from occurring, because He is not in moment by moment control of the living processes He created. And high speed molecular reactions cannot be perfect.


DAVID: You know full well I think your "God" thoughts are humanizing.

dhw: And you know full well that we cannot know your God’s nature, which means we cannot rule out the possibility (or even probability, as you once stated quite explicitly) that he has thought patterns similar to our own. In any case my “humanizing” is no defence of your illogicality.

Your human views of God have nothing to do with my theory.


dhw: Yet again you have left out (3), which makes your interpretation of evolution illogical. Nothing to do with your faith. Once and for all, please tell us why you think your all-powerful God, who had only one purpose (H. sapiens), directly designed 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct non-human forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. before directly designing the only thing he wanted to design. If you can’t explain it, then please don’t pretend it is logical.

DAVID: There it is. Your same disconnect. I cannot and do not know why God chose to evolve us!!! Your inference is constantly: why not direct creation? I have no idea why or why not. I cannot read his mind, and neither can you or anyone. God is in charge of all history, and that tells us what He decided to do. No more thought involved. I don't know why you are constantly puzzled about it.

dhw: It is your disconnect, not mine, and your comment is yet another evasion. Firstly, your idea of “evolution” is direct creation – you insist that he directly created every species, econiche and natural wonder in life’s history. Secondly, the question is not why he chose to “evolve” us, but why, despite his all-powerfulness, he chose to directly create 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human forms if his one and only purpose was to create us.

Your disconnect is obvious here. Your total complaint is why not direct creation? Why bother with evolution? But evolution happened.

dhw: But I accept your answer: you don’t know. In other words, you cannot follow the logic of your own theory. And so perhaps your theory is wrong, and perhaps you should not dismiss alternative theistic theories which even you admit ARE logical.

There is no logic to develop. Just allow the history to guide us to the generalization, with God is charge, He chose to evolve us. Perfectly logical. And there is no reason for me to know why He made those choices, since as you accept, I cannot know. Thank you.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, June 25, 2020, 12:38 (10 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: In that sense He is limited, but it is the nature of the system.

dhw: He created the system! And yes, if he can’t do something, that means he is limited in any “sense”.

DAVID: It is a system limit. He created the universe with fine tuning and it produced the Earth and allowed Him to create life on it. No mistakes here. Life is at such a complex level, He cannot stop independent reactions from occurring, because He is not in moment by moment control of the living processes He created. And high speed molecular reactions cannot be perfect.

I love it. Thank you. From a God who was in total control, you have graduated to a God who “cannot stop independent reactions from occurring.” I suggest that for “cannot”, we substitute “does not want to”, and this would apply not only to what you call “errors” in the system, but also to all the “living processes he created” by way of evolution. The deliberate creation of mechanisms for "independent reactions" may indeed resolve many of the problems we have been discussing. This is a very welcome change of direction.

DAVID: You know full well I think your "God" thoughts are humanizing.

dhw: And you know full well that we cannot know your God’s nature, which means we cannot rule out the possibility (or even probability, as you once stated quite explicitly) that he has thought patterns similar to our own. In any case my “humanizing” is no defence of your illogicality.

DAVID: Your human views of God have nothing to do with my theory.

True. Those are my logical alternatives to your illogical theory, and your dismissal of them is in itself illogical.

dhw: Firstly, your idea of “evolution” is direct creation – you insist that he directly created every species, econiche and natural wonder in life’s history. Secondly, the question is not why he chose to “evolve” us, but why, despite his all-powerfulness, he chose to directly create 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human forms if his one and only purpose was to create us.

DAVID: Your disconnect is obvious here. Your total complaint is why not direct creation? Why bother with evolution? But evolution happened.

It is you who equate evolution with direct creation. I am perfectly happy with the argument that if God exists, he used the method of evolution to produce every life form including humans. I am not happy with the argument that he directly created every life form including humans, and he did so because he only wanted to create humans.

dhw: But I accept your answer: you don’t know. In other words, you cannot follow the logic of your own theory. And so perhaps your theory is wrong, and perhaps you should not dismiss alternative theistic theories which even you admit ARE logical.

DAVID: There is no logic to develop. Just allow the history to guide us to the generalization, with God is charge, He chose to evolve us. Perfectly logical. And there is no reason for me to know why He made those choices, since as you accept, I cannot know. Thank you.

That he chose to evolve us after evolving 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms is no problem at all. But what you call “those choices” – as bolded above – may not be the choices he made, and THAT is what you cannot know, though you seem to take it for granted that you do. And you cannot find a reason why he would have made the choices you impose on him, whereas there are alternatives which you dismiss although you agree that each of them does provide a logical reason for his choice.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 25, 2020, 19:20 (9 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is a system limit. He created the universe with fine tuning and it produced the Earth and allowed Him to create life on it. No mistakes here. Life is at such a complex level, He cannot stop independent reactions from occurring, because He is not in moment by moment control of the living processes He created. And high speed molecular reactions cannot be perfect.

dhw: I love it. Thank you. From a God who was in total control, you have graduated to a God who “cannot stop independent reactions from occurring.”

Seizing on nothing. In a living organism, if the wrong reaction occurs, do you expect God to step into that single organism?

dhw:I suggest that for “cannot”, we substitute “does not want to”, and this would apply not only to what you call “errors” in the system, but also to all the “living processes he created” by way of evolution. The deliberate creation of mechanisms for "independent reactions" may indeed resolve many of the problems we have been discussing. This is a very welcome change of direction.

No change of direction. Re-read my comment above.


dhw: Firstly, your idea of “evolution” is direct creation – you insist that he directly created every species, econiche and natural wonder in life’s history. Secondly, the question is not why he chose to “evolve” us, but why, despite his all-powerfulness, he chose to directly create 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human forms if his one and only purpose was to create us.

DAVID: Your disconnect is obvious here. Your total complaint is why not direct creation? Why bother with evolution? But evolution happened.

dhw: It is you who equate evolution with direct creation. I am perfectly happy with the argument that if God exists, he used the method of evolution to produce every life form including humans. I am not happy with the argument that he directly created every life form including humans, and he did so because he only wanted to create humans.

I know your unhappiness. Why can't God evolve from simple to complex as history indicates?


dhw: But I accept your answer: you don’t know. In other words, you cannot follow the logic of your own theory. And so perhaps your theory is wrong, and perhaps you should not dismiss alternative theistic theories which even you admit ARE logical.

DAVID: There is no logic to develop. Just allow the history to guide us to the generalization, with God is charge, He chose to evolve us. Perfectly logical. And there is no reason for me to know why He made those choices, since as you accept, I cannot know. Thank you.

dhw: That he chose to evolve us after evolving 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms is no problem at all. But what you call “those choices” – as bolded above – may not be the choices he made, and THAT is what you cannot know, though you seem to take it for granted that you do. And you cannot find a reason why he would have made the choices you impose on him, whereas there are alternatives which you dismiss although you agree that each of them does provide a logical reason for his choice.

All I do is follow history , since I accept God in control. The bold is silly. I don't try to figure out a reason, since it is guesswork, and Adler makes the purpose simple to know.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, June 26, 2020, 11:23 (9 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Life is at such a complex level, He cannot stop independent reactions from occurring, because He is not in moment by moment control of the living processes He created. And high speed molecular reactions cannot be perfect.

dhw: I love it. Thank you. From a God who was in total control, you have graduated to a God who “cannot stop independent reactions from occurring.

DAVID: Seizing on nothing. In a living organism, if the wrong reaction occurs, do you expect God to step into that single organism?

Of course not. You have separated my comment. Read on.

dhw:I suggest that for “cannot”, we substitute “does not want to”, and this would apply not only to what you call “errors” in the system, but also to all the “living processes he created” by way of evolution. The deliberate creation of mechanisms for "independent reactions" may indeed resolve many of the problems we have been discussing. This is a very welcome change of direction.

DAVID: No change of direction. Re-read my comment above.

You have completely missed the point, which is that he has created a system over which he does not have complete control. In the past, your God was in complete control of everything. Once you allow for him NOT being in complete control, you open the door to the theory that he did not WANT to be in complete control (a much more respectful interpretation of your God’s nature and power). Hence the higgledy-piggledy bush of life extant and extinct, as he allows life forms to come and go, autonomously developing their own lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders in response to the ever changing conditions in which they find themselves.

dhw: I am not happy with the argument that he directly created every life form including humans, and he did so because he only wanted to create humans.

DAVID: I know your unhappiness. Why can't God evolve from simple to complex as history indicates?

Of course life evolved from simple to complex. How does that come to mean that he directly designed every life form, and he did so only because he wanted to create humans? Please stop dodging the issue!

dhw: […] you cannot find a reason why he would have made the choices you impose on him, whereas there are alternatives which you dismiss although you agree that each of them does provide a logical reason for his choice.

DAVID: All I do is follow history, since I accept God in control. The bold is silly. I don't try to figure out a reason, since it is guesswork, and Adler makes the purpose simple to know.

You do not follow history when you claim that 1) God is in control (now contradicted by the points raised at the start of this post), 2) that he directly designed every life form, and 3) that he did so for the sole purpose of directly designing H. sapiens! This is all guesswork, and you can’t find a reason that would enable you to link 3) to 1) and 2). And so you go on dodging.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, June 26, 2020, 19:53 (8 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: No change of direction. Re-read my comment above.

dhw: You have completely missed the point, which is that he has created a system over which he does not have complete control. In the past, your God was in complete control of everything. Once you allow for him NOT being in complete control, you open the door to the theory that he did not WANT to be in complete control (a much more respectful interpretation of your God’s nature and power).

I'm sorry you refuse to accept the fact that God created life and He knew that life would have problems, so He added as many safeguards as He could, but it is a true fact, from my knowledge of living biochemistry I've known all along. And yet I accept God as I describe him, while you blithely ignore all of His other accomplishments.


dhw: I am not happy with the argument that he directly created every life form including humans, and he did so because he only wanted to create humans.

DAVID: I know your unhappiness. Why can't God evolve from simple to complex as history indicates?

dhw: Of course life evolved from simple to complex. How does that come to mean that he directly designed every life form, and he did so only because he wanted to create humans? Please stop dodging the issue!

I've not dodged the issue. You refuse to accept what Adler presents as the goal. I don't know why He chose evolution as his method, but it obvious He did. Your objection makes no sense if you accept God is in charge of making the history we know.


dhw: […] you cannot find a reason why he would have made the choices you impose on him, whereas there are alternatives which you dismiss although you agree that each of them does provide a logical reason for his choice.

DAVID: All I do is follow history, since I accept God in control. The bold is silly. I don't try to figure out a reason, since it is guesswork, and Adler makes the purpose simple to know.

dhw: You do not follow history when you claim that 1) God is in control (now contradicted by the points raised at the start of this post), 2) that he directly designed every life form, and 3) that he did so for the sole purpose of directly designing H. sapiens! This is all guesswork, and you can’t find a reason that would enable you to link 3) to 1) and 2).

You are dodging facts. God cannot fully control life's high speed reactions perfectly. I've known that all along and should have introduced that concept to you long ago. That disproves nothing else in my view of how God works. Keep seizing on every tidbit you can as you refuse to see God as I do. That is your role as an agnostic and the reason behind this website battle.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, June 27, 2020, 10:38 (8 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have completely missed the point, which is that he has created a system over which he does not have complete control. In the past, your God was in complete control of everything. Once you allow for him NOT being in complete control, you open the door to the theory that he did not WANT to be in complete control (a much more respectful interpretation of your God’s nature and power).

DAVID: I'm sorry you refuse to accept the fact that God created life and He knew that life would have problems, so He added as many safeguards as He could, but it is a true fact, from my knowledge of living biochemistry I've known all along. And yet I accept God as I describe him, while you blithely ignore all of His other accomplishments.

For argument’s sake, I am accepting the existence of God, and so I accept that he created life. It is a "true fact" that life has problems. It is pure guesswork on your part that your God was unable to create a system without problems, and that he added safeguards! The theory that he deliberately created a system with problems is a different guess. You also guess that he deliberately designed every single life form and was always in full control of every evolutionary development. I guess that he deliberately designed a mechanism that would enable life forms to do their own designing, and he deliberately did NOT control every evolutionary development (though he may have dabbled when he felt like it). You constantly present your opinions as facts. I don’t know what you are referring to in your last sentence.

DAVID: I know your unhappiness. Why can't God evolve from simple to complex as history indicates?

dhw: Of course life evolved from simple to complex. How does that come to mean that he directly designed every life form, and he did so only because he wanted to create humans? Please stop dodging the issue!

DAVID|: I've not dodged the issue. You refuse to accept what Adler presents as the goal. I don't know why He chose evolution as his method, but it obvious He did. Your objection makes no sense if you accept God is in charge of making the history we know.

I have offered you two explanations of evolution’s history that are based on Adler’s theory. If God exists, then of course I accept that he is responsible for the history we know. But as I wrote yesterday:
dhw: You do not follow history when you claim that 1) God is in control (now contradicted by the points raised at the start of this post), 2) that he directly designed every life form, and 3) that he did so for the sole purpose of directly designing H. sapiens! This is all guesswork, and you can’t find a reason that would enable you to link 3) to 1) and 2).

DAVID: You are dodging facts. God cannot fully control life's high speed reactions perfectly. I've known that all along and should have introduced that concept to you long ago.

Again this is no answer to the above! You have always maintained until now that God is in full control of everything. Your admission that he is not opens the door to a different view of life’s history - you can't just impose your own limits on his lack of control! But please don’t blame yourself. You are beginning to loosen some of the bonds that tie you to your illogical theory of evolution!:-)

DAVID: That disproves nothing else in my view of how God works. Keep seizing on every tidbit you can as you refuse to see God as I do. That is your role as an agnostic and the reason behind this website battle.

I’m not convinced that I see God differently from you. If I believed in him, I would see him as all-powerful and all-purposeful and totally logical in all that he does. What I refuse to see is your combination of 1), 2) and 3) as a believable account of how evolution works.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 27, 2020, 18:59 (7 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'm sorry you refuse to accept the fact that God created life and He knew that life would have problems, so He added as many safeguards as He could, but it is a true fact, from my knowledge of living biochemistry I've known all along. And yet I accept God as I describe him, while you blithely ignore all of His other accomplishments.

dhw: For argument’s sake, I am accepting the existence of God, and so I accept that he created life. It is a "true fact" that life has problems. It is pure guesswork on your part that your God was unable to create a system without problems, and that he added safeguards!

But that is exactly what the biochemistry of life shows. Safeguard systems exist!

dhw: don’t know what you are referring to in your last sentence.

God created the universe, evolved it, created the Earth, evolved it, created life, evolved it. His accomplishments. But living biochemistry runs at such high speed, individual molecule make mistakes God cannot control, but the safeguard systems show God's anticipation of the problem. Since we are in charge, that is one of the reasons God have us such a powerful brain., so we could solve some of the problems that appear.

DAVID|: You refuse to accept what Adler presents as the goal. I don't know why He chose evolution as his method, but it obvious He did. Your objection makes no sense if you accept God is in charge of making the history we know.

dhw: I have offered you two explanations of evolution’s history that are based on Adler’s theory. If God exists, then of course I accept that he is responsible for the history we know. But as I wrote yesterday:

dhw: You do not follow history when you claim that 1) God is in control (now contradicted by the points raised at the start of this post), 2) that he directly designed every life form, and 3) that he did so for the sole purpose of directly designing H. sapiens! This is all guesswork, and you can’t find a reason that would enable you to link 3) to 1) and 2).

As I stated, you won't accept Adler's logical reasoning. 1,2 and 3 need no linkage if one follows my reasoning based on Adler's theory.

DAVID: That disproves nothing else in my view of how God works. Keep seizing on every tidbit you can as you refuse to see God as I do. That is your role as an agnostic and the reason behind this website battle.

dhw: I’m not convinced that I see God differently from you. If I believed in him, I would see him as all-powerful and all-purposeful and totally logical in all that he does. What I refuse to see is your combination of 1), 2) and 3) as a believable account of how evolution works.

As usual, your refusal makes no sense to me. 1), 2), and 3) work perfectly well together if you conclude God decided to evolve humans from bacteria, and I don't search for an answer as to why He made that choice, to forestall your usual unreasonable query about His reasoning, about which you love to make guesses.

Back to David's theory of evolution; God's lack of control

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 27, 2020, 19:51 (7 days ago) @ David Turell

This articled is about the origin and possible corrections for congenital defects in the genitourinary system:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-06-genitals-boys-requires-complex-genes.html

"The most common congenital disorders of all, especially in baby boys, are differences in a newborn's sexual anatomy that is not standard female or male. In boys, they include undescended testicles, misplaced urethras, and improperly developed internal organs.

"Some of these disorders may be treated with surgery and some also with hormonal supplementation.

***

"...a male fetus must successfully have testes descend toward the scrotum, differentiate external genitals, and develop internal organs such as the prostate. Much of this process is controlled by a genetic pathway whimsically named Hedgehog—after the gene was discovered in flies covered in bristles—and hormones. The two most important hormones are testosterone and another named INSL3.

"The researchers discovered that the Hedgehog pathway, through GLI3, stimulates the formation of Leydig cells, which produce the hormones necessary to develop male sex organs. And those hormones go on to reinforce the Hedgehog pathway, which is vital for developing the prostate and penis. They concluded that most of the defects in the mutant mice could be explained by dysfunctional Leydig cells.

"Treating pregnant mice with extra testosterone wasn't enough to correct all the defects, because the GLI3 gene was itself necessary, especially for producing a normal penis. But when the researchers reintroduced the non-mutant GLI3 gene into the mutant testes in culture, they were able to restore production of genes necessary for the production of testosterone.

"The upshot is that researchers discovered a complex dance between genes and hormones. Any misstep in the waltz can spell disaster."

Comment: these are errors, missteps, God cannot stop, but humans can work around most of the time.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, June 28, 2020, 13:16 (7 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I'm sorry you refuse to accept the fact that God created life and He knew that life would have problems, so He added as many safeguards as He could, but it is a true fact, from my knowledge of living biochemistry I've known all along. And yet I accept God as I describe him, while you blithely ignore all of His other accomplishments.

dhw: For argument’s sake, I am accepting the existence of God, and so I accept that he created life. It is a "true fact" that life has problems. It is pure guesswork on your part that your God was unable to create a system without problems, and that he added safeguards!

DAVID: But that is exactly what the biochemistry of life shows. Safeguard systems exist!

The existence of problems could be due to your God WANTING a system with problems (see below under “God’s lack of control”), and the existence of safeguards could be due to his giving cell communities the means to devise their own. This indeed is what you imply when you say below that he gave us our brains so that we could solve the problems he set – only I note that our fellow animals also have immune systems which solve problems.

DAVID: God created the universe, evolved it, created the Earth, evolved it, created life, evolved it. His accomplishments. But living biochemistry runs at such high speed, individual molecule make mistakes God cannot control, but the safeguard systems show God's anticipation of the problem. Since we are in charge, that is one of the reasons God have us such a powerful brain, so we could solve some of the problems that appear.

See above.

dhw: You do not follow history when you claim that 1) God is in control (now contradicted by the points raised at the start of this post), 2) that he directly designed every life form, and 3) that he did so for the sole purpose of directly designing H. sapiens! This is all guesswork, and you can’t find a reason that would enable you to link 3) to 1) and 2).

DAVID: As I stated, you won't accept Adler's logical reasoning. 1,2 and 3 need no linkage if one follows my reasoning based on Adler's theory.

Please stick to your own reasoning, since you have informed us that Adler does not deal with your personal theory of evolution. And yet again, please explain to us why your all-powerful God (who actually isn’t all-powerful when it comes to making mistakes), whose sole purpose was to directly design H. sapiens, directly designed millions of non-human life forms before starting to directly design H. sapiens’ ancestors before directly designing H. sapiens. If you cannot explain the logic of your guess, then please don’t tell us it’s logical because of Adler!

Under the fascinating heading: God's lack of control
QUOTE: “The upshot is that researchers discovered a complex dance between genes and hormones. Any misstep in the waltz can spell disaster."

DAVID: these are errors, missteps, God cannot stop, but humans can work around most of the time.

After all this time in which you insisted that your God was always in control of everything, it’s highly illuminating to see you making a feature of his lack of control. How about considering the possibility that your God did not WANT control, and that he deliberately created a system that would malfunction? Do you really imagine him wanting to specially design millions of organisms that would live for ever and ever and would reproduce more organisms that would live for ever and ever? Endings and new beginnings seem to me to be part of the essence of life – and if life was designed by God as an ever changing spectacle, then of course the system would have to cause endings as well as beginnings. And once more: if your God is not in control of one aspect of evolution – either through weakness or through deliberate choice - why should he not also lack control over other aspects? (I prefer deliberate choice, as I am less convinced than you, in your latest U-turn, that your God makes mistakes.)

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 28, 2020, 21:25 (6 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: But that is exactly what the biochemistry of life shows. Safeguard systems exist!

dhw: The existence of problems could be due to your God WANTING a system with problems (see below under “God’s lack of control”), and the existence of safeguards could be due to his giving cell communities the means to devise their own. This indeed is what you imply when you say below that he gave us our brains so that we could solve the problems he set – only I note that our fellow animals also have immune systems which solve problems.

And animals have no ability to solve problems as we do at the biochemical l evel.


DAVID: As I stated, you won't accept Adler's logical reasoning. 1,2 and 3 need no linkage if one follows my reasoning based on Adler's theory.

dhw: Please stick to your own reasoning, since you have informed us that Adler does not deal with your personal theory of evolution. And yet again, please explain to us why your all-powerful God (who actually isn’t all-powerful when it comes to making mistakes), whose sole purpose was to directly design H. sapiens, directly designed millions of non-human life forms before starting to directly design H. sapiens’ ancestors before directly designing H. sapiens. If you cannot explain the logic of your guess, then please don’t tell us it’s logical because of Adler!

Adler is a starting point for my thinking. Evolution interests him only is that it produced us, and his argument compares us to apes. Why can't I think to develop my own theories after recognizing Adler's position and using it as a starting point. He and I accept God, another starting point. You can think logically but I can't because you do not like/accept my starting points? Illogical in and of itself.


Under the fascinating heading: God's lack of control
QUOTE: “The upshot is that researchers discovered a complex dance between genes and hormones. Any misstep in the waltz can spell disaster."

DAVID: these are errors, missteps, God cannot stop, but humans can work around most of the time.

dhw: After all this time in which you insisted that your God was always in control of everything, it’s highly illuminating to see you making a feature of his lack of control. How about considering the possibility that your God did not WANT control, and that he deliberately created a system that would malfunction? Do you really imagine him wanting to specially design millions of organisms that would live for ever and ever and would reproduce more organisms that would live for ever and ever? Endings and new beginnings seem to me to be part of the essence of life – and if life was designed by God as an ever changing spectacle, then of course the system would have to cause endings as well as beginnings. And once more: if your God is not in control of one aspect of evolution – either through weakness or through deliberate choice - why should he not also lack control over other aspects? (I prefer deliberate choice, as I am less convinced than you, in your latest U-turn, that your God makes mistakes.)

We should agree to this interpretation: God created living biochemistry in order for life to have a beginning. at the bacterial simple level, the Lenski experiment has been discussed here. It does not appear that at that simple level of existing that anything really goes wrong, but in reproduction (cell-splitting) DNA changes and new mutations appear. God does not/has not supplied a bacterial mechanism to stop those changes. So it can be assumed He allows/allowed them. But at our complex level there are many built in safeguard systems. Thus for me it is easy to see God recognized mistakes would occur and countered what He could. My perfect God cannot design a perfect error-less biochemical living system running at high speed. I have always accepted that. All you want to do is attack poor God as therefore less than adequate. We're back to theodicy as a complaint.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, June 29, 2020, 09:45 (6 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The existence of problems could be due to your God WANTING a system with problems (see below under “God’s lack of control”), and the existence of safeguards could be due to his giving cell communities the means to devise their own. This indeed is what you imply when you say below that he gave us our brains so that we could solve the problems he set – only I note that our fellow animals also have immune systems which solve problems.

DAVID: And animals have no ability to solve problems as we do at the biochemical level.

Giving us our brains to solve problems doesn’t explain why animals also solve problems. Hence my comment about cell communities generally being able to devise their own solutions.

DAVID: As I stated, you won't accept Adler's logical reasoning. 1,2 and 3 need no linkage if one follows my reasoning based on Adler's theory.

dhw: Please stick to your own reasoning, since you have informed us that Adler does not deal with your personal theory of evolution. And yet again, please explain to us why your all-powerful God (who actually isn’t all-powerful when it comes to making mistakes), whose sole purpose was to directly design H. sapiens, directly designed millions of non-human life forms before starting to directly design H. sapiens’ ancestors before directly designing H. sapiens. If you cannot explain the logic of your guess, then please don’t tell us it’s logical because of Adler!

DAVID: Adler is a starting point for my thinking. Evolution interests him only is that it produced us, and his argument compares us to apes. Why can't I think to develop my own theories after recognizing Adler's position and using it as a starting point. He and I accept God, another starting point. You can think logically but I can't because you do not like/accept my starting points? Illogical in and of itself.

Dodging again. I have accepted the logic of God’s existence and of H. sapiens’ superiority as starting points (accepting the logic does not mean belief, of course), but the theory you have developed from these creates two other starting points: 1) Your God directly designed every life form, and 2) He could have created H. sapiens any way he wanted (because he is all powerful - except when he creates a system full of mistakes – and is in full control of all phases of evolution). These two extra starting points, as you know perfectly well, create the anomaly of a God who has only one purpose (us), but who directly designs millions of non-human life forms before he starts designing our ancestors before he designs us. You don’t know why he chose such a method. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: these are errors, missteps, God cannot stop, but humans can work around most of the time.

dhw: How about considering the possibility that your God did not WANT control, and that he deliberately created a system that would malfunction? Do you really imagine him wanting to specially design millions of organisms that would live for ever and ever and would reproduce more organisms that would live for ever and ever? Endings and new beginnings seem to me to be part of the essence of life – and if life was designed by God as an ever changing spectacle, then of course the system would have to cause endings as well as beginnings. And once more: if your God is not in control of one aspect of evolution – either through weakness or through deliberate choice - why should he not also lack control over other aspects? (I prefer deliberate choice, as I am less convinced than you, in your latest U-turn, that your God makes mistakes.)

DAVID: […] My perfect God cannot design a perfect error-less biochemical living system running at high speed. I have always accepted that. All you want to do is attack poor God as therefore less than adequate. We're back to theodicy as a complaint.

You have completely ignored my proposal above, repeated your own theory, and interpreted my attack on your theory as an attack on your God. It is your theory that offers us a God who is less than adequate and who has built a system which cannot avoid errors. The theory I have presented offers a God who is in total control and knows just what he is doing. Please read it and tell us what you object to.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, June 29, 2020, 18:32 (6 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: As I stated, you won't accept Adler's logical reasoning. 1,2 and 3 need no linkage if one follows my reasoning based on Adler's theory.

dhw: Please stick to your own reasoning, since you have informed us that Adler does not deal with your personal theory of evolution. And yet again, please explain to us why your all-powerful God (who actually isn’t all-powerful when it comes to making mistakes), whose sole purpose was to directly design H. sapiens, directly designed millions of non-human life forms before starting to directly design H. sapiens’ ancestors before directly designing H. sapiens. If you cannot explain the logic of your guess, then please don’t tell us it’s logical because of Adler!

DAVID: Adler is a starting point for my thinking. Evolution interests him only is that it produced us, and his argument compares us to apes. Why can't I think to develop my own theories after recognizing Adler's position and using it as a starting point. He and I accept God, another starting point. You can think logically but I can't because you do not like/accept my starting points? Illogical in and of itself.

dhw: Dodging again. I have accepted the logic of God’s existence and of H. sapiens’ superiority as starting points (accepting the logic does not mean belief, of course), but the theory you have developed from these creates two other starting points: 1) Your God directly designed every life form, and 2) He could have created H. sapiens any way he wanted (because he is all powerful - except when he creates a system full of mistakes – and is in full control of all phases of evolution). These two extra starting points, as you know perfectly well, create the anomaly of a God who has only one purpose (us), but who directly designs millions of non-human life forms before he starts designing our ancestors before he designs us. You don’t know why he chose such a method. Please stop dodging.

No dodging. I have no idea why God chose to evolve us. There is no way to know.


DAVID: these are errors, missteps, God cannot stop, but humans can work around most of the time.

dhw: How about considering the possibility that your God did not WANT control, and that he deliberately created a system that would malfunction? Do you really imagine him wanting to specially design millions of organisms that would live for ever and ever and would reproduce more organisms that would live for ever and ever? Endings and new beginnings seem to me to be part of the essence of life – and if life was designed by God as an ever changing spectacle, then of course the system would have to cause endings as well as beginnings. And once more: if your God is not in control of one aspect of evolution – either through weakness or through deliberate choice - why should he not also lack control over other aspects? (I prefer deliberate choice, as I am less convinced than you, in your latest U-turn, that your God makes mistakes.)

DAVID: […] My perfect God cannot design a perfect error-less biochemical living system running at high speed. I have always accepted that. All you want to do is attack poor God as therefore less than adequate. We're back to theodicy as a complaint.

dhw: You have completely ignored my proposal above, repeated your own theory, and interpreted my attack on your theory as an attack on your God. It is your theory that offers us a God who is less than adequate and who has built a system which cannot avoid errors. The theory I have presented offers a God who is in total control and knows just what he is doing. Please read it and tell us what you object to.

My point is there is no God who can create a perfect living biochemical high-speed system. The molecules will occasionally make mistakes. From my training in biochemistry I can state that as a fact. We can make a perfect auto, but after time wear and tear will result in needed repairs. A biological system will have early mistakes and also later wear and tear. You don't have to accept the God that creates a biochemical living system with mistakes. I do. Theodicy is your problem.

Back to David's theory of evolution: garbage systems

by David Turell @, Monday, June 29, 2020, 21:33 (5 days ago) @ David Turell

They are part of the corrective mechanisms to keep cells functional:

https://phys.org/news/2020-06-osmotic-stress-cellular-disposal.html

"Cellular waste disposal, where autophagy and lysosomes interact, performs elementary functions, such as degrading damaged protein molecules, which impair cellular function, and reintroducing the resulting building blocks such as amino acids into the metabolic system.

***

"Researchers...have now discovered a previously unknown mechanism: osmotic stress, i.e. a change in water and ionic balance, triggers a response within hours, resulting in the increased formation and activity of autophagosomes and lysosomes.

***

"Our cells are occasionally in need of a "spring clean" so that incorrectly folded protein molecules or damaged cell organelles can be removed, preventing the aggregation of protein molecules. The mechanisms responsible for this removal are so-called "autophagy" and the closely related lysosomal system, the discovery of which earned the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2016.

"Quite a number of studies suggest that autophagy and lysosomes play a central role in aging and in neurodegenerative diseases. It is also generally agreed that fasting or food deprivation can kickstart this cellular degradation and recycling process. Other than that, little is known about how cells and organs control the quality of their protein molecules, and which environmental influences give the decisive signal to start cleaning up.

***

"'When dehydration occurs, we suddenly see more lysosomes in the cells, i.e. more organelles where aggregated protein molecules are degraded," explained co-last author PD Dr. Tanja Maritzen. "It's a clever adaptation because cellular water loss simultaneously fosters the aggregation of proteins. These aggregates must be removed quickly to ensure the continued function of cells, and this works better when cells have more lysosomes."

"The researchers were able to observe what happens at the molecular level in dehydrated cells using astrocytes, star-shaped cells in the brain that assist the work of our nerve cells: in the event of dehydration, the ion transporter NHE7 translocates from the cell's interior, where it is normally positioned, to the cell's limiting plasma membrane that shields the cell from the outside. This leads to an influx of sodium ions into the cell, indirectly increasing the level of calcium—a key messenger—in the cytosol. The elevated level of calcium in turn activates a transcription factor called TFEB, which finally switches on autophagy and lysosomal genes. In other words, the system is initiated by the ion transporter NHE7, triggered by osmotic stress.

***

"...it is not yet clear how osmotic stress affects the translocation of NHE7 to the cell surface. It is also not known whether the entire degradation system is initiated or whether just individual genes are switched on, or which specific responses to osmotic stress are needed to activate the lysosomal system. Nor is it known which other stimuli may be triggered by this physiological process."

Comment: It is clear the designer of the biochemistry of life recognized there had to be a mechanism for the clearance of garbage as it developed. This had to be present when life started or it would have collapsed upon itself in piled up debris. dhw would prefer it if God arranged a biological system that had no garbage. Can't done, based on our studies of life's processes. We are still at theodicy, the assumption that God does not keep everything perfect and He should when He creates.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, June 30, 2020, 12:28 (5 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I have accepted the logic of God’s existence and of H. sapiens’ superiority as starting points (accepting the logic does not mean belief, of course), but the theory you have developed from these creates two other starting points: 1) Your God directly designed every life form, and 2) He could have created H. sapiens any way he wanted (because he is all powerful - except when he creates a system full of mistakes – and is in full control of all phases of evolution). These two extra starting points, as you know perfectly well, create the anomaly of a God who has only one purpose (us), but who directly designs millions of non-human life forms before he starts designing our ancestors before he designs us. You don’t know why he chose such a method. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: No dodging. I have no idea why God chose to evolve us. There is no way to know.

That is not the problem, which you continue to dodge. I can only continue to define the problem until you finally acknowledge it: 1) by evolution you mean directly design, because you believe your God directly designed every species. 2) you have no idea why he chose to directly design millions of extinct non-human life forms, lifestyles, econiches and natural wonders if his only purpose was to directly design us. I have offered several perfectly logical explanations for God’s choice of evolution as a means of producing ALL species, but you refuse to consider them.

dhw: How about considering the possibility that your God did not WANT control, and that he deliberately created a system that would malfunction? Do you really imagine him wanting to specially design millions of organisms that would live for ever and ever and would reproduce more organisms that would live for ever and ever? Endings and new beginnings seem to me to be part of the essence of life – and if life was designed by God as an ever changing spectacle, then of course the system would have to cause endings as well as beginnings. And once more: if your God is not in control of one aspect of evolution – either through weakness or through deliberate choice - why should he not also lack control over other aspects? (I prefer deliberate choice, as I am less convinced than you, in your latest U-turn, that your God makes mistakes.)

DAVID: […] My perfect God cannot design a perfect error-less biochemical living system running at high speed. I have always accepted that. All you want to do is attack poor God as therefore less than adequate. We're back to theodicy as a complaint.

dhw: You have completely ignored my proposal above, repeated your own theory, and interpreted my attack on your theory as an attack on your God. It is your theory that offers us a God who is less than adequate and who has built a system which cannot avoid errors. The theory I have presented offers a God who is in total control and knows just what he is doing. Please read it and tell us what you object to.

DAVID: My point is there is no God who can create a perfect living biochemical high-speed system. The molecules will occasionally make mistakes. From my training in biochemistry I can state that as a fact. We can make a perfect auto, but after time wear and tear will result in needed repairs. A biological system will have early mistakes and also later wear and tear. You don't have to accept the God that creates a biochemical living system with mistakes. I do. Theodicy is your problem.

Once again, you have completely ignored my proposal. Assuming God exists, of course I accept that he created a system with “mistakes”. You don’t need to be trained in biochemistry to know that your body is full of bits and pieces that go wrong! Theodicy is your problem, not mine. So instead of tying yourself in knots trying to excuse your perfect God for creating an imperfect system (that is your “theodicy”), why not consider the possibility that he deliberately created a system that would go wrong? My proposal above offers you a solution to theodicy (as it can be extended to cover the whole of life), but you can’t be bothered even to consider it.

Under “garbage systems”:
DAVID: dhw would prefer it if God arranged a biological system that had no garbage. Can't done, based on our studies of life's processes. We are still at theodicy, the assumption that God does not keep everything perfect and He should when He creates.

If you would only read my posts, you wouldn’t make such silly assumptions. I have offered you an explanation for all the “imperfections”, and my theory of evolution (theistic version: God designed the autonomous mechanism for design, i.e. cellular intelligence) implies the exact opposite of him “keeping everything perfect”. But you object to all my alternative, logical theistic explanations of life’s history (including those that make sapiens a prime purpose) on the grounds that they “humanize” your God, even though you say he probably has thought patterns similar to ours. My proposal also explains the system of garbage removal, in which cell communities – just like ant communities – organize themselves to deal with whatever problems arise from their activities.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 30, 2020, 19:02 (4 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: No dodging. I have no idea why God chose to evolve us. There is no way to know.

dhw: That is not the problem, which you continue to dodge... I have offered several perfectly logical explanations for God’s choice of evolution as a means of producing ALL species, but you refuse to consider them.

dhw: How about considering the possibility that your God did not WANT control, and that he deliberately created a system that would malfunction? Do you really imagine him wanting to specially design millions of organisms that would live for ever and ever and would reproduce more organisms that would live for ever and ever? Endings and new beginnings seem to me to be part of the essence of life – and if life was designed by God as an ever changing spectacle, then of course the system would have to cause endings as well as beginnings.

Once again you are imagining a God with a human personality which I do not accept. My God knows exactly what He wants and does it.

dhw: And once more: if your God is not in control of one aspect of evolution – either through weakness or through deliberate choice - why should he not also lack control over other aspects? (I prefer deliberate choice, as I am less convinced than you, in your latest U-turn, that your God makes mistakes.)[/i]

Answered below:


DAVID: […] My perfect God cannot design a perfect error-less biochemical living system running at high speed. I have always accepted that. All you want to do is attack poor God as therefore less than adequate. We're back to theodicy as a complaint.

dhw: You have completely ignored my proposal above, repeated your own theory, and interpreted my attack on your theory as an attack on your God. It is your theory that offers us a God who is less than adequate and who has built a system which cannot avoid errors. The theory I have presented offers a God who is in total control and knows just what he is doing. Please read it and tell us what you object to.

DAVID: My point is there is no God who can create a perfect living biochemical high-speed system. The molecules will occasionally make mistakes. From my training in biochemistry I can state that as a fact. We can make a perfect auto, but after time wear and tear will result in needed repairs. A biological system will have early mistakes and also later wear and tear. You don't have to accept the God that creates a biochemical living system with mistakes. I do. Theodicy is your problem.

dhw: Once again, you have completely ignored my proposal. Assuming God exists, of course I accept that he created a system with “mistakes”. You don’t need to be trained in biochemistry to know that your body is full of bits and pieces that go wrong! Theodicy is your problem, not mine. So instead of tying yourself in knots trying to excuse your perfect God for creating an imperfect system (that is your “theodicy”), why not consider the possibility that he deliberately created a system that would go wrong? My proposal above offers you a solution to theodicy (as it can be extended to cover the whole of life), but you can’t be bothered even to consider it.

No, I don't accept your God with His human personality. The many safeguards in the biochemistry of life means He tried to stop as many errors as could be stopped. The errors were not planned on his part.


Under “garbage systems”:

DAVID: dhw would prefer it if God arranged a biological system that had no garbage. Can't be done, based on our studies of life's processes. We are still at theodicy, the assumption that God does not keep everything perfect and He should when He creates.

dhw: If you would only read my posts, you wouldn’t make such silly assumptions. I have offered you an explanation for all the “imperfections”, and my theory of evolution (theistic version: God designed the autonomous mechanism for design, i.e. cellular intelligence) implies the exact opposite of him “keeping everything perfect”. But you object to all my alternative, logical theistic explanations of life’s history (including those that make sapiens a prime purpose) on the grounds that they “humanize” your God, even though you say he probably has thought patterns similar to ours. My proposal also explains the system of garbage removal, in which cell communities – just like ant communities – organize themselves to deal with whatever problems arise from their activities.

Same list of complaints. As for thoughts, our logic and God's logic are the same, nothing more. we cannot know His underlying reasons for his actions. And of course you've plugged in the fantastic cell committees that have brilliant mental abilities, not from God. But when I make this complaint you add God might have done it and given them brilliance.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, July 01, 2020, 10:55 (4 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: How about considering the possibility that your God did not WANT control, and that he deliberately created a system that would malfunction? Do you really imagine him wanting to specially design millions of organisms that would live for ever and ever and would reproduce more organisms that would live for ever and ever? Endings and new beginnings seem to me to be part of the essence of life – and if life was designed by God as an ever changing spectacle, then of course the system would have to cause endings as well as beginnings.

DAVID: Once again you are imagining a God with a human personality which I do not accept. My God knows exactly what He wants and does it.

So does mine. Why do you regard a “perfect” God, who deliberately designs the imperfect system we know, as being more “human” and less purposeful than a “perfect” God who is unable to design a system without imperfections?

dhw: ...instead of tying yourself in knots trying to excuse your perfect God for creating an imperfect system (that is your “theodicy”), why not consider the possibility that he deliberately created a system that would go wrong? My proposal above offers you a solution to theodicy (as it can be extended to cover the whole of life), but you can’t be bothered even to consider it.

DAVID: No, I don't accept your God with His human personality. The many safeguards in the biochemistry of life means He tried to stop as many errors as could be stopped. The errors were not planned on his part.

Authoritatively stated, and pretty degrading to your perfect God, who simply did his best to make up for the imperfect and uncontrollable system he created.

dhw: I have offered you an explanation for all the “imperfections”, and my theory of evolution (theistic version: God designed the autonomous mechanism for design, i.e. cellular intelligence) implies the exact opposite of him “keeping everything perfect”. But you object to all my alternative, logical theistic explanations of life’s history (including those that make sapiens a prime purpose) on the grounds that they “humanize” your God, even though you say he probably has thought patterns similar to ours. My proposal also explains the system of garbage removal, in which cell communities – just like ant communities – organize themselves to deal with whatever problems arise from their activities.

DAVID: Same list of complaints. As for thoughts, our logic and God's logic are the same, nothing more. we cannot know His underlying reasons for his actions.

Of course we can’t know his reasons, but how do you know his logic is the same as ours if you can’t understand why he did what he did?

DAVID: And of course you've plugged in the fantastic cell committees that have brilliant mental abilities, not from God. But when I make this complaint you add God might have done it and given them brilliance.

Why “not from God”? I am an agnostic, and right from the start I have argued that the source of cellular intelligence may be your God! And I have continually asked you why you think your God is incapable of endowing cells with the intelligence to do their own designing (see Shapiro and Talbott)? Of course he could have done it – but you have fixed ideas about what he did and why he did it.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 01, 2020, 18:28 (4 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Once again you are imagining a God with a human personality which I do not accept. My God knows exactly what He wants and does it.

dhw: So does mine. Why do you regard a “perfect” God, who deliberately designs the imperfect system we know, as being more “human” and less purposeful than a “perfect” God who is unable to design a system without imperfections?

You refuse to accept the point that a high-speed living biological system cannot be perfect. Are you campaigning for a 'perfect' God that can create it? Your definition of a perfect God doesn't exist.


dhw: ...instead of tying yourself in knots trying to excuse your perfect God for creating an imperfect system (that is your “theodicy”), why not consider the possibility that he deliberately created a system that would go wrong? My proposal above offers you a solution to theodicy (as it can be extended to cover the whole of life), but you can’t be bothered even to consider it.

DAVID: No, I don't accept your God with His human personality. The many safeguards in the biochemistry of life means He tried to stop as many errors as could be stopped. The errors were not planned on his part.

dhw: Authoritatively stated, and pretty degrading to your perfect God, who simply did his best to make up for the imperfect and uncontrollable system he created.

Not degrading except as in your eyes. The self-correcting and safeguard systems in living organisms shows God knew it wouldn't work perfectly. I've produced a multitude of articles about safeguards showing required design, stating the safeguards must have been present when the advanced state appeared. Remember?


dhw: I have offered you an explanation for all the “imperfections”, and my theory of evolution (theistic version: God designed the autonomous mechanism for design, i.e. cellular intelligence) implies the exact opposite of him “keeping everything perfect”. But you object to all my alternative, logical theistic explanations of life’s history (including those that make sapiens a prime purpose) on the grounds that they “humanize” your God, even though you say he probably has thought patterns similar to ours. My proposal also explains the system of garbage removal, in which cell communities – just like ant communities – organize themselves to deal with whatever problems arise from their activities.

DAVID: Same list of complaints. As for thoughts, our logic and God's logic are the same, nothing more. we cannot know His underlying reasons for his actions.

dhw: Of course we can’t know his reasons, but how do you know his logic is the same as ours if you can’t understand why he did what he did?

I've explained what I think His reasoning is about complexification, as a prime example of how I attempt to understand why and what He has done. It implies His logical thought, similar to ours.


DAVID: And of course you've plugged in the fantastic cell committees that have brilliant mental abilities, not from God. But when I make this complaint you add God might have done it and given them brilliance.

dhw: Why “not from God”? I am an agnostic, and right from the start I have argued that the source of cellular intelligence may be your God! And I have continually asked you why you think your God is incapable of endowing cells with the intelligence to do their own designing (see Shapiro and Talbott)? Of course he could have done it – but you have fixed ideas about what he did and why he did it.

Referring to Talbott, you gotten rid of chance, a major advance in our discussions. I'll stick with God giving cells intelligent instructions, the ID approach.

Back to David's theory of evolution: brain problems

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 02, 2020, 01:21 (3 days ago) @ David Turell

Folding may go OK but there can be misfolding in the embryo:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/biology/understanding-how-brains-fold-and-misfold/?u...

"Australian and Swiss researchers say they have new clues to how a baby’s brain folds as it develops in the womb, a process critical to healthy brain function.

"Misfolding is linked with neurological conditions such as autism, anorexia, epilepsy and schizophrenia, but scientists do not fully understand what drives the folding process and why it sometimes goes wrong.

***

"Writing in the journal Cerebral Cortex, they report finding differences in both genetic expression and neuron shape during the folding process.

***

"The researchers say previous studies have focussed on white matter or looked at animals with smooth brains rather than folded ones, largely overlooking grey matter. Grey matter is made up of neuron bodies and their connecting arms; white matter comprises the neurons’ long nerve fibres and their protective layer of fat.

"The latest evidence suggests grey matter in the developing brain expands faster than white matter, creating mechanical instability that leads to brain folding. The resulting “hill” and “valley” folds follow a similar pattern in all folded brains of the same species.

"Tolcos and colleagues investigated the genetic and microstructural differences in future grey matter, the cortical plate, in the parts of the brain just beneath the “hills” and “valleys”. These areas were analysed at three points of development: when the brain was smooth, semi-folded and fully folded.

***

“'We found some genes have higher expression in regions that fold outward and lower expression in regions that fold inwards. Other genes reverse this pattern,” says RMIT’s Sebastian Quezada Rojas.

“'Together, these genetic expression patterns might explain why the cortical folding pattern is so consistent between individuals of the same species.”

"These genetic differences are also correlated with changes in grey matter neurons, with the study finding variations in the number of arms – or dendrites – that neurons grow in these regions during the folding process.

“'We believe the regions that fold outward and inward are programmed to behave differently, and the shape of the neurons affects the way these areas fold,” Quezada Rojas says."

Comment: this is just one area in the embryo where mistakes can occur. As a cardiologist in training I learned about congenital heart defects. Luckily those can be surgically corrected. I can accept a God who can't stop these errors. It is interesting that dhw can't.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, July 02, 2020, 10:48 (3 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Once again you are imagining a God with a human personality which I do not accept. My God knows exactly what He wants and does it.

dhw: So does mine. Why do you regard a “perfect” God, who deliberately designs the imperfect system we know, as being more “human” and less purposeful than a “perfect” God who is unable to design a system without imperfections?

DAVID: You refuse to accept the point that a high-speed living biological system cannot be perfect. Are you campaigning for a 'perfect' God that can create it? Your definition of a perfect God doesn't exist.

I have proposed that if he exists, your God deliberately designed a system with errors, because endings are as integral to life as beginnings. Can you imagine a planet full of organisms that never die but go on producing more and more and more….? The idea is absurd. Now please answer my bolded question.

DAVID: (under ”brain problems”): this is just one area in the embryo where mistakes can occur. As a cardiologist in training I learned about congenital heart defects. Luckily those can be surgically corrected. I can accept a God who can't stop these errors. It is interesting that dhw can't.

I can’t accept your claim that your God is perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing and yet unable to design a system without errors. I have suggested that it would make more sense if he deliberately designed it with errors, but you choose to ignore this suggestion. Once more, please answer the bolded question above…

dhw: ...instead of tying yourself in knots trying to excuse your perfect God for creating an imperfect system (that is your “theodicy”), why not consider the possibility that he deliberately created a system that would go wrong? My proposal above offers you a solution to theodicy (as it can be extended to cover the whole of life), but you can’t be bothered even to consider it.

DAVID: No, I don't accept your God with His human personality. The many safeguards in the biochemistry of life means He tried to stop as many errors as could be stopped. The errors were not planned on his part.

dhw: Authoritatively stated, and pretty degrading to your perfect God, who simply did his best to make up for the imperfect and uncontrollable system he created.

DAVID: Not degrading except as in your eyes. The self-correcting and safeguard systems in living organisms shows God knew it wouldn't work perfectly. I've produced a multitude of articles about safeguards showing required design, stating the safeguards must have been present when the advanced state appeared. Remember?

And I remember proposing that the “safeguards” could just as well be the responses of autonomous organisms finding their own ways of solving the problems you believe God set them, whether deliberately or otherwise. I’m surprised you don’t regard God “trying to stop errors” as degradingly humanizing him. At least in my alternative proposal he does exactly what he wants to do.

DAVID: Same list of complaints. As for thoughts, our logic and God's logic are the same, nothing more. we cannot know His underlying reasons for his actions.

dhw: Of course we can’t know his reasons, but how do you know his logic is the same as ours if you can’t understand why he did what he did?

DAVID: I've explained what I think His reasoning is about complexification, as a prime example of how I attempt to understand why and what He has done. It implies His logical thought, similar to ours.

The context is your theory of evolution, which is that your all-powerful God (except when he’s not all-powerful) had only one purpose – to design H. sapiens – but chose to design millions of now extinct non-human life forms before designing our ancestors before designing us, and you don’t know why. Once again, please stop dodging.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 02, 2020, 18:50 (3 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So does mine. Why do you regard a “perfect” God, who deliberately designs the imperfect system we know, as being more “human” and less purposeful than a “perfect” God who is unable to design a system without imperfections?

DAVID: You refuse to accept the point that a high-speed living biological system cannot be perfect. Are you campaigning for a 'perfect' God that can create it? Your definition of a perfect God doesn't exist.

dhw: I have proposed that if he exists, your God deliberately designed a system with errors, because endings are as integral to life as beginnings. Can you imagine a planet full of organisms that never die but go on producing more and more and more….? The idea is absurd. Now please answer my bolded question.

I've told you, it doesn't bother me that no God can make a perfect biological living system. The 'errors' are accidents not planned. But we both know death is built into life. Death has nothing to do with this argument. Death is planned, not an accident, and you understand that I would think. Why did you drag it in?

dhw: ...instead of tying yourself in knots trying to excuse your perfect God for creating an imperfect system (that is your “theodicy”), why not consider the possibility that he deliberately created a system that would go wrong? My proposal above offers you a solution to theodicy (as it can be extended to cover the whole of life), but you can’t be bothered even to consider it.

DAVID: No, I don't accept your God with His human personality. The many safeguards in the biochemistry of life means He tried to stop as many errors as could be stopped. The errors were not planned on his part.

dhw: Authoritatively stated, and pretty degrading to your perfect God, who simply did his best to make up for the imperfect and uncontrollable system he created.

DAVID: Not degrading except as in your eyes. The self-correcting and safeguard systems in living organisms shows God knew it wouldn't work perfectly. I've produced a multitude of articles about safeguards showing required design, stating the safeguards must have been present when the advanced state appeared. Remember?

dhw: And I remember proposing that the “safeguards” could just as well be the responses of autonomous organisms finding their own ways of solving the problems you believe God set them, whether deliberately or otherwise. I’m surprised you don’t regard God “trying to stop errors” as degradingly humanizing him. At least in my alternative proposal he does exactly what he wants to do.

That is your view of your humanized God, not mine.


DAVID: Same list of complaints. As for thoughts, our logic and God's logic are the same, nothing more. we cannot know His underlying reasons for his actions.

dhw: Of course we can’t know his reasons, but how do you know his logic is the same as ours if you can’t understand why he did what he did?

DAVID: I've explained what I think His reasoning is about complexification, as a prime example of how I attempt to understand why and what He has done. It implies His logical thought, similar to ours.

dhw: The context is your theory of evolution, which is that your all-powerful God (except when he’s not all-powerful) had only one purpose – to design H. sapiens – but chose to design millions of now extinct non-human life forms before designing our ancestors before designing us, and you don’t know why. Once again, please stop dodging.

I don't dodge while you complain about a God you do not fully understand in the way I do. I'll still follow Adler's logic as you follow Talbott.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, July 03, 2020, 13:44 (1 day, 18 hours, 12 min. ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Why do you regard a “perfect” God, who deliberately designs the imperfect system we know, as being more “human” and less purposeful than a “perfect” God who is unable to design a system without imperfections?

DAVID: You refuse to accept the point that a high-speed living biological system cannot be perfect. Are you campaigning for a 'perfect' God that can create it? Your definition of a perfect God doesn't exist.

dhw: I have proposed that if he exists, your God deliberately designed a system with errors, because endings are as integral to life as beginnings. Can you imagine a planet full of organisms that never die but go on producing more and more and more….? The idea is absurd. Now please answer my bolded question.

DAVID: I've told you, it doesn't bother me that no God can make a perfect biological living system. The 'errors' are accidents not planned. But we both know death is built into life. Death has nothing to do with this argument. Death is planned, not an accident, and you understand that I would think. Why did you drag it in?

I’d have thought that as a doctor you might have realized that most deaths are the result of a malfunctioning biological system. So the errors that cause death are planned, but the errors that make us ill or prevent us from being cured are accidental? Once you’ve explained that, perhaps you would tell us why you think a God who deliberately designs the imperfect system we know is more “human” and less purposeful than a God who is unable to design a system without imperfections.

DAVID: The self-correcting and safeguard systems in living organisms shows God knew it wouldn't work perfectly. I've produced a multitude of articles about safeguards showing required design, stating the safeguards must have been present when the advanced state appeared. Remember?

dhw: And I remember proposing that the “safeguards” could just as well be the responses of autonomous organisms finding their own ways of solving the problems you believe God set them, whether deliberately or otherwise. I’m surprised you don’t regard God “trying to stop errors” as degradingly humanizing him. At least in my alternative proposal he does exactly what he wants to do.

DAVID: That is your view of your humanized God, not mine.

Why is a God who does exactly what he wants to do more “humanized” than a God who tries to make up for errors in the system he invented?

DAVID (under “immune complexity”): Our immune system should not attack us, but it does under some circumstances which are mistakes by the control systems. The mistakes are that the protections put in place do not work.

So not only did your God design a system with mistakes, but some of the safeguards he put in place don’t work either. But this doesn’t “humanize” him!

dhw: Of course we can’t know his reasons, but how do you know his logic is the same as
ours if you can’t understand why he did what he did?

DAVID: I've explained what I think His reasoning is about complexification, as a prime example of how I attempt to understand why and what He has done. It implies His logical thought, similar to ours.

dhw: The context is your theory of evolution, which is that your all-powerful God (except when he’s not all-powerful) had only one purpose – to design H. sapiens – but chose to design millions of now extinct non-human life forms before designing our ancestors before designing us, and you don’t know why. Once again, please stop dodging.

DAVID: I don't dodge while you complain about a God you do not fully understand in the way I do. I'll still follow Adler's logic as you follow Talbott.

Adler’s logic, so you have told us, does not extend so far as to cover your theory bolded above. I am amazed at your claim that you fully understand God, and if you do not dodge, then please at last explain the logic behind the bolded theory above.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, July 03, 2020, 19:22 (1 day, 12 hours, 34 min. ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've told you, it doesn't bother me that no God can make a perfect biological living system. The 'errors' are accidents not planned. But we both know death is built into life. Death has nothing to do with this argument. Death is planned, not an accident, and you understand that I would think. Why did you drag it in?

dhw: I’d have thought that as a doctor you might have realized that most deaths are the result of a malfunctioning biological system. So the errors that cause death are planned, but the errors that make us ill or prevent us from being cured are accidental?

Death is designed into the system with wearing out along with specific illnesses of aging.

dhw: ... perhaps you would tell us why you think a God who deliberately designs the imperfect system we know is more “human” and less purposeful than a God who is unable to design a system without imperfections.

Your premise is not mine. I judge that no God can make perfect living biologic system. It bothers you, not me


dhw: Why is a God who does exactly what he wants to do more “humanized” than a God who tries to make up for errors in the system he invented?

I describe a purposeful God who expects errors in the system.


DAVID (under “immune complexity”): Our immune system should not attack us, but it does under some circumstances which are mistakes by the control systems. The mistakes are that the protections put in place do not work.

dhw: So not only did your God design a system with mistakes, but some of the safeguards he put in place don’t work either. But this doesn’t “humanize” him!

Same complaint. Did a human make the universe?

dhw: The context is your theory of evolution, which is that your all-powerful God (except when he’s not all-powerful) had only one purpose – to design H. sapiens – but chose to design millions of now extinct non-human life forms before designing our ancestors before designing us, and you don’t know why. Once again, please stop dodging.

DAVID: I don't dodge while you complain about a God you do not fully understand in the way I do. I'll still follow Adler's logic as you follow Talbott.

dhw: Adler’s logic, so you have told us, does not extend so far as to cover your theory bolded above. I am amazed at your claim that you fully understand God, and if you do not dodge, then please at last explain the logic behind the bolded theory above.

Adler's writings give us a very clear and logical reason for understanding God's purpose that He wished to produce humans. From that point the rest of the theory that God chose to evolve us is logically quite clear. On page 291 Adler completely demolishes evolutionists by stating that our immaterialist nature cannot be explained by a naturalist evolution. Adler is fully aware of evolutionary theory as espoused by naturalists. As he believes in God, I would guess he would agree with my thoughts. Since you haven't read Adler, how can you complain?

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, July 04, 2020, 10:22 (21 hours, 34 minutes ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] The 'errors' are accidents not planned. But we both know death is built into life. Death has nothing to do with this argument. Death is planned, not an accident, and you understand that I would think. Why did you drag it in?

dhw: I’d have thought that as a doctor you might have realized that most deaths are the result of a malfunctioning biological system. So the errors that cause death are planned, but the errors that make us ill or prevent us from being cured are accidental?

DAVID: Death is designed into the system with wearing out along with specific illnesses of aging.

So your God deliberately designed all those parts of the biological system that wear out and kill old people, but he accidentally designed all the errors in the biological system that kill off young people as well as old people. This is getting silly!

dhw: ... perhaps you would tell us why you think a God who deliberately designs the imperfect system we know is more “human” and less purposeful than a God who is unable to design a system without imperfections

DAVID: Your premise is not mine. I judge that no God can make perfect living biologic system. It bothers you, not me.

You attacked my proposal as “imagining a God with a human personality” and: “My God knows exactly what he wants and does it” – as if mine didn’t. So please answer my bolded question.

DAVID: I describe a purposeful God who expects errors in the system.

I know what you describe. Please, please, answer my bolded question.

DAVID (under “immune complexity”): Our immune system should not attack us, but it does under some circumstances which are mistakes by the control systems. The mistakes are that the protections put in place do not work.

dhw: So not only did your God design a system with mistakes, but some of the safeguards he put in place don’t work either. But this doesn’t “humanize” him!

DAVID: Same complaint. Did a human make the universe?

Of course not. I have suggested that he designed the mistakes deliberately. You now have him deliberately designing the mistakes to kill old people, and only those that kill young people too are apparently accidental! But a God who designs deliberate errors AND accidental mistakes apparently is not “humanized”, whereas a God who designs exactly what he wants to design is “humanized”!

Transferred from “brain expansion":

dhw: […] you have agreed that in all my alternatives, he DOES think logically as we do, but according to you, that "humanizes him", and although according to you he probably has thought patterns similar to ours, we mustn't think he does.

DAVID: The bold is the usual distortion of my thoughts: we and He use the same logical methods. […]

dhw: What “logical methods”? If I have a single goal to create one thing and the means of achieving it, I will use the means of achieving it. That is my logic. How is that the same logical method as having a single goal to create one thing and the means of achieving it, but not achieving it until after creating millions of other unrelated things?

DAVID: The bold is a perfect example of your human thinking applied to God. Thank you. Makes my point.

Your point was that “we and He use the same logical methods.” My human logic and your version of God’s logic could hardly be more different! Your version is God saying: “I want only one thing, I have the power to design it, but I’ll design something else which is different from the only thing I want to design.” Please explain how this denotes the same logical method as mine.

dhw: Once again, please stop dodging.

DAVID: I don't dodge while you complain about a God you do not fully understand in the way I do. I'll still follow Adler's logic as you follow Talbott.

dhw: Adler’s logic, so you have told us, does not extend so far as to cover your theory bolded above. I am amazed at your claim that you fully understand God, and if you do not dodge, then please at last explain the logic behind the bolded theory above.

DAVID: Adler's writings give us a very clear and logical reason for understanding God's purpose that He wished to produce humans. From that point the rest of the theory that God chose to evolve us is logically quite clear. On page 291 Adler completely demolishes evolutionists by stating that our immaterialist nature cannot be explained by a naturalist evolution. Adler is fully aware of evolutionary theory as espoused by naturalists. As he believes in God, I would guess he would agree with my thoughts. Since you haven't read Adler, how can you complain?

I do not complain about Adler! I complain about your theory that your (sometimes) all-powerful God had only one purpose – to create H. sapiens – but directly designed millions of other, now extinct life forms, natural wonders etc. that had nothing to do with humans, before he directly designed lots of different homos before he directly designed H. sapiens. I keep asking you to explain the logic, and all you do is hide behind Adler, who you have told us quite explicitly does not cover your theory! Yet again: please stop dodging!:-(

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 04, 2020, 19:29 (12 hours, 27 minutes ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Death is designed into the system with wearing out along with specific illnesses of aging.

dhw: So your God deliberately designed all those parts of the biological system that wear out and kill old people, but he accidentally designed all the errors in the biological system that kill off young people as well as old people. This is getting silly!

Your silliness is really exposed. God did not design accidental errors in living biology. Do you know the definition of 'accident'?


dhw: You attacked my proposal as “imagining a God with a human personality” and: “My God knows exactly what he wants and does it” – as if mine didn’t. So please answer my bolded question.

I can't answer a bolded imperfect premise re the meaning of 'accidental'.

DAVID: The bold is the usual distortion of my thoughts: we and He use the same logical methods. […]

dhw: What “logical methods”? If I have a single goal to create one thing and the means of achieving it, I will use the means of achieving it. That is my logic. How is that the same logical method as having a single goal to create one thing and the means of achieving it, but not achieving it until after creating millions of other unrelated things?

DAVID: The bold is a perfect example of your human thinking applied to God. Thank you. Makes my point.

dhw: Your point was that “we and He use the same logical methods.” My human logic and your version of God’s logic could hardly be more different! Your version is God saying: “I want only one thing, I have the power to design it, but I’ll design something else which is different from the only thing I want to design.” Please explain how this denotes the same logical method as mine.

Of course God may follow a different pattern of logical thought than you or I do. You are arguing from your human viewpoint as to why He chose his method of creating humans. His choice is from His desires, not logic, but his choice of evolution must be logical in his mind. We cannot know the reasons for His desired goals, although you constantly want to guess!


dhw: Once again, please stop dodging.

DAVID: I don't dodge while you complain about a God you do not fully understand in the way I do. I'll still follow Adler's logic as you follow Talbott.

dhw: Adler’s logic, so you have told us, does not extend so far as to cover your theory bolded above. I am amazed at your claim that you fully understand God, and if you do not dodge, then please at last explain the logic behind the bolded theory above.

DAVID: Adler's writings give us a very clear and logical reason for understanding God's purpose that He wished to produce humans. From that point the rest of the theory that God chose to evolve us is logically quite clear. On page 291 Adler completely demolishes evolutionists by stating that our immaterialist nature cannot be explained by a naturalist evolution. Adler is fully aware of evolutionary theory as espoused by naturalists. As he believes in God, I would guess he would agree with my thoughts. Since you haven't read Adler, how can you complain?

dhw: I do not complain about Adler! I complain about your theory that your (sometimes) all-powerful God had only one purpose – to create H. sapiens – but directly designed millions of other, now extinct life forms, natural wonders etc. that had nothing to do with humans, before he directly designed lots of different homos before he directly designed H. sapiens. I keep asking you to explain the logic, and all you do is hide behind Adler, who you have told us quite explicitly does not cover your theory! Yet again: please stop dodging!:-(

I have written above Adler's thoughts. Mt theory comes directly from Adler's exposition about our obvious vast difference from animals with abstract thought and consciousness which came through evolution. My bold is perfectly clear as you dodge and refuse to accept my opinion about Adler. He is key to my reasoning which only dodges your contrived views of my approach to how God ran evolution. You still don't allow the thought God had the right to choose his method of creation. I'll admit you sometimes give lip service to the concept, but constantly revert back to an opinion His choice of method doesn't fit your human reasoning. Remember the bolded statement of yours above, a perfect example. Must I remind you, your approach to your intentions are not God's, as much as you try to humanize Him.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum