Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, May 29, 2020, 11:11 (117 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 (117 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 (116 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 (116 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 (115 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 (115 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 (114 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 (114 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 (114 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 (113 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 (113 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 (112 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 (112 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 (112 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 (111 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 (110 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 (110 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 (109 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 (109 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 (108 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 (108 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 (107 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 (107 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 (107 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 (106 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 (106 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 (105 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 (105 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 (104 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 (104 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 (103 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 (103 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 (102 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 (102 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 (101 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 (101 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 (100 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 (100 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 (99 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 (99 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 (98 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 (98 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 (97 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 (97 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 (96 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 (96 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 (95 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 (95 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 (95 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 (94 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 (93 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 (93 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 (92 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 (92 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 (92 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 (91 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 (90 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 (90 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 (89 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 (89 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 (88 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 (88 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 (88 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 (87 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 (87 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 (87 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 (86 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 (86 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 (85 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 (85 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 (84 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 (84 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 (84 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 (83 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 (83 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 (82 days 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 (82 days 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 (81 days 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 (81 days 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.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, July 05, 2020, 09:39 (81 days ago) @ David Turell

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!

DAVID: Your silliness is really exposed. God did not design accidental errors in living biology. Do you know the definition of 'accident'?

You wrote: “The 'errors' are accidents not planned.” But he designed the whole system! You have even said that he knew the unplanned, accidental errors were part of his design, and so he provided safeguards, though some of these didn’t work either! The silliness lies in your God deliberately designing “errors” to kill old people but calling the same errors “accidental” when they kill young people.

dhw: […] please answer my bolded question.

DAVID: I can't answer a bolded imperfect premise re the meaning of 'accidental'.

The bolded question is: 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. Nothing to do with the meaning of “accidental”.

DAVID: […] 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!

DAVID: 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!

So why do you keep saying “we and He use the same logical methods”? Of course his method of creating humans and all the other mainly extinct life forms you keep forgetting about would have been from his desires and would have been logical in his mind. That is why I have offered you several logical “guesses”. Only yours is illogical, but you can’t bear to think it might be wrong!

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!:-(

DAVID: I have written above Adler's thoughts. My theory comes directly from Adler's exposition about our obvious vast difference from animals with abstract thought and consciousness which came through evolution. […]

More dodging. I accept our obvious vast difference from animals.

DAVID: You still don't allow the thought God had the right to choose his method of creation. […] Must I remind you, your approach to your intentions are not God's, as much as you try to humanize Him.

Of course God chose his method of creation! “Must I remind you” that your approach to his intentions and methods is illogical (hence the dodging), whereas my alternatives – which you agree are logical – are dismissed on the grounds that they humanize a God who you have told us probably has thought patterns similar to our own.

Transferred from “brain expansion”:
dhw: Now I seem to stand alone in suggesting that he knew exactly what he wanted and did it!

DAVID: I love it! I fully agree with the bold!!! And He is quite all-powerful. After all, He started the universe, evolved it to create a massive Milky Way which then, under His guidance produced an Earth perfect for life, which He then invented, warts and all!!! Fuss over the warts. He is still God. Look what He has produced. But no, all you look for are the negatives, which allow you to deny Him. There are so many positives which 'prove His existence beyond a reasonable doubt' (Adler).

What is “quite” all-powerful? Again you dodge the implications of your own guesses, and especially the “warts”. I have never “denied” God. I present the case for and against in order to explain my agnosticism. And our disagreement has nothing to do with the existence of God but concerns only your illogical theories concerning his possible nature, purpose and methods. Please stop dodging!:-(

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 05, 2020, 21:11 (80 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You wrote: “The 'errors' are accidents not planned.” But he designed the whole system! You have even said that he knew the unplanned, accidental errors were part of his design, and so he provided safeguards, though some of these didn’t work either! The silliness lies in your God deliberately designing “errors” to kill old people but calling the same errors “accidental” when they kill young people.

Molecular errors in living biology are just that, much as you try to contrive if differently.

DAVID: 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: So why do you keep saying “we and He use the same logical methods”? Of course his method of creating humans and all the other mainly extinct life forms you keep forgetting about would have been from his desires and would have been logical in his mind. That is why I have offered you several logical “guesses”. Only yours is illogical, but you can’t bear to think it might be wrong!

We use the same logical methods of thought. The logic behind His choices is unknown to us.

DAVID: You still don't allow the thought God had the right to choose his method of creation. […] Must I remind you, your approach to your intentions are not God's, as much as you try to humanize Him.

dhw: Of course God chose his method of creation! “Must I remind you” that your approach to his intentions and methods is illogical (hence the dodging), whereas my alternatives – which you agree are logical – are dismissed on the grounds that they humanize a God who you have told us probably has thought patterns similar to our own.

Of course they are humanizing. I don't need to list the examples. You are saying again, Adler and i are illogical.


Transferred from “brain expansion”:
dhw: Now I seem to stand alone in suggesting that he knew exactly what he wanted and did it!

DAVID: I love it! I fully agree with the bold!!! And He is quite all-powerful. After all, He started the universe, evolved it to create a massive Milky Way which then, under His guidance produced an Earth perfect for life, which He then invented, warts and all!!! Fuss over the warts. He is still God. Look what He has produced. But no, all you look for are the negatives, which allow you to deny Him. There are so many positives which 'prove His existence beyond a reasonable doubt' (Adler).

dhw: What is “quite” all-powerful? Again you dodge the implications of your own guesses, and especially the “warts”. I have never “denied” God. I present the case for and against in order to explain my agnosticism. And our disagreement has nothing to do with the existence of God but concerns only your illogical theories concerning his possible nature, purpose and methods. Please stop dodging!:-(

The 'implications of my thinking are based on Adler's discussions of God's creation of us. I'm only dodging your illogical approaches to a God you constantly humanize. :-|

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, July 06, 2020, 12:05 (79 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You wrote: “The 'errors' are accidents not planned.” But he designed the whole system! You have even said that he knew the unplanned, accidental errors were part of his design, and so he provided safeguards, though some of these didn’t work either! The silliness lies in your God deliberately designing “errors” to kill old people but calling the same errors “accidental” when they kill young people.

DAVID: Molecular errors in living biology are just that, much as you try to contrive if differently.

Of course errors are errors. But you insist that your God designed “living biology”, and you tie yourself in intellectual knots, telling us that he deliberately designed the “errors” to weaken and kill old people, but it was impossible for him to build the system without accidental “errors” that would weaken or kill all of us, and so he tried to provide safeguards, but some of those didn’t work.

DAVID: 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: So why do you keep saying “we and He use the same logical methods”? Of course his method of creating humans and all the other mainly extinct life forms you keep forgetting about would have been from his desires and would have been logical in his mind. That is why I have offered you several logical “guesses”. Only yours is illogical, but you can’t bear to think it might be wrong!

DAVID: We use the same logical methods of thought. The logic behind His choices is unknown to us.

How can a “logical method of thought” be the same as ours if we can’t understand the logic?

DAVID: You still don't allow the thought God had the right to choose his method of creation. […] Must I remind you, your approach to your intentions are not God's, as much as you try to humanize Him.

dhw: Of course God chose his method of creation! “Must I remind you” that your approach to his intentions and methods is illogical (hence the dodging), whereas my alternatives – which you agree are logical – are dismissed on the grounds that they humanize a God who you have told us probably has thought patterns similar to our own.

DAVID: Of course they are humanizing. I don't need to list the examples. You are saying again, Adler and i are illogical.

I did not say they weren’t humanizing. I merely reminded you of your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, so that is no reason to reject a logical explanation of his actions. I have no objection to the logical arguments you say Adler puts forward for the uniqueness of humans and for the existence of God. What is illogical in your theory – the bit which you always try to dodge and which you tell us Adler does not deal with – is the claim that an all-powerful God has only one purpose, to create H. sapiens, but spends 3.X billion years specially designing millions of now extinct non-human life forms before then specially designing all our ancestors before finally specially designing us.

Transferred from “brain expansion”:
dhw: Now I seem to stand alone in suggesting that he knew exactly what he wanted and did it!

DAVID: I love it! I fully agree with the bold!!! And He is quite all-powerful. After all, He started the universe, evolved it to create a massive Milky Way which then, under His guidance produced an Earth perfect for life, which He then invented, warts and all!!! Fuss over the warts. He is still God. Look what He has produced. But no, all you look for are the negatives, which allow you to deny Him. There are so many positives which 'prove His existence beyond a reasonable doubt' (Adler).

dhw: What is “quite” all-powerful? Again you dodge the implications of your own guesses, and especially the “warts”. I have never “denied” God. I present the case for and against in order to explain my agnosticism. And our disagreement has nothing to do with the existence of God but concerns only your illogical theories concerning his possible nature, purpose and methods. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: The 'implications of my thinking are based on Adler's discussions of God's creation of us. I'm only dodging your illogical approaches to a God you constantly humanize.

See above for your clinging to Adler as a way of dodging the illogicality of your theory and for your “humanizing” dodge. You are currently telling us about his errors, his not knowing all the consequences of his actions, and his lack of control. Apparently you regard this as less human and more purposeful than the hypothesis I present of a God who knows exactly what he wants and produces it.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, July 06, 2020, 15:48 (79 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Molecular errors in living biology are just that, much as you try to contrive if differently.

dhw: Of course errors are errors. But you insist that your God designed “living biology”, and you tie yourself in intellectual knots, telling us that he deliberately designed the “errors” to weaken and kill old people, but it was impossible for him to build the system without accidental “errors” that would weaken or kill all of us, and so he tried to provide safeguards, but some of those didn’t work.

A great description of my viewpoint. No biological living system can be designed perfectly. That is the truth. I accept God, warts and all, as you view Him.


DAVID: We use the same logical methods of thought. The logic behind His choices is unknown to us.

dhw: How can a “logical method of thought” be the same as ours if we can’t understand the logic?

The 'logic' resides in God's reasons for his choices. We can't know that.


DAVID: You still don't allow the thought God had the right to choose his method of creation. […] Must I remind you, your approach to your intentions are not God's, as much as you try to humanize Him.

dhw: Of course God chose his method of creation! “Must I remind you” that your approach to his intentions and methods is illogical (hence the dodging), whereas my alternatives – which you agree are logical – are dismissed on the grounds that they humanize a God who you have told us probably has thought patterns similar to our own.

DAVID: Of course they are humanizing. I don't need to list the examples. You are saying again, Adler and i are illogical.

dhw: I did not say they weren’t humanizing. I merely reminded you of your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, so that is no reason to reject a logical explanation of his actions. I have no objection to the logical arguments you say Adler puts forward for the uniqueness of humans and for the existence of God. What is illogical in your theory – the bit which you always try to dodge and which you tell us Adler does not deal with – is the claim that an all-powerful God has only one purpose, to create H. sapiens, but spends 3.X billion years specially designing millions of now extinct non-human life forms before then specially designing all our ancestors before finally specially designing us.

The bold was God's choice. You object while admitting God, if He exists, ran evolution.


Transferred from “brain expansion”:
dhw: Now I seem to stand alone in suggesting that he knew exactly what he wanted and did it!

DAVID: I love it! I fully agree with the bold!!! And He is quite all-powerful. After all, He started the universe, evolved it to create a massive Milky Way which then, under His guidance produced an Earth perfect for life, which He then invented, warts and all!!! Fuss over the warts. He is still God. Look what He has produced. But no, all you look for are the negatives, which allow you to deny Him. There are so many positives which 'prove His existence beyond a reasonable doubt' (Adler).

dhw: What is “quite” all-powerful? Again you dodge the implications of your own guesses, and especially the “warts”. I have never “denied” God. I present the case for and against in order to explain my agnosticism. And our disagreement has nothing to do with the existence of God but concerns only your illogical theories concerning his possible nature, purpose and methods. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: The 'implications of my thinking are based on Adler's discussions of God's creation of us. I'm only dodging your illogical approaches to a God you constantly humanize.

dhw: See above for your clinging to Adler as a way of dodging the illogicality of your theory and for your “humanizing” dodge. You are currently telling us about his errors, his not knowing all the consequences of his actions, and his lack of control.

You know God knew of His problems with biological processes. He built-in the safeguards He could.

dhw: Apparently you regard this as less human and more purposeful than the hypothesis I present of a God who knows exactly what he wants and produces it.

I've said before your bolded phrase is exactly my thought. But your God experiments and enjoys spectacle. That is a humanized God.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, July 07, 2020, 12:40 (78 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Molecular errors in living biology are just that, much as you try to contrive if differently.

dhw: Of course errors are errors. But you insist that your God designed “living biology”, and you tie yourself in intellectual knots, telling us that he deliberately designed the “errors” to weaken and kill old people, but it was impossible for him to build the system without accidental “errors” that would weaken or kill all of us, and so he tried to provide safeguards, but some of those didn’t work.

DAVID: A great description of my viewpoint. No biological living system can be designed perfectly. That is the truth. I accept God, warts and all, as you view Him.

The question is what sort of God you accept. At one moment he is all-powerful, all-knowing and in total control. The next he’s faffing around creating a system full of errors which he can’t control, trying to provide safeguards, and even then failing to do so. We’re not talking about a minor detail here. This is the whole of “living biology”, i.e. life itself, of which according to you one particular species was his one and only purpose for creating the universe! And yet when I propose that he actually created the system he WANTED to create – because he did not want to create billions and billions of perfect life forms that would go on multiplying and diversifying but would never die – I am accused of “humanizing” him and making him act without a purpose.

DAVID: You know God knew of His problems with biological processes. He built-in the safeguards He could.

dhw: Apparently you regard this as less human and more purposeful than the hypothesis I present of a God who knows exactly what he wants and produces it.

DAVID: I've said before your bolded phrase is exactly my thought. But your God experiments and enjoys spectacle. That is a humanized God.

If he knows what he wants and produces it, and what he produces is full of errors, then he must have wanted a product full of errors! And why do you think a God who deliberately creates the “errors” is more humanized than a God who does what he can (and sometimes fails) to make up for the errors in the system he has designed?

Under “biological complexity”: Dr. Daley found that each resection enzyme is tailored to deal with a specific type of complex break, which explains why a diverse toolkit of resection enzymes has evolved over millennia." (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: It seems God recognized errors would occur and provided all the necessary tools for perfect reproduction.

As before, you have him designing the system from scratch, blundering (because you say he did not create the errors deliberately), trying to provide safeguards, and sometimes failing. (Is reproduction always “perfect”?). As with the immune system, we clearly have a mechanism which enables cells to solve problems and, over time, to build up a library of their solutions. Maybe your God provided this autonomous mechanism which sometimes does and sometimes doesn’t solve the problems and which I call “cellular intelligence”.

DAVID: We use the same logical methods of thought. The logic behind His choices is unknown to us.

dhw: How can a “logical method of thought” be the same as ours if we can’t understand the logic?

DAVID: The 'logic' resides in God's reasons for his choices. We can't know that.
Of course it does. You have guessed at his choice (bolded below), and can’t find any logical reasons for it. So once more: how do you know that his logical method of thought is the same as ours?

dhw: What is illogical in your theory – the bit which you always try to dodge and which you tell us Adler does not deal with – is the claim that an all-powerful God has only one purpose, to create H. sapiens, but spends 3.X billion years specially designing millions of now extinct non-human life forms before then specially designing all our ancestors before finally specially designing us.

DAVID: The bold was God's choice. You object while admitting God, if He exists, ran evolution.

No, the bold is your interpretation of his choice! How often do you want me to repeat that although each of your three guessed premises is possible in itself, the combination is illogical. You admit that my alternatives are logical, complain that they “humanize”God, and try to forget your own agreement that he probably has patterns of thought similar to ours - which is a perfectly logical proposal since you believe that our consciousness is part of his consciousness.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 07, 2020, 18:37 (78 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: A great description of my viewpoint. No biological living system can be designed perfectly. That is the truth. I accept God, warts and all, as you view Him.

dhw: The question is what sort of God you accept. At one moment he is all-powerful, all-knowing and in total control.

Have you noted God created life when none existed, and we cannot figure out how?

dhw: The next he’s faffing around creating a system full of errors which he can’t control, trying to provide safeguards, and even then failing to do so. We’re not talking about a minor detail here. This is the whole of “living biology”, i.e. life itself,

He put in as effective safeguards as He could. He foresaw the problems. Not his fault that high speed molecular reactions make mistakes.

dhw: of which according to you one particular species was his one and only purpose for creating the universe! And yet when I propose that he actually created the system he WANTED to create – because he did not want to create billions and billions of perfect life forms that would go on multiplying and diversifying but would never die – I am accused of “humanizing” him and making him act without a purpose.

Your one lucid moment about recognizing death is builtin, which is not my issue about humanizing: you have Him experimenting and enjoying spectacles.


dhw: If he knows what he wants and produces it, and what he produces is full of errors, then he must have wanted a product full of errors! And why do you think a God who deliberately creates the “errors” is more humanized than a God who does what he can (and sometimes fails) to make up for the errors in the system he has designed?

Total distortion. God cannot control each protein molecule's actions


Under “biological complexity”: Dr. Daley found that each resection enzyme is tailored to deal with a specific type of complex break, which explains why a diverse toolkit of resection enzymes has evolved over millennia." (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: It seems God recognized errors would occur and provided all the necessary tools for perfect reproduction.

dhw: As before, you have him designing the system from scratch, blundering (because you say he did not create the errors deliberately), trying to provide safeguards, and sometimes failing. (Is reproduction always “perfect”?). As with the immune system, we clearly have a mechanism which enables cells to solve problems and, over time, to build up a library of their solutions. Maybe your God provided this autonomous mechanism which sometimes does and sometimes doesn’t solve the problems and which I call “cellular intelligence”.

"Blundering" is a twisted distortion of what is possible to create in a living system.

dhw: How can a “logical method of thought” be the same as ours if we can’t understand the logic?

DAVID: The 'logic' resides in God's reasons for his choices. We can't know that.

dhw: Of course it does. You have guessed at his choice (bolded below), and can’t find any logical reasons for it. So once more: how do you know that his logical method of thought is the same as ours?[/i]

dhw: What is illogical in your theory – the bit which you always try to dodge and which you tell us Adler does not deal with – is the claim that an all-powerful God has only one purpose, to create H. sapiens, but spends 3.X billion years specially designing millions of now extinct non-human life forms before then specially designing all our ancestors before finally specially designing us.

Adler uses our difference to prove God exists, and discusses our purposeful creation by evolution to cement His points.


DAVID: The bold was God's choice. You object while admitting God, if He exists, ran evolution.

dhw: No, the bold is your interpretation of his choice! How often do you want me to repeat that although each of your three guessed premises is possible in itself, the combination is illogical. You admit that my alternatives are logical, complain that they “humanize”God, and try to forget your own agreement that he probably has patterns of thought similar to ours - which is a perfectly logical proposal since you believe that our consciousness is part of his consciousness.

We go 'round and 'round. Adler makes my theory logical. Our logic is similar to God's, the only thought pattern which is definitely similar. That is my only agreement with you. Logic is logic and it has rules.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, July 08, 2020, 10:56 (77 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A great description of my viewpoint. No biological living system can be designed perfectly. That is the truth. I accept God, warts and all, as you view Him.

dhw: The question is what sort of God you accept. At one moment he is all-powerful, all-knowing and in total control.

DAVID: Have you noted God created life when none existed, and we cannot figure out how?

Yes indeed, and that’s your problem, because according to you this all-powerful, all-knowing, always-in-control being created from scratch a system….See next comment:
dhw: ….full of errors which he can’t control, trying to provide safeguards, and even then failing to do so. We’re not talking about a minor detail here. This is the whole of “living biology”, i.e. life itself.

DAVID: He put in as effective safeguards as He could. He foresaw the problems. Not his fault that high speed molecular reactions make mistakes.

Why do you feel you have to defend his inability to create a perfect system? Why can’t you consider the possibility that he WANTED it this way? You agreed with me that your God knows what he wants and produces it! See next comment:
dhw: If he knows what he wants and produces it, and what he produces is full of errors, then he must have wanted a product full of errors! And why do you think a God who deliberately creates the “errors” is more humanized than a God who does what he can (and sometimes fails) to make up for the errors in the system he has designed?

DAVID: Total distortion. God cannot control each protein molecule's actions.

Why is creating what he wants a distortion? Why do you assume that an all-powerful God’s powers are limited and he was forced to create something he didn’t want to create and tried – sometimes in vain – to rectify?

dhw: […] when I propose that he actually created the system he WANTED to create – because he did not want to create billions and billions of perfect life forms that would go on multiplying and diversifying but would never die – I am accused of “humanizing” him and making him act without a purpose.

DAVID: Your one lucid moment about recognizing death is builtin, which is not my issue about humanizing: you have Him experimenting and enjoying spectacles.

Experimenting would remove the discrepancy in your theory between God having only one purpose (us) but spending 3.X billion years directly designing anything but us. Your all-purposeful God must have had a reason for creating the great bush of life, including us, and it is perfectly possible that, as you put it yourself, he enjoys his work much as a painter enjoys his paintings. Of course we can only speculate, but as you so rightly assume, he probably has thought patterns similar to ours.

dhw: How can a “logical method of thought” be the same as ours if we can’t understand the logic?

DAVID: Adler uses our difference to prove God exists, and discusses our purposeful creation by evolution to cement His points.

But you have told us explicitly that he does not cover the above discrepancy. Please stop dodging the issue and trying to hide behind Adler, whose logic I do not dispute.

DAVID: We go 'round and 'round. Adler makes my theory logical. Our logic is similar to God's, the only thought pattern which is definitely similar. That is my only agreement with you. Logic is logic and it has rules.

We go round and round because you keep dodging the issue. The basic rule of logic as I understand it is that the premises of an argument should combine to form a pattern that makes sense to those engaged in the discussion. Here are all your premises. (Forget Adler – it’s your theory we are discussing.) Humans are unique and are so complex that they prove the existence of God. God’s one and only purpose was to create sapiens. God is all-powerful. God spent 3.X billion years directly designing every non-human life form, econiche etc. before directly designing our ancestors before directly designing us. Each premise is reasonable in itself. But put them together, and the following question arises: if your all-powerful God had only one purpose (us), why did he spend 3.X billion years NOT designing us but designing millions of now extinct, non-human life forms, econiches etc.? Your answer: no idea. Goodbye to logic. “Our logic is similar to God’s” = God has no idea either. If God exists, I reckon he would know what he wants and would do it. Hence all the logical alternatives I offer.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 08, 2020, 18:26 (77 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Total distortion. God cannot control each protein molecule's actions.

dhw: Why is creating what he wants a distortion? Why do you assume that an all-powerful God’s powers are limited and he was forced to create something he didn’t want to create and tried – sometimes in vain – to rectify?

Forced! Crazy comment. God creates exactly what He wishes. What is distorted is your constant claim that God could have made the living biology system with perfect function. Impossible.


dhw: […] when I propose that he actually created the system he WANTED to create – because he did not want to create billions and billions of perfect life forms that would go on multiplying and diversifying but would never die – I am accused of “humanizing” him and making him act without a purpose.

DAVID: Your one lucid moment about recognizing death is builtin, which is not my issue about humanizing: you have Him experimenting and enjoying spectacles.

dhw: Experimenting would remove the discrepancy in your theory between God having only one purpose (us) but spending 3.X billion years directly designing anything but us. Your all-purposeful God must have had a reason for creating the great bush of life, including us, and it is perfectly possible that, as you put it yourself, he enjoys his work much as a painter enjoys his paintings. Of course we can only speculate, but as you so rightly assume, he probably has thought patterns similar to ours.

Same mistaken approach. But you always forget that the huge bush gives us the food energy we need for a huge, and growing, human population.


dhw: How can a “logical method of thought” be the same as ours if we can’t understand the logic?

DAVID: Adler uses our difference to prove God exists, and discusses our purposeful creation by evolution to cement His points.

dhw: But you have told us explicitly that he does not cover the above discrepancy. Please stop dodging the issue and trying to hide behind Adler, whose logic I do not dispute.

Thanks for accepting Adler. Your comment about understanding God's logic is impossible to achieve. Whatever logic God used to decided upon His method of evolving us, I am sure it was logical, but He doesn't tell us His logic behind His reasons. How can we understand it?


DAVID: We go 'round and 'round. Adler makes my theory logical. Our logic is similar to God's, the only thought pattern which is definitely similar. That is my only agreement with you. Logic is logic and it has rules.

dhw: We go round and round because you keep dodging the issue. The basic rule of logic as I understand it is that the premises of an argument should combine to form a pattern that makes sense to those engaged in the discussion. Here are all your premises. (Forget Adler – it’s your theory we are discussing.) Humans are unique and are so complex that they prove the existence of God. God’s one and only purpose was to create sapiens. God is all-powerful. God spent 3.X billion years directly designing every non-human life form, econiche etc. before directly designing our ancestors before directly designing us. Each premise is reasonable in itself. But put them together, and the following question arises: if your all-powerful God had only one purpose (us), why did he spend 3.X billion years NOT designing us but designing millions of now extinct, non-human life forms, econiches etc.? Your answer: no idea.

False conclusion. You've totally ignored my two reasons: God runs evolution and chose to evolve humans over time. The huge bush of life provides food for a burgeoning population of humans. My 'no idea' is not as you always imply. I have 'no idea' why He made the choices He made. I can't know!!! History can only tell us what He did, not why. My interpretation is not your interpretation, which basically is, why wasn't God impatient? Patently humanizing.

dhw: Goodbye to logic. “Our logic is similar to God’s” = God has no idea either. If God exists, I reckon he would know what he wants and would do it. Hence all the logical alternatives I offer.

Your approach to God is denial, not logic. Your 'human logical thoughts' about God are all humanizing. God knows exactly what He is doing. Your bold is totally without logical thought. Read my comment above carefully. My 'no idea' is not your 'no idea'.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, July 09, 2020, 10:52 (76 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Total distortion! God cannot control each protein molecule's actions.

dhw: Why is creating what he wants a distortion? Why do you assume that an all-powerful God’s powers are limited and he was forced to create something he didn’t want to create and tried – sometimes in vain – to rectify?

DAVID: Forced! Crazy comment. God creates exactly what He wishes. What is distorted is your constant claim that God could have made the living biology system with perfect function. Impossible.

My proposal is that the “errors” in the system were exactly what he wished. If he did NOT wish for the errors, then he invented something which could not comply with his wishes, in which case his powers were limited and he was forced to invent something he did not wish for. Hence, according to you, his efforts – sometimes unsuccessful – to provide safeguards against the errors he had not wished for. You can’t have it both ways. Either he is all-powerful and created what he wished (my proposal), or his powers are limited because what he wished for was impossible (your proposal).

dhw: […] when I propose that he actually created the system he WANTED to create – because he did not want to create billions and billions of perfect life forms that would go on multiplying and diversifying but would never die – I am accused of “humanizing” him and making him act without a purpose.

DAVID: Your one lucid moment about recognizing death is builtin, which is not my issue about humanizing: you have Him experimenting and enjoying spectacles.

dhw: Experimenting would remove the discrepancy in your theory between God having only one purpose (us) but spending 3.X billion years directly designing anything but us. Your all-purposeful God must have had a reason for creating the great bush of life, including us, and it is perfectly possible that, as you put it yourself, he enjoys his work much as a painter enjoys his paintings. Of course we can only speculate, but as you so rightly assume, he probably has thought patterns similar to ours.

DAVID: Same mistaken approach. But you always forget that the huge bush gives us the food energy we need for a huge, and growing, human population.

And you seem deliberately to “forget” that life did not begin with humans, and according to you he spent 3.X billion years providing food for millions of non-human life forms, although his only purpose was to design humans. Please stop dodging.

dhw: How can a “logical method of thought” be the same as ours if we can’t understand the logic?

DAVID: Your comment about understanding God's logic is impossible to achieve. Whatever logic God used to decided upon His method of evolving us, I am sure it was logical, but He doesn't tell us His logic behind His reasons. How can we understand it?

You’re sure God’s logic is like ours but we can’t understand it! And yet you can understand the logic behind all the alternatives I offer to your personal theory about God’s purpose and method, and the ONLY reason you reject them is that they endow God with patterns of thought similar to ours, although you believe that he probably has patterns of thought similar to ours. Silly.

dhw: […] if your all-powerful God had only one purpose (us), why did he spend 3.X billion years NOT designing us but designing millions of now extinct, non-human life forms, econiches etc.? Your answer: no idea.

DAVID: False conclusion. You've totally ignored my two reasons: God runs evolution and chose to evolve humans over time. The huge bush of life provides food for a burgeoning population of humans.

We don’t know how God “runs” evolution – your way (designing everything) or my way (allowing free rein), and once again you forget that according to you he specially designed a huge bush of life and food for thousands of millions of years before humans came on the scene – and you have no idea why. THAT is the illogical part of your theory which you constantly try to dodge.

DAVID: My 'no idea' is not as you always imply. I have 'no idea' why He made the choices He made. I can't know!!! History can only tell us what He did, not why. My interpretation is not your interpretation, which basically is, why wasn't God impatient? Patently humanizing.

You have no idea why he made the choices you have imposed on him! History tells us that there was a vast bush before humans arrived. The rest is your illogical guesswork.

dhw: Goodbye to logic. “Our logic is similar to God’s” = God has no idea either. If God exists, I reckon he would know what he wants and would do it. Hence all the logical alternatives I offer.

DAVID: Your approach to God is denial, not logic. Your 'human logical thoughts' about God are all humanizing. God knows exactly what He is doing. Your bold is totally without logical thought. Read my comment above carefully. My 'no idea' is not your 'no idea'.

Denial of what? I agree that if God exists, he knows exactly what he is doing – hence my different alternatives. Your silly “humanizing” rejection of them is dealt with above.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 09, 2020, 21:22 (76 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God creates exactly what He wishes. What is distorted is your constant claim that God could have made the living biology system with perfect function. Impossible.

dhw: My proposal is that the “errors” in the system were exactly what he wished. If he did NOT wish for the errors, then he invented something which could not comply with his wishes, in which case his powers were limited and he was forced to invent something he did not wish for. Hence, according to you, his efforts – sometimes unsuccessful – to provide safeguards against the errors he had not wished for. You can’t have it both ways. Either he is all-powerful and created what he wished (my proposal), or his powers are limited because what he wished for was impossible (your proposal).

It is obvious. He cannot have life's molecules avoid errors. Knowing it was not possible, He put in as many safeguards as He could. Totally logical analysis.


DAVID: Same mistaken approach. But you always forget that the huge bush gives us the food energy we need for a huge, and growing, human population.

dhw: And you seem deliberately to “forget” that life did not begin with humans, and according to you he spent 3.X billion years providing food for millions of non-human life forms, although his only purpose was to design humans. Please stop dodging.

No dodge. God has the right to choose to evolve us.

DAVID: Your comment about understanding God's logic is impossible to achieve. Whatever logic God used to decided upon His method of evolving us, I am sure it was logical, but He doesn't tell us His logic behind His reasons. How can we understand it?

dhw: You’re sure God’s logic is like ours but we can’t understand it! And yet you can understand the logic behind all the alternatives I offer to your personal theory about God’s purpose and method, and the ONLY reason you reject them is that they endow God with patterns of thought similar to ours, although you believe that he probably has patterns of thought similar to ours. Silly.

It is your silliness. You never recognize we cannot know the reasons for His choices or purposes, but we can assume He was logical in making those decisions.


dhw: […] if your all-powerful God had only one purpose (us), why did he spend 3.X billion years NOT designing us but designing millions of now extinct, non-human life forms, econiches etc.? Your answer: no idea.

DAVID: God runs evolution and chose to evolve humans over time. The huge bush of life provides food for a burgeoning population of humans. [/i]

dhw: We don’t know how God “runs” evolution – your way (designing everything) or my way (allowing free rein), and once again you forget that according to you he specially designed a huge bush of life and food for thousands of millions of years before humans came on the scene – and you have no idea why. THAT is the illogical part of your theory which you constantly try to dodge.

Repeated objection. You always imply He should mot have been so patient, again humanizing.

DAVID: My 'no idea' is not as you always imply. I have 'no idea' why He made the choices He made. I can't know!!! History can only tell us what He did, not why. My interpretation is not your interpretation, which basically is, why wasn't God impatient? Patently humanizing.

dhw: You have no idea why he made the choices you have imposed on him! History tells us that there was a vast bush before humans arrived. The rest is your illogical guesswork.

Repeated objection. You always imply He should mot have been so patient, again humanizing.


dhw: Goodbye to logic. “Our logic is similar to God’s” = God has no idea either. If God exists, I reckon he would know what he wants and would do it. Hence all the logical alternatives I offer.

DAVID: Your approach to God is denial, not logic. Your 'human logical thoughts' about God are all humanizing. God knows exactly what He is doing. Your bold is totally without logical thought. Read my comment above carefully. My 'no idea' is not your 'no idea'.

dhw: Denial of what? I agree that if God exists, he knows exactly what he is doing – hence my different alternatives. Your silly “humanizing” rejection of them is dealt with above.

Where? You constantly use human logic when describing His thoughts and motives.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, July 10, 2020, 08:56 (76 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: My proposal is that the “errors” in the system were exactly what he wished. If he did NOT wish for the errors, then he invented something which could not comply with his wishes, in which case his powers were limited and he was forced to invent something he did not wish for. Hence, according to you, his efforts – sometimes unsuccessful – to provide safeguards against the errors he had not wished for. You can’t have it both ways. Either he is all-powerful and created what he wished (my proposal), or his powers are limited because what he wished for was impossible (your proposal).

DAVID: It is obvious. He cannot have life's molecules avoid errors. Knowing it was not possible, He put in as many safeguards as He could. Totally logical analysis.

He invented the system. Did he want the errors or didn’t he? If he didn’t want them but could not avoid them, his powers were limited. Exit your all-powerful God. What is your objection to the proposal that he wanted them?

DAVID: Same mistaken approach. But you always forget that the huge bush gives us the food energy we need for a huge, and growing, human population.

dhw: And you seem deliberately to “forget” that life did not begin with humans, and according to you he spent 3.X billion years providing food for millions of non-human life forms, although his only purpose was to design humans. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: No dodge. God has the right to choose to evolve us.

Of course he does. But that does not explain why he chose to “evolve” (= specially design) 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human bush. Stop dodging!

dhw: You’re sure God’s logic is like ours but we can’t understand it! And yet you can understand the logic behind all the alternatives I offer to your personal theory about God’s purpose and method, and the ONLY reason you reject them is that they endow God with patterns of thought similar to ours, although you believe that he probably has patterns of thought similar to ours. Silly.

DAVID: It is your silliness. You never recognize we cannot know the reasons for His choices or purposes, but we can assume He was logical in making those decisions.

I would also assume so. That is why I dispute the section of your theory that makes him act in such a way that you have no idea why he would have done so.

DAVID: My 'no idea' is not as you always imply. I have 'no idea' why He made the choices He made. I can't know!!! History can only tell us what He did, not why. My interpretation is not your interpretation, which basically is, why wasn't God impatient? Patently humanizing.

dhw: You have no idea why he made the choices you have imposed on him! History tells us that there was a vast bush before humans arrived. The rest is your illogical guesswork.

DAVID: Repeated objection. You always imply He should not have been so patient, again humanizing.

I and you have no idea why he would have specially designed millions of extinct non-human life forms,food supplies, natural wonders etc. if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply. Nothing to do with patience.

dhw: Goodbye to logic. “Our logic is similar to God’s” = God has no idea either. If God exists, I reckon he would know what he wants and would do it. Hence all the logical alternatives I offer.

DAVID: Your approach to God is denial, not logic. Your 'human logical thoughts' about God are all humanizing. God knows exactly what He is doing. Your bold is totally without logical thought. Read my comment above carefully. My 'no idea' is not your 'no idea'.

dhw: Denial of what? I agree that if God exists, he knows exactly what he is doing – hence my different alternatives. Your silly “humanizing” rejection of them is dealt with above.

DAVID:Where?

Where I wrote: the ONLY reason you reject them [= my alternative explanations of evolution] is that they endow God with patterns of thought similar to ours, although you believe that he probably has patterns of thought similar to ours.

DAVID: You constantly use human logic when describing His thoughts and motives.

What other logic can you or I use? You are happy to use human logic when arguing the case for design, but when it comes to your personal theory about God’s nature, purpose and method, all of a sudden God’s logic has to be different from ours although you’re sure it is similar to ours, just as you agree that he probably has thought patterns similar to ours but you reject any theory that entails him having thought patterns similar to ours.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, July 10, 2020, 19:24 (75 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is obvious. He cannot have life's molecules avoid errors. Knowing it was not possible, He put in as many safeguards as He could. Totally logical analysis.

dhw: He invented the system. Did he want the errors or didn’t he? If he didn’t want them but could not avoid them, his powers were limited. Exit your all-powerful God. What is your objection to the proposal that he wanted them?

Yes, His powers cannot stop molecular errors. I know He can't stop them. The evidence being the backup systems in place.

DAVID: God has the right to choose to evolve us.

dhw: Of course he does. But that does not explain why he chose to “evolve” (= specially design) 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human bush.

How does evolution occur from bacteria to us without evolution? Nutty objection.


DAVID: It is your silliness. You never recognize we cannot know the reasons for His choices or purposes, but we can assume He was logical in making those decisions.

dhw: I would also assume so. That is why I dispute the section of your theory that makes him act in such a way that you have no idea why he would have done so.

You've just written we cannot know His reasons for his purposes. Still inconsistent thinking.


DAVID: Repeated objection. You always imply He should not have been so patient, again humanizing.

dhw: I and you have no idea why he would have specially designed millions of extinct non-human life forms,food supplies, natural wonders etc. if his only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food supply. Nothing to do with patience.

Same answer: How does evolution occur from bacteria to us without evolution? The bush gives us the food supply. Where is your logical thinking?

dhw: Denial of what? I agree that if God exists, he knows exactly what he is doing – hence my different alternatives. Your silly “humanizing” rejection of them is dealt with above.

DAVID:Where?

dhw: Where I wrote: the ONLY reason you reject them [= my alternative explanations of evolution] is that they endow God with patterns of thought similar to ours, although you believe that he probably has patterns of thought similar to ours.

DAVID: You constantly use human logic when describing His thoughts and motives.

dhw: What other logic can you or I use? You are happy to use human logic when arguing the case for design, but when it comes to your personal theory about God’s nature, purpose and method, all of a sudden God’s logic has to be different from ours although you’re sure it is similar to ours, just as you agree that he probably has thought patterns similar to ours but you reject any theory that entails him having thought patterns similar to ours.

The bold clearly states, finally, yes, He uses the same logic we do. I reject your humanizing thoughts about God's purposes: spectacle, experimenting, and others. Of course his thought patterns and ours may be similar patterns, but it doesn't make us privy to His thoughts (reasoning) that led to his decisions for his purposes.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, July 11, 2020, 11:24 (74 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It is obvious. He cannot have life's molecules avoid errors. Knowing it was not possible, He put in as many safeguards as He could. Totally logical analysis.

dhw: He invented the system. Did he want the errors or didn’t he? If he didn’t want them but could not avoid them, his powers were limited. Exit your all-powerful God. What is your objection to the proposal that he wanted them?

DAVID: Yes, His powers cannot stop molecular errors. I know He can't stop them. The evidence being the backup systems in place.

If his powers cannot stop something, his powers are limited. Once more: what is your objection to the proposal that he wanted the errors?

DAVID: God has the right to choose to evolve us.

dhw: Of course he does. But that does not explain why he chose to “evolve” (= specially design) 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human bush.

DAVID: How does evolution occur from bacteria to us without evolution? Nutty objection.

Stop dodging! You believe your all-powerful God directly created every life form. If he only wanted to directly create one life form with food supply, why did he spend 3.X billion years directly creating millions and millions of extinct non-human life forms and food supplies? You have “no idea”, apart from all of them being food supplies for humans who hadn’t yet arrived. A more appropriate question to you would be why you don’t just settle for Genesis: God directly created all the life forms that humans were to have dominion over, and then he directly created sapiens? Just forget about bacteria, and carry on pretending that the 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct, non-human life forms never existed; and forget about "evolution", which is what you also try to do when you insist on direct design.

DAVID: It is your silliness. You never recognize we cannot know the reasons for His choices or purposes, but we can assume He was logical in making those decisions.

dhw: I would also assume so. That is why I dispute the section of your theory that makes him act in such a way that you have no idea why he would have done so.

DAVID: You've just written we cannot know His reasons for his purposes. Still inconsistent thinking.

What are “reasons for purposes”? The purpose is the reason for the action. The action was the creation of life and its development by evolution. According to you the sole reason or purpose for God’s action was to create H. sapiens, and the reason or purpose for his creation of all the life forms etc. that preceded H. sapiens was to provide sapiens with food even though he wasn’t there. How logical is that?

DAVID: How does evolution occur from bacteria to us without evolution? The bush gives us the food supply. Where is your logical thinking?

See what I mean? 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct food supply for us, even though we didn’t exist. Just stick to Genesis and carry on pretending that your God didn’t spend 3.X billion years specially designing food supplies for all the extinct non-humans.

DAVID: You constantly use human logic when describing His thoughts and motives.

dhw: What other logic can you or I use? You are happy to use human logic when arguing the case for design, but when it comes to your personal theory about God’s nature, purpose and method, all of a sudden God’s logic has to be different from ours although you’re sure it is similar to ours, just as you agree that he probably has thought patterns similar to ours but you reject any theory that entails him having thought patterns similar to ours.

DAVID: The bold clearly states, finally, yes, He uses the same logic we do. I reject your humanizing thoughts about God's purposes: spectacle, experimenting, and others. Of course his thought patterns and ours may be similar patterns, but it doesn't make us privy to His thoughts (reasoning) that led to his decisions for his purposes.

We can’t know anything for certain, but if he uses the same logic as we do, and his thought patterns may be similar to ours, then you have no reason for rejecting “humanizing” theories other than the fact that we can’t know whether they are true or not. In that case, please reject your own theory, since you can’t know whether it is true or not.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 11, 2020, 15:31 (74 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, July 11, 2020, 15:47

DAVID: Yes, His powers cannot stop molecular errors. I know He can't stop them. The evidence being the backup systems in place.

dhw: If his powers cannot stop something, his powers are limited. Once more: what is your objection to the proposal that he wanted the errors?

Because of the corrective measures that are designed to undo them:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6500/155.4?utm_campaign=ec_sci_2020-07-09&am...

The human developmental disorder called Cornelia de Lange syndrome (CdLS) is caused by mutations that impair the function of cohesin, a protein complex that is important for genome organization and DNA repair. Singh et al. examined placentation in mouse models of CdLS and found evidence of persistent DNA damage, exit from the cell cycle (senescence), and inflammatory cytokine production. This identifies DNA damage responses as an important facet of placenta homeostasis that can affect embryo health. Further studies are needed to determine whether DNA damage responses in the placenta affect embryo development more broadly.

Comment: just a reminder, corrective mechanisms are everywhere for a reason. God anticipated the errors.

DAVID: How does evolution occur from bacteria to us without evolution? Nutty objection.

dhw: Stop dodging! You believe your all-powerful God directly created every life form. If he only wanted to directly create one life form with food supply, why did he spend 3.X billion years directly creating millions and millions of extinct non-human life forms and food supplies?

The bold tells us of your blind thoughts about God. Humans were a goal, not the method to reach their creation. Confused mixed up thinking.


DAVID: You've just written we cannot know His reasons for his purposes. Still inconsistent thinking.

dhw: What are “reasons for purposes”? The purpose is the reason for the action. The action was the creation of life and its development by evolution. According to you the sole reason or purpose for God’s action was to create H. sapiens, and the reason or purpose for his creation of all the life forms etc. that preceded H. sapiens was to provide sapiens with food even though he wasn’t there. How logical is that?

More confused thought. The huge bush of econiches feeds everyone. when humans arrive and their population grows larger enough food is present. Precise designer planning for the future. Purpose is not reason. There Are always reasons behind purpose!!! We cannot know those. I agree purpose drives action, but doesn't tell us the reasons for choice of action.

DAVID: You constantly use human logic when describing His thoughts and motives.

dhw: What other logic can you or I use? You are happy to use human logic when arguing the case for design, but when it comes to your personal theory about God’s nature, purpose and method, all of a sudden God’s logic has to be different from ours although you’re sure it is similar to ours, just as you agree that he probably has thought patterns similar to ours but you reject any theory that entails him having thought patterns similar to ours.

DAVID: The bold clearly states, finally, yes, He uses the same logic we do. I reject your humanizing thoughts about God's purposes: spectacle, experimenting, and others. Of course his thought patterns and ours may be similar patterns, but it doesn't make us privy to His thoughts (reasoning) that led to his decisions for his purposes.

dhw: We can’t know anything for certain, but if he uses the same logic as we do, and his thought patterns may be similar to ours, then you have no reason for rejecting “humanizing” theories other than the fact that we can’t know whether they are true or not. In that case, please reject your own theory, since you can’t know whether it is true or not.

Of course both you and are are theorizing. You like your thoughts, I like mine as this long train of discussion shows.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, July 12, 2020, 10:03 (74 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Yes, His powers cannot stop molecular errors. I know He can't stop them. The evidence being the backup systems in place.

dhw: If his powers cannot stop something, his powers are limited. Once more: what is your objection to the proposal that he wanted the errors?

DAVID: Because of the corrective measures that are designed to undo them:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6500/155.4?utm_campaign=ec_sci_2020-07-09&am...

QUOTE: The human developmental disorder called Cornelia de Lange syndrome (CdLS) is caused by mutations that impair the function of cohesin, a protein complex that is important for genome organization and DNA repair […]

DAVID: just a reminder, corrective mechanisms are everywhere for a reason. God anticipated the errors.

You have described an error which disrupts a corrective system! But as with the immune system, corrective mechanisms boil down to the cells continually devising (or failing to devise) remedies for errors as they occur. The mechanism, I would suggest, is the perhaps God-given intelligence of the cells. Meanwhile, (a) if your God’s powers cannot prevent errors, his powers are limited, and (b) even your proposal that your God provided corrective measures that sometimes work and sometimes don’t work does not disprove the theory that he deliberately created the errors in the first place, since the immortality of every creature would rapidly have led to sheer chaos on Planet Earth.

DAVID: How does evolution occur from bacteria to us without evolution? Nutty objection.

dhw: Stop dodging! You believe your all-powerful God directly created every life form. If he only wanted to directly create one life form with food supply, why did he spend 3.X billion years directly creating millions and millions of extinct non-human life forms and food supplies?

DAVID: The bold tells us of your blind thoughts about God. Humans were a goal, not the method to reach their creation. Confused mixed up thinking.

I’m afraid I don’t understand your statement. According to you, humans were THE goal, and in order to achieve his goal, he specially designed billions of now extinct NON-HUMAN life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc. But, understandably, you have no idea why he chose such a method.

DAVID: More confused thought. The huge bush of econiches feeds everyone. when humans arrive and their population grows larger enough food is present.

But 99% of the huge bush of specially designed, food-supplying econiches had disappeared by the time humans arrived!

DAVID: Precise designer planning for the future. Purpose is not reason. There Are always reasons behind purpose!!! We cannot know those. I agree purpose drives action, but doesn't tell us the reasons for choice of action.

“Purpose: the reason for which anything is done, created or exists” (Encarta). According to you the reason why, or purpose for which, your God created life was to create H. sapiens. Yes or no? And according to you the reason why, or purpose for which, your God specially designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms etc. was to provide food for humans who did not yet exist. Believe that if you will, but don’t tell me it’s logical, or that you know the purpose or reason for the billions of non-human life forms etc. but you can’t know the purpose or reason for them.

DAVID: Of course his thought patterns and ours may be similar patterns, but it doesn't make us privy to His thoughts (reasoning) that led to his decisions for his purposes.

dhw: We can’t know anything for certain, but if he uses the same logic as we do, and his thought patterns may be similar to ours, then you have no reason for rejecting “humanizing” theories other than the fact that we can’t know whether they are true or not. In that case, please reject your own theory, since you can’t know whether it is true or not.

DAVID: Of course both you and I are theorizing. You like your thoughts, I like mine as this long train of discussion shows.

And the discussion so far has shown that you have no idea why your God would have chosen the method you impose on him for achieving the purpose you impose on him, you agree that the alternative “humanizing” purposes and methods I have proposed are perfectly logical and God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, but you reject them because we can’t know whether any of them are true, and so you will stick to your own illogical theory, although we can’t know whether that is true either.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 12, 2020, 18:28 (73 days ago) @ dhw

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6500/155.4?utm_campaign=ec_sci_2020-07-09&am...

QUOTE: The human developmental disorder called Cornelia de Lange syndrome (CdLS) is caused by mutations that impair the function of cohesin, a protein complex that is important for genome organization and DNA repair […]

DAVID: just a reminder, corrective mechanisms are everywhere for a reason. God anticipated the errors.

dhw: You have described an error which disrupts a corrective system! But as with the immune system, corrective mechanisms boil down to the cells continually devising (or failing to devise) remedies for errors as they occur. The mechanism, I would suggest, is the perhaps God-given intelligence of the cells. Meanwhile, (a) if your God’s powers cannot prevent errors, his powers are limited, and (b) even your proposal that your God provided corrective measures that sometimes work and sometimes don’t work does not disprove the theory that he deliberately created the errors in the first place, since the immortality of every creature would rapidly have led to sheer chaos on Planet Earth.

Certainly death has to be builtin.

DAVID: The bold tells us of your blind thoughts about God. Humans were a goal, not the method to reach their creation. Confused mixed up thinking.

dhw: I’m afraid I don’t understand your statement. According to you, humans were THE goal, and in order to achieve his goal, he specially designed billions of now extinct NON-HUMAN life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc. But, understandably, you have no idea why he chose such a method.

His method, evolution, requires exactly what you illogically complain about.


DAVID: More confused thought. The huge bush of econiches feeds everyone. when humans arrive and their population grows larger enough food is present.

dhw: But 99% of the huge bush of specially designed, food-supplying econiches had disappeared by the time humans arrived!

More disjointed thought. Where is the room for all those lost species? You support death above!


DAVID: Precise designer planning for the future. Purpose is not reason. There Are always reasons behind purpose!!! We cannot know those. I agree purpose drives action, but doesn't tell us the reasons for choice of action.

dhw: “Purpose: the reason for which anything is done, created or exists” (Encarta). According to you the reason why, or purpose for which, your God created life was to create H. sapiens. Yes or no? And according to you the reason why, or purpose for which, your God specially designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms etc. was to provide food for humans who did not yet exist. Believe that if you will, but don’t tell me it’s logical, or that you know the purpose or reason for the billions of non-human life forms etc. but you can’t know the purpose or reason for them.

Same confusion about God, in charge, choosing to evolve us from bacteria


DAVID: Of course his thought patterns and ours may be similar patterns, but it doesn't make us privy to His thoughts (reasoning) that led to his decisions for his purposes.

dhw: We can’t know anything for certain, but if he uses the same logic as we do, and his thought patterns may be similar to ours, then you have no reason for rejecting “humanizing” theories other than the fact that we can’t know whether they are true or not. In that case, please reject your own theory, since you can’t know whether it is true or not.

DAVID: Of course both you and I are theorizing. You like your thoughts, I like mine as this long train of discussion shows.

dhw: And the discussion so far has shown that you have no idea why your God would have chosen the method you impose on him for achieving the purpose you impose on him, you agree that the alternative “humanizing” purposes and methods I have proposed are perfectly logical and God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, but you reject them because we can’t know whether any of them are true, and so you will stick to your own illogical theory, although we can’t know whether that is true either.

Still illogical. The bold is not my imposition! The history of evolution tells us His choice of method. Remember my view that God creates reality. Your proposals are all about a humanizing a God who isn't quite sure what He is dong as He experiments or invents spectacles to watch.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, July 13, 2020, 11:36 (72 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] (a) if your God’s powers cannot prevent errors, his powers are limited, and (b) even your proposal that your God provided corrective measures that sometimes work and sometimes don’t work does not disprove the theory that he deliberately created the errors in the first place, since the immortality of every creature would rapidly have led to sheer chaos on Planet Earth.

DAVID: Certainly death has to be builtin.

And death is caused by “errors” in the system, which means your God wanted death and therefore wanted the built-in errors. Away with the limited powers you illogically ascribe to your all-powerful God.

Under “Immunity system complexity”: Yet the immune system is so sophisticated, with layers upon layers of brakes, that existing approaches may be “just scratching the surface,” says Peng." (DAVID's bold)

DAVID: I've used the article on cancer therapy to show the degree of immune complexity (note the bold), and our new-found ability to analyze it and tailor it to create therapies. Thank goodness God gave us this big brain that can be used to improve on His designs.

I would suggest that the complexity of the immune system has evolved “layer upon layer” as the cells have created their own defences against disease after disease, gradually building up a library of responses. I have doubts about an all-powerful God who finds it impossible to create a system without errors, while clever humans manage to correct his errors. Gosh, we are cleverer than God! I reckon that if he exists, he would have created the errors deliberately (see above), but gave cells the intelligence to correct some of them (I suspect that even pre-human animals had an immune system!) though of course I agree that humans have used their extraordinary intelligence to broaden the range of responses available to our fellow organisms.

DAVID: The bold tells us of your blind thoughts about God. Humans were a goal, not the method to reach their creation. Confused mixed up thinking.

dhw: I’m afraid I don’t understand your statement. According to you, humans were THE goal, and in order to achieve his goal, he specially designed billions of now extinct NON-HUMAN life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc. But, understandably, you have no idea why he chose such a method.

DAVID: His method, evolution, requires exactly what you illogically complain about.

But according to you, all the life forms, econiches, lifestyles etc. were directly designed by your God. You use the word “evolution” to cover your Creationism in your attempt to dodge the question of why your God would choose to spend 3.X billion years directly designing anything but the only thing he wanted to design. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: More confused thought. The huge bush of econiches feeds everyone. when humans arrive and their population grows larger enough food is present.

dhw: But 99% of the huge bush of specially designed, food-supplying econiches had disappeared by the time humans arrived!

DAVID: More disjointed thought. Where is the room for all those lost species? You support death above!

And the question you keep dodging is why he specially designed them all in the first place if his only purpose was to design us! Your only answer is that you have no idea. I offer you answers: maybe he was experimenting, or maybe humans came late on in his thinking, or maybe humans were not his one and only purpose, and maybe he didn’t directly design the vast bush but created a mechanism whereby organisms did their own autonomous designing. All these ideas provide a logical explanation for the history, whereas you have “no idea” how to explain your own interpretation of that history.

DAVID: Of course both you and I are theorizing. You like your thoughts, I like mine as this long train of discussion shows.

dhw: And the discussion so far has shown that you have no idea why your God would have chosen the method you impose on him for achieving the purpose you impose on him, you agree that the alternative “humanizing” purposes and methods I have proposed are perfectly logical and God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, but you reject them because we can’t know whether any of them are true, and so you will stick to your own illogical theory, although we can’t know whether that is true either.

DAVID: Still illogical. The bold is not my imposition! The history of evolution tells us His choice of method. Remember my view that God creates reality. Your proposals are all about a humanizing a God who isn't quite sure what He is dong as He experiments or invents spectacles to watch.

I will keep my theist hat on, and for argument’s sake accept the existence of God. It is your subjective interpretation of the history that (a) God is all-powerful, all-knowing and always in control (except when he makes errors); b) his only purpose was to create H. sapiens, (c) he directly designed every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. that ever existed. These are opinions which you impose on your God as if they were facts. Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, so please stop flogging it.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, July 13, 2020, 17:23 (72 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Certainly death has to be builtin.

dhw: And death is caused by “errors” in the system, which means your God wanted death and therefore wanted the built-in errors. Away with the limited powers you illogically ascribe to your all-powerful God.

Error!!! Death is caused by 'aging', which is wearing out of systems, not meant to last forever. It is a requirement to clear the way for newly arrived. How does wanting death reduce God's powers? More illogical thinking.


dhw: Under “Immunity system complexity”: Yet the immune system is so sophisticated, with layers upon layers of brakes, that existing approaches may be “just scratching the surface,” says Peng." (DAVID's bold)

DAVID: I've used the article on cancer therapy to show the degree of immune complexity (note the bold), and our new-found ability to analyze it and tailor it to create therapies. Thank goodness God gave us this big brain that can be used to improve on His designs.

dhw: I would suggest that the complexity of the immune system has evolved “layer upon layer” as the cells have created their own defences against disease after disease, gradually building up a library of responses. I have doubts about an all-powerful God who finds it impossible to create a system without errors, while clever humans manage to correct his errors.

Again totally illogical. Not God's errors but errors of life's functioning molecules

DAVID: His method, evolution, requires exactly what you illogically complain about.

dhw: But according to you, all the life forms, econiches, lifestyles etc. were directly designed by your God. You use the word “evolution” to cover your Creationism in your attempt to dodge the question of why your God would choose to spend 3.X billion years directly designing anything but the only thing he wanted to design. Please stop dodging.

Never dodge. Evolution, requires exactly what you illogically complain about.


dhw: And the question you keep dodging is why he specially designed them all in the first place if his only purpose was to design us! Your only answer is that you have no idea.

Right! God evolved us and I cannot know His reasons why. You don't know either.

dhw: I offer you answers: maybe he was experimenting, or maybe humans came late on in his thinking, or maybe humans were not his one and only purpose, and maybe he didn’t directly design the vast bush but created a mechanism whereby organisms did their own autonomous designing. All these ideas provide a logical explanation for the history, whereas you have “no idea” how to explain your own interpretation of that history.

My interpretation is simple: God creates reality, the history of which tells us what He did, not why.


DAVID: Of course both you and I are theorizing. You like your thoughts, I like mine as this long train of discussion shows.

dhw: I will keep my theist hat on, and for argument’s sake accept the existence of God. It is your subjective interpretation of the history that (a) God is all-powerful, all-knowing and always in control (except when he makes errors); b) his only purpose was to create H. sapiens, (c) he directly designed every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. that ever existed. These are opinions which you impose on your God as if they were facts. Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, so please stop flogging it.

First error bolded: molecules make errors not God. Second error bolded: we cannot know God's thoughts behind His reasons for His actions. All we can know, not guess, is God's logic is like our logic. Stop twisting my arguments to cover your illogicality.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, July 13, 2020, 19:20 (72 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I would suggest that the complexity of the immune system has evolved “layer upon layer” as the cells have created their own defences against disease after disease, gradually building up a library of responses. I have doubts about an all-powerful God who finds it impossible to create a system without errors, while clever humans manage to correct his errors.


DAVID: Again totally illogical. Not God's errors but errors of life's functioning molecules

Here is an article on correcting molecular errors in mitochondrial DNA:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/mitochondria-gene-editing-bacterial-toxin-crispr

"A protein secreted by bacteria to kill other microbes has been re-engineered to tweak DNA inaccessible to other gene editors, scientists report online July 8 in Nature. The advance paves the way for one day fixing mutations in mitochondria. Those energy-producing organelles are inherited from a mother and have their own DNA, distinct from the genetic information — from both parents — that’s stored in a cell’s nucleus.

***

"Mutations in mitochondrial DNA cause over 150 distinct syndromes and affect 1,000 to 4,000 children born in the United States each year. There are no cures for these diseases and currently, the only way to prevent a child from inheriting dysfunctional mitochondria is a controversial “three-parent baby” method (SN: 12/14/16). This in vitro fertilization technique requires mitochondria from a donor egg, in addition to genetic information from a mother and father.

***

"The toxin secreted by the bacteria Burkholderia cenocepacia unexpectedly proved to be the solution needed to create a mitochondria-friendly base editor. Marcos de Moraes, a microbiologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, deduced that the toxin killed bacteria by causing disruptive DNA mutations. But for months, he couldn’t untangle how the process worked at a molecular level. He was on the verge of moving on from the project when a single late-night experiment made everything fall into place.

***

"The new cytosine-converting enzyme, however, was as lethal to mammalian cells as it was to bacterial prey. The first step in “taming the beast” was modifying the toxin so it didn’t just indiscriminately mess up double-stranded DNA, Liu says. The researchers split the protein into nontoxic halves; the two pieces changed cytosine to thymine only when they were brought together to the same spot of DNA.

***

"To direct the enzyme halves’ activity, the researchers attached TALE proteins, short pieces of protein that could be chosen to target specific stretches of DNA. In cell culture experiments, the mitochondrial editor successfully converted cytosine to thymine at intended mitochondrial DNA locations, with efficiencies ranging from 5 to 49 percent.

"Future work will aim to improve efficiency, develop new types of mitochondrial editors that can produce other DNA base changes, and see if mitochondrial gene editing works in animals.

“'This is just the first step,” says Shoukhrat Mitalipov, a mitochondrial biologist at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland who was not involved in the work. “But in the right direction.'”


Comment: Thank goodness for our brilliant brain which can solve problems caused by molecular mistakes (bad mutations) in DNA. It is logical to hypothesize that God knew there would be molecular errors that we might be able to correct. I imagine dhw will again crow over these admissions that living mechanisms make mistakes. It is the reality we have to experience.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, July 14, 2020, 12:39 (71 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Certainly death has to be builtin.

dhw: And death is caused by “errors” in the system, which means your God wanted death and therefore wanted the built-in errors. Away with the limited powers you illogically ascribe to your all-powerful God.

DAVID: Error!!! Death is caused by 'aging', which is wearing out of systems, not meant to last forever. It is a requirement to clear the way for newly arrived. How does wanting death reduce God's powers? More illogical thinking.

I’m surprised that in your career as a doctor you never came across young people dying of cancer, heart disease and other malfunctions of the system your God created. Wanting death does NOT reduce God’s powers! What gave you that idea? I am proposing that he wanted ALL the errors. It is you who reduce God’s powers by telling us he was incapable of designing a biological system without errors!

dhw: I would suggest that the complexity of the immune system has evolved “layer upon layer” as the cells have created their own defences against disease after disease, gradually building up a library of responses. I have doubts about an all-powerful God who finds it impossible to create a system without errors, while clever humans manage to correct his errors.

DAVID: Again totally illogical. Not God's errors but errors of life's functioning molecules

And who, according to you, created life’s functioning and error-strewn molecules? You say the errors were beyond his control. I suggest they were incorporated deliberately. Which of us is limiting God’s powers?

DAVID: Here is an article on correcting molecular errors in mitochondrial DNA:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/mitochondria-gene-editing-bacterial-toxin-crispr

QUOTE: Mutations in mitochondrial DNA cause over 150 distinct syndromes and affect 1,000 to 4,000 children born in the United States each year. There are no cures for these diseases.

DAVID: Thank goodness for our brilliant brain which can solve problems caused by molecular mistakes (bad mutations) in DNA. It is logical to hypothesize that God knew there would be molecular errors that we might be able to correct. I imagine dhw will again crow over these admissions that living mechanisms make mistakes. It is the reality we have to experience.

I do not “crow” over them. I am well aware of the reality of the mistakes in the system. I have even suffered from some of them myself! This is you twisting my arguments! I merely point out that your God created a system full of errors. You say he couldn’t avoid doing so, and you praise humans for correcting the errors your God could not avoid making, which makes us smarter than him. I don’t believe it. If I believed in God, I would believe that he would create what he wanted to create, which means he wanted to create the mistakes. You have him only wanting to create the mistakes that would make old people die, but not the mistakes (often exactly the same) that make young people die. How logical is that?

dhw: But according to you, all the life forms, econiches, lifestyles etc. were directly designed by your God. You use the word “evolution” to cover your Creationism in your attempt to dodge the question of why your God would choose to spend 3.X billion years directly designing anything but the only thing he wanted to design. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: God evolved us and I cannot know His reasons why. You don't know either.

You use the word “evolve” misleadingly, since you believe that your God directly creates all species. And I am asking why you think he directly created all the preceding non-human life forms etc. if he only wanted to directly create us. Nobody knows why God, if he exists, created life – but you insist that you do know why. According to you, he created life for the sole purpose of producing us. Nobody knows how speciation happened, but according to you, it was directly designed by your God. Hence the illogicality of your all-powerful God, who only wanted one species (plus food supply), directly designing 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human species plus food supplies.

DAVID: My interpretation is simple: God creates reality, the history of which tells us what He did, not why.

If God exists, nobody could possibly disagree with that statement. But that is not the end of your interpretation! You tell us why, and you tell us how, and the two together make no sense, as you acknowledge when you say you have no idea why he would have chosen to design the vast bush in order to produce us. You then reject logical alternatives on the silly grounds that they “humanize” God (see below) and that nobody knows the truth – which applies to all theories.

dhw: Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, so please stop flogging it.

DAVID: […] we cannot know God's thoughts behind His reasons for His actions. All we can know, not guess, is God's logic is like our logic. Stop twisting my arguments to cover your illogicality.

If God’s logic is like our logic, it should make sense to us. You constantly claim that I twist your arguments. Please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 14, 2020, 18:38 (71 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Error!!! Death is caused by 'aging', which is wearing out of systems, not meant to last forever. It is a requirement to clear the way for newly arrived. How does wanting death reduce God's powers? More illogical thinking.

dhw: I’m surprised that in your career as a doctor you never came across young people dying of cancer, heart disease and other malfunctions of the system your God created. Wanting death does NOT reduce God’s powers! What gave you that idea? I am proposing that he wanted ALL the errors. It is you who reduce God’s powers by telling us he was incapable of designing a biological system without errors!

I know full well about early deaths.


dhw: And who, according to you, created life’s functioning and error-strewn molecules? You say the errors were beyond his control. I suggest they were incorporated deliberately. Which of us is limiting God’s powers?

Can't I be honest about God's powers? It is you who are worried about limitations


DAVID: Here is an article on correcting molecular errors in mitochondrial DNA:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/mitochondria-gene-editing-bacterial-toxin-crispr

QUOTE: Mutations in mitochondrial DNA cause over 150 distinct syndromes and affect 1,000 to 4,000 children born in the United States each year. There are no cures for these diseases.

DAVID: Thank goodness for our brilliant brain which can solve problems caused by molecular mistakes (bad mutations) in DNA. It is logical to hypothesize that God knew there would be molecular errors that we might be able to correct. I imagine dhw will again crow over these admissions that living mechanisms make mistakes. It is the reality we have to experience.

dhw: If I believed in God, I would believe that he would create what he wanted to create, which means he wanted to create the mistakes. You have him only wanting to create the mistakes that would make old people die, but not the mistakes (often exactly the same) that make young people die. How logical is that?

I recognize old and young deaths. You've again twisted my statements illogically.


DAVID: God evolved us and I cannot know His reasons why. You don't know either.

dhw: You use the word “evolve” misleadingly, since you believe that your God directly creates all species. And I am asking why you think he directly created all the preceding non-human life forms etc. if he only wanted to directly create us. Nobody knows why God, if he exists, created life – but you insist that you do know why. According to you, he created life for the sole purpose of producing us. Nobody knows how speciation happened, but according to you, it was directly designed by your God. Hence the illogicality of your all-powerful God, who only wanted one species (plus food supply), directly designing 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human species plus food supplies.

Again a strange humanizing of God, who should not have waited to evolve humans over time.


DAVID: My interpretation is simple: God creates reality, the history of which tells us what He did, not why.

dhw: If God exists, nobody could possibly disagree with that statement. But that is not the end of your interpretation! You tell us why, and you tell us how, and the two together make no sense, as you acknowledge when you say you have no idea why he would have chosen to design the vast bush in order to produce us. You then reject logical alternatives on the silly grounds that they “humanize” God (see below) and that nobody knows the truth – which applies to all theories.

I am allowed, as you are, to theorize about God's purposes. Logic does not tell us God's reasons for wanting humans!!! You are not logical about God


dhw: Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, so please stop flogging it.

DAVID: […] we cannot know God's thoughts behind His reasons for His actions. All we can know, not guess, is God's logic is like our logic. Stop twisting my arguments to cover your illogicality.

dhw: If God’s logic is like our logic, it should make sense to us. You constantly claim that I twist your arguments. Please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted.

Logic does not tell us God's reasons for wanting humans!!! You are not logical about God.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, July 15, 2020, 11:33 (70 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Error!!! Death is caused by 'aging', which is wearing out of systems, not meant to last forever. It is a requirement to clear the way for newly arrived. How does wanting death reduce God's powers? More illogical thinking.

dhw: I’m surprised that in your career as a doctor you never came across young people dying of cancer, heart disease and other malfunctions of the system your God created. Wanting death does NOT reduce God’s powers! What gave you that idea? I am proposing that he wanted ALL the errors. It is you who reduce God’s powers by telling us he was incapable of designing a biological system without errors!

DAVID: I know full well about early deaths.

So why have you told us that death is caused by aging, and that was what God wanted? Old people and young people die from the same diseases, so which "mistakes" did he want (deliberate) and which ones didn't he want (unavoidable)?

dhw: You say the errors were beyond his control. I suggest they were incorporated deliberately. Which of us is limiting God’s powers?

DAVID: Can't I be honest about God's powers? It is you who are worried about limitations.

I am not in the least worried about limitations. One of my explanations of evolution is that God was experimenting, and you objected because your God knows everything and can do anything he wants. What worries me is that at one moment you are telling us that your God is all-powerful and always in control, and the next moment he has limitations, but mysteriously this case is less “humanizing” than a God who does what he wants to do.

DAVID: God evolved us and I cannot know His reasons why. You don't know either.

dhw: You use the word “evolve” misleadingly, since you believe that your God directly creates all species. And I am asking why you think he directly created all the preceding non-human life forms etc. if he only wanted to directly create us. Nobody knows why God, if he exists, created life – but you insist that you do know why. According to you, he created life for the sole purpose of producing us. Nobody knows how speciation happened, but according to you, it was directly designed by your God. Hence the illogicality of your all-powerful God, who only wanted one species (plus food supply), directly designing 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human species plus food supplies.

DAVID: Again a strange humanizing of God, who should not have waited to evolve humans over time.

Again dodging the issue, which is not evolution over time but your claim bolded above. “Humanizing” is a non-argument from someone who agrees that his God probably has thought patterns similar to ours. Please stop harping on it.

DAVID: My interpretation is simple: God creates reality, the history of which tells us what He did, not why.

dhw: If God exists, nobody could possibly disagree with that statement. But that is not the end of your interpretation! You tell us why, and you tell us how, and the two together make no sense, as you acknowledge when you say you have no idea why he would have chosen to design the vast bush in order to produce us. You then reject logical alternatives on the silly grounds that they “humanize” God (see below) and that nobody knows the truth – which applies to all theories.

DAVID: I am allowed, as you are, to theorize about God's purposes. Logic does not tell us God's reasons for wanting humans!!! You are not logical about God.

We are not dealing with his reasons for wanting humans. We are dealing with the claim that for 3.x billion years he directly designed millions of non-humans, although his only purpose was to directly design humans. Stop dodging!

dhw: Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, so please stop flogging it.

DAVID: […] we cannot know God's thoughts behind His reasons for His actions. All we can know, not guess, is God's logic is like our logic. Stop twisting my arguments to cover your illogicality.

dhw: If God’s logic is like our logic, it should make sense to us. You constantly claim that I twist your arguments. Please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted.

DAVID: Logic does not tell us God's reasons for wanting humans!!! You are not logical about God.

As above, we are not dealing with his reasons for wanting humans. Now please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted. If you cannot do so, then please withdraw the accusation.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 15, 2020, 14:46 (70 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So why have you told us that death is caused by aging, and that was what God wanted? Old people and young people die from the same diseases, so which "mistakes" did he want (deliberate) and which ones didn't he want (unavoidable)?

Unavoidable, was explained: molecular errors in high speed reactions. Older organisms have lots more errors. 'Aging' is built in purposely. All have to die.


dhw: You say the errors were beyond his control. I suggest they were incorporated deliberately. Which of us is limiting God’s powers?

DAVID: Can't I be honest about God's powers? It is you who are worried about limitations.

dhw: I am not in the least worried about limitations. One of my explanations of evolution is that God was experimenting, and you objected because your God knows everything and can do anything he wants. What worries me is that at one moment you are telling us that your God is all-powerful and always in control, and the next moment he has limitations, but mysteriously this case is less “humanizing” than a God who does what he wants to do.

God does what He wants to do, and His inventions have limits. So? doesn't bother me.


DAVID: My interpretation is simple: God creates reality, the history of which tells us what He did, not why.

dhw: If God exists, nobody could possibly disagree with that statement. But that is not the end of your interpretation! You tell us why, and you tell us how, and the two together make no sense, as you acknowledge when you say you have no idea why he would have chosen to design the vast bush in order to produce us. You then reject logical alternatives on the silly grounds that they “humanize” God (see below) and that nobody knows the truth – which applies to all theories.

DAVID: I am allowed, as you are, to theorize about God's purposes. Logic does not tell us God's reasons for wanting humans!!! You are not logical about God.

dhw: We are not dealing with his reasons for wanting humans. We are dealing with the claim that for 3.x billion years he directly designed millions of non-humans, although his only purpose was to directly design humans. Stop dodging!

No dodging. Your analysis of God's actions is faulty; God can be patient and not rush his creations


dhw: Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, so please stop flogging it.

DAVID: […] we cannot know God's thoughts behind His reasons for His actions. All we can know, not guess, is God's logic is like our logic. Stop twisting my arguments to cover your illogicality.

dhw: If God’s logic is like our logic, it should make sense to us. You constantly claim that I twist your arguments. Please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted.

DAVID: Logic does not tell us God's reasons for wanting humans!!! You are not logical about God.

dhw: As above, we are not dealing with his reasons for wanting humans. Now please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted. If you cannot do so, then please withdraw the accusation.

The exchange is clear. You want reasons for God's choices of action. I cannot know them and neither can you.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, July 16, 2020, 11:11 (69 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So why have you told us that death is caused by aging, and that was what God wanted? Old people and young people die from the same diseases, so which "mistakes" did he want (deliberate) and which ones didn't he want (unavoidable)?

DAVID: Unavoidable, was explained: molecular errors in high speed reactions. Older organisms have lots more errors. 'Aging' is built in purposely. All have to die.

The fact that old organisms suffer from more of the same "mistakes" than young organisms does not alter the fact that all the mistakes can cause death. Now you seem to be telling us that the only deliberately caused death is death by old age! I wonder how many death certificates you signed with “old age” as the cause of death. Please tell us why you are so opposed to the theory that an all-powerful God deliberately created the “errors” in the system.

dhw: What worries me is that at one moment you are telling us that your God is all-powerful and always in control, and the next moment he has limitations, but mysteriously this case is less “humanizing” than a God who does what he wants to do.

DAVID: God does what He wants to do, and His inventions have limits. So? doesn't bother me.

I’m happy with that. It means that he wanted his inventions to have limits. It clearly does NOT mean that the limits were beyond his control. This at last would give some consistency to your claim that your God is all-powerful and always in control.

DAVID: I am allowed, as you are, to theorize about God's purposes. Logic does not tell us God's reasons for wanting humans!!! You are not logical about God.

dhw: We are not dealing with his reasons for wanting humans. We are dealing with the claim that for 3.x billion years he directly designed millions of non-humans, although his only purpose was to directly design humans. Stop dodging!

DAVID: No dodging. Your analysis of God's actions is faulty; God can be patient and not rush his creations.

We are not talking about God’s patience. We are talking about the claim that he only had one purpose – to specially design us (and our food supplies)– had the power to do so, but spent 3.X billion years specially designing other life forms (and their food supplies) . You admit that you have no idea why he designed all those other extinct life forms (plus food supplies) instead of the only one (plus food supplies) he wanted to design, and so I am suggesting that YOUR analysis of your God’s actions is faulty.

dhw: Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, so please stop flogging it.

DAVID: […] we cannot know God's thoughts behind His reasons for His actions. All we can know, not guess, is God's logic is like our logic. Stop twisting my arguments to cover your illogicality.

dhw: […] please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted. If you cannot do so, then please withdraw the accusation.

DAVID: The exchange is clear. You want reasons for God's choices of action. I cannot know them and neither can you.

No one can “know” any of the answers, but you have offered us the theory bolded above. Now please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 16, 2020, 19:35 (69 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Unavoidable, was explained: molecular errors in high speed reactions. Older organisms have lots more errors. 'Aging' is built in purposely. All have to die.

dhw: The fact that old organisms suffer from more of the same "mistakes" than young organisms does not alter the fact that all the mistakes can cause death... Please tell us why you are so opposed to the theory that an all-powerful God deliberately created the “errors” in the system.

You've avoided my direct statement of fact that ageing & death are both built into the system purposely. Old has to clear out for new. God built in ageing. Errors of rapidly reacting molecules are never His fault. The biological errors were expected by God, as shown by all the backup systems He designed into place.


DAVID: God does what He wants to do, and His inventions have limits. So? doesn't bother me.

dhw: I’m happy with that. It means that he wanted his inventions to have limits. It clearly does NOT mean that the limits were beyond his control. This at last would give some consistency to your claim that your God is all-powerful and always in control.

Opposite interpretation, as usual. Repeated: Errors of rapidly reacting molecules are never His fault. The biological errors were expected by God, as shown by all the backup systems He designed into place. He tried to correct all errors and couldn't


DAVID: I am allowed, as you are, to theorize about God's purposes. Logic does not tell us God's reasons for wanting humans!!! You are not logical about God.

dhw: We are not dealing with his reasons for wanting humans. We are dealing with the claim that for 3.x billion years he directly designed millions of non-humans, although his only purpose was to directly design humans. Stop dodging!

DAVID: No dodging. Your analysis of God's actions is faulty; God can be patient and not rush his creations.

dhw: We are not talking about God’s patience. We are talking about the claim that he only had one purpose – to specially design us (and our food supplies)– had the power to do so, but spent 3.X billion years specially designing other life forms (and their food supplies) . You admit that you have no idea why he designed all those other extinct life forms (plus food supplies) instead of the only one (plus food supplies) he wanted to design, and so I am suggesting that YOUR analysis of your God’s actions is faulty.

My analysis is based on Adler's argument, which you recognize is strong. and you rebuttal above refuses to accept the idea God can choose any method of creation He wants, something you always scurry back to when challenged with.


dhw: Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, so please stop flogging it.

DAVID: […] we cannot know God's thoughts behind His reasons for His actions. All we can know, not guess, is God's logic is like our logic. Stop twisting my arguments to cover your illogicality.

dhw: […] please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted. If you cannot do so, then please withdraw the accusation.

DAVID: The exchange is clear. You want reasons for God's choices of action. I cannot know them and neither can you.

dhw: No one can “know” any of the answers, but you have offered us the theory bolded above. Now please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted.

God has chosen to evolve us, and you keep saying that is wrong. It is my theory.

Back to David's theory of evolution: planned death

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 16, 2020, 22:08 (69 days ago) @ David Turell

Much of cell death is planned:

https://evolutionnews.org/2020/07/in-cell-death-a-stunning-display-of-intelligent-design/

"Cells only have the physical disposal to contend with, so in the following discussion, one must not draw comparisons too tightly between human death and cell death.

"To a cell, dying really is a part of life. In fact, billions of cells die in the process of embryonic development, as our organs, fingers, and tissues are sculpted. That’s a wonderful thing. Nevertheless, tissues face real challenges in all stages of cell death, from deciding what cells need to bow out, to disposing of the “corpses” afterward. The cellular morgue is exquisitely designed for the challenge.

***

"While living, the cell keeps its lysosomes and proteasomes (molecular machines that recycle substrates) busy dismantling spent proteins and sending the components to recycling centers. Eventually, the whole cell’s work is done, or worse, has become infected and needs to commit hara-kiri. There’s an app for that. Apoptosis, programmed cell death, is a suite of tools and operations. Cells contain self-destruction kits, like spies with poison pills for use if captured. The poison pills consist primarily of the caspase family of proteins. Numbered caspase-1 through -14, these enzymes cut through (“cleave”) molecules like buzz saws.

***

"Processing of the apoptotic cell by the actions of activated caspases and their substrates, encapsulation of the cell into apoptotic bodies, and its subsequent disposal and recycling by surrounding phagocytic cells prevent the release of proinflammatory cellular contents and inflammation.

***

"Numerous actors come onto the stage when the apoptosis signal is triggered. In a sequence of steps, caspase-3 activates two other enzymes that create “find-me” signals that are sent out to attract wandering macrophages.

***

"In addition to the “find-me” signal, cells can post “eat-me” and “don’t-eat-me” tags on their outer membranes. Because don’t-eat-me tags take priority, these act as Boolean logic gates. The eat-me signal only activates the macrophage if the don’t-eat-me tag has been removed. Consequently, part of apoptosis includes removing the don’t-eat-me tags. This ensures that macrophages do not destroy healthy cells.

***

"Now that the phagocyte has found the cell to eat, how does it engulf the dying cell?

"Efferocytosis is a tightly regulated process involving the coordinated engulfment of dead and dying cells, maturation of the phagosome and then breakdown of phagolysosomal contents. Each stage is governed by molecular mechanisms that allow rapid breakdown of the engulfed cell and recovery of the engulfing phagocyte.

***

"A dizzying paragraph in the paper describes some 30 tools that create the “phagosome” (eating-body) that surrounds the dying cell or pathogen to engulf it safely without harming the phagocyte. The phagosome then delivers the contents to the recycling machines.

"Following recognition and entrapment of the dying cell, the phagosome and the cell corpse are destined for a well-orchestrated destructive end. The phagosome fuses with lysosomes, which contain a large variety of proteases, nucleases and lipases that digest the phagosome cargo...The phagosome containing the cell corpse is targeted to lysosomes through a multistep maturation process, which begins immediately following the formation of the phagosome on dynamin-dependent membrane scission and is marked by multiple biochemical changes at the phagosomal membrane….

***

"Once the phagosome has fused with lysosomes and its cargo has been degraded, a resolution phase restores homeostasis within the phagocyte, allowing further phagocytosis. Since dying cells are not the only phagocytic cargo, the outcome of phagocytosis can vary dependent on what cargo is internalized. In the context of efferocytosis, some of the components of the cell corpse can be recaptured and recycled for use by the phagocytic cell following lysosomal degradation. Sugars, amino acids, lipids and nucleotides are recycled to replenish cellular stores and can potentially be used as building blocks and an energy source by the phagocytic cell.

***

"The authors describe some of the terrible things that happen when components fail. Among them are autoimmune diseases, necrosis (accumulation of dead cells), neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, blindness, inflammation, atherosclerosis, liver disease, diabetes, impaired wound healing, rheumatoid arthritis, infertility, and cancer. (my bold)

"Efferocytosis is governed by a plethora of factors, including unique membrane lipids and multiple effector proteins, which mediate functions such as dead cell recognition, the activation of phagocytosis and, ultimately, the degradation of the cell corpse. As discussed, the multistep process from cell death to cell clearance is delicate, with multiple points of redundancy"

Comment: My bold is God's recognition of probable molecular failures. Definitely not intended or planned by God on purpose. Very carefully designed.

Back to David's theory of evolution: planned cell death

by David Turell @, Friday, July 17, 2020, 05:32 (69 days ago) @ David Turell

Obviously programmed into the code of life:

https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/17_july_2020/MobilePagedReplica....

"Chromatin instability and mitochondrial decline are conserved processes that contribute to cellular aging. Although both processes have been explored individually in the context of their distinct signaling pathways, the mechanism that determines which process dominates during aging of individual cells is unknown. We show that interactions between the chromatin silencing and mitochondrial pathways lead to an epigenetic landscape of yeast replicative aging with multiple equilibrium states that represent different types of terminal states of aging. The structure of the landscape drives single-cell differentiation toward one of these states during aging, whereby the fate is determined quite early and is insensitive to intracellular noise. Guided by a quantitative model of the aging landscape, we genetically engineered a long-lived equilibrium state characterized by an extended life span.

***

"Many damage factors, including chromatin instability, mitochondrial dysfunction, and reactive oxygen species (Display footnote number, contribute to cellular aging. In each individual cell, how these factors combine to drive the aging process remains unclear. For instance, aging could be driven by independent damage mechanisms that accumulate at varying rates, resulting in different aged phenotypes in individual cells, or, alternatively, by the deterioration of overall cellular condition, leading to a common aging pathway in all cells. Single-cell analysis can reveal which scenario actually underlies the aging process. We investigated replicative aging of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, a genetically tractable model for the aging of mitotic cell types such as stem cells (Display footnote number. Yeast aging research has focused on life span, as measured by the number of cell divisions before death

***
"Cellular aging can thus be considered a fatedecision process, in which single cells age toward either silencing loss and nucleolar decline or hemedepletion and mitochondrial decline. This process can be viewed as a divergent progression on a Sir2-HAP landscape, which can be reshaped by model-guided genetic perturbations, thereby enriching a long-lived mode of aging."

Comment: It is obvious cell death is planned by design, just whole organisms are planned for death. Part of God's design.

Back to David's theory of evolution: planned cell death

by David Turell @, Friday, July 17, 2020, 14:31 (68 days ago) @ David Turell

Another descriptive article of planned cell death:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6501/325

"Programmed aging in yeast cells
Following the fate of individual yeast cells has revealed aging to be more of a programmable decision process rather than a simple accumulation of deleterious events. Li et al. combined single-cell studies and mathematical modeling to show that yeast cells showed two different forms of aging: one with more ribosomal DNA silencing, in which nucleoli were degraded, and another with more heme accumulation and hemedependent transcription, in which mitochondria were more affected. Overexpression of the lysine deacetylase Sir2, which contributes to ribosomal DNA silencing, led to a third cell-aging fate in which the average life span was extended. If other cells age in similar ways, then this study may provide new ways to consider dynamics of aging and strategies to extend the health span.

"Abstract
Chromatin instability and mitochondrial decline are conserved processes that contribute to cellular aging. Although both processes have been explored individually in the context of their distinct signaling pathways, the mechanism that determines which process dominates during aging of individual cells is unknown. We show that interactions between the chromatin silencing and mitochondrial pathways lead to an epigenetic landscape of yeast replicative aging with multiple equilibrium states that represent different types of terminal states of aging. The structure of the landscape drives single-cell differentiation toward one of these states during aging, whereby the fate is determined quite early and is insensitive to intracellular noise. Guided by a quantitative model of the aging landscape, we genetically engineered a long-lived equilibrium state characterized by an extended life span."

Comment: Settles the issue that cells follow a death plan.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, July 17, 2020, 10:02 (69 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Unavoidable, was explained: molecular errors in high speed reactions. Older organisms have lots more errors. 'Aging' is built in purposely. All have to die.

dhw: The fact that old organisms suffer from more of the same "mistakes" than young organisms does not alter the fact that all the mistakes can cause death... Please tell us why you are so opposed to the theory that an all-powerful God deliberately created the “errors” in the system.

DAVID: You've avoided my direct statement of fact that ageing & death are both built into the system purposely. Old has to clear out for new. God built in ageing. Errors of rapidly reacting molecules are never His fault. The biological errors were expected by God, as shown by all the backup systems He designed into place.

I didn’t ignore it. You simply left out my comment: “Now you seem to be telling us that the only deliberately caused death is death by old age!” Meanwhile, you continue to insist that although your God built the system from scratch, he is not responsible for its errors, and you refuse to say why you are opposed to the theory that your all-powerful God might have created the “errors” deliberately because his plan was – as you put it – to clear out the old for the new.

DAVID: God does what He wants to do, and His inventions have limits. So? doesn't bother me.

dhw: I’m happy with that. It means that he wanted his inventions to have limits. It clearly does NOT mean that the limits were beyond his control. This at last would give some consistency to your claim that your God is all-powerful and always in control.

DAVID: Opposite interpretation, as usual. Repeated: Errors of rapidly reacting molecules are never His fault. The biological errors were expected by God, as shown by all the backup systems He designed into place. He tried to correct all errors and couldn't.

You continue to emphasize the powerlessness of God to control the system he invented. How very human!

Under “planned death”:
QUOTE: "The authors describe some of the terrible things that happen when components fail. Among them are autoimmune diseases, necrosis (accumulation of dead cells), neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, blindness, inflammation, atherosclerosis, liver disease, diabetes, impaired wound healing, rheumatoid arthritis, infertility, and cancer. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: My bold is God's recognition of probable molecular failures. Definitely not intended or planned by God on purpose. Very carefully designed.

Your bold introduces a list which includes umpteen “terrible things” that kill young and old indiscriminately. Death is “built into the system”, but according to you these causes of death are errors. And they are definitely not planned but are very carefully designed! Can you honestly not see how illogical this is?

DAVID: Your analysis of God's actions is faulty; God can be patient and not rush his creations.

dhw: We are not talking about God’s patience. We are talking about the claim that he only had one purpose – to specially design us (and our food supplies)– had the power to do so, but spent 3.X billion years specially designing other life forms (and their food supplies). You admit that you have no idea why he designed all those other extinct life forms (plus food supplies) instead of the only one (plus food supplies) he wanted to design, and so I am suggesting that YOUR analysis of your God’s actions is faulty.

DAVID: My analysis is based on Adler's argument, which you recognize is strong.

I have nothing against Adler’s argument (the exceptionalism of sapiens as evidence of God's existence) as you have relayed it to us. But you have told us that his argument does not extend to the rest of your theory.

DAVID: …and you rebuttal above refuses to accept the idea God can choose any method of creation He wants, something you always scurry back to when challenged with.

Of course your God can choose any method he wants! But that does not mean he chose YOUR method! Yet again, I have offered you alternatives which you accept as logical. Stop dodging!

dhw: Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, so please stop flogging it.

DAVID: Stop twisting my arguments to cover your illogicality.

dhw: […] please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted. If you cannot do so, then please withdraw the accusation.

DAVID: God has chosen to evolve us, and you keep saying that is wrong. It is my theory.

If God exists, I have no problem with the theory that he has chosen to evolve us. My problem is your insistence that although you keep saying he is all-powerful and always in control (now qualified by his helplessness at the beginning of this post), and although his only purpose was to produce us, he spent 3.X billion years NOT producing us but instead directly designed (this is your idea of “evolving”) untold millions of now extinct non-human life forms, natural wonders etc. Please stop dodging, and please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 18, 2020, 00:08 (68 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You've avoided my direct statement of fact that ageing & death are both built into the system purposely. Old has to clear out for new. God built in ageing. Errors of rapidly reacting molecules are never His fault. The biological errors were expected by God, as shown by all the backup systems He designed into place.

dhw: You simply left out my comment: “Now you seem to be telling us that the only deliberately caused death is death by old age!” Meanwhile, you continue to insist that although your God built the system from scratch, he is not responsible for its errors, and you refuse to say why you are opposed to the theory that your all-powerful God might have created the “errors” deliberately because his plan was – as you put it – to clear out the old for the new.

Of course the errors result from the system He created. I've answered the deliberate issue. His backups shows us He tried to stop them.


DAVID: God does what He wants to do, and His inventions have limits. So? doesn't bother me.

dhw: I’m happy with that. It means that he wanted his inventions to have limits. It clearly does NOT mean that the limits were beyond his control. This at last would give some consistency to your claim that your God is all-powerful and always in control.

Total misinterpretation. See above. He tried to correct expected errors.


Under “planned death”:
QUOTE: "The authors describe some of the terrible things that happen when components fail. Among them are autoimmune diseases, necrosis (accumulation of dead cells), neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, blindness, inflammation, atherosclerosis, liver disease, diabetes, impaired wound healing, rheumatoid arthritis, infertility, and cancer. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: My bold is God's recognition of probable molecular failures. Definitely not intended or planned by God on purpose. Very carefully designed.

dhw: Your bold introduces a list which includes umpteen “terrible things” that kill young and old indiscriminately. Death is “built into the system”, but according to you these causes of death are errors. And they are definitely not planned but are very carefully designed! Can you honestly not see how illogical this is?

Cell deaths and organism deaths are purposeful as my entries show.


DAVID: My analysis is based on Adler's argument, which you recognize is strong.

dhw: I have nothing against Adler’s argument (the exceptionalism of sapiens as evidence of God's existence) as you have relayed it to us. But you have told us that his argument does not extend to the rest of your theory.

Adler quotes observations about our evolution


DAVID: …and you rebuttal above refuses to accept the idea God can choose any method of creation He wants, something you always scurry back to when challenged with.

dhw: Of course your God can choose any method he wants! But that does not mean he chose YOUR method! Yet again, I have offered you alternatives which you accept as logical. Stop dodging!

Your substitute methods are all humanizing: experimenting, spectacles, late decision to try out inventing humans


dhw: Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, so please stop flogging it.

DAVID: Stop twisting my arguments to cover your illogicality.

dhw: […] please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted. If you cannot do so, then please withdraw the accusation.out inventing humans

DAVID: Stop twisting my arguments to cover your illogicality.

dhw: […] please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted. If you cannot do so, then please withdraw the accusation.

DAVID: God has chosen to evolve us, and you keep saying that is wrong. It is my theory.

dhw: If God exists, I have no problem with the theory that he has chosen to evolve us. My problem is your insistence that although you keep saying he is all-powerful and always in control (now qualified by his helplessness at the beginning of this post), and although his only purpose was to produce us, he spent 3.X billion years NOT producing us but instead directly designed (this is your idea of “evolving”) untold millions of now extinct non-human life forms, natural wonders etc. Please stop dodging, and please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted.

My choice of God's method argument is what you twist (last bold). Your first sentence agrees with His evolving us. So what is wrong with it taking all the time it took? Your continuous objection is totally illogical to me and will not change my position that God has the right to evolve us over the time it took.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, July 18, 2020, 10:19 (67 days ago) @ David Turell

Under: “Planned cell death

DAVID: Settles the issue that cells follow a death plan.

DAVID: You've avoided my direct statement of fact that ageing & death are both built into the system purposely. Old has to clear out for new. God built in ageing. Errors of rapidly reacting molecules are never His fault. The biological errors were expected by God, as shown by all the backup systems He designed into place.

dhw: You simply left out my comment: “Now you seem to be telling us that the only deliberately caused death is death by old age!” Meanwhile, you continue to insist that although your God built the system from scratch, bbhe is not responsible for its errorsbbb, and you refuse to say why you are opposed to the theory that your all-powerful God might have created the “errors” deliberately because his plan was – as you put it – to clear out the old for the new.

DAVID: Of course the errors result from the system He created. I've answered the deliberate issue. His backups shows us He tried to stop them.

So he deliberately created death by old age and the death of the cells of which we are all made, but he did not deliberately create the various errors that result in any death other than these. He tried to stop all the unplanned deaths but couldn’t, although we are so smart that sometimes we can. Is that correct?

DAVID: God does what He wants to do, and His inventions have limits.

dhw: I’m happy with that. It means that he wanted his inventions to have limits. It clearly does NOT mean that the limits were beyond his control. […]

DAVID: Total misinterpretation. See above. He tried to correct expected errors.

So he didn’t want the errors, wanted to correct them, but was unable to do what he wanted to do, although he “does what He wants to do”.

QUOTE: "The authors describe some of the terrible things that happen when components fail.

DAVID: My bold is God's recognition of probable molecular failures. Definitely not intended or planned by God on purpose. Very carefully designed.

dhw: Your bold introduces a list which includes umpteen “terrible things” that kill young and old indiscriminately. Death is “built into the system”, but according to you these causes of death are errors. And they are definitely not intended or planned but are very carefully designed! Can you honestly not see how illogical this is?

DAVID: Cell deaths and organism deaths are purposeful as my entries show.

So how does that make the failures definitely not intended or planned but very carefully designed?

DAVID: My analysis is based on Adler's argument, which you recognize is strong.

dhw: I have nothing against Adler’s argument (the exceptionalism of sapiens as evidence of God's existence) as you have relayed it to us. But you have told us that his argument does not extend to the rest of your theory.

DAVID: Adler quotes observations about our evolution.

If he supports your theory as bolded below, then I would take issue with him, just as I take issue with you. Please stop hiding behind Adler and deal with the issue.

DAVID: …and you rebuttal above refuses to accept the idea God can choose any method of creation He wants, something you always scurry back to when challenged with.

dhw: Of course your God can choose any method he wants! But that does not mean he chose YOUR method! Yet again, I have offered you alternatives which you accept as logical. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Your substitute methods are all humanizing: experimenting, spectacles, late decision to try out inventing humans.

Answered in my next comment, which you ignore by claiming I twist your arguments.

dhw: Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, so please stop flogging it.

dhw: […] please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted.

DAVID: God has chosen to evolve us, and you keep saying that is wrong. It is my theory.

dhw: If God exists, I have no problem with the theory that he has chosen to evolve us. My problem is your insistence that although you keep saying he is all-powerful and always in control (now qualified by his helplessness at the beginning of this post), and although his only purpose was to produce us, he spent 3.X billion years NOT producing us but instead directly designed (this is your idea of “evolving”) untold millions of now extinct non-human life forms, natural wonders etc. Please stop dodging, and please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted.

DAVID: My choice of God's method argument is what you twist (last bold). Your first sentence agrees with His evolving us. So what is wrong with it taking all the time it took?

What is wrong is not the time it took but your claim that although the only life forms he wanted to evolve were us and our food supplies, he chose to “evolve” (by which you mean directly design) 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms etc. in order to feed humans who did not even exist.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 18, 2020, 22:14 (67 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course the errors result from the system He created. I've answered the deliberate issue. His backups shows us He tried to stop them.

dhw: So he deliberately created death by old age and the death of the cells of which we are all made, but he did not deliberately create the various errors that result in any death other than these. He tried to stop all the unplanned deaths but couldn’t, although we are so smart that sometimes we can. Is that correct?

Exactly my interpretation of known facts.

QUOTE: "The authors describe some of the terrible things that happen when components fail.

DAVID: My bold is God's recognition of probable molecular failures. Definitely not intended or planned by God on purpose. Very carefully designed.

dhw: Your bold introduces a list which includes umpteen “terrible things” that kill young and old indiscriminately. Death is “built into the system”, but according to you these causes of death are errors. And they are definitely not intended or planned but are very carefully designed! Can you honestly not see how illogical this is?

DAVID: Cell deaths and organism deaths are purposeful as my entries show.

dhw: So how does that make the failures definitely not intended or planned but very carefully designed?

Failures of molecule function never designed. As shown by many backup correction mechanisms.


DAVID: …and you rebuttal above refuses to accept the idea God can choose any method of creation He wants, something you always scurry back to when challenged with.

dhw: Of course your God can choose any method he wants! But that does not mean he chose YOUR method! Yet again, I have offered you alternatives which you accept as logical. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Your substitute methods are all humanizing: experimenting, spectacles, late decision to try out inventing humans.

dhw: Answered in my next comment, which you ignore by claiming I twist your arguments.

dhw: Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, so please stop flogging it.

In use of logic only!! We do not know His reasons for his purposes. Still distorting!!


dhw: […] please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted.

DAVID: God has chosen to evolve us, and you keep saying that is wrong. It is my theory.

dhw: If God exists, I have no problem with the theory that he has chosen to evolve us. My problem is your insistence that although you keep saying he is all-powerful and always in control (now qualified by his helplessness at the beginning of this post), and although his only purpose was to produce us, he spent 3.X billion years NOT producing us but instead directly designed (this is your idea of “evolving”) untold millions of now extinct non-human life forms, natural wonders etc. Please stop dodging, and please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted.

DAVID: My choice of God's method argument is what you twist (last bold). Your first sentence agrees with His evolving us. So what is wrong with it taking all the time it took?

dhw: What is wrong is not the time it took but your claim that although the only life forms he wanted to evolve were us and our food supplies, he chose to “evolve” (by which you mean directly design) 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms etc. in order to feed humans who did not even exist.

Again a gross distortion in bold. To produce us by evolving us, He knew and understood full well everything else had to come first. God can think realistically, but you don't seem to. We were a goal to be reached starting with bacteria, God's reasons for that method unknown, but you can guess at them as you always wish.

Back to David's theory of evolution; error protection

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 18, 2020, 23:46 (67 days ago) @ David Turell

Present to protect sperm germ cells:

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-sperm-discovery-reveals-clue-genetic.html

"New insights into an elusive process that protects developing sperm cells from damage in growing embryos, sheds light on how genetic information passes down, uninterrupted, through generations.

"The study identified a protein, known as SPOCD1, which plays a key role in protecting the early-stage precursors to sperm, known as germ cells, from damage in a developing embryo.

"During their development, germ cells undergo a reprogramming process that leaves them vulnerable to rogue genes, known as jumping genes, which can damage their DNA and lead to infertility.

"'Reprogramming is essential for correct germ cell development in embryos, but leaves them temporarily vulnerable to a subset their own genes, known as jumping genes, that threaten genetic chaos." explains lead author of the study, Professor Dónal O'Carroll at the University of Edinburgh.

"Evading such damage allows germ cells to become the pool of self-renewing cells that produce healthy sperm throughout adult life.

***

"The study is the first to reveal the role of the SPOCD1 protein, which helps to recruit protective chemical tags, known as DNA methylations, to disable jumping genes.

"Scientists have long puzzled over how germ cells escape damage during the reprogramming process, as it temporarily wipes their genetic slate clean of existing protective tags.

"The identification of SPOCD1 finally opens the doors to further investigation that will give a more elaborate understanding of this elusive process and male fertility." says O'Carroll.

***

"Jumping genes make up over half of our DNA and move around the genome controlling how our genes are used. But their activity needs to be carefully regulated to avoid them causing damage.

"The team discovered that early sperm's secret line of defence is activated when SPOCD1 binds with another protein, known as MIWI2, which is already known to have a role in silencing jumping genes.

"Previous studies revealed that MIWI2 protein is bound to small molecules, known as piRNAs, that play a key role in disabling jumping genes through DNA methylation.

"'Our results give the first mechanistic insights into a process that is fundamental to sperm cell development and their genetic integrity." says O'Carroll.

"The findings not only explain the missing part of the puzzle that allows developing sperm to escape an early death,"

Comment: More evidence of protections built into genetic processes. Mistakes are not intended by God. Obvious.

Back to David's theory of evolution: aging is built in

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 19, 2020, 00:19 (67 days ago) @ David Turell

Two mechanisms studied:

"Scientists have unraveled key mechanisms behind the mysteries of aging. They isolated two distinct paths that cells travel during aging and engineered a new way to genetically program these processes to extend lifespan. Cells embark upon either a nucleolar or mitochondrial path early in life, and follow this ''aging route'' throughout their entire lifespan through decline and death. At the heart of the controls the researchers found a master circuit that guides these aging processes.

"Our lifespans as humans are determined by the aging of our individual cells. To understand whether different cells age at the same rate and by the same cause, the researchers studied aging in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, a tractable model for investigating mechanisms of aging, including the aging paths of skin and stem cells.

***

"they found that about half of the cells age through a gradual decline in the stability of the nucleolus, a region of nuclear DNA where key components of protein-producing "factories" are synthesized. In contrast, the other half age due to dysfunction of their mitochondria, the energy production units of cells.

"The scientists discovered that cells of the same genetic material and within the same environment can age in strikingly distinct ways, their fates unfolding through different molecular and cellular trajectories...The cells embark upon either the nucleolar or mitochondrial path early in life, and follow this "aging route" throughout their entire lifespan through decline and death. At the heart of the controls the researchers found a master circuit that guides these aging processes.

"'To understand how cells make these decisions, we identified the molecular processes underlying each aging route and the connections among them, revealing a molecular circuit that controls cell aging, analogous to electric circuits that control home appliances," said Nan Hao, senior author.."

Comment: Aging is a planned designed part of living. It has to be present to clear away room for coming generations. God plans well. Now certainly some deaths are mistakes, but tehv general intended path is from birth to death.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, July 19, 2020, 12:57 (66 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So he deliberately created death by old age and the death of the cells of which we are all made, but he did not deliberately create the various errors that result in any death other than these. He tried to stop all the unplanned deaths but couldn’t, although we are so smart that sometimes we can. Is that correct?

DAVID: Exactly my interpretation of known facts.

Well, it’s nice to hear that we humans are sometimes smarter than your God. I’ll keep in mind your God’s lack of control over his creations as useful support for my proposal that he may also have deliberately and generally allowed evolution to function without his control (apart from some possible dabbles).

QUOTE: "The authors describe some of the terrible things that happen when components fail.”

DAVID: My bold is God's recognition of probable molecular failures. Definitely not intended or planned by God on purpose. Very carefully designed.

dhw: […] according to you these causes of death are errors. And they are definitely not intended or planned but are very carefully designed! Can you honestly not see how illogical this is?

DAVID: Failures of molecule function never designed. As shown by many backup correction mechanisms.

So what were you referring to with your now bolded “very carefully designed”?

Under “Aging is built in”:
DAVID: Aging is a planned designed part of living. It has to be present to clear away room for coming generations. God plans well. Now certainly some deaths are mistakes, but the general intended path is from birth to death.

No one would dispute that ageing is part of the process from birth to death. But I don’t see how mistakes leading to millions of premature deaths constitute good planning.

DAVID: …and you rebuttal above refuses to accept the idea God can choose any method of creation He wants, something you always scurry back to when challenged with.

dhw: Of course your God can choose any method he wants! But that does not mean he chose YOUR method! Yet again, I have offered you alternatives which you accept as logical. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Your substitute methods are all humanizing: experimenting, spectacles, late decision to try out inventing humans.

dhw: Answered in my next comment, which you ignore by claiming I twist your arguments.

dhw: Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours...

DAVID: In use of logic only!! We do not know His reasons for his purposes. Still distorting!!

Purposes ARE reasons! And I’m sorry, but your original statement was “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logical thought” (David’s theory of evolution Part Two, Friday 31 January). I kept the reference because (a) it is central to our discussion, and (b) it has always seemed to me a perfectly reasonable assumption. If your God created our faculties for thought and feeling, why would they be totally unlike his own? There is no distortion, and in any case my logical alternative theories are fully in keeping with your claim that his logic is similar to ours. It is only your theory that fails to find any similarity!

dhw: […] please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted.

DAVID: God has chosen to evolve us, and you keep saying that is wrong. It is my theory.

dhw: If God exists, I have no problem with the theory that he has chosen to evolve us. My problem is your insistence that although you keep saying he is all-powerful and always in control (now qualified by his helplessness at the beginning of this post), and although his only purpose was to produce us, he spent 3.X billion years NOT producing us but instead directly designed (this is your idea of “evolving”) untold millions of now extinct non-human life forms, natural wonders etc. Please stop dodging, and please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted.

DAVID: My choice of God's method argument is what you twist (last bold). Your first sentence agrees with His evolving us. So what is wrong with it taking all the time it took?

dhw: What is wrong is not the time it took but your claim that although the only life forms he wanted to evolve were us and our food supplies, he chose to “evolve” (by which you mean directly design) 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms etc. in order to feed humans who did not even exist.

DAVID: Again a gross distortion in bold. To produce us by evolving us, He knew and understood full well everything else had to come first. God can think realistically, but you don't seem to. We were a goal to be reached starting with bacteria, God's reasons for that method unknown, but you can guess at them as you always wish.

Why did “everything else” HAVE to come first? Your answer: “reason unknown”! I have offered you alternative, logical reasons why everything DID come first. Only your explanation defies logic, so maybe it’s wrong! And what you have pointed out is not a distortion, since yet again you insist that “we were a goal to be reached”. (You’ve once more changed “the” goal to “a” goal, though you’ve never named any other goal.)

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 19, 2020, 20:41 (66 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Failures of molecule function never designed. As shown by many backup correction mechanisms.

dhw: So what were you referring to with your now bolded “very carefully designed”?

Obviously the backup systems.


Under “Aging is built in”:
DAVID: Aging is a planned designed part of living. It has to be present to clear away room for coming generations. God plans well. Now certainly some deaths are mistakes, but the general intended path is from birth to death.

dhw: No one would dispute that ageing is part of the process from birth to death. But I don’t see how mistakes leading to millions of premature deaths constitute good planning.

Totally unreasonable. God cannot prevent molecular mistakes


dhw: Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours...

DAVID: In use of logic only!! We do not know His reasons for his purposes. Still distorting!!

dhw: Purposes ARE reasons!

Not logical. There are always reasons behind purposes!! Not according to two thesaurus' I reviewed. There is conceptual thoughts that lead to purpose. I covered reason. motive and purpose, but even motive implies thought beforehand.

dhw: If God exists, I have no problem with the theory that he has chosen to evolve us. My problem is your insistence that although you keep saying he is all-powerful and always in control (now qualified by his helplessness at the beginning of this post), and although his only purpose was to produce us, he spent 3.X billion years NOT producing us but instead directly designed (this is your idea of “evolving”) untold millions of now extinct non-human life forms, natural wonders etc. Please stop dodging, and please tell me which of your arguments I have twisted.

DAVID: My choice of God's method argument is what you twist (last bold). Your first sentence agrees with His evolving us. So what is wrong with it taking all the time it took?

dhw: What is wrong is not the time it took but your claim that although the only life forms he wanted to evolve were us and our food supplies, he chose to “evolve” (by which you mean directly design) 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms etc. in order to feed humans who did not even exist.

DAVID: Again a gross distortion in bold. To produce us by evolving us, He knew and understood full well everything else had to come first. God can think realistically, but you don't seem to. We were a goal to be reached starting with bacteria, God's reasons for that method unknown, but you can guess at them as you always wish.

dhw: Why did “everything else” HAVE to come first? Your answer: “reason unknown”! I have offered you alternative, logical reasons why everything DID come first. Only your explanation defies logic, so maybe it’s wrong! And what you have pointed out is not a distortion, since yet again you insist that “we were a goal to be reached”. (You’ve once more changed “the” goal to “a” goal, though you’ve never named any other goal.)

Having a prime goal is not a mistaken view of God. From the Big Bang on, I view it as easy to see God's purposive actions. That is my position, whether it is 'a' or 'prime'.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, July 20, 2020, 12:17 (65 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Failures of molecule function never designed. As shown by many backup correction mechanisms.

dhw: So what were you referring to with your now bolded “very carefully designed”?

DAVID: Obviously the backup systems.

But you wrote: “My bold is God’s recognition of probable molecular failures. Definitely not intended or planned by God on purpose. Very carefully designed.” This can only refer to the failures, so perhaps you will understand why your logic is sometimes so hard to follow.

Under “Aging is built in”:
DAVID: Aging is a planned designed part of living. It has to be present to clear away room for coming generations. God plans well. Now certainly some deaths are mistakes, but the general intended path is from birth to death.

dhw: No one would dispute that ageing is part of the process from birth to death. But I don’t see how mistakes leading to millions of premature deaths constitute good planning.

DAVID: Totally unreasonable. God cannot prevent molecular mistakes

You offer us an all-powerful God with a helpless inability to control his own invention, although amazingly we smart human beings are able to correct some of the mistakes he could not avoid. And once again, I don’t see how millions of mistaken premature deaths from the same diseases that kill old people can be called good planning.

dhw: Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours...

DAVID: In use of logic only!! We do not know His reasons for his purposes. Still distorting!!

At this point I quoted your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours and “beyond just simple logical thought”. I can understand your reluctance to continue the discussion on “humanizing”, and to switch to wordplay. Perhaps you will also understand that I should not be accused of distortion when I quote your own words.

dhw: Purposes ARE reasons!

DAVID: Not logical. There are always reasons behind purposes!! Not according to two thesaurus' I reviewed. There is conceptual thoughts that lead to purpose. I covered reason. motive and purpose, but even motive implies thought beforehand.

You claim that your God’s only reason or purpose for creating life was to create H. sapiens, and his reason or purpose for spending 3.X billion years creating millions of non-human life forms etc. was to provide food for humans who did not yet exist. Dictionary definitions: “Purpose: the reason for which anything is done, created or exists” (Encarta) “The purpose of something is the reason for which it is made or done” (Collins) Please stop playing with words and deal with the issues themselves.

DAVID: […] what is wrong with it taking all the time it took?

dhw: What is wrong is not the time it took but your claim that although the only life forms he wanted to evolve were us and our food supplies, he chose to “evolve” (by which you mean directly design) 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms etc. in order to feed humans who did not even exist.

DAVID: Again a gross distortion in bold. To produce us by evolving us, He knew and understood full well everything else had to come first. God can think realistically, but you don't seem to. We were a goal to be reached starting with bacteria, God's reasons for that method unknown […]

dhw: Why did “everything else” HAVE to come first? Your answer: “reason unknown”! I have offered you alternative, logical reasons why everything DID come first. Only your explanation defies logic, so maybe it’s wrong! And what you have pointed out is not a distortion, since yet again you insist that “we were a goal to be reached”. (You’ve once more changed “the” goal to “a” goal, though you’ve never named any other goal.)

DAVID: Having a prime goal is not a mistaken view of God. From the Big Bang on, I view it as easy to see God's purposive actions. That is my position, whether it is 'a' or 'prime'.

I did not say that God did not have a prime goal, and the distinction is not between ‘a’ and ‘prime’ but between ‘a’ and ‘the’. You play similar games on the other thread with “the prime endpoint”. This whole dispute concerns the question why, if his only purpose was to create H. sapiens, he spent 3.X billion years directly designing anything but H. sapiens in order to provide food for humans who only appeared after 99% of the other life forms and food supplies had disappeared. You have several times said that you have “no idea”. That is an agreement that you find your own theory illogical. However, if your God had other goals or secondary purposes, we might be able to find a more logical explanation of evolution, so please tell us what you think the other or secondary purposes might have been.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, July 20, 2020, 17:12 (65 days ago) @ dhw

Under “Aging is built in”:

DAVID: Totally unreasonable. God cannot prevent molecular mistakes

dhw: You offer us an all-powerful God with a helpless inability to control his own invention, although amazingly we smart human beings are able to correct some of the mistakes he could not avoid. And once again, I don’t see how millions of mistaken premature deaths from the same diseases that kill old people can be called good planning.

He invented living organisms, but cannot stop molecular mistakes. Accept it.


dhw: Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours...

DAVID: In use of logic only!! We do not know His reasons for his purposes. Still distorting!!

dhw: At this point I quoted your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours and “beyond just simple logical thought”. I can understand your reluctance to continue the discussion on “humanizing”, and to switch to wordplay. Perhaps you will also understand that I should not be accused of distortion when I quote your own words.

That still doesn't tell us His reasoning behind His purposes.


dhw: Purposes ARE reasons!

DAVID: Not logical. There are always reasons behind purposes!! Not according to two thesaurus' I reviewed. There is conceptual thoughts that lead to purpose. I covered reason. motive and purpose, but even motive implies thought beforehand.

dhw: You claim that your God’s only reason or purpose for creating life was to create H. sapiens, and his reason or purpose for spending 3.X billion years creating millions of non-human life forms etc. was to provide food for humans who did not yet exist. Dictionary definitions: “Purpose: the reason for which anything is done, created or exists” (Encarta) “The purpose of something is the reason for which it is made or done” (Collins) Please stop playing with words and deal with the issues themselves.

To arrive at purpose one must think through all the reasons for choosing that purpose. you are trying to skip a mental step in wordplay of your own


DAVID: Having a prime goal is not a mistaken view of God. From the Big Bang on, I view it as easy to see God's purposive actions. That is my position, whether it is 'a' or 'prime'.

dhw: I did not say that God did not have a prime goal, and the distinction is not between ‘a’ and ‘prime’ but between ‘a’ and ‘the’. You play similar games on the other thread with “the prime endpoint”. This whole dispute concerns the question why, if his only purpose was to create H. sapiens, he spent 3.X billion years directly designing anything but H. sapiens in order to provide food for humans who only appeared after 99% of the other life forms and food supplies had disappeared. You have several times said that you have “no idea”. That is an agreement that you find your own theory illogical.

The bold is total distortion of my prior statements that I don't try to guess at His reasons, and I use history to tell what He did, since I view Him as in charge.

dhw: However, if your God had other goals or secondary purposes, we might be able to find a more logical explanation of evolution, so please tell us what you think the other or secondary purposes might have been.

All I can do is look at history and the extraordinary result of conscious humans. I'll ask you, are there other purposes? I don't know of any serious ones.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, July 21, 2020, 12:33 (64 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God cannot prevent molecular mistakes

dhw: You offer us an all-powerful God with a helpless inability to control his own invention, although amazingly we smart human beings are able to correct some of the mistakes he could not avoid. And once again, I don’t see how millions of mistaken premature deaths from the same diseases that kill old people can be called good planning.

DAVID: He invented living organisms, but cannot stop molecular mistakes. Accept it.

As usual, I will put on my theist hat for the sake of this discussion. Why should I accept your theory that your at times all-powerful, all-knowing, always-in-control God is so incompetent that he invents a system which includes mistakes he can’t control, whereas we humans are smart enough to correct some of them! And why should I accept that millions of mistaken deaths are a sign of good planning? (NB This is not a criticism of God, but of your interpretation of God’s powers and wishes.)

dhw: Your “humanizing” objection to my logical alternatives is invalidated by your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours...

DAVID: In use of logic only!! We do not know His reasons for his purposes. Still distorting!!

dhw: At this point I quoted your agreement that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours and “beyond just simple logical thought”. I can understand your reluctance to continue the discussion on “humanizing”, and to switch to wordplay. Perhaps you will also understand that I should not be accused of distortion when I quote your own words.

DAVID: That still doesn't tell us His reasoning behind His purposes.
And:
DAVID: To arrive at purpose one must think through all the reasons for choosing that purpose. you are trying to skip a mental step in wordplay of your own.

So you offer us a theory: Your God’s purpose was to design H. sapiens (God hasn’t told us the reason why), and his purpose for designing all the extinct non-human life forms, econiches etc. was to feed H. sapiens, who had not yet arrived (God hasn’t told us the reason and you have no idea why he thought he needed to feed all the extinct non-human forms before he directly designed H. sapiens). You dismiss other theories which give logical reasons for the whole history, including all the non-human forms and econiches, because they humanize your God, although you agree that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours but apparently this is a distortion of your statement that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

dhw: You have several times said that you have “no idea”. That is an agreement that you find your own theory illogical. (David’s bold)

DAVID: The bold is total distortion of my prior statements that I don't try to guess at His reasons, and I use history to tell what He did, since I view Him as in charge.

If God exists, then of course the history tells us what he did. But history does not tell us the purposes you attribute to him, and you have told us that you have no idea why he would have chosen to “evolve” H. sapiens (= specially design in your vocabulary) by first evolving (= specially designing) billions of now extinct non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc.

dhw: However, if your God had other goals or secondary purposes, we might be able to find a more logical explanation of evolution, so please tell us what you think the other or secondary purposes might have been.

DAVID: All I can do is look at history and the extraordinary result of conscious humans. I'll ask you, are there other purposes? I don't know of any serious ones.

If you can’t think of any other purposes, then please stop pretending that I distort your opinions, and please stop substituting “a” purpose or a “prime purpose” or “endpoint” for THE purpose. How do you define “serious” ones? I have offered you several logical explanations of the history: experimenting, getting new ideas as history progresses, designing for his own enjoyment, designing to relieve the boredom of eternal isolation – all of these in keeping with your own extremely serious observation that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 21, 2020, 18:17 (64 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: He invented living organisms, but cannot stop molecular mistakes. Accept it.

dhw: As usual, I will put on my theist hat for the sake of this discussion. Why should I accept your theory that your at times all-powerful, all-knowing, always-in-control God is so incompetent that he invents a system which includes mistakes he can’t control, whereas we humans are smart enough to correct some of them! And why should I accept that millions of mistaken deaths are a sign of good planning? (NB This is not a criticism of God, but of your interpretation of God’s powers and wishes.)

Off the point of my explanation as usual. We do not know of any other system He could invent. We know it must be carbon based, and the reactions occur at very high split-second speed. It relies on proteins which must fold precisely to produce their functionality. This allows for the definite probability of molecular error, and we see the backup systems builtin for corrections. They tell us God foresaw the problems. As for correction of biological errors, God gave us the complexity of brain to solve what we can solve. Your problem not mine. Your theistic hat is wildly askew as usual. I wish I could clarify your knowledge of biochemistry, as you obviously don't comprehend my point of view.

DAVID: That still doesn't tell us His reasoning behind His purposes.
And:
DAVID: To arrive at purpose one must think through all the reasons for choosing that purpose. you are trying to skip a mental step in wordplay of your own.

dhw: Your God’s purpose was to design H. sapiens (God hasn’t told us the reason why), and his purpose for designing all the extinct non-human life forms, econiches etc. was to feed H. sapiens, who had not yet arrived (God hasn’t told us the reason and you have no idea why he thought he needed to feed all the extinct non-human forms before he directly designed H. sapiens).

Ridiculous comment. Feeding everyone during evolution is an obvious necessity. And obviously God has never told anyone (skipping Bible stories) His reasons for doing any of the things He has done. We can only base it on His works.

dhw: You dismiss other theories... because they humanize your God, although you agree that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours but apparently this is a distortion of your statement that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

There can be only one definite theory only about God's thoughts: He uses logic as we do. The rest is guesswork.


dhw: If God exists, then of course the history tells us what he did. But history does not tell us the purposes you attribute to him, and you have told us that you have no idea why he would have chosen to “evolve” H. sapiens (= specially design in your vocabulary) by first evolving (= specially designing) billions of now extinct non-human life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc.

The results clearly indicate purpose: Adler's point that our unusual appearance with our consciousness attribute clearly indicates God's purpose. Enough proof for me.


dhw: However, if your God had other goals or secondary purposes, we might be able to find a more logical explanation of evolution, so please tell us what you think the other or secondary purposes might have been.

DAVID: All I can do is look at history and the extraordinary result of conscious humans. I'll ask you, are there other purposes? I don't know of any serious ones.

dhw: If you can’t think of any other purposes, then please stop pretending that I distort your opinions, and please stop substituting “a” purpose or a “prime purpose” or “endpoint” for THE purpose. How do you define “serious” ones? I have offered you several logical explanations of the history: experimenting, getting new ideas as history progresses, designing for his own enjoyment, designing to relieve the boredom of eternal isolation – all of these in keeping with your own extremely serious observation that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

The usual humanized version of how God thinks and develops purpose. And it ends with the usual distortion of my view of God's thoughts. All any of us can know is He is as logical as we are. His reasons behind His purposes are his thoughts alone.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, July 22, 2020, 09:58 (64 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: He invented living organisms, but cannot stop molecular mistakes. Accept it.

dhw: As usual, I will put on my theist hat for the sake of this discussion. Why should I accept your theory that your at times all-powerful, all-knowing, always-in-control God is so incompetent that he invents a system which includes mistakes he can’t control, whereas we humans are smart enough to correct some of them! And why should I accept that millions of mistaken deaths are a sign of good planning? (NB This is not a criticism of God, but of your interpretation of God’s powers and wishes.)

DAVID: Off the point of my explanation as usual. We do not know of any other system He could invent. We know it must be carbon based, and the reactions occur at very high split-second speed. It relies on proteins which must fold precisely to produce their functionality. This allows for the definite probability of molecular error, and we see the backup systems builtin for corrections. They tell us God foresaw the problems. As for correction of biological errors, God gave us the complexity of brain to solve what we can solve. Your problem not mine. Your theistic hat is wildly askew as usual. I wish I could clarify your knowledge of biochemistry, as you obviously don't comprehend my point of view.

I’m sorry, but all you are doing is explaining why things go wrong. I am not disputing the biochemistry but your interpretation of your God’s powers and intentions. Of course we don’t know of any other system, and of course the system we know is full of errors, and of course the errors can sometimes be corrected and sometimes can’t be corrected. But I suggest that if your God is all-powerful, he will do what he wants to do. You say he deliberately created the errors that lead to old people dying, but the errors that kill young people are not his fault (i.e. he didn’t want them). With my theist's hat on, I suggest that maybe he deliberately created all the errors, i.e. he wanted them (since death was essential to whatever might have been his purpose). The biochemistry is the same for each theory. And I find it absurd to argue that your all-powerful God could not correct some errors, but gave us the intelligence to do what he couldn’t do.

DAVID: That still doesn't tell us His reasoning behind His purposes.

dhw: Your God’s purpose was to design H. sapiens (God hasn’t told us the reason why), and his purpose for designing all the extinct non-human life forms, econiches etc. was to feed H. sapiens, who had not yet arrived (God hasn’t told us the reason and you have no idea why he thought he needed to feed all the extinct non-human forms before he directly designed H. sapiens).

DAVID: Ridiculous comment. Feeding everyone during evolution is an obvious necessity.

Designing and feeding millions of now extinct non-human life forms is not an obvious necessity if his only intention was to design and feed humans! Stop dodging!

dhw: You dismiss other theories... because they humanize your God, although you agree that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours but apparently this is a distortion of your statement that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: There can be only one definite theory only about God's thoughts: He uses logic as we do. The rest is guesswork.

What is a “definite” theory? If he uses logic as we do, we should be able to understand it. Not even you can understand the logic of the bold above, whereas you do recognize the logic of my alternatives.

dhw: However, if your God had other goals or secondary purposes, we might be able to find a more logical explanation of evolution, so please tell us what you think the other or secondary purposes might have been.

DAVID: All I can do is look at history and the extraordinary result of conscious humans. I'll ask you, are there other purposes? I don't know of any serious ones.

dhw: If you can’t think of any other purposes, then please stop pretending that I distort your opinions, and please stop substituting “a” purpose or a “prime purpose” or “endpoint” for THE purpose. How do you define “serious” ones? I have offered you several logical explanations of the history: experimenting, getting new ideas as history progresses, designing for his own enjoyment, designing to relieve the boredom of eternal isolation – all of these in keeping with your own extremely serious observation that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: The usual humanized version of how God thinks and develops purpose.

Fits in perfectly with your contention that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, “beyond just simple logical thought”.

DAVID: And it ends with the usual distortion of my view of God's thoughts.

Not a distortion but a direct quote, and a perfectly reasonable theory. When pressed for a possible explanation of your God’s purpose for creating H. sapiens, you even acknowledge that your God might want a relationship with us, might want us to admire his works, and might enjoy his own works as a painter enjoys his paintings.

Back to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 22, 2020, 15:33 (63 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: But I suggest that if your God is all-powerful, he will do what he wants to do. You say he deliberately created the errors that lead to old people dying, but the errors that kill young people are not his fault (i.e. he didn’t want them).

Confused. The bold does not correctly recognize that the mechanism of aging leading to death is purposely builtin and may or may not be due to error

dhw; With my theist's hat on, I suggest that maybe he deliberately created all the errors, i.e. he wanted them (since death was essential to whatever might have been his purpose). The biochemistry is the same for each theory. And I find it absurd to argue that your all-powerful God could not correct some errors, but gave us the intelligence to do what he couldn’t do.

The errors you want God to correct are all unexpected accidents of molecular activity which God could never control unless He somehow created a fail-safe system. That it isn't fail-safe proves it is impossible to create.


DAVID: That still doesn't tell us His reasoning behind His purposes.

dhw: Your God’s purpose was to design H. sapiens (God hasn’t told us the reason why), and his purpose for designing all the extinct non-human life forms, econiches etc. was to feed H. sapiens, who had not yet arrived (God hasn’t told us the reason and you have no idea why he thought he needed to feed all the extinct non-human forms before he directly designed H. sapiens).

DAVID: Ridiculous comment. Feeding everyone during evolution is an obvious necessity.

dhw: Designing and feeding millions of now extinct non-human life forms is not an obvious necessity if his only intention was to design and feed humans! Stop dodging!

No dodge. Your confusion. God has the right to evolve us and feed all organisms along the way.


DAVID: There can be only one definite theory only about God's thoughts: He uses logic as we do. The rest is guesswork.

dhw: What is a “definite” theory? If he uses logic as we do, we should be able to understand it. Not even you can understand the logic of the bold above, whereas you do recognize the logic of my alternatives.

It is not an issue of understanding God's logic. We obviously cannot know His reasoning behind his choices of purpose or method of achieving them.


dhw: However, if your God had other goals or secondary purposes, we might be able to find a more logical explanation of evolution, so please tell us what you think the other or secondary purposes might have been.

DAVID: All I can do is look at history and the extraordinary result of conscious humans. I'll ask you, are there other purposes? I don't know of any serious ones.

dhw: If you can’t think of any other purposes, then please stop pretending that I distort your opinions, and please stop substituting “a” purpose or a “prime purpose” or “endpoint” for THE purpose. How do you define “serious” ones? I have offered you several logical explanations of the history: experimenting, getting new ideas as history progresses, designing for his own enjoyment, designing to relieve the boredom of eternal isolation – all of these in keeping with your own extremely serious observation that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: The usual humanized version of how God thinks and develops purpose.

Fits in perfectly with your contention that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, “beyond just simple logical thought”.

DAVID: And it ends with the usual distortion of my view of God's thoughts.

dhw: Not a distortion but a direct quote, and a perfectly reasonable theory. When pressed for a possible explanation of your God’s purpose for creating H. sapiens, you even acknowledge that your God might want a relationship with us, might want us to admire his works, and might enjoy his own works as a painter enjoys his paintings.

Exactly my thoughts as pure guesswork, when responding to your request to come up with possible reasons. Guesswork is not substantive thought, and I've stated those guesses were at the level of humanizing.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 23, 2020, 00:50 (63 days ago) @ David Turell

From my view they are really molecular mistakes, and guess what, this article describes a series of corrective measures that are present and designed to correct:

https://evolutionnews.org/2020/07/in-cells-and-whole-organisms-repair-mechanisms-imply-...

"...scientists found at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. “Sometimes, when something is broken, the first step to fixing it is to break it even more.”

“'We saw that XPG makes a beeline for discontinuous DNA — places where the hydrogen bonds between bases on each strand of the helix have been disrupted — and then it very dramatically bends the strand at that exact location, breaking the interface that connects bases stacked on top of each other,” said Susan Tsutakawa,"...The bending activity adds to an already impressive arsenal, as XPG was first identified as a DNA chopping enzyme, responsible for cutting out nucleotide bases with chemical and UV radiation damage.”

“'An unexpected finding from our imaging data is that the flexible parts of the protein — which were previously impossible to examine – have the ability to recognize perturbations associated with many different types of DNA damage,” said co-author Priscilla Cooper, “XPG then uses its sculpting properties to bend the DNA in order to recruit and load into place the proteins that can fix that type of damage.”

Handling brain cell death: "Cell death is prevalent throughout life; however, the coordinated interactions and roles of phagocytes during corpse removal in the live brain are poorly understood. Astrocytes and microglia engaged with dying neurons in an orchestrated and synchronized fashion. Each glial cell played specialized roles: Astrocyte processes rapidly polarized and engulfed numerous small dendritic apoptotic bodies, while microglia migrated and engulfed the soma and apical dendrites. The relative involvement and phagocytic specialization of each glial cell was plastic and controlled by the receptor tyrosine kinase Mertk… Thus, a precisely orchestrated response and cross-talk between glial cells during corpse removal may be critical for maintaining brain homeostasis.

"In early embryological development mistakes can happen: Scientists at Caltech point out:

"The first few days of embryonic development are a critical point for determining the failure or success of a pregnancy. Because relatively few cells make up the embryo during this period, the health of each cell is vital to the health of the overall embryo. But often, these young cells have chromosomal aneuploidies — meaning, there are too many or too few chromosome copies in the cell. Aneuploid cells lead to the failure of the pregnancy, or cause developmental defects such as Down syndrome later in gestation.

"Fortunately, these young embryos perform their own “quality control” before most genetic abnormalities become established:

"Researchers have found that the prevalence of aneuploidy is drastically lower as the embryo grows and develops. Using mouse embryos, scientists from the laboratory of Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, Caltech’s Bren Professor of Biology and Biological Engineering, now show that this is because embryos are able to rid themselves of abnormal cells just before and soon after implantation into the uterus, thereby keeping the whole embryo healthy….

“'It is remarkable that embryos can do this,” says Zernicka-Goetz. “It reflects their plasticity that gives them the power to self-repair.”

"The scientists found a double-protection mechanism. Not only are aneuploid cells detected and eliminated, but healthy cells are stimulated to proliferate, compensating for the loss of unhealthy cells. "

Comment: Recognizing that these mistakes, errors, and damage can occur in any functional living creature, requires the foresight to create these corrective mechanisms in advance. There are no God errors, only His corrective mechanisms by carefully instructed cells to conduct error correction and repairs.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by dhw, Thursday, July 23, 2020, 08:32 (63 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTES: “..embryos are able to rid themselves of abnormal cells just before and soon after implantation into the uterus, thereby keeping the whole embryo healthy…."

“'It is remarkable that embryos can do this,” says Zernicka-Goetz. “It reflects their plasticity that gives them the power to self-repair.”

"The scientists found a double-protection mechanism. Not only are aneuploid cells detected and eliminated, but healthy cells are stimulated to proliferate, compensating for the loss of unhealthy cells. "

DAVID: Recognizing that these mistakes, errors, and damage can occur in any functional living creature, requires the foresight to create these corrective mechanisms in advance. There are no God errors, only His corrective mechanisms by carefully instructed cells to conduct error correction and repairs.

An alternative interpretation would be that over the billions of years, intelligent cells have cooperated in correcting errors as and when they appear – using the perhaps God-given “plasticity that gives them the power to self-repair”. It is clearly absurd to argue that God could not control or correct the errors in the system he created, but then he gave cells instructions on how to control or correct the errors he could not control or correct when he created the system!

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 23, 2020, 15:43 (62 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTES: “..embryos are able to rid themselves of abnormal cells just before and soon after implantation into the uterus, thereby keeping the whole embryo healthy…."

“'It is remarkable that embryos can do this,” says Zernicka-Goetz. “It reflects their plasticity that gives them the power to self-repair.”

"The scientists found a double-protection mechanism. Not only are aneuploid cells detected and eliminated, but healthy cells are stimulated to proliferate, compensating for the loss of unhealthy cells. "

DAVID: Recognizing that these mistakes, errors, and damage can occur in any functional living creature, requires the foresight to create these corrective mechanisms in advance. There are no God errors, only His corrective mechanisms by carefully instructed cells to conduct error correction and repairs.

dhw: An alternative interpretation would be that over the billions of years, intelligent cells have cooperated in correcting errors as and when they appear – using the perhaps God-given “plasticity that gives them the power to self-repair”. It is clearly absurd to argue that God could not control or correct the errors in the system he created, but then he gave cells instructions on how to control or correct the errors he could not control or correct when he created the system!

"Clearly absurd" shows a total misunderstanding of the problem. Living biochemistry is an amazing development, whose origin is not understood. To repeat once again: the molecular reactions are at split-second speed, generally relying on function from specialized folding of organic molecules. Contrary to dhw's opinion it is amazing it works as well as it does. Ask any biochemist.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by dhw, Friday, July 24, 2020, 11:20 (61 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: It is clearly absurd to argue that God could not control or correct the errors in the system he created, but then he gave cells instructions on how to control or correct the errors he could not control or correct when he created the system!

DAVID: "Clearly absurd" shows a total misunderstanding of the problem. Living biochemistry is an amazing development, whose origin is not understood. To repeat once again: the molecular reactions are at split-second speed, generally relying on function from specialized folding of organic molecules. Contrary to dhw's opinion it is amazing it works as well as it does. Ask any biochemist.

This must be the most “non sequitur” response you have come up with so far. Living biochemistry is so amazing that it is the best possible argument for design, as I have repeated over and over again. Now please explain the logic behind your belief that your God could not control the errors in the system and therefore gave cells instructions on how to control the errors in the system.

Thank you for all the articles on complexities and errors. I’ll reproduce your comments, as they are clearly related to the above.

Comment: as usual a complex, highly controlled system, obviously designed. The better we understand it, the better we can correct errors.

Comment: Another very complex mechanism to transport molecular product. Note my bold. All biochemists know mistakes happen. None of life's processes are fail-safe despite many safeguard systems in place.

Comment: A highly complex system not produced by chance. And again this may help us correct things that will go wrong.

We all know that things go wrong! Your solution to the problem of “errors” by your God - which we might call a branch of theodicy - is to present him as having invented a system which he could not control (so somehow this means the errors were not his fault), but he provided us with safeguards as well as the intelligence to correct some of the errors which he himself could not correct. The safeguards can only mean he did know how to correct some of the errors he did not know how to correct, and our intelligence must be greater than his if we can correct errors he couldn’t correct. I find this illogical, as well as running contrary to your often repeated belief that your God is all-powerful and always in control. We should also remember that all these errors accumulated over thousands of millions of years of evolution (unless bacteria suffered from all the diseases now known to humankind!) and so the question must arise as to how and when these “safeguards” were actually installed? How could he have directly dabbled or provided the first cells with a 3.8-billion-year programme to correct errors he could not correct?

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by David Turell @, Friday, July 24, 2020, 19:28 (61 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: "Clearly absurd" shows a total misunderstanding of the problem. Living biochemistry is an amazing development, whose origin is not understood. To repeat once again: the molecular reactions are at split-second speed, generally relying on function from specialized folding of organic molecules. Contrary to dhw's opinion it is amazing it works as well as it does. Ask any biochemist.

dhw: This must be the most “non sequitur” response you have come up with so far. Living biochemistry is so amazing that it is the best possible argument for design, as I have repeated over and over again. Now please explain the logic behind your belief that your God could not control the errors in the system and therefore gave cells instructions on how to control the errors in the system.

The bold did happen, remember!!! There are all sorts of backup systems at work, which show God recognized the problem as you note. But they, like the systems they try to monitor and correct, are also prone to molecular error. That is the nature of the beast. It is not God's fault, and I would say impossible to control by a better, more proficient, God.


Thank you for all the articles on complexities and errors. I’ll reproduce your comments, as they are clearly related to the above.

Comment: as usual a complex, highly controlled system, obviously designed. The better we understand it, the better we can correct errors.

Comment: Another very complex mechanism to transport molecular product. Note my bold. All biochemists know mistakes happen. None of life's processes are fail-safe despite many safeguard systems in place.

Comment: A highly complex system not produced by chance. And again this may help us correct things that will go wrong.

dhw: We all know that things go wrong! Your solution to the problem of “errors” by your God - which we might call a branch of theodicy - is to present him as having invented a system which he could not control (so somehow this means the errors were not his fault), but he provided us with safeguards as well as the intelligence to correct some of the errors which he himself could not correct. The safeguards can only mean he did know how to correct some of the errors he did not know how to correct, and our intelligence must be greater than his if we can correct errors he couldn’t correct. I find this illogical, as well as running contrary to your often repeated belief that your God is all-powerful and always in control. We should also remember that all these errors accumulated over thousands of millions of years of evolution (unless bacteria suffered from all the diseases now known to humankind!) and so the question must arise as to how and when these “safeguards” were actually installed? How could he have directly dabbled or provided the first cells with a 3.8-billion-year programme to correct errors he could not correct?

Good questions. Note the bold! If He couldn't stop the molecular errors, then they are not His fault. I don't know when He recognized the problem during evolution, but I would guess quite early as we know of cell-splitting problems, which means bacteria could certainly have reproductive problems. Our knowledge is not greater than His. Note your red colored comment. We have figured out how some of His system works and can tailor it by using CRISPR made by His bacteria. We have to use His life inventions to do anything, so He is obviously superior. Note the blue comment: He put in backups, so He was correcting as much as He could. It all bothers you more than me; surprising as I believe in him, and you don't. So it is your problem, not mine.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by dhw, Saturday, July 25, 2020, 10:37 (60 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: "Clearly absurd" shows a total misunderstanding of the problem. Living biochemistry is an amazing development, whose origin is not understood. To repeat once again: the molecular reactions are at split-second speed, generally relying on function from specialized folding of organic molecules. Contrary to dhw's opinion it is amazing it works as well as it does. Ask any biochemist.

dhw: This must be the most “non sequitur” response you have come up with so far. Living biochemistry is so amazing that it is the best possible argument for design, as I have repeated over and over again. Now please explain the logic behind your belief that your God could not control the errors in the system and therefore gave cells instructions on how to control the errors in the system.

DAVID: The bold did happen, remember!!! There are all sorts of backup systems at work, which show God recognized the problem as you note. But they, like the systems they try to monitor and correct, are also prone to molecular error. That is the nature of the beast. It is not God's fault, and I would say impossible to control by a better, more proficient, God.

I noted that this was your belief! And I noted that you believe God gave instructions on how to correct the errors he couldn’t correct, and these corrections were also subject to errors, and although he created the system from scratch, it wasn’t his fault, apart from those errors in the system that kill old people (and unavoidably kill young people), because those were deliberately designed.

dhw: We all know that things go wrong! Your solution to the problem of “errors” by your God - which we might call a branch of theodicy - is to present him as having invented a system which he could not control (so somehow this means the errors were not his fault)…

DAVID: Note the bold! If He couldn't stop the molecular errors, then they are not His fault.

So if I invent a flying machine which crashes because of a technical error I can’t stop, you won’t blame me as you hurtle to oblivion.

dhw: …but he provided us with safeguards as well as the intelligence to correct some of the errors which he himself could not correct. The safeguards can only mean he did know how to correct some of the errors he did not know how to correct, and our intelligence must be greater than his if we can correct errors he couldn’t correct. I find this illogical, as well as running contrary to your often repeated belief that your God is all-powerful and always in control.

DAVID: Our knowledge is not greater than His. Note your red colored comment. We have figured out how some of His system works and can tailor it by using CRISPR made by His bacteria. We have to use His life inventions to do anything, so He is obviously superior.

I don’t need to note my own comment! If we can correct errors he can’t correct, then we are smarter than he is. If he exists, I honestly DON’T think we could be smarter than him. But you keep emphasizing the incompetence of your all-powerful, all-knowing, always-in-control God, whereas I propose that he knew exactly what he was doing.

dhw: We should also remember that all these errors accumulated over thousands of millions of years of evolution (unless bacteria suffered from all the diseases now known to humankind!) and so the question must arise as to how and when these “safeguards” were actually installed? How could he have directly dabbled or provided the first cells with a 3.8-billion-year programme to correct errors he could not correct?

DAVID: I don't know when He recognized the problem during evolution, but I would guess quite early as we know of cell-splitting problems, which means bacteria could certainly have reproductive problems. Note the blue comment: He put in backups, so He was correcting as much as He could. It all bothers you more than me; surprising as I believe in him, and you don't. So it is your problem, not mine.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with belief in God and everything to do with your increasingly illogical interpretation of your God’s nature, intentions and methods. Bacteria’s possible reproduction problems are pretty limited compared to the number of diseases (“errors”) that have evolved in the course of the last 3.8 billion years, and I’m sorry, but pointing out that I am an agnostic does not provide an answer to the question in blue.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 25, 2020, 19:02 (60 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The bold did happen, remember!!! There are all sorts of backup systems at work, which show God recognized the problem as you note. But they, like the systems they try to monitor and correct, are also prone to molecular error. That is the nature of the beast. It is not God's fault, and I would say impossible to control by a better, more proficient, God.

dhw: I noted that this was your belief! And I noted that you believe God gave instructions on how to correct the errors he couldn’t correct, and these corrections were also subject to errors, and although he created the system from scratch, it wasn’t his fault, apart from those errors in the system that kill old people (and unavoidably kill young people), because those were deliberately designed.

The bold is true but ignores the fact that progressive aging to cause death is also purposely built in.


dhw: We all know that things go wrong! Your solution to the problem of “errors” by your God - which we might call a branch of theodicy - is to present him as having invented a system which he could not control (so somehow this means the errors were not his fault)…

DAVID: Note the bold! If He couldn't stop the molecular errors, then they are not His fault.

dhw: So if I invent a flying machine which crashes because of a technical error I can’t stop, you won’t blame me as you hurtle to oblivion.

A technical error is the designers fault!!! Like the MAX 737. These biological accidents are chance events, accidents not a designers fault.


DAVID: Our knowledge is not greater than His. Note your red colored comment. We have figured out how some of His system works and can tailor it by using CRISPR made by His bacteria. We have to use His life inventions to do anything, so He is obviously superior.

dhw: I don’t need to note my own comment! If we can correct errors he can’t correct, then we are smarter than he is. If he exists, I honestly DON’T think we could be smarter than him. But you keep emphasizing the incompetence of your all-powerful, all-knowing, always-in-control God, whereas I propose that he knew exactly what he was doing.

God is not incompetent and we are not smarter. God is not at work now and has left us in charge, with great brains to solve accidental problems, which we often can do. Your view of God is as weird as usual.


dhw: We should also remember that all these errors accumulated over thousands of millions of years of evolution (unless bacteria suffered from all the diseases now known to humankind!) and so the question must arise as to how and when these “safeguards” were actually installed? How could he have directly dabbled or provided the first cells with a 3.8-billion-year programme to correct errors he could not correct?

DAVID: I don't know when He recognized the problem during evolution, but I would guess quite early as we know of cell-splitting problems, which means bacteria could certainly have reproductive problems. Note the blue comment: He put in backups, so He was correcting as much as He could. It all bothers you more than me; surprising as I believe in him, and you don't. So it is your problem, not mine.

dhw: This has nothing whatsoever to do with belief in God and everything to do with your increasingly illogical interpretation of your God’s nature, intentions and methods. Bacteria’s possible reproduction problems are pretty limited compared to the number of diseases (“errors”) that have evolved in the course of the last 3.8 billion years, and I’m sorry, but pointing out that I am an agnostic does not provide an answer to the question in blue.

Your view of my presentations of God as illogical is due to your strange views about Him. I still believe in God despite my honest and logical presentation of biological problems that are not His fault. I am the one willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing and He can't stop molecular errors in a system He created, and you question me as if I am against God!! Unbelievable role reversals. Don't believe the God of the Bible.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by dhw, Sunday, July 26, 2020, 10:43 (59 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I noted that you believe God gave instructions on how to correct the errors he couldn’t correct, and these corrections were also subject to errors, and although he created the system from scratch, it wasn’t his fault, apart from those errors in the system that kill old people (and unavoidably kill young people), because those were deliberately designed.

DAVID: The bold is true but ignores the fact that progressive aging to cause death is also purposely built in.

So he deliberately designed the diseases that kill old people (and accidentally kill young people) and he deliberately designed death from old age. There’s not a great deal left that you can say he didn’t deliberately design. It’s the death of young people which aparently was not part of his plan but was unavoidable and therefore, by some strange logic which I can’t follow, their death is not his fault.

DAVID:If He couldn't stop the molecular errors, then they are not His fault.

dhw: So if I invent a flying machine which crashes because of a technical error I can’t stop, you won’t blame me as you hurtle to oblivion.

DAVID: A technical error is the designers fault!!! Like the MAX 737. These biological accidents are chance events, accidents not a designers fault.

But you keep telling us that it was your God who designed the molecules! Design is design, whether technological or biological. And if he's responsible for the designs that do work, why is he not responsible for the designs that don't?

dhw: If we can correct errors he can’t correct, then we are smarter than he is. If he exists, I honestly DON’T think we could be smarter than him. But you keep emphasizing the incompetence of your all-powerful, all-knowing, always-in-control God, whereas I propose that he knew exactly what he was doing.

DAVID: God is not incompetent and we are not smarter. God is not at work now and has left us in charge, with great brains to solve accidental problems, which we often can do. Your view of God is as weird as usual.

He’s left us now, and our great brains can correct some of the errors he couldn’t correct. Somehow this means that although the errors were part of his design, they were not his fault, and somehow it means that we are not smarter than him. But if I suggest that your God knew what he was doing, and what you call errors were not errors at all but an integral part of his plan, I am the one with a “weird view” of God.

dhw: We should also remember that all these errors accumulated over thousands of millions of years of evolution (unless bacteria suffered from all the diseases now known to humankind!) and so the question must arise as to how and when these “safeguards” were actually installed? How could he have directly dabbled or provided the first cells with a 3.8-billion-year programme to correct errors he could not correct?

DAVID: Your view of my presentations of God as illogical is due to your strange views about Him. I still believe in God despite my honest and logical presentation of biological problems that are not His fault. I am the one willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing and He can't stop molecular errors in a system He created, and you question me as if I am against God!! Unbelievable role reversals. Don't believe the God of the Bible.

A total misrepresentation of the whole argument, as you try to dodge the question in blue. I am not questioning your belief in God. I am questioning the logic behind your interpretation of the historical facts. For years you have objected to my theory that your God might have given free rein to evolution, because according to you he is all-powerful and always in control of everything. Now suddenly he is not all-powerful and he is not in control. Why? Because if he was, you would have to blame him for all the errors that indiscriminately cause disease and death. That is what I would call an “unbelievable role reversal”! And no, no, no, I do not question you as if you are against God! I question your interpretation of God’s nature, motives and methods.

QUOTE (from article on sialic acid)… This fertility barrier might have helped divide Homo populations into different species more than 2 million years ago, the researchers speculated. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: The last comment demonstrates that the battle with pathogens is a constantly changing arena of struggle. Note the bold. A mutational error favored by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution.

The authors attribute the change to a defence against malaria, and indeed, the battle is ongoing as new threats emerge demanding new cures. That is how the library of responses builds up, and again raises the problem of when your God is supposed to have designed the errors and the safeguards that did or didn’t work. Furthermore, the division into different species of homo plus “mutational errors” favoured by your God can hardly be said to fit in with your theory that your all-powerful, always-in-control God set out with the one and only purpose of “evolving” (which according to you = directly designing) H. sapiens.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 26, 2020, 18:47 (59 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID:If He couldn't stop the molecular errors, then they are not His fault.

dhw: So if I invent a flying machine which crashes because of a technical error I can’t stop, you won’t blame me as you hurtle to oblivion.

DAVID: A technical error is the designers fault!!! Like the MAX 737. These biological accidents are chance events, accidents not a designers fault.

dhw: But you keep telling us that it was your God who designed the molecules! Design is design, whether technological or biological. And if he's responsible for the designs that do work, why is he not responsible for the designs that don't?

God is not there holding hands with the molecules. They are designed to follow chemical commands, but the molecule may make its own mistake and mess up the reaction. Not God's fault, and He recognized the problem with backup systems in place. You do not understand the issue that high speed reactions can have errors God can't control.

DAVID: God is not at work now and has left us in charge, with great brains to solve accidental problems, which we often can do. Your view of God is as weird as usual.

dhw: He’s left us now, and our great brains can correct some of the errors he couldn’t correct. Somehow this means that although the errors were part of his design, they were not his fault, and somehow it means that we are not smarter than him. But if I suggest that your God knew what he was doing, and what you call errors were not errors at all but an integral part of his plan, I am the one with a “weird view” of God.

Yes, weird. The errors were not wanted, as shown by backup systems, which show the errors were anticipated.


DAVID: Your view of my presentations of God as illogical is due to your strange views about Him. I still believe in God despite my honest and logical presentation of biological problems that are not His fault. I am the one willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing and He can't stop molecular errors in a system He created, and you question me as if I am against God!! Unbelievable role reversals. Don't believe the God of the Bible.

dhw: A total misrepresentation of the whole argument, as you try to dodge the question in blue. I am not questioning your belief in God. I am questioning the logic behind your interpretation of the historical facts. For years you have objected to my theory that your God might have given free rein to evolution, because according to you he is all-powerful and always in control of everything. Now suddenly he is not all-powerful and he is not in control. Why? Because if he was, you would have to blame him for all the errors that indiscriminately cause disease and death. That is what I would call an “unbelievable role reversal”! And no, no, no, I do not question you as if you are against God! I question your interpretation of God’s nature, motives and methods.

I know you don't agree with my version of God, as you humanize Him beyond recognition. God dos not give free rein. He is too purposeful, our major disagreement.


QUOTE (from article on sialic acid)… This fertility barrier might have helped divide Homo populations into different species more than 2 million years ago, the researchers speculated. (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: The last comment demonstrates that the battle with pathogens is a constantly changing arena of struggle. Note the bold. A mutational error favored by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution.

dhw: The authors attribute the change to a defence against malaria, and indeed, the battle is ongoing as new threats emerge demanding new cures. That is how the library of responses builds up, and again raises the problem of when your God is supposed to have designed the errors and the safeguards that did or didn’t work. Furthermore, the division into different species of homo plus “mutational errors” favoured by your God can hardly be said to fit in with your theory that your all-powerful, always-in-control God set out with the one and only purpose of “evolving” (which according to you = directly designing) H. sapiens.

Note the bold. God did not want errors. If the mutation resulted in our evolution God achieved His goal!

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by dhw, Monday, July 27, 2020, 10:41 (58 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A technical error is the designers fault!!! Like the MAX 737. These biological accidents are chance events, accidents not a designers fault.

dhw: But you keep telling us that it was your God who designed the molecules! Design is design, whether technological or biological. And if he's responsible for the designs that do work, why is he not responsible for the designs that don't?

DAVID: God is not there holding hands with the molecules. They are designed to follow chemical commands, but the molecule may make its own mistake and mess up the reaction. Not God's fault, and He recognized the problem with backup systems in place. You do not understand the issue that high speed reactions can have errors God can't control.

I’m going to skip most of my own responses now, and focus on your own statements, as you are creating an extraordinary pattern. Evidently your God created molecules which – whether he intended it or not – are capable of going their own way. They make “mistakes” which he does not want them to make, and even the backup systems don’t always work. And these “biological accidents are chance events.” Now consider these two comments of yours:

DAVID: “A mutational error favored by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution.

DAVID: “God did not want errors. If the mutation resulted in our evolution God achieved His goal!”

All of a sudden, we have random mutations leading to humans, who were supposed to be God’s one and only purpose. You even go so far as to give equal billing to natural selection and to your God as “favouring” the random mutation, but there is certainly no question here of his controlling it. If a random mutation can result in the evolution of humans, random mutations can result in every other organ and organism that ever existed. Welcome to Darwinism. However, there is another possible interpretation. (At this point I’d prefer to substitute cells for molecules, since the latter are only part of the system.) If cells can go their own way and destroy one another, maybe they can also go their own way and defend one another or – since they may be capable of making changes that resulted in our evolution – maybe they can also create the changes which have resulted in the rest of evolution. You’ve told us that “God is not at work now”. Maybe he was not at work in the distant past either. In the picture you have just drawn for us, he designed the system, put in backups – some of which worked and some of which didn’t – and from then on (apart perhaps from the occasional dabble) the cells simply went their own way. In other words, they had free rein.

DAVID: I know you don't agree with my version of God, as you humanize Him beyond recognition. God dos not give free rein. He is too purposeful, our major disagreement.

I have dealt with the silly “humanization” argument elsewhere. The version of your God that you have just presented has him accidentally – despite all his best efforts to provide safeguards - giving free rein to molecules to make their own mistakes, although these random errors may have led to the evolution of humans. Our major disagreement most emphatically is not about God’s purposefulness. If he exists, I have no doubt that the whole history of evolution reflects his purpose. And I have offered you different possible and – by your own admission logical – interpretations both of his purpose and his method of achieving that purpose. However, I have NOT offered you a version in which I combine an all-purposeful, all-knowing, always-in-control God who is unable to control the system of life that he has created, whose one aim is to produce H. sapiens but who directly designs every non-human life form, lifestyle, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life before designing the only life form he wants to design, and whose one and only purpose may have been achieved through random mutations although he directly designs every species. I’m afraid I find such a version too illogical to support.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by David Turell @, Monday, July 27, 2020, 23:55 (58 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: But you keep telling us that it was your God who designed the molecules! Design is design, whether technological or biological. And if he's responsible for the designs that do work, why is he not responsible for the designs that don't?

DAVID: God is not there holding hands with the molecules. They are designed to follow chemical commands, but the molecule may make its own mistake and mess up the reaction. Not God's fault, and He recognized the problem with backup systems in place. You do not understand the issue that high speed reactions can have errors God can't control.

dhw: I’m going to skip most of my own responses now, and focus on your own statements, as you are creating an extraordinary pattern. Evidently your God created molecules which – whether he intended it or not – are capable of going their own way. They make “mistakes” which he does not want them to make, and even the backup systems don’t always work. And these “biological accidents are chance events.”

You miss the entire point, but state it. Once again: the molecules are programmed to have certain actions, but that programming is not an absolute control, and the molecules make mistakes in trying to follow it. Remember molecules must react with other molecules or properly fold to cause a reaction. they are not puppets!!!

Now consider these two comments of yours:


DAVID: “A mutational error favored by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution.

Does't sound like me. I need the precise reference point to respond.


DAVID: “God did not want errors. If the mutation resulted in our evolution God achieved His goal!”

Fine. God created the mutation. Again, for clarity, where is the quote.

You’ve told us that “God is not at work now”. Maybe he was not at work in the distant past either. In the picture you have just drawn for us, he designed the system, put in backups – some of which worked and some of which didn’t – and from then on (apart perhaps from the occasional dabble) the cells simply went their own way. In other words, they had free rein.

My idea is God is not at work now pushing further evolution, but he is here. i'm never qa deist.


DAVID: I know you don't agree with my version of God, as you humanize Him beyond recognition. God dos not give free rein. He is too purposeful, our major disagreement.

dhw: I have dealt with the silly “humanization” argument elsewhere.

Not silly. i enumerated your human reasons for Him many times.

dhw: The version of your God that you have just presented has him accidentally – despite all his best efforts to provide safeguards - giving free rein to molecules to make their own mistakes, although these random errors may have led to the evolution of humans. Our major disagreement most emphatically is not about God’s purposefulness. If he exists, I have no doubt that the whole history of evolution reflects his purpose. And I have offered you different possible and – by your own admission logical – interpretations both of his purpose and his method of achieving that purpose. However, I have NOT offered you a version in which I combine an all-purposeful, all-knowing, always-in-control God who is unable to control the system of life that he has created, whose one aim is to produce H. sapiens but who directly designs every non-human life form, lifestyle, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life before designing the only life form he wants to design, and whose one and only purpose may have been achieved through random mutations although he directly designs every species. I’m afraid I find such a version too illogical to support.

That's fine. I find God as powerful as He can be. You are still to influenced by Biblical version of God. My God differs. The bold is your usual wish for an impatient God, although you don't seem to realize that is exactly what your statement says.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by dhw, Tuesday, July 28, 2020, 15:54 (57 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] Evidently your God created molecules which – whether he intended it or not – are capable of going their own way. They make “mistakes” which he does not want them to make, and even the backup systems don’t always work. And these “biological accidents are chance events.”

DAVID: You miss the entire point, but state it. Once again: the molecules are programmed to have certain actions, but that programming is not an absolute control, and the molecules make mistakes in trying to follow it. Remember molecules must react with other molecules or properly fold to cause a reaction. they are not puppets!!!

A remarkable reversal of your usual claim that not only cells but also multicellular organisms ARE puppets. According to you, they have no mind of their own but follow God’s instructions: from leaf-biting, nest-building and camouflage, through to every bacterial response to every threat, and every successful defence mounted by the immune system – all preprogrammed or dabbled. I am the one who fights against the idea that cells are puppets and God is the puppet master. And now I have fight against your belief that he is a puppet master who can’t control his puppets.

DAVID: Now consider these two comments of yours:

They are comments of yours, not mine! So please consider them yourself.

DAVID: “A mutational error favored by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution.

DAVID: Does'nt sound like me. I need the precise reference point to respond.

See your comment under “Human evolution: changes in sialic acid changed immunity” Saturday, July 25, 2020

DAVID: “God did not want errors. If the mutation resulted in our evolution God achieved His goal!”

DAVID: Fine. God created the mutation. Again, for clarity, where is the quote.

Sunday July 26 on this thread. Your first statement suggests that it would have been an error, not a deliberate creation. I’m sorry, but once you start positing contradictory theories, you are bound to get into more and more of a tangle trying to defend them.

dhw: You’ve told us that “God is not at work now”. Maybe he was not at work in the distant past either. In the picture you have just drawn for us, he designed the system, put in backups – some of which worked and some of which didn’t – and from then on (apart perhaps from the occasional dabble) the cells simply went their own way. In other words, they had free rein.

DAVID: My idea is God is not at work now pushing further evolution, but he is here. i'm never a deist.

An integral feature of deism is that God does not intervene, but that is not the point here. You have molecules going their own way, independently of your God’s instructions. So why can’t you allow for the possibility that once he had created them, he deliberately allowed them to go their own way? After all, you have now abandoned the concept of an all-powerful God always in control of everything, so why not at least remove the helpless tag and agree to the possibility that the free-running system he created may after all have been the system he wanted to create?

DAVID: I know you don't agree with my version of God, as you humanize Him beyond recognition. God dos not give free rein. He is too purposeful, our major disagreement.

dhw: I have dealt with the silly “humanization” argument elsewhere.

DAVID: Not silly. i enumerated your human reasons for Him many times.

I have many times enumerated possible alternatives involving thought patterns, emotions, logic and attributes similar to ours, and you have dismissed them on the grounds that they involve thought patterns, emotions, logic or attributes similar to ours, although you have explicitly stated that he probably has thought patterns, emotions, logic and attributes similar to ours! Please stop contradicting yourself.

dhw: I have NOT offered you a version in which I combine an all-purposeful, all-knowing, always-in-control God who is unable to control the system of life that he has created, whose one aim is to produce H. sapiens but who directly designs every non-human life form, lifestyle, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life before designing the only life form he wants to design, and whose one and only purpose may have been achieved through random mutations although he directly designs every species. I’m afraid I find such a version too illogical to support.

DAVID: That's fine. I find God as powerful as He can be. You are still to influenced by Biblical version of God. My God differs. The bold is your usual wish for an impatient God, although you don't seem to realize that is exactly what your statement says.

You have no idea how powerful your God can be, and my alternatives have nothing to do with the biblical version. Please quote the biblical references to experimentation, late arrival of humans in his thinking, giving cells the intelligence to do their own designing, creating life as a spectacle for himself, relief from eternal boredom… And the bold has nothing to do with patience – another of your red herrings to divert attention away from the illogicality of the bolded theory above. See the other thread.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 28, 2020, 18:12 (57 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You miss the entire point, but state it. Once again: the molecules are programmed to have certain actions, but that programming is not an absolute control, and the molecules make mistakes in trying to follow it. Remember molecules must react with other molecules or properly fold to cause a reaction. they are not puppets!!!

dhw: A remarkable reversal of your usual claim that not only cells but also multicellular organisms ARE puppets. And now I have fight against your belief that he is a puppet master who can’t control his puppets.

His instructions are the only controls control, which molecules may incorrectly follow.


DAVID: “A mutational error favored by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution.

DAVID: Does'nt sound like me. I need the precise reference point to respond.

dhw: See your comment under “Human evolution: changes in sialic acid changed immunity” Saturday, July 25, 2020

Mutational errors may or may not be God, but it went forward with His permission.


DAVID: “God did not want errors. If the mutation resulted in our evolution God achieved His goal!”

DAVID: Fine. God created the mutation. Again, for clarity, where is the quote.

dhw: Sunday July 26 on this thread. Your first statement suggests that it would have been an error, not a deliberate creation. I’m sorry, but once you start positing contradictory theories, you are bound to get into more and more of a tangle trying to defend them.

Reviewed. You still do not understand molecular errors. God may allow beneficial ones.


DAVID: My idea is God is not at work now pushing further evolution, but he is here. i'm never a deist.

dhw: An integral feature of deism is that God does not intervene, but that is not the point here. You have molecules going their own way, independently of your God’s instructions. So why can’t you allow for the possibility that once he had created them, he deliberately allowed them to go their own way? After all, you have now abandoned the concept of an all-powerful God always in control of everything, so why not at least remove the helpless tag and agree to the possibility that the free-running system he created may after all have been the system he wanted to create?

Still confused. The molecules can make mistakes. God recognized this with backups present.

DAVID: Not silly. I enumerated your human reasons for Him many times.


dhw: I have many times enumerated possible alternatives involving thought patterns, emotions, logic and attributes similar to ours, and you have dismissed them on the grounds that they involve thought patterns, emotions, logic or attributes similar to ours, although you have explicitly stated that he probably has thought patterns, emotions, logic and attributes similar to ours! Please stop contradicting yourself.

No contradiction. How He applies His thoughts to purpose are only His. The similarity does not tell us His reasons for his actions.

dhw: You have no idea how powerful your God can be, and my alternatives have nothing to do with the biblical version. Please quote the biblical references to experimentation, late arrival of humans in his thinking, giving cells the intelligence to do their own designing, creating life as a spectacle for himself, relief from eternal boredom…

Thank you for the description of your humanizing thoughts. Perfect human thoughts ascribed to God, and you can't see it.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 28, 2020, 19:36 (57 days ago) @ David Turell

Mistakes in genetic controls of the immune system causes auto-immune diseases:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200728113550.htm

"A study published in the journal Nature Communications has pinpointed a number of areas of the human genome that may help explain the neonatal origins of chronic immune and inflammatory diseases of later life, including type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and celiac disease.

***

"Chronic immune diseases -- including type 1 diabetes, celiac disease and multiple sclerosis -- are caused by an overactive immune system and affect about 5 per cent of Australians. Allergies are immune-mediated too and affect one in five Australians, with hay fever, asthma, eczema, anaphylaxis and food allergies the most common. Inflammation and autoimmunity are also known to be driving factors in cardiovascular diseases, for example when an overactive immune system mistakenly attacks the heart.

***

"'Disease is partly due to changes, both large and small, in our genome -- the DNA that we're born with and which is a major driving force in all our cells. That means, genomics can be used to estimate disease risk from a very early age," Dr Inouye said.

"'Common diseases, such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, tend to be polygenic -- influenced by a large number of genetic variants scattered throughout the genome, which combine with environmental and lifestyle factors. By using new genomic technology and supercomputing capabilities, we can sift through this DNA data and piece together the puzzles that underlie each disease.

"'With so many diseases sharing a root in the immune system and inflammation we can leverage this information to better understand where each disease has a molecular weak spot and to what extent these are shared among different diseases.

"'We've shown this can be dissected using genetics and polygenic risk, hopefully leading to targeted preventative interventions for those who need them most, with the aim of keeping people living healthier for longer.'"

Comment: Autoimmune diseases are mistakes of the genetic immune system. God has given us a brain that can solve many of the problems created.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by dhw, Wednesday, July 29, 2020, 10:13 (57 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] the molecules are programmed to have certain actions, but that programming is not an absolute control, and the molecules make mistakes in trying to follow it. Remember molecules must react with other molecules or properly fold to cause a reaction. they are not puppets!!!

dhw: A remarkable reversal of your usual claim that not only cells but also multicellular organisms ARE puppets. And now I have fight against your belief that he is a puppet master who can’t control his puppets.

DAVID: His instructions are the only controls control, which molecules may incorrectly follow.

And so he is a puppet master who can’t control his puppets.

DAVID: “A mutational error favored by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution.

DAVID: Does'nt sound like me. I need the precise reference point to respond.

It was you. Why did you think it didn’t sound like you?

DAVID: Mutational errors may or may not be God, but it went forward with His permission.

So now you think he’s capable of preventing good mutational errors but is powerless to prevent bad ones.

DAVID: “God did not want errors. If the mutation resulted in our evolution God achieved His goal!”

dhw: Your first statement suggests that it would have been an error, not a deliberate creation. I’m sorry, but once you start positing contradictory theories, you are bound to get into more and more of a tangle trying to defend them.

DAVID: Reviewed. You still do not understand molecular errors. God may allow beneficial ones.

You still do not understand that a God who is capable of preventing beneficial errors but is incapable of preventing deleterious ones (a) has NOT deliberately created the beneficial ones, which makes nonsense of your argument that he is always in total control of evolution, and (b) is pathetically weak, especially in the light of the next comment, from your second post:
DAVID: Autoimmune diseases are mistakes of the genetic immune system. God has given us a brain that can solve many of the problems created.

He can’t solve some of the problems, but we can! Your God gets weaker every day.

dhw: […] you have now abandoned the concept of an all-powerful God always in control of everything, so why not at least remove the helpless tag and agree to the possibility that the free-running system he created may after all have been the system he wanted to create?

DAVID: Still confused. The molecules can make mistakes. God recognized this with backups present.

There is no confusion on my part! Your God designed the system and the mistakes show that he did not control the molecules – even with his backups. You have not answered my question. Why won’t you consider the possibility that he did not WANT to control the molecules, and that he WANTED to give them free rein to make both beneficial and deleterious changes to themselves?

dhw (re “humanizing” God): I have many times enumerated possible alternatives involving thought patterns, emotions, logic and attributes similar to ours, and you have dismissed them on the grounds that they involve thought patterns, emotions, logic or attributes similar to ours, although you have explicitly stated that he probably has thought patterns, emotions, logic and attributes similar to ours! Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: No contradiction. How He applies His thoughts to purpose are only His. The similarity does not tell us His reasons for his actions.

Each of my alternatives offers reasons for his actions (if he exists). You dismiss them all because they “humanize” him, and yet you agree that he probably has human attributes!

DAVID: I find God as powerful as He can be. You are still to influenced by Biblical version of God.

dhw: You have no idea how powerful your God can be, and my alternatives have nothing to do with the biblical version. Please quote the biblical references to experimentation, late arrival of humans in his thinking, giving cells the intelligence to do their own designing, creating life as a spectacle for himself, relief from eternal boredom…

DAVID: Thank you for the description of your humanizing thoughts. Perfect human thoughts ascribed to God, and you can't see it.

This is getting sillier and sillier. You told me I was still too influenced by the Biblical version of God! I asked you to quote biblical references to any of my alternative explanations. Instead you tell me that my humanized versions are humanized, totally ignoring the point now bolded above: it is totally illogical for someone who agrees that his God probably has human attributes to dismiss a theory on the grounds that it endows his God with human attributes!

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 29, 2020, 18:22 (56 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: And so he is a puppet master who can’t control his puppets.

So wrong. Puppets have direct controls. Molecules have instructions to follow, but mistakenly may not. Facts of life you refuse to accept.


DAVID: Mutational errors may or may not be God, but it went forward with His permission.

dhw: So now you think he’s capable of preventing good mutational errors but is powerless to prevent bad ones.

Total misrepresentation. DNA as a free molecule can make a mutation by error or gamma rays. God chooses to leave it if worthwhile or eliminate them, exactly what I said.

DAVID: Reviewed. You still do not understand molecular errors. God may allow beneficial ones.

dhw: You still do not understand that a God who is capable of preventing beneficial errors but is incapable of preventing deleterious ones (a) has NOT deliberately created the beneficial ones, which makes nonsense of your argument that he is always in total control of evolution, and (b) is pathetically weak, especially in the light of the next comment, from your second post:

DAVID: Autoimmune diseases are mistakes of the genetic immune system. God has given us a brain that can solve many of the problems created.

Still entirely without comprehension. Repeated: "DNA as a free molecule can make a mutation by error or gamma rays. God chooses to leave it if worthwhile or eliminate them, exactly what I said."


dhw: He can’t solve some of the problems, but we can! Your God gets weaker every day.

Still entirely without comprehension. Repeated: "DNA as a free molecule can make a mutation by error or gamma rays. God chooses to leave it if worthwhile or eliminate them, exactly what I said." Our immune system is what we currently have. It makes mistakes. God is not in the business of fixing them now; it is up to us and our big brain.


dhw: […] you have now abandoned the concept of an all-powerful God always in control of everything, so why not at least remove the helpless tag and agree to the possibility that the free-running system he created may after all have been the system he wanted to create?

DAVID: Still confused. The molecules can make mistakes. God recognized this with backups present.

dhw: There is no confusion on my part! Your God designed the system and the mistakes show that he did not control the molecules – even with his backups. You have not answered my question. Why won’t you consider the possibility that he did not WANT to control the molecules, and that he WANTED to give them free rein to make both beneficial and deleterious changes to themselves?

Again, an idea from an imagined weak humanized God. Why would He allow 'deleterious changes' when He purposely put in backup systems? I see a God with serious purpose. You don't.


dhw: You have no idea how powerful your God can be, and my alternatives have nothing to do with the biblical version. Please quote the biblical references to experimentation, late arrival of humans in his thinking, giving cells the intelligence to do their own designing, creating life as a spectacle for himself, relief from eternal boredom…

DAVID: Thank you for the description of your humanizing thoughts. Perfect human thoughts ascribed to God, and you can't see it.

dhw: This is getting sillier and sillier. You told me I was still too influenced by the Biblical version of God! I asked you to quote biblical references to any of my alternative explanations. Instead you tell me that my humanized versions are humanized, totally ignoring the point now bolded above: it is totally illogical for someone who agrees that his God probably has human attributes to dismiss a theory on the grounds that it endows his God with human attributes!

My guesses about God's human side, responding as guesses requested by you, are just that. I prefer to look at his creator side, and not consider that his human side has any role in his decisions for creation. Silly is your total lack of comprehension of what molecules can do and how they are partially, not tightly, controlled.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by dhw, Thursday, July 30, 2020, 11:15 (55 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: And so he is a puppet master who can’t control his puppets.

DAVID: So wrong. Puppets have direct controls. Molecules have instructions to follow, but mistakenly may not. Facts of life you refuse to accept.

So presumably your God gave up on dabbling. Of course I accept that things go wrong! But if molecules are able to disobey your once supposedly all-powerful God’s instructions, your God has either lost or has never had control over them. Like a puppet master who can’t control his puppets. A logical conclusion you refuse to accept.

DAVID: Mutational errors may or may not be God, but it went forward with His permission.

dhw: So now you think he’s capable of preventing good mutational errors but is powerless to prevent bad ones.

DAVID: Total misrepresentation. DNA as a free molecule can make a mutation by error or gamma rays. God chooses to leave it if worthwhile or eliminate them, exactly what I said.

If God chooses to leave a good mutation, he clearly has the power to eliminate it. However, you have forgotten that you told us he does NOT have the power to eliminate bad mutations (errors). Put your two statements together, and you have exactly what I said (now bolded). Please stop editing your own comments.

DAVID: You still do not understand molecular errors. God may allow beneficial ones.

dhw: You still do not understand that a God who is capable of preventing beneficial errors but is incapable of preventing deleterious ones (a) has NOT deliberately created the beneficial ones, which makes nonsense of your argument that he is always in total control of evolution, and (b) is pathetically weak, especially in the light of the next comment, from your second post:

DAVID: Autoimmune diseases are mistakes of the genetic immune system. God has given us a brain that can solve many of the problems created.

dhw: He can’t solve some of the problems, but we can! Your God gets weaker every day.

DAVID: Still entirely without comprehension. Repeated: "DNA as a free molecule can make a mutation by error or gamma rays. God chooses to leave it if worthwhile or eliminate them, exactly what I said." Our immune system is what we currently have. It makes mistakes. God is not in the business of fixing them now; it is up to us and our big brain.

According to you he was incapable of solving the problems in the past. I don’t know what sort of business you think he is involved in now, but if you are implying that he could solve them now if he wanted to, then we would have a learning God very different from the all-knowing one you started out with, though fitting in nicely with one who experiments or gets new ideas as he goes along. Meanwhile, you are still stuck with your proposal that we are better at fixing his errors than he is.

dhw: Why won’t you consider the possibility that he did not WANT to control the molecules, and that he WANTED to give them free rein to make both beneficial and deleterious changes to themselves?

DAVID: Again, an idea from an imagined weak humanized God. Why would He allow 'deleterious changes' when He purposely put in backup systems? I see a God with serious purpose. You don't.

Please stop pretending that your God has serious purpose and then refusing to say what that serious purpose is. According to you he did not “allow” deleterious changes. He could not prevent them. And according to you, even his backup systems didn’t always work. That makes him considerably weaker than the God I am proposing, who WANTED the system we have. The so-called backup systems would have evolved over time as free running organisms tried to combat those free running forces whose survival threatened their own. The conflict between good and bad at all levels would then be integral to your God’s purpose, as would death. Why do you refuse to even consider the possibility that your God is not the weak and helpless designer of an imperfect system whose errors he can’t correct, but who deliberately designed the system we have? We needn’t even discuss possible purposes for doing so, since you “prefer to look at his creator side, and not consider that his human side has any role in his decisions for creation.”

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 30, 2020, 21:19 (55 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: So wrong. Puppets have direct controls. Molecules have instructions to follow, but mistakenly may not. Facts of life you refuse to accept.

dhw: So presumably your God gave up on dabbling.

Dabbling was for new evolutionary steps, nothing more.


DAVID: Mutational errors may or may not be God, but it went forward with His permission.

dhw: If God chooses to leave a good mutation, he clearly has the power to eliminate it. However, you have forgotten that you told us he does NOT have the power to eliminate bad mutations (errors).

Show me where I said the bold. Not my thought.

DAVID: Still entirely without comprehension. Repeated: "DNA as a free molecule can make a mutation by error or gamma rays. God chooses to leave it if worthwhile or eliminate them, exactly what I said." Our immune system is what we currently have. It makes mistakes. God is not in the business of fixing them now; it is up to us and our big brain.

dhw: According to you he was incapable of solving the problems in the past. I don’t know what sort of business you think he is involved in now, but if you are implying that he could solve them now if he wanted to, then we would have a learning God very different from the all-knowing one you started out with, though fitting in nicely with one who experiments or gets new ideas as he goes along. Meanwhile, you are still stuck with your proposal that we are better at fixing his errors than he is.

Weird set of comments. My view is that God ran and monitored evolution until sapiens was well established in the current form. The bold is totally wrong in my view. In the past God took total control and managed evolution as He wished. I'm not implying what you wished I imply. I don't change. The red sentence is also something you infer from nowhere. We fix things now that we are in charge. God not stepping in now.


dhw: Why won’t you consider the possibility that he did not WANT to control the molecules, and that he WANTED to give them free rein to make both beneficial and deleterious changes to themselves?

DAVID: Again, an idea from an imagined weak humanized God. Why would He allow 'deleterious changes' when He purposely put in backup systems? I see a God with serious purpose. You don't.

dhw: Please stop pretending that your God has serious purpose and then refusing to say what that serious purpose is.

I don't refuse. Humans are the purpose. Still distorting.

dhw: According to you he did not “allow” deleterious changes. He could not prevent them. And according to you, even his backup systems didn’t always work.

True, a fact of life, I can accept.

dhw: That makes him considerably weaker than the God I am proposing, who WANTED the system we have. The so-called backup systems would have evolved over time as free running organisms tried to combat those free running forces whose survival threatened their own. The conflict between good and bad at all levels would then be integral to your God’s purpose, as would death. Why do you refuse to even consider the possibility that your God is not the weak and helpless designer of an imperfect system whose errors he can’t correct, but who deliberately designed the system we have? We needn’t even discuss possible purposes for doing so, since you “prefer to look at his creator side, and not consider that his human side has any role in his decisions for creation.”

Simple answer. God is not human and nothing like the God you wish He were. No form of any God could control molecular mistakes in free-floating molecules which are supposed to respond properly to specific stimuli. It seems you cannot or refuse to understand a very simple biochemical concept. I teach the best I can.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by dhw, Friday, July 31, 2020, 11:22 (54 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A mutational error favoured by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution.

dhw: Why did you think it didn’t sound like you?

DAVID: Mutational errors may or may not be God, but it went forward with His permission.

dhw: If God chooses to leave a good mutation, he clearly has the power to eliminate it. However, you have forgotten that you told us he does NOT have the power to eliminate bad mutations (errors).

DAVID: Show me where I said the bold. Not my thought.

Sunday July 26 (and several times before that, addressed to me): “You do not understand the issue that high speed reactions can have errors God can’t control.” All part of your convoluted argument (Friday July 24) that “If He couldn't stop the molecular errors, then they are not His fault. “ But directly contradicted by the bold below ("God chooses to...eliminate them.") One contradiction after another.

DAVID: "DNA as a free molecule can make a mutation by error or gamma rays. God chooses to leave it if worthwhile or eliminate them, exactly what I said." Our immune system is what we currently have. It makes mistakes. God is not in the business of fixing them now; it is up to us and our big brain. (dhw's bold)

dhw: According to you he was incapable of solving the problems in the past. I don’t know what sort of business you think he is involved in now, but if you are implying that he could solve them now if he wanted to, then we would have a learning God very different from the all-knowing one you started out with, though fitting in nicely with one who experiments or gets new ideas as he goes along. Meanwhile, you are still stuck with your proposal that we are better at fixing his errors than he is.

DAVID: Weird set of comments. My view is that God ran and monitored evolution until sapiens was well established in the current form. The bold is totally wrong in my view. In the past God took total control and managed evolution as He wished.

How can he have been in total control in the past if he couldn’t control the errors in the system and is not in the business of fixing them in the present?

DAVID: I'm not implying what you wished I imply. I don't change. The red sentence is also something you infer from nowhere. We fix things now that we are in charge. God not stepping in now.

He couldn’t control the errors, and yet we can, but you don’t agree that this makes us better at fixing his errors than he is!

dhw: Why won’t you consider the possibility that he did not WANT to control the molecules, and that he WANTED to give them free rein to make both beneficial and deleterious changes to themselves?

DAVID: Again, an idea from an imagined weak humanized God. Why would He allow 'deleterious changes' when He purposely put in backup systems? I see a God with serious purpose. You don't.

dhw: Please stop pretending that your God has serious purpose and then refusing to say what that serious purpose is.

DAVID: I don't refuse. Humans are the purpose. Still distorting.

You won’t tell us his serious purpose for creating humans, and try to avoid telling us the serious purpose behind his direct design of all the extinct life forms, or you propose that they were all designed to provide a food supply for humans who were not even there.

dhw: […] Why do you refuse to even consider the possibility that your God is not the weak and helpless designer of an imperfect system whose errors he can’t correct, but who deliberately designed the system we have? We needn’t even discuss possible purposes for doing so, since you “prefer to look at his creator side, and not consider that his human side has any role in his decisions for creation.”

DAVID: Simple answer. God is not human and nothing like the God you wish He were.

I do not wish anything. I am looking for a logical explanation of life and – if God exists – his actions and possible nature and motives. I have never said God is human. But I agree fully with your various statements that he probably has thought patterns, emotions, logic and attributes similar to ours.
-
DAVID: No form of any God could control molecular mistakes in free-floating molecules which are supposed to respond properly to specific stimuli. It seems you cannot or refuse to understand a very simple biochemical concept. I teach the best I can.

You gloss over as many of your contradictions as you can. According to you, we humans can correct some of the errors that your God could not correct, but we’re not smarter than him. And although every life form that ever existed is based on the molecular processes you describe, and although he could not control the errors in the process, in the past apparently he was in “total control” and could “allow” good mutations (though elsewhere you have him directly designing every one that led to new life forms etc.), but couldn’t stop the bad ones! Do please stop pretending that the simple biological concept – which of course I accept – is the subject of our disagreement. The problem is the total confusion caused by your interpretation of your God’s intentions and powers.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by David Turell @, Friday, July 31, 2020, 18:09 (54 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: "DNA as a free molecule can make a mutation by error or gamma rays. God chooses to leave it if worthwhile or eliminate them, exactly what I said." Our immune system is what we currently have. It makes mistakes. God is not in the business of fixing them now; it is up to us and our big brain. (dhw's bold)

dhw: According to you he was incapable of solving the problems in the past. I don’t know what sort of business you think he is involved in now, but if you are implying that he could solve them now if he wanted to, then we would have a learning God very different from the all-knowing one you started out with, though fitting in nicely with one who experiments or gets new ideas as he goes along. Meanwhile, you are still stuck with your proposal that we are better at fixing his errors than he is.

Your total confusion about God involves when God acts and when He doesn't. During evolution prior to our appearance He was in total control of evolution and all advancing changes. He allowed beneficial mistakes as stated above, which shows that even at a time of total control molecular mistakes could happen Now we are in charge to handle molecular mistakes, but God is many times more powerful than we are. I have no idea why He is totally letting us handle it.


DAVID: Weird set of comments. My view is that God ran and monitored evolution until sapiens was well established in the current form. The bold is totally wrong in my view. In the past God took total control and managed evolution as He wished.

dhw: How can he have been in total control in the past if he couldn’t control the errors in the system and is not in the business of fixing them in the present?

You are not understanding my position about God as clearly stated during evolution of us and now.

dhw: You won’t tell us his serious purpose for creating humans,

I can guess why, as before, but why bother guessing? I cannot specifically tell you why. All your guesses have been humanizing.

-
DAVID: No form of any God could control molecular mistakes in free-floating molecules which are supposed to respond properly to specific stimuli. It seems you cannot or refuse to understand a very simple biochemical concept. I teach the best I can.

dhw: You gloss over as many of your contradictions as you can. According to you, we humans can correct some of the errors that your God could not correct, but we’re not smarter than him. And although every life form that ever existed is based on the molecular processes you describe, and although he could not control the errors in the process, in the past apparently he was in “total control” and could “allow” good mutations (though elsewhere you have him directly designing every one that led to new life forms etc.), but couldn’t stop the bad ones! Do please stop pretending that the simple biological concept – which of course I accept – is the subject of our disagreement. The problem is the total confusion caused by your interpretation of your God’s intentions and powers.

Anyone reading this discussion will realize you are confused and not understanding what I present. Again, God in total control during evolution, correcting all errors and allowing ones that created beneficial changes. Now appears not active, although I concede He may be in ways we do not recognize. Key point: under His watch in evolution, the molecule, DNA, made mistakes. Horror of all horrors, He couldn't control the mistakes, but could allows the good ones and correct the others. Now, for His own reasons, which I do not know or want to guess at, we are in charge. I am consistent in my theorizing. Your comments and criticisms are all over the place, and I think generally confused.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by dhw, Saturday, August 01, 2020, 10:12 (54 days ago) @ David Turell

For the sake of brevity, I will only reproduce and answer your responses to my last post.

DAVID: Your total confusion about God involves when God acts and when He doesn't. During evolution prior to our appearance He was in total control of evolution and all advancing changes. He allowed beneficial mistakes as stated above, which shows that even at a time of total control molecular mistakes could happen. Now we are in charge to handle molecular mistakes, but God is many times more powerful than we are. I have no idea why He is totally letting us handle it.

Bearing in mind your comment that “a mutational error favoured by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution”, and God “allows beneficial mistakes”, we now have a God who does NOT design the changes that cause evolution. He only allows them. But if he allows them, the inference is that he is able to stop them, whereas you have repeatedly told us that “he couldn’t stop the molecular errors”. And these contradictions are supposed to indicate "total control"! Furthermore, if God couldn’t stop the molecular errors prior to our arrival but we can stop them now (please remember that we have inherited the errors – they didn’t just start with us), we clearly know more about handling them than he did. I don't think the “total confusion” is mine.

DAVID: Anyone reading this discussion will realize you are confused and not understanding what I present. Again, God in total control during evolution, correcting all errors and allowing ones that created beneficial changes. Now appears not active, although I concede He may be in ways we do not recognize. Key point: under His watch in evolution, the molecule, DNA, made mistakes. Horror of all horrors, He couldn't control the mistakes, but could allows the good ones and correct the others. Now, for His own reasons, which I do not know or want to guess at, we are in charge. I am consistent in my theorizing. Your comments and criticisms are all over the place, and I think generally confused.

Now you have your pre-sapiens God in total control, “correcting all errors” (although you tell us he couldn’t stop or control them and even provided backups which often didn’t work), and “allowing” the beneficial ones instead of directly designing (your normal theory) all the changes that lead to speciation. If we take into account your statement that “these biological accidents are chance events, accidents not a designers fault”, we have what to you really is the horror of horrors: pure Darwinism – evolution by means of random mutations and natural selection. Your God's role is simply to allow it to happen.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 01, 2020, 15:15 (53 days ago) @ dhw

For the sake of brevity, I will only reproduce and answer your responses to my last post.

DAVID: Your total confusion about God involves when God acts and when He doesn't. During evolution prior to our appearance He was in total control of evolution and all advancing changes. He allowed beneficial mistakes as stated above, which shows that even at a time of total control molecular mistakes could happen. Now we are in charge to handle molecular mistakes, but God is many times more powerful than we are. I have no idea why He is totally letting us handle it.

dhw: Bearing in mind your comment that “a mutational error favoured by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution”, and God “allows beneficial mistakes”, we now have a God who does NOT design the changes that cause evolution. He only allows them. But if he allows them, the inference is that he is able to stop them, whereas you have repeatedly told us that “he couldn’t stop the molecular errors”. And these contradictions are supposed to indicate "total control"! Furthermore, if God couldn’t stop the molecular errors prior to our arrival but we can stop them now (please remember that we have inherited the errors – they didn’t just start with us), we clearly know more about handling them than he did. I don't think the “total confusion” is mine.

Your analysis of what I presented shows your total lack of understanding. The molecular errors we are discussing are not during evolution, but errors we see in current living organisms. Errors that influenced evolutionary direction of course were allowed if God approved of them. Please concentrate on current errors


DAVID: Anyone reading this discussion will realize you are confused and not understanding what I present. Again, God in total control during evolution, correcting all errors and allowing ones that created beneficial changes. Now appears not active, although I concede He may be in ways we do not recognize. Key point: under His watch in evolution, the molecule, DNA, made mistakes. Horror of all horrors, He couldn't control the mistakes, but could allows the good ones and correct the others. Now, for His own reasons, which I do not know or want to guess at, we are in charge. I am consistent in my theorizing. Your comments and criticisms are all over the place, and I think generally confused.

dhw: Now you have your pre-sapiens God in total control, “correcting all errors” (although you tell us he couldn’t stop or control them and even provided backups which often didn’t work), and “allowing” the beneficial ones instead of directly designing (your normal theory) all the changes that lead to speciation. If we take into account your statement that “these biological accidents are chance events, accidents not a designers fault”, we have what to you really is the horror of horrors: pure Darwinism – evolution by means of random mutations and natural selection. Your God's role is simply to allow it to happen.

Still your total confusion about what I present. The subject is current errors and the fact that God knew molecules might make mistaken responses to directive stimuli and designed backup corrective mechanisms. In evolution obviously God was in total control of DNA code and its mutational changes..

David's theory of evolution: God's correction of errors

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 01, 2020, 18:31 (53 days ago) @ David Turell

There are no God errors, but God's recognition of potential molecular errors. Here is one example of corrective actions:

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-cell-scientists-uncover-rna-modifying-enzyme.html

"Scientists led by Javier Martinez from the Max Perutz Labs, a joint venture of the Medical University of Vienna and the University of Vienna, have identified a unique chemical reaction at the end of RNA molecules for the first time in human cells. This reaction was previously only observed in bacteria and viruses. Tracing its source among thousands of proteins, they discovered that an unexpected culprit, an enzyme called ANGEL2, executes this reaction. ANGEL2 may play a key role in regulating the response to cellular stress, and possibly in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative and metabolic diseases.

***

"Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a biomolecule with numerous functions. Among them, RNA can transmit the genetic information contained in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), for conversion into proteins, the workhorses of the cell. RNA is composed of a chain of building blocks called nucleotides. Nucleotides also contain sugar groups, and chemical modifications in the last sugar of an RNA chain are critical for a variety of cellular processes.

***

"Finally, together with the co-author Stefan Weitzer, she identified ANGEL2 as the much sought-after enzyme.

"ANGEL2 belongs to a family of enzymes known as deadenylases, that carry out a radically different reaction on RNA ends. Deadenylases remove a string of adenosines found at the end of messenger RNAs, a specific class of RNAs. Removal of this particular type of nucleotide leads to the degradation of mRNAs. By performing structural analyses as part of a collaboration with Mar-tin Jinek and Alena Kroupova at the University of Zurich, the scientists could reveal the reaction mechanism of ANGEL2 and explain why it does remove cyclic phosphates rather than eliminating adenosines.

"Modifying the levels of ANGEL2 in cells provided important clues about its bio-logical function. ANGEL2 emerged as involved in a type of stress reaction called the unfolded protein response (UPR). In order for proteins to carry out their functions, the amino acid chain has to be correctly folded. The UPR is triggered when misfolded, non-functional proteins accumulate due to cellular disturbances. The UPR seeks to correct the protein-folding defect and to re-store normal function of the cell. "We could ultimately show that ANGEL2 regulates the UPR, a significant finding since perturbation in the UPR is in-volved in neurodegenerative and metabolic disorders," conclude the research-ers." (my bold)

Comment: A clear example of molecular error is misfolding (note my bold) and this backup mechanism is present to correct the errors, which leads to my conclusion, God recognized the probability and put corrective mechanisms in place in functioning cells.

David's theory of evolution: God's correction of errors

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 02, 2020, 20:40 (52 days ago) @ David Turell

Here is the mechanism of editors correcting DNA errors:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200716123002.htm

"New research shows how proofreading proteins prevent DNA replication errors by creating an immobile structure that calls more proteins to the site to repair the error. This structure could also prevent the mismatched region from being ''packed'' back into the cell during division.

"On the DNA assembly line, two proofreading proteins work together as an emergency stop button to prevent replication errors. New research from North Carolina State University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill shows how these proteins -- MutL and MutS -- prevent DNA replication errors by creating an immobile structure that calls more proteins to the site to repair the error. This structure could also prevent the mismatched region from being "packed" back into the cell during division.

***

"The nucleotides are a correct match most of the time, but occasionally -- about one time in 10 million -- there is a mismatch.

"'Although mismatches are rare, the human genome contains approximately six billion nucleotides in every cell, resulting in approximately 600 errors per cell, and the human body consists of more than 37 trillion cells," says Dorothy Erie, chemistry professor at UNC-Chapel Hill,

***

"A pair of proteins known as MutS and MutL work together to initiate repair of these mismatches. MutS slides along the newly created side of the DNA strand after it's replicated, proofreading it. When it finds a mismatch, it locks into place at the site of the error and recruits MutL to come and join it. MutL marks the newly formed DNA strand as defective and signals a different protein to gobble up the portion of the DNA containing the error. Then the nucleotide matching starts over, filling the gap again. The entire process reduces replication errors around a thousand-fold,

***

"...the researchers found that MutL "freezes" MutS in place at the site of the mismatch, forming a stable complex that stays in that vicinity until repair can take place. The complex appears to reel in the DNA around the mismatch as well, marking and protecting the DNA region until repair can occur.

"'Due to the mobility of these proteins, current thinking envisioned MutS and MutL sliding freely along the mismatched strand, rather than stopping," Weninger says. "This work demonstrates that the process is different than previously thought.

"'Additionally, the complex's interaction with the strand effectively stops any other processes until repair takes place. So the defective DNA strand cannot be repacked into a chromosome and then carried forward through cell division.'"

Comment: Here again we see a corrective mechanism designed by God to correct expected errors. My reasoning is simple as before. The corrective design must be present when each species appears or it would not survive repetitive errors that would occur. It is not a matter of a weak God but one who fully understands the problems attendant with living biochemical high-speed functions.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by dhw, Sunday, August 02, 2020, 07:52 (53 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your total confusion about God involves when God acts and when He doesn't. During evolution prior to our appearance He was in total control of evolution and all advancing changes. He allowed beneficial mistakes as stated above, which shows that even at a time of total control molecular mistakes could happen. Now we are in charge to handle molecular mistakes, but God is many times more powerful than we are. I have no idea why He is totally letting us handle it.(dhw’s bold)

dhw: Bearing in mind your comment that, and God “allows beneficial mistakes”, we now have a God who does NOT design the changes that cause evolution. He only allows them. But if he allows them, the inference is that he is able to stop them, whereas you have repeatedly told us that “he couldn’t stop the molecular errors”. And these contradictions are supposed to indicate "total control"! Furthermore, if God couldn’t stop the molecular errors prior to our arrival but we can stop them now (please remember that we have inherited the errors – they didn’t just start with us), we clearly know more about handling them than he did. I don't think the “total confusion” is mine.

DAVID: Your analysis of what I presented shows your total lack of understanding. The molecular errors we are discussing are not during evolution, but errors we see in current living organisms. Errors that influenced evolutionary direction of course were allowed if God approved of them. Please concentrate on current errors.

How can I when you tell us that “prior to our appearance…he allowed beneficial mistakes…which shows that even at a time of total control (i.e. before sapiens) molecular mistakes could happen", and indeed according to you “a mutational error favoured by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution”. The errors have always been present in the system! Various articles examine various current errors, but it is you who have told us that prior to our existence, your God could not control or stop the errors. According to you, he is not doing anything now – not even trying in vain to control the errors with his backups. It’s in our hands. Why must I confine your God’s doings to a time (i.e. the present) when he is not doing anything? Look at your next comments!

DAVID: Again, God in total control during evolution, correcting all errors and allowing ones that created beneficial changes[/b].

It is you who are telling us about “during evolution”, and here you tell us that he corrects all errors, although elsewhere he can’t control or stop the errors, but he can allow the beneficial ones – which suggests he COULD stop them if he wanted to, even though he COULDN’T stop the errors, as in your next remark:

DAVID: Horror of all horrors, He couldn't control the mistakes, but could allow the good ones and correct the others. Now, for His own reasons, which I do not know or want to guess at, we are in charge.

It could hardly be clearer that the horrors you are referring to are past errors.

dhw: Now you have your pre-sapiens God in total control, “correcting all errors” (although you tell us he couldn’t stop or control them and even provided backups which often didn’t work), and “allowing” the beneficial ones instead of directly designing (your normal theory) all the changes that lead to speciation. If we take into account your statement that “these biological accidents are chance events, accidents not a designers fault”, we have what to you really is the horror of horrors: pure Darwinism – evolution by means of random mutations and natural selection. Your God's role is simply to allow it to happen.

DAVID: Still your total confusion about what I present. The subject is current errors and the fact that God knew molecules might make mistaken responses to directive stimuli and designed backup corrective mechanisms. In evolution obviously God was in total control of DNA code and its mutational changes.

No, the subject is not current errors, and your last sentence contradicts all the now bolded statements of yours relating to evolution. I’m sorry, but the total confusion is yours.

DAVID: There are no God errors, but God's recognition of potential molecular errors. Here is one example of corrective actions:
https://phys.org/news/2020-07-cell-scientists-uncover-rna-modifying-enzyme.html

DAVID: A clear example of molecular error is misfolding (note my bold) and this backup mechanism is present to correct the errors, which leads to my conclusion, God recognized the probability and put corrective mechanisms in place in functioning cells.

The error was already present in bacteria and viruses, and although he couldn’t stop it or control it, apparently he was able to correct it, although he is unable to correct the errors he is unable to correct, and as far as current errors are concerned, he is no longer involved and leaves it to us to correct the errors he could not stop or control. I can’t help wondering if perhaps he simply gave cells the intelligence to deal with problems as they arose – and sometimes they succeed and sometimes they don’t.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 02, 2020, 21:22 (52 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your analysis of what I presented shows your total lack of understanding. The molecular errors we are discussing are not during evolution, but errors we see in current living organisms. Errors that influenced evolutionary direction of course were allowed if God approved of them. Please concentrate on current errors.

dhw: How can I when you tell us that “prior to our appearance…he allowed beneficial mistakes…which shows that even at a time of total control (i.e. before sapiens) molecular mistakes could happen", and indeed according to you “a mutational error favoured by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution”. The errors have always been present in the system!

Agreed, and I contend during evolution God stepped in and corrected those He wanted dismissed and kept those that were benefical to his plans.

dhw: Various articles examine various current errors, but it is you who have told us that prior to our existence, your God could not control or stop the errors. According to you, he is not doing anything now – not even trying in vain to control the errors with his backups. It’s in our hands. Why must I confine your God’s doings to a time (i.e. the present) when he is not doing anything? Look at your next comments!

See above. That is my continuous position. I don't know why you are so confused about the different times. I'll admit I may not ave made my thoughts clear to you as to how God did things as He ran evolution and the present time.


DAVID: Horror of all horrors, He couldn't control the mistakes, but could allow the good ones and correct the others. Now, for His own reasons, which I do not know or want to guess at, we are in charge.

dhw: It could hardly be clearer that the horrors you are referring to are past errors.

Total misreading: the 'horror' is for you. God knew full well to watch for mistakes by molecules not reacting properly. In evolution when mistakes occurred He corrected them as stated. He knew all along they would occur, as anyone who knows during very high-speed biochemical reactions molecules don't always react properly. It is why those corrective mechanism exist now.


DAVID: Still your total confusion about what I present. The subject is current errors and the fact that God knew molecules might make mistaken responses to directive stimuli and designed backup corrective mechanisms. In evolution obviously God was in total control of DNA code and its mutational changes.

dhw: No, the subject is not current errors, and your last sentence contradicts all the now bolded statements of yours relating to evolution. I’m sorry, but the total confusion is yours.

Still your confusion.


DAVID: There are no God errors, but God's recognition of potential molecular errors. Here is one example of corrective actions:

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-cell-scientists-uncover-rna-modifying-enzyme.html

DAVID: A clear example of molecular error is misfolding (note my bold) and this backup mechanism is present to correct the errors, which leads to my conclusion, God recognized the probability and put corrective mechanisms in place in functioning cells.

dhw: The error was already present in bacteria and viruses, and although he couldn’t stop it or control it, apparently he was able to correct it, although he is unable to correct the errors he is unable to correct, and as far as current errors are concerned, he is no longer involved and leaves it to us to correct the errors he could not stop or control. I can’t help wondering if perhaps he simply gave cells the intelligence to deal with problems as they arose – and sometimes they succeed and sometimes they don’t.

You just can't seem to accept that God fully recognized His inability to control molecules under His instruction when they made a mistakes. It is all quite clear to me, and I will try to make it clear to you. During evolution He corrected everything, now He relies upon us. See today's entry about DNA error controls which I feel were designed by God.

Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors

by dhw, Monday, August 03, 2020, 12:28 (51 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your analysis of what I presented shows your total lack of understanding. The molecular errors we are discussing are not during evolution, but errors we see in current living organisms. Errors that influenced evolutionary direction of course were allowed if God approved of them. Please concentrate on current errors.

dhw: How can I when you tell us that “prior to our appearance…he allowed beneficial mistakes…which shows that even at a time of total control (i.e. before sapiens) molecular mistakes could happen", and indeed according to you “a mutational error favoured by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution”. The errors have always been present in the system!

DAVID: Agreed, and I contend during evolution God stepped in and corrected those He wanted dismissed and kept those that were benefical to his plans.

First you tell me we are only discussing current errors. Now you agree we are discussing evolution. Thank you. As regards evolution, how could he have kept or corrected the errors if he had no control over them? Read your own statements: “If He couldn’t stop the molecular errors, then they are not His fault.” “He put in backups, so He was correcting as much as he could.” “You do not understand the issue that high speed reactions can have errors God can’t control” “I am the one willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing and He can’t stop molecular errors in a system he created.” Your theory changes day by day.

DAVID: I don't know why you are so confused about the different times. I'll admit I may not Have made my thoughts clear to you as to how God did things as He ran evolution and the present time.

It is you who are confused about the times, and you have not made your thoughts clear to me because they are not clear to you. They are full of contradictions, as above. The rest of your post simply repeats the contradictions I have pointed out above, so I’ll skip all but the last exchange:

DAVID: You just can't seem to accept that God fully recognized His inability to control molecules under His instruction when they made a mistakes. It is all quite clear to me, and I will try to make it clear to you. During evolution He corrected everything, now He relies upon us.

We are talking about evolution, and you can’t see the contradiction: God “fully recognized his inability to control the molecules”, but he “corrected everything”! How do you correct what you can’t control? As for relying on us, I wonder when he told you that, and I’m also surprised at your belief that your once all-powerful God now relies on us being smarter than him and being able to correct the errors he couldn’t correct.

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

by David Turell @, Monday, August 03, 2020, 15:28 (51 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, August 03, 2020, 15:34

DAVID: Agreed, and I contend during evolution God stepped in and corrected those He wanted dismissed and kept those that were benefical to his plans.

dhw: First you tell me we are only discussing current errors. Now you agree we are discussing evolution. Thank you. As regards evolution, how could he have kept or corrected the errors if he had no control over them? Read your own statements: “If He couldn’t stop the molecular errors, then they are not His fault.” “He put in backups, so He was correcting as much as he could.” “You do not understand the issue that high speed reactions can have errors God can’t control” “I am the one willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing and He can’t stop molecular errors in a system he created.” Your theory changes day by day.

We are discussing two periods in time. My statement above is quite clear. Please re-read it. It means during evolution, when errors occurred by the molecules, He stepped in and made corrections. The concept is the molecules are free to make errors always. Now we try to correct errors.

dhw: I’ll skip all but the last exchange:

DAVID: You just can't seem to accept that God fully recognized His inability to control molecules under His instruction when they made a mistakes. It is all quite clear to me, and I will try to make it clear to you. During evolution He corrected everything, now He relies upon us.

dhw: We are talking about evolution, and you can’t see the contradiction: God “fully recognized his inability to control the molecules”, but he “corrected everything”! How do you correct what you can’t control? As for relying on us, I wonder when he told you that, and I’m also surprised at your belief that your once all-powerful God now relies on us being smarter than him and being able to correct the errors he couldn’t correct.

It is completely clear to me. At all times the molecules are free to make rare mistakes in the high speed biochemical reactions of living functions. Please note the article on
DNA correction: Sunday, August 02, 2020, 20:40

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

by dhw, Tuesday, August 04, 2020, 08:36 (51 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] I contend during evolution God stepped in and corrected those He wanted dismissed and kept those that were benefical to his plans.

dhw: First you tell me we are only discussing current errors. Now you agree we are discussing evolution. Thank you. As regards evolution, how could he have kept or corrected the errors if he had no control over them?

DAVID: We are discussing two periods in time. My statement above is quite clear. Please re-read it. It means during evolution, when errors occurred by the molecules, He stepped in and made corrections.

According to you, God is not doing anything in the present. So what period in time are you referring to when you say he couldn’t stop the molecular errors, was correcting as much as he could, high speed reactions can have errors God can’t control, and he can’t stop molecular errors in a system he created? And are you telling us that during pre-sapiens evolution, all animals – other than those that were eaten – died of old age? (See below.)

DAVID: You just can't seem to accept that God fully recognized His inability to control molecules under His instruction when they made a mistakes.[…]. During evolution He corrected everything, now He relies upon us.

dhw: We are talking about evolution, and you can’t see the contradiction: God “fully recognized his inability to control the molecules”, but he “corrected everything”! How do you correct what you can’t control? […]

DAVID: It is completely clear to me. At all times the molecules are free to make rare mistakes in the high speed biochemical reactions of living functions.

According to you, the “rare” mistakes include those deliberately designed to kill through old age, and those that accidentally kill any organism unlucky enough to suffer them before old age, plus those that arise purely by chance and CANNOT be controlled by God although he CAN allow them if beneficial and CAN correct all those that he doesn’t like. Once again. How do you correct something you can’t control and can’t stop?

DAVID: Please note the article on
DNA correction: Sunday, August 02, 2020, 20:40

DAVID: The concept is the molecules are free to make errors always. Now we try to correct errors.

It referred to the period of evolution, but didn’t resolve the above contradictions. But I like the concept of free molecules (see below and “Back to David’s theory of evolution”), and of course we try to correct errors now. I don’t think this adds anything to the discussion on the limitations you impose on your God’s powers, or on how evolution progresses.

DAVID: At all times the molecules are free to make rare mistakes in the high speed biochemical reactions of living functions.

Yes, at all times, throughout the history of speciation. And whether your God can or can’t control them, one of those “mistakes” may have “arranged for our human evolution”, and you have delivered a powerful blow to your theory that your God directly designed every species. (See “Back to David’s theory of evolution”).

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

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 04, 2020, 19:13 (50 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We are discussing two periods in time. My statement above is quite clear. Please re-read it. It means during evolution, when errors occurred by the molecules, He stepped in and made corrections.

dhw: According to you, God is not doing anything in the present. So what period in time are you referring to when you say he couldn’t stop the molecular errors, was correcting as much as he could, high speed reactions can have errors God can’t control, and he can’t stop molecular errors in a system he created? And are you telling us that during pre-sapiens evolution, all animals – other than those that were eaten – died of old age?

You are correct. I view evolution is over and God is not active biologically: As I've stated several times, during evolution God corrected every mistake He wished to correct. Now we handle the job, as best we can. God has always known the molecules can make mistakes. You are having trouble sorting out the issue. Protein molecules must conform their shapes to provide functions. They are under strict instructions, but can make mistakes. End of story. Since this has all been surprising news to you, but not me, I've not explained it as well as I should have. as for dying, I don't know why you asked that question. It is obvious death is builtin, first to make room for those arriving, but from many other causes, disease, accident, predators, mutational mistakes, etc.

dhw: We are talking about evolution, and you can’t see the contradiction: God “fully recognized his inability to control the molecules”, but he “corrected everything”! How do you correct what you can’t control? […]

Covered above. Shows your continual confusion. As God ran evolution He engineered DNA, and allowed some beneficial mutations and destroyed others.


DAVID: It is completely clear to me. At all times the molecules are free to make rare mistakes in the high speed biochemical reactions of living functions.

dhw: According to you, the “rare” mistakes include those deliberately designed to kill through old age, and those that accidentally kill any organism unlucky enough to suffer them before old age, plus those that arise purely by chance and CANNOT be controlled by God although he CAN allow them if beneficial and CAN correct all those that he doesn’t like. Once again. How do you correct something you can’t control and can’t stop?

Still confused. See above answer. You've actually answered yourself as bolded


DAVID: Please note the article on
DNA correction: Sunday, August 02, 2020, 20:40

DAVID: The concept is the molecules are free to make errors always. Now we try to correct errors.

DAVID: At all times the molecules are free to make rare mistakes in the high speed biochemical reactions of living functions.

dhw: Yes, at all times, throughout the history of speciation. And whether your God can or can’t control them, one of those “mistakes” may have “arranged for our human evolution”, and you have delivered a powerful blow to your theory that your God directly designed every species.

The only blow is only your continual confusion. If God allowed a DNA mistake because it fit his plans, He is still in full control. And remember all bad mistakes by DNA were removed as I view God's role..

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

by dhw, Wednesday, August 05, 2020, 14:25 (49 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] during evolution, when errors occurred by the molecules, He stepped in and made corrections.

dhw: According to you, God is not doing anything in the present. So what period in time are you referring to when you say he couldn’t stop the molecular errors, was correcting as much as he could, high speed reactions can have errors God can’t control, and he can’t stop molecular errors in a system he created?

DAVID: You are correct. I view evolution is over and God is not active biologically: As I've stated several times, during evolution God corrected every mistake He wished to correct. Now we handle the job, as best we can. God has always known the molecules can make mistakes. You are having trouble sorting out the issue. Protein molecules must conform their shapes to provide functions. They are under strict instructions, but can make mistakes. End of story. Since this has all been surprising news to you, but not me, I've not explained it as well as I should have.

There is nothing at all surprising in the news that the cellular/molecular system that keeps us alive is riddled with potential and actual mistakes. Anyone who has ever been ill will know that things can go wrong. But you have explicitly told us that during evolution God could not stop or control the errors, and yet he could correct the errors if he wished. THAT is what surprises me. I do not understand how your God could correct errors which he could not stop or control.

dhw: And are you telling us that during pre-sapiens evolution, all animals – other than those that were eaten – died of old age?

DAVID: It is obvious death is builtin, first to make room for those arriving, but from many other causes, disease, accident, predators, mutational mistakes, etc.

That is not quite what you told us. You reminded us on 26 July that “progressive aging to cause death is purposely built in”. So your God deliberately designed all the “errors” that afflict old organisms. If he deliberately designed these, but corrected the other errors, all pre-human animals – apart from those killed by accident or predators – must have died of old age. How could they die from disease or mutational mistakes if he corrected or “destroyed” or “removed” all the bad mistakes (as bolded below)?

dhw: We are talking about evolution, and you can’t see the contradiction: God “fully recognized his inability to control the molecules”, but he “corrected everything”! How do you correct what you can’t control? […]

DAVID: Covered above. Shows your continual confusion. As God ran evolution He engineered DNA, and allowed some beneficial mutations and destroyed others.

It’s not covered at all. He engineered DNA, couldn’t control or stop the errors, and yet could stop the nasty ones by destroying them! If he destroyed them, how do you know they even existed? And if it comes to that, why call the beneficial mutations errors and mistakes? And “allowing” beneficial mutations that caused speciation leads to the inevitable conclusion that he did not design them – hence your next problem.

DAVID: At all times the molecules are free to make rare mistakes in the high speed biochemical reactions of living functions.

dhw: Yes, at all times, throughout the history of speciation. And whether your God can or can’t control them, one of those “mistakes” may have “arranged for our human evolution”, and you have delivered a powerful blow to your theory that your God directly designed every species.

DAVID: The only blow is only your continual confusion. If God allowed a DNA mistake because it fit his plans, He is still in full control. And remember all bad mistakes by DNA were removed as I view God's role. [See above, re the bold.]

Once more, how can he be in full control when you tell us that he couldn’t stop the molecular errors, was correcting as much as he could, high speed reactions can have errors God can’t control, and he can’t stop molecular errors ? I wish you would reconsider your error-strewn theory of errors..

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

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 05, 2020, 17:41 (49 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: There is nothing at all surprising in the news that the cellular/molecular system that keeps us alive is riddled with potential and actual mistakes. Anyone who has ever been ill will know that things can go wrong. But you have explicitly told us that during evolution God could not stop or control the errors, and yet he could correct the errors if he wished. THAT is what surprises me. I do not understand how your God could correct errors which he could not stop or control.

Please think through the obvious sequence of events: the DNA makes a mistake that God doesn't like so He corrects it. A mistake He likes He lets go forward. He doesn't control the molecular mistakes, but adapts His response to them. During evolution God is coding DNA and creating evolution


dhw: And are you telling us that during pre-sapiens evolution, all animals – other than those that were eaten – died of old age?

DAVID: It is obvious death is builtin, first to make room for those arriving, but from many other causes, disease, accident, predators, mutational mistakes, etc.

dhw: That is not quite what you told us. You reminded us on 26 July that “progressive aging to cause death is purposely built in”. So your God deliberately designed all the “errors” that afflict old organisms. If he deliberately designed these, but corrected the other errors, all pre-human animals – apart from those killed by accident or predators – must have died of old age. How could they die from disease or mutational mistakes if he corrected or “destroyed” or “removed” all the bad mistakes (as bolded below)?

Total confusion. Do you look old? I do, Ageing is builtin to die 'naturally'. Yes there may b e an unidentifiable cause, or you may pass in your sleep, cause unknown. What He corrects is for the living during evolution

DAVID: Covered above. Shows your continual confusion. As God ran evolution He engineered DNA, and allowed some beneficial mutations and destroyed others.

dhw: It’s not covered at all. He engineered DNA, couldn’t control or stop the errors, and yet could stop the nasty ones by destroying them! If he destroyed them, how do you know they even existed? And if it comes to that, why call the beneficial mutations errors and mistakes? And “allowing” beneficial mutations that caused speciation leads to the inevitable conclusion that he did not design them – hence your next problem.

DAVID: At all times the molecules are free to make rare mistakes in the high speed biochemical reactions of living functions.

dhw: Yes, at all times, throughout the history of speciation. And whether your God can or can’t control them, one of those “mistakes” may have “arranged for our human evolution”, and you have delivered a powerful blow to your theory that your God directly designed every species.

DAVID: The only blow is only your continual confusion. If God allowed a DNA mistake because it fit his plans, He is still in full control. And remember all bad mistakes by DNA were removed as I view God's role. [See above, re the bold.]

dhw: Once more, how can he be in full control when you tell us that he couldn’t stop the molecular errors, was correcting as much as he could, high speed reactions can have errors God can’t control, and he can’t stop molecular errors ? I wish you would reconsider your error-strewn theory of errors.

You still cannot understand molecules are free to make mistakes, even if guided by instructions. God cannot ride herd on every molecule while it is in action in processes. I don't believe in the human Bible description that God can be in total control of everything down to the last living molecule in action.

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

by dhw, Thursday, August 06, 2020, 12:16 (48 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: There is nothing at all surprising in the news that the cellular/molecular system that keeps us alive is riddled with potential and actual mistakes. Anyone who has ever been ill will know that things can go wrong. But you have explicitly told us that during evolution God could not stop or control the errors, and yet he could correct the errors if he wished. THAT is what surprises me. I do not understand how your God could correct errors which he could not stop or control.

DAVID: Please think through the obvious sequence of events: the DNA makes a mistake that God doesn't like so He corrects it. A mistake He likes He lets go forward. He doesn't control the molecular mistakes, but adapts His response to them. During evolution God is coding DNA and creating evolution.

But you keep telling us that he couldn’t stop or control the mistakes. If you can’t control them, how can you correct them? You are making it sound as if nothing now exists except beneficial errors! Or are you telling us that during evolution he liked nasty errors as well as nice ones, so he let them go forward too? In that case, if he had the ability to correct them but didn’t, he is responsible for their current existence.

dhw: And are you telling us that during pre-sapiens evolution, all animals – other than those that were eaten – died of old age?

DAVID: It is obvious death is builtin, first to make room for those arriving, but from many other causes, disease, accident, predators, mutational mistakes, etc.

dhw: That is not quite what you told us. You reminded us on 26 July that “progressive aging to cause death is purposely built in”. So your God deliberately designed all the “errors” that afflict old organisms. If he deliberately designed these, but corrected the other errors, all pre-human animals – apart from those killed by accident or predators – must have died of old age. How could they die from disease or mutational mistakes if he corrected or “destroyed” or “removed” all the bad mistakes?

DAVID: Total confusion. Do you look old? I do, Ageing is builtin to die 'naturally'. Yes there may b e an unidentifiable cause, or you may pass in your sleep, cause unknown. What He corrects is for the living during evolution.

Of course we age. And you have told us that death by old age was deliberately designed, whereas death by any other mutational change was accidental and random. So again: he must have “allowed” all those nasty mutational changes to survive although according to you he could have corrected them (although also according to you, he couldn’t control them). Total confusion indeed.

DAVID: The only blow is only your continual confusion. If God allowed a DNA mistake because it fit his plans, He is still in full control. And remember all bad mistakes by DNA were removed as I view God's role.

dhw: Once more, how can he be in full control when you tell us that he couldn’t stop the molecular errors, was correcting as much as he could, high speed reactions can have errors God can’t control, and he can’t stop molecular errors ? I wish you would reconsider your error-strewn theory of errors.

DAVID: You still cannot understand molecules are free to make mistakes, even if guided by instructions. God cannot ride herd on every molecule while it is in action in processes. I don't believe in the human Bible description that God can be in total control of everything down to the last living molecule in action.

I understand perfectly that molecules are free to make mistakes. For years now I have been proposing that cells in general are free not only to make mistakes but also to make the beneficial changes which for some reason you also regard as mistakes. Meanwhile, you have just told us (bolded above) that “He is still in full control”, but you don’t believe he can be “in total control”. Your theory is full of contradictions.

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

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 06, 2020, 18:57 (48 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Please think through the obvious sequence of events: the DNA makes a mistake that God doesn't like so He corrects it. A mistake He likes He lets go forward. He doesn't control the molecular mistakes, but adapts His response to them. During evolution God is coding DNA and creating evolution.

dhw: But you keep telling us that he couldn’t stop or control the mistakes. If you can’t control them, how can you correct them? You are making it sound as if nothing now exists except beneficial errors! Or are you telling us that during evolution he liked nasty errors as well as nice ones, so he let them go forward too? In that case, if he had the ability to correct them but didn’t, he is responsible for their current existence.

We are discussing God actions during evolution, not now. At that time of species production He was coding DNA/the whole genome actively. The DNA/genome then ran the species' living biochemical mechanisms and DNA was free to make unintended mistakes in reproduction. Since God was actively coding, of course He could step in and correct unintended changes. I don't know where the question about 'nasty' comes from except your strange confusion about all this subject. Simply, as stated many time before, God allowed mistakes that fit his purpose. If nasty fit His purpose, then they also were allowed to survive.


DAVID: Total confusion. Do you look old? I do, Ageing is builtin to die 'naturally'. Yes there may b e an unidentifiable cause, or you may pass in your sleep, cause unknown. What He corrects is for the living during evolution.

dhw: Of course we age. And you have told us that death by old age was deliberately designed, whereas death by any other mutational change was accidental and random. So again: he must have “allowed” all those nasty mutational changes to survive although according to you he could have corrected them (although also according to you, he couldn’t control them). Total confusion indeed.

Note the bold. Most mutations affect future progeny. Talk about who is confused. Most organisms age and die because aging is purposely built in.


dhw: Once more, how can he be in full control when you tell us that he couldn’t stop the molecular errors, was correcting as much as he could, high speed reactions can have errors God can’t control, and he can’t stop molecular errors ? I wish you would reconsider your error-strewn theory of errors.

DAVID: You still cannot understand molecules are free to make mistakes, even if guided by instructions. God cannot ride herd on every molecule while it is in action in processes. I don't believe in the human Bible description that God can be in total control of everything down to the last living molecule in action.

dhw: I understand perfectly that molecules are free to make mistakes. For years now I have been proposing that cells in general are free not only to make mistakes but also to make the beneficial changes which for some reason you also regard as mistakes. Meanwhile, you have just told us (bolded above) that “He is still in full control”, but you don’t believe he can be “in total control”. Your theory is full of contradictions.

Your thinking is filled with contradictions. The bold indicates you have some appreciation of the facts about molecular mistakes. Currently God does not make corrections, we are delegated to do so. I accept and have always known God has certain limits in control over high speed molecular reactions. I still view Him as all-powerful.

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

by dhw, Friday, August 07, 2020, 10:19 (47 days ago) @ David Turell

Two of our threads keep overlapping, which has resulted in a great deal of repetition. I tried to condense the arguments yesterday, and it may help us to avoid the repetitions if we use that summary as a starting-point here, but I will edit it and add to it. I will then repeat one of your answers, and I hope this will enable us to proceed more systematically.

dhw: Living biochemistry tells us that the current biological system is riddled with “errors”, because so many things can go wrong. We know that SOME of these errors can sometimes be corrected by the cells themselves, and sometimes by human intervention. You have told us that God has played no part in the process since sapiens became established. In the course of evolution, you tell us that your God had no control over the mistakes, but let some through and destroyed the others.

1) So how do you know about the ones he destroyed? You claim that God designed the errors leading to old age and death by old age, but those that afflicted the young were random and out of his control. Such errors still exist, so what sort of errors do you think he removed?
2) How could he have destroyed/corrected/removed them if he could not stop or control them?
3) I don’t really know how you can tell the difference between God allowing a mutational error to arrange for our human evolution and natural selection doing the same. Nor could you when you wrote that “a mutational error favoured by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution”.
4) And finally, if God “allowed” beneficial mutations, he did not design them. Therefore evolution has proceeded through the survival of random but beneficial mutations and not through direct design. That makes you a Darwinist.

Here is one of your answers:
DAVID: Note the bold. I've specifically said God had total control over changing errors in DNA during evolution. I am no Darwinist, as you are still very confused.

You’ve specifically said that God had no control over mutational errors (I've quoted you several times in previous posts), and you’ve specifically said that God had total control over changing errors, and you see no contradiction in your argument. You have specifically said that your God “allowed” beneficial errors to survive, and these were random, which means he did not design them. One of these may even have arranged for our human evolution. In case you’ve forgotten, Darwin’s theory was also that random mutations caused evolutionary change. You are still very confused. Either your God designed the mutations that led to speciation or he allowed them. Which is it?

The contradictions here and on the other thread are so blatant that I really do wish you would reconsider this "errors" theory of yours. :-|

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

by David Turell @, Friday, August 07, 2020, 18:18 (47 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Living biochemistry tells us that the current biological system is riddled with “errors”, because so many things can go wrong. We know that SOME of these errors can sometimes be corrected by the cells themselves, and sometimes by human intervention. You have told us that God has played no part in the process since sapiens became established. In the course of evolution, you tell us that your God had no control over the mistakes, but let some through and destroyed the others.

1) So how do you know about the ones he destroyed? You claim that God designed the errors leading to old age and death by old age, but those that afflicted the young were random and out of his control. Such errors still exist, so what sort of errors do you think he removed?
2) How could he have destroyed/corrected/removed them if he could not stop or control them?
3) I don’t really know how you can tell the difference between God allowing a mutational error to arrange for our human evolution and natural selection doing the same. Nor could you when you wrote that “a mutational error favoured by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution”.
4) And finally, if God “allowed” beneficial mutations, he did not design them. Therefore evolution has proceeded through the survival of random but beneficial mutations and not through direct design. That makes you a Darwinist.

Note the bold in your first paragraph.It is absolutely false in my theory. Without picking apart your error filled prose I again tell you what I think about God during evolution.I am using what we know about current errors applied to how God handled DNA during evolution 1) God recognizes, as we do, molecules make errors, as shown by the corrective systems in place. 2) if God can destroy DNA molecular errors He doesn't want and keep others that help His purposes, He is in full control, after the fact of error. 3) this is not Darwinism chance mutations arriving under no control. God is completely controlling what goes forward in evolution, no matter how it appeared. Can't you see God doesn't need to design what He likes even if it a chance arrival? 4) as a result I see God designing 99.99% of all evolutionary DNA. If God codes DNA He can keep or destroy whatever He wants to do.

I wiped put the rest of your discussion as a repetitive error filled understanding of my view of God handling evolutionary DNA all based on today's facts. But the fact still remains protein molecules, even under strict orders, make mistakes. And you know that. What happens next is what is important to think about. I told you what I propose is how God reacts.

David's theory of evolution:God's error corrections, cancer

by David Turell @, Friday, August 07, 2020, 21:47 (47 days ago) @ David Turell

The article shows cancer has always been around; this example from a dinosaur:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/doctors-diagnose-advanced-cancer-dinosaur?utm_s...

"This deformed bone is the first clear example of a malignant tumor diagnosed in a dinosaur. The partial fibula—a bone from the lower leg—belonged to a horned, plant-eating Centrosaurus that lived roughly 76 million years ago in what is now Dinosaur Park in southern Alberta in Canada.

***

"This isn’t the first time cancer has been found in fossil remains. Scientists have identified benign tumors in Tyrannosaurus rex fossils and arthritis in duck-billed hadrosaurs, as well as an osteosarcoma in a 240-million-year-old turtle. But the researchers say their study is the first to confirm a dinosaur cancer diagnosis at the cellular level."

Comment: cancers occur from copy errors in dividing cells. They have been around a long time. This is something God could not stop as He coded DNA for evolution. Our DNA does carry cancer related genes, like BRCA related to increasing the chances of cancer of breasts and ovary, which probably developed somewhere along the way as sapiens developed.

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

by dhw, Saturday, August 08, 2020, 11:14 (46 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Living biochemistry tells us that the current biological system is riddled with “errors”, because so many things can go wrong. We know that SOME of these errors can sometimes be corrected by the cells themselves, and sometimes by human intervention. You have told us that God has played no part in the process since sapiens became established. In the course of evolution, you tell us that your God had no control over the mistakes, but let some through and destroyed the others.

DAVID: Note the bold in your first paragraph. It is absolutely false in my theory.

I’m sorry, but if it is absolutely false, please explain what you mean by such statements as: “If he couldn’t stop the molecular errors, then they are not his fault”; “He was correcting as much as he could”; “…high speed reactions can have errors God can’t control”; “I am the one willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing and He can’t stop molecular errors in a system He created”. You have also given us a concrete past and present example of an uncontrollable error:

DAVID: The article shows cancer has always been around; this example from a dinosaur:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/doctors-diagnose-advanced-cancer-dinosaur?utm_s...
DAVID: cancers occur from copy errors in dividing cells. They have been around a long time. This is something God could not stop as He coded DNA for evolution.

But according to you he could destroy any errors he didn’t like. So not only could he not stop the cancer error (although he is apparently in full control), but he must have liked it too.

DAVID: Without picking apart your error filled prose I again tell you what I think about God during evolution. I am using what we know about current errors applied to how God handled DNA during evolution 1) God recognizes, as we do, molecules make errors, as shown by the corrective systems in place. 2) if God can destroy DNA molecular errors He doesn't want and keep others that help His purposes, He is in full control, after the fact of error.

1) Still with my theist hat on, I’m sure he would recognize the so-called errors. since he designed the system that produced them. 2) What pre-sapiens errors are you talking about? If he destroyed them before we arrived, how do you know about them? And why did you say He was correcting as much as He could? That means there were some he couldn’t correct, so he was not “in full control after the fact of error”. The cancer example illustrates the confusion.

DAVID: 3) this is not Darwinism chance mutations arriving under no control. God is completely controlling what goes forward in evolution, no matter how it appeared. Can't you see God doesn't need to design what He likes even if it a chance arrival?

Then there is no difference between what God does (he selects the chance mutations he regards as favourable) and natural selection (Nature selects the chance mutations that are favourable). This is totally different from your previous theory that your God directly designed every species (not to mention lifestyles and natural wonders).

DAVID: 4) as a result I see God designing 99.99% of all evolutionary DNA. If God codes DNA He can keep or destroy whatever He wants to do.

If God exists, then he designed 100% of the system that generates life, reproduction and evolution. The system contains errors. You tell us that those errors “are not his fault” but he “allows” the beneficial ones to survive. That does not = he directly designed every species. (You say that even humans may have evolved from a "mutational error".)

DAVID: I wiped out the rest of your discussion as a repetitive error filled understanding of my view of God handling evolutionary DNA all based on today's facts.

You have also failed to respond to the following contradiction from the other post: “I accept and have always known God has certain limits in control over high speed molecular reactions. I still view Him as all-powerful.” A God who has certain limits in control is not in total control and is not all-powerful. Previously you wrote: “I am the one willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all knowing and he can’t stop molecular errors in a system he created.” One moment you proudly announce that he is not all-powerful, and the next moment you still view him as all-powerful.

DAVID: But the fact still remains protein molecules, even under strict orders, make mistakes. And you know that. What happens next is what is important to think about. I told you what I propose is how God reacts.

Yes, I know that protein molecules and the rest of the life-giving system make what you call mistakes. And I have proposed that your God created precisely the system that he wanted to create, including the “mistakes”: namely a system in which cells (I prefer to broaden the focus) are free to do what they want to do. Hence the vast and ever changing bush of life. At the very least, this theory restores God’s almighty powers which in one of the above quotes you so proudly stripped him of!

Once more: please reconsider this theory which makes your God all-powerful but not all-powerful, in total control but not in total control, and directly designing all species but actually only "allowing" random beneficial mutations to survive.

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

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 08, 2020, 19:11 (46 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I please explain what you mean by such statements as: “If he couldn’t stop the molecular errors, then they are not his fault”; “He was correcting as much as he could”; “…high speed reactions can have errors God can’t control”; “I am the one willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing and He can’t stop molecular errors in a system He created”.

You totally lack understanding of what I am presenting. The mishmash of my statements shows that. We are discussing molecular errors in two different time frames. During evolution God is in total control of coding DNA so it is simple to see He can leave beneficial chance mutations and remove bad ones to fit His program. During life at the present time molecular errors occur and we try and help the problems created. Pay attention to the time frames.

.dhw: You have also given us a concrete past and present example of an uncontrollable error:


DAVID: The article shows cancer has always been around; this example from a dinosaur:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/doctors-diagnose-advanced-cancer-dinosaur?utm_s...
DAVID: cancers occur from copy errors in dividing cells. They have been around a long time. This is something God could not stop as He coded DNA for evolution.

dhw: But according to you he could destroy any errors he didn’t like. So not only could he not stop the cancer error (although he is apparently in full control), but he must have liked it too.

The dinosaur cancer was due to cellular molecular error, just as errors occur now. It had n nothing to do with the course of evolution. God would not have paid attention to it as it didn't change the course of evolution. You are still confused about how I see God's actions.


DAVID: 3) this is not Darwinism chance mutations arriving under no control.

God is choosing a chance mutation if it suits His coding purpose.


DAVID: But the fact still remains protein molecules, even under strict orders, make mistakes. And you know that. What happens next is what is important to think about. I told you what I propose is how God reacts.

dhw: Yes, I know that protein molecules and the rest of the life-giving system make what you call mistakes. And I have proposed that your God created precisely the system that he wanted to create, including the “mistakes”: namely a system in which cells (I prefer to broaden the focus) are free to do what they want to do. Hence the vast and ever changing bush of life. At the very least, this theory restores God’s almighty powers which in one of the above quotes you so proudly stripped him of!

Once more: please reconsider this theory which makes your God all-powerful but not all-powerful, in total control but not in total control, and directly designing all species but actually only "allowing" random beneficial mutations to survive.

Totally wrong as explained. DNA working on its own, after it is coded, is simply a molecule that can make mistakes. Cell splitting goes on constantly, and we see very careful back up system created by God since it is obvious He recognized the error potential. Error at the cellular level cause mutations and cancers. As in the dinosaur.

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

by dhw, Sunday, August 09, 2020, 07:44 (46 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: …please explain what you mean by such statements as: “If he couldn’t stop the molecular errors, then they are not his fault”; “He was correcting as much as he could”; “…high speed reactions can have errors God can’t control”; “I am the one willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing and He can’t stop molecular errors in a system He created”.

DAVID: You totally lack understanding of what I am presenting. The mishmash of my statements shows that. We are discussing molecular errors in two different time frames. During evolution God is in total control of coding DNA so it is simple to see He can leave beneficial chance mutations and remove bad ones to fit His program. During life at the present time molecular errors occur and we try and help the problems created. Pay attention to the time frames.

You have told us that during life at the present time, he does nothing at all. All your previous, bolded remarks above therefore apply to what he could and could not do during evolution. Once again: How can a God who could not control or stop the errors have been in total control?

dhw: You have also given us a concrete past and present example of an uncontrollable error:

DAVID: The article shows cancer has always been around; this example from a dinosaur:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/doctors-diagnose-advanced-cancer-dinosaur?utm_s...

DAVID: cancers occur from copy errors in dividing cells. They have been around a long time. This is something God could not stop as He coded DNA for evolution.

dhw: But according to you he could destroy any errors he didn’t like. So not only could he not stop the cancer error (although he is apparently in full control), but he must have liked it too.

DAVID: The dinosaur cancer was due to cellular molecular error, just as errors occur now. It had nothing to do with the course of evolution. God would not have paid attention to it as it didn't change the course of evolution. You are still confused about how I see God's actions.

You said it was an error he could not stop. Of course the cellular errors that cause cancer did not change the course of evolution, but cellular errors INCLUDE the problems you say we try to solve now, such as cancer, which also afflicted organisms during evolution. You even claim that he left us backups to help us control the errors he could not stop or control. This part of our disagreement concerns your insistence that a God who could not control the errors in the system he created was in total control of the errors in the system he created.

As for your reference to his leaving (your usual word is “allowing”) beneficial mutations to “fit his program”, this referred to evolution, and it means evolution by selection from random mutations and not by direct design, although you have always maintained that speciation (as well as all the natural wonders etc.) was by direct design.

DAVID: 3) this is not Darwinism chance mutations arriving under no control.
And
DAVID: God is choosing a chance mutation if it suits His coding purpose.

You have left out my response. Once again: God selecting a chance mutation is no different from natural selection selecting a chance mutation. Both of them attribute evolution to selected chance mutations and not direct design, which has hitherto been your explanation for speciation.

dhw: I know that protein molecules and the rest of the life-giving system make what you call mistakes. And I have proposed that your God created precisely the system that he wanted to create, including the “mistakes”: namely a system in which cells (I prefer to broaden the focus) are free to do what they want to do. Hence the vast and ever changing bush of life. At the very least, this theory restores God’s almighty powers which in one of the above quotes you so proudly stripped him of!

Once more: please reconsider this theory which makes your God all-powerful but not all-powerful, in total control but not in total control, and directly designing all species but actually only "allowing" random beneficial mutations to survive.

DAVID: Totally wrong as explained. DNA working on its own, after it is coded, is simply a molecule that can make mistakes. Cell splitting goes on constantly, and we see very careful back up system created by God since it is obvious He recognized the error potential. Error at the cellular level cause mutations and cancers. As in the dinosaur.

The mutations include those that lead to speciation, and indeed according to you: “a mutational error favoured by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution.” And why do you continually try to gloss over the blatant contradictions I have just pointed out? Please reconsider this theory.

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

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 09, 2020, 18:48 (45 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You have told us that during life at the present time, he does nothing at all. All your previous, bolded remarks above therefore apply to what he could and could not do during evolution. Once again: How can a God who could not control or stop the errors have been in total control?

Use your imagination. I have God is charge of coding the advances in evolution. He creates the DNA code. We know that DNA can make replication copy errors. Therefore God is watching for those errors. If it is a bad mutation, as most are , He deletes it. If it happens to be beneficial for the advancing evolutionary code He wants, He keeps it. How is that not total control of the final DNA output? As you type a story you may make mistakes and correct them. The final output is obviously fully your work under your total control..


DAVID: The dinosaur cancer was due to cellular molecular error, just as errors occur now. It had nothing to do with the course of evolution. God would not have paid attention to it as it didn't change the course of evolution. You are still confused about how I see God's actions.

dhw: You said it was an error he could not stop. Of course the cellular errors that cause cancer did not change the course of evolution, but cellular errors INCLUDE the problems you say we try to solve now, such as cancer, which also afflicted organisms during evolution. You even claim that he left us backups to help us control the errors he could not stop or control. This part of our disagreement concerns your insistence that a God who could not control the errors in the system he created was in total control of the errors in the system he created.

Explained above. I have explained my view of God's role during evolution, correcting DNA errors. The time today is a different situation totally. That is my point, and you continuously try to conflate the two different time periods and confuse your thinking.


dhw: I know that protein molecules and the rest of the life-giving system make what you call mistakes. And I have proposed that your God created precisely the system that he wanted to create, including the “mistakes”: namely a system in which cells (I prefer to broaden the focus) are free to do what they want to do. Hence the vast and ever changing bush of life. At the very least, this theory restores God’s almighty powers which in one of the above quotes you so proudly stripped him of!

Once more: please reconsider this theory which makes your God all-powerful but not all-powerful, in total control but not in total control, and directly designing all species but actually only "allowing" random beneficial mutations to survive.

DAVID: Totally wrong as explained. DNA working on its own, after it is coded, is simply a molecule that can make mistakes. Cell splitting goes on constantly, and we see very careful back up system created by God since it is obvious He recognized the error potential. Error at the cellular level cause mutations and cancers. As in the dinosaur.

dhw: The mutations include those that lead to speciation, and indeed according to you: “a mutational error favoured by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution.” And why do you continually try to gloss over the blatant contradictions I have just pointed out? Please reconsider this theory.

If you will carefully read my theory about God's control over evolutionary DNA coding, you will see He is in full control over the final output. And remember God knows molecules will make mistakes, the reason for the careful backup editing systems in place. I have used the facts we know. I thank you for trying to find errors in my logic. There is none and no reason to reconsider

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

by dhw, Monday, August 10, 2020, 08:45 (45 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have told us that during life at the present time, he does nothing at all. All your previous, bolded remarks above therefore apply to what he could and could not do during evolution. Once again: How can a God who could not control or stop the errors have been in total control?

DAVID: Use your imagination. I have God is charge of coding the advances in evolution. He creates the DNA code. We know that DNA can make replication copy errors. Therefore God is watching for those errors. If it is a bad mutation, as most are , He deletes it. If it happens to be beneficial for the advancing evolutionary code He wants, He keeps it. How is that not total control of the final DNA output? As you type a story you may make mistakes and correct them. The final output is obviously fully your work under your total control.

1) The errors in the system are/were not confined to those which did or didn't advance evolution! According to the above scenario, the “final DNA output” should have been perfect, since he deleted the bad mutations. But even during pre-sapiens evolution, according to you “He was correcting as much as he could”, and surprise, surprise, the DNA system is STILL making mistakes, some of which are the SAME as in pre-sapiens times (e.g. cancer). And you are the one “willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing and He can’t stop molecular errors in a system he created.” Yet again: If he can’t stop them, and if he can’t correct all of them (he only corrected “as much as he could”) how can he be in total control? Your analogy clearly indicates your confusion: my mistakes as an author are my fault, but according to you, “if He couldn’t stop the molecular faults, then they are not his fault.” In both cases, if the “final output” is still full of errors – whose fault is it?

dhw: This part of our disagreement concerns your insistence that a God who could not control the errors in the system he created was in total control of the errors in the system he created.

DAVID: Explained above. I have explained my view of God's role during evolution, correcting DNA errors. The time today is a different situation totally. That is my point, and you continuously try to conflate the two different time periods and confuse your thinking.

The “different situation totally” is that the system continues to be full of errors, but your God apparently is no longer trying to correct or control them,though he did leave backups, some of which work and some of which don’t. If his only concern then was evolution, why did he leave backups for the non-evolutionary blunders (though he himself couldn't correct them)? In fact, you say he has left it to us to try and correct the errors he could not stop or control. How does this support your argument that he was in total control and corrected the bad mutations?

2) You have totally ignored the astonishing reversal of your own theory of evolution, which is/was that your God directly designed every species. You now have every species being the result of random mutations which your God “allows” to survive – which is exactly the same process as Darwin’s natural selection.

dhw: The mutations include those that lead to speciation, and indeed according to you: “a mutational error favoured by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution.” And why do you continually try to gloss over the blatant contradictions I have just pointed out? Please reconsider this theory.

DAVID: If you will carefully read my theory about God's control over evolutionary DNA coding, you will see He is in full control over the final output. And remember God knows molecules will make mistakes, the reason for the careful backup editing systems in place. I have used the facts we know. I thank you for trying to find errors in my logic. There is none and no reason to reconsider.

The “final output” is still riddled with errors! Here are the two basic sets of contradictions:

1) He directly designed all species (old theory), but he selected the beneficial random mutations that led to speciation (new theory). Which is it?
2) You have also told us he is all-powerful and you have told he is not all-powerful; he is in total control but he is not in total control.

There is clearly something wrong somewhere. Please don’t just repeat your new theory, because then I shall have to repeat the different contradictory quotes. I just wish you would reconsider it, since it can only lead to more and more contradictions like your author analogy.

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

by David Turell @, Monday, August 10, 2020, 14:52 (44 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Use your imagination. I have God is charge of coding the advances in evolution. He creates the DNA code. We know that DNA can make replication copy errors. Therefore God is watching for those errors. If it is a bad mutation, as most are , He deletes it. If it happens to be beneficial for the advancing evolutionary code He wants, He keeps it. How is that not total control of the final DNA output? As you type a story you may make mistakes and correct them. The final output is obviously fully your work under your total control.

dhw: 1) The errors in the system are/were not confined to those which did or didn't advance evolution! According to the above scenario, the “final DNA output” should have been perfect, since he deleted the bad mutations. But even during pre-sapiens evolution, according to you “He was correcting as much as he could”, and surprise, surprise, the DNA system is STILL making mistakes, some of which are the SAME as in pre-sapiens times (e.g. cancer).

You are still are time confused. It is quite clear to me under my theory of God in control of evolution, that He accepted good DNA mistakes and voided the bad ones during evolution. As the final arbiter over the DNA code, He is really in full control of the final result. The key thought, which you keep confusing is DNA as a molecule can always make mistakes and will during evolution and now in a different time period. In the bold, your 'STILL' to accept my point of view should be changed to 'ALWAYS'.

dhw: Your analogy clearly indicates your confusion: my mistakes as an author are my fault, but according to you, “if He couldn’t stop the molecular faults, then they are not his fault.” In both cases, if the “final output” is still full of errors – whose fault is it?

You are not thinking with clarity. You never presented an error-ridden manuscript to a publisher. You corrected all your errors. God accepted some errors as correct and deleted others during the process of evolution producing the humans/sapiens He wanted from the DNA code He wanted and designed and allowed..


dhw: The “different situation totally” is that the system continues to be full of errors... If his only concern then was evolution, why did he leave backups for the non-evolutionary blunders (though he himself couldn't correct them)? In fact, you say he has left it to us to try and correct the errors he could not stop or control. How does this support your argument that he was in total control and corrected the bad mutations?

Again you are mistakenly trying to combine two periods of time. In evolution God corrected everything and we appeared. The backup systems indicate He expected errors after evolution.

dhw: The “final output” is still riddled with errors! Here are the two basic sets of contradictions:

1) He directly designed all species (old theory), but he selected the beneficial random mutations that led to speciation (new theory). Which is it?

Both!!!!!

dhw: 2) You have also told us he is all-powerful and you have told he is not all-powerful; he is in total control but he is not in total control.

He made all final editorial decisions about evolutionary DNA. Total control!!!


dhw: There is clearly something wrong somewhere. Please don’t just repeat your new theory, because then I shall have to repeat the different contradictory quotes. I just wish you would reconsider it, since it can only lead to more and more contradictions like your author analogy.

The only contradictions are in your head. Your friend, David, has always known about DNA errors, as well as errors by any and all biochemical molecules. It is a fact of the system God created all those molecules are subject to strict instructions and backup systems. But they still make errors. I knew you would be startled when I introduced this subject, but I knew I had to broaden your knowledge. You and I are both having copy errors right now without noticing. Our cells are constantly dividing but the image in the mirror doesn't change. Why? Most of the errors are corrected, as designed, and we live on, unaware, as God planned.

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

by dhw, Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 12:03 (43 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If it is a bad mutation, as most are , He deletes it. If it happens to be beneficial for the advancing evolutionary code He wants, He keeps it. How is that not total control of the final DNA output? As you type a story you may make mistakes and correct them. The final output is obviously fully your work under your total control.

dhw: 1) The errors in the system are/were not confined to those which did or didn't advance evolution! According to the above scenario, the “final DNA output” should have been perfect, since he deleted the bad mutations. But even during pre-sapiens evolution, according to you “He was correcting as much as he could”, and surprise, surprise, the DNA system is STILL making mistakes, some of which are the SAME as in pre-sapiens times (e.g. cancer).

DAVID: You are still time confused. It is quite clear to me under my theory of God in control of evolution, that He accepted good DNA mistakes and voided the bad ones during evolution.

During pre-sapiens evolution, how do you know about the bad ones he voided? And he “was correcting as much as he could” means there were some he could not correct.

DAVID: As the final arbiter over the DNA code, He is really in full control of the final result. The key thought, which you keep confusing is DNA as a molecule can always make mistakes and will during evolution and now in a different time period. In the bold, your 'STILL' to accept my point of view should be changed to 'ALWAYS'.

So the “final result” is a system which always has made and always will make mistakes! And according to you, he could not stop or control these mistakes, and yet he is in full control. And although he designed the system, the mistakes were/are not his fault.

dhw:[…] my mistakes as an author are my fault, but according to you, “if He couldn’t stop the molecular faults, then they are not his fault.” In both cases, if the “final output” is still full of errors – whose fault is it?

DAVID: You are not thinking with clarity. You never presented an error-ridden manuscript to a publisher. You corrected all your errors.

The mistakes are my fault, and uncorrected mistakes in my manuscript (even authors can miss mistakes), are also my fault!

DAVID: In evolution God corrected everything and we appeared. […]

How could he have “corrected everything”, when in your own words there are ALWAYS mistakes? Mistakes were not confined to those concerning evolution! Even dinosaurs died of cancer.

dhw: Here are the two basic sets of contradictions:
1) He directly designed all species (old theory), but he selected the beneficial random mutations that led to speciation (new theory). Which is it?

DAVID: Both!!!!!

I like it! If God exists, he left it to chance (Darwin) - we must forget intelligent cells (Shapiro) - to produce beneficial mutations, but he also preprogrammed or dabbled (directly designed) some mutations. I wonder which ones, since he can't stop or control his directly designed system from producing the errors and only "allowed" the good ones. It's a lovely mishmash of theories, but of course it wrecks your original theory that he started out with the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens, and directly designed millions of now extinct non-human life forms etc. “as part of the goal of evolving (= directly designing) humans” - though even human evolution may have been “arranged” by a non-designed mutational error.

dhw: 2) You have also told us he is all-powerful and you have told he is not all-powerful; he is in total control but he is not in total control.

DAVID: He made all final editorial decisions about evolutionary DNA. Total control!!!

Total control of what? DNA then and now was and is ALWAYS full of mistakes, and in your own words, even during pre-sapiens evolution he “was correcting as much as he could,” and you are “the one willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all knowing and he can’t stop molecular errors in a system he created.”

dhw: I just wish you would reconsider it, since it can only lead to more and more contradictions like your author analogy.

DAVID:The only contradictions are in your head. Your friend, David, has always known about DNA errors, as well as errors by any and all biochemical molecules. It is a fact of the system God created all those molecules are subject to strict instructions and backup systems. But they still make errors. I knew you would be startled when I introduced this subject, but I knew I had to broaden your knowledge. […]

I think most people, including even me, are aware that when something goes wrong with their bodies, something has gone wrong with their bodies. I am only startled by such arguments as God – if he exists – has created a system that always makes mistakes which he can’t control, although he is in total control, and he corrected ALL the errors although he only corrected as many as he could, and he left backup systems which sometimes work and sometimes don’t, although he couldn’t correct those mistakes himself, and he’s like an author correcting his mistakes, except that unlike the author it’s not his fault if there are mistakes to correct, and God is all-powerful and all-knowing except when he is not all-powerful and all-knowing.

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

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 20:08 (43 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: As the final arbiter over the DNA code, He is really in full control of the final result. The key thought, which you keep confusing is DNA as a molecule can always make mistakes and will during evolution and now in a different time period.

dhw: So the “final result” is a system which always has made and always will make mistakes! And according to you, he could not stop or control these mistakes, and yet he is in full control. And although he designed the system, the mistakes were/are not his fault.

You are not thinking clearly. You agree molecules can make mistakes when in action. Again there are two time periods. During evolution a DNA mistake can change the course of evolution, and since God is in charge (in my view) of coding all DNA evolutionary advances (speciation), He corrects every error going off course. In our current time period He is not correcting as I view evolution as completed. Now we are responsible for corrections. All of this is logical and fits My theory.


DAVID:The only contradictions are in your head. Your friend, David, has always known about DNA errors, as well as errors by any and all biochemical molecules. It is a fact of the system God created all those molecules are subject to strict instructions and backup systems. But they still make errors. I knew you would be startled when I introduced this subject, but I knew I had to broaden your knowledge. […]

dhw: I think most people, including even me, are aware that when something goes wrong with their bodies, something has gone wrong with their bodies. I am only startled by such arguments as God – if he exists – has created a system that always makes mistakes which he can’t control, although he is in total control, and he corrected ALL the errors although he only corrected as many as he could, and he left backup systems which sometimes work and sometimes don’t, although he couldn’t correct those mistakes himself, and he’s like an author correcting his mistakes, except that unlike the author it’s not his fault if there are mistakes to correct, and God is all-powerful and all-knowing except when he is not all-powerful and all-knowing.

I'll stick by my clear explanation above. You confusion is complete because you constantly
conflate God during evolution as He coded DNA to advance the complexity of organisms and the errors in DNA and other molecules today, when evolution is over and we are in charge. God did the best He could in giving us the tight editing controls we see in cellular reproduction. I'm sure you have no idea how the chromosomes rearrange themselves and split apart to make two new cells with twin (hopefully) DNA's. Read up on the process of mitosis, the complexity of the multiple molecular actions that help chromosomes split properly. Your eyes will roll back in your head and you will finally leave the concept of chance evolution completely. What I saw in my microscope as a med student looked so simple. With current research the complexity of how it is really accomplished is spectacular. And it is protected by an amazing editing system to throw out junk that might appear. And that happens all the time. In my view God recognized the problems quite clearly by putting in the editing. The editing is required from the beginning of cellular reproduction at the origin of life. without the editing we would not be here. Only a designer fits. This is why the OOL research is so shortsighted. Just inventing a reproducing code is a slight part of the overall problem which has to protect against the DNA errors and also the errors created by the multiple interlocking molecular reactions that create living organisms.

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

by dhw, Wednesday, August 12, 2020, 10:13 (43 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As the final arbiter over the DNA code, He is really in full control of the final result. The key thought, which you keep confusing is DNA as a molecule can always make mistakes and will during evolution and now in a different time period.

dhw: So the “final result” is a system which always has made and always will make mistakes! And according to you, he could not stop or control these mistakes, and yet he is in full control. And although he designed the system, the mistakes were/are not his fault.

DAVID: You are not thinking clearly. You agree molecules can make mistakes when in action. Again there are two time periods. During evolution a DNA mistake can change the course of evolution, and since God is in charge (in my view) of coding all DNA evolutionary advances (speciation), He corrects every error going off course. In our current time period He is not correcting as I view evolution as completed. Now we are responsible for corrections. All of this is logical and fits My theory.

Why are you confining pre-sapiens “errors” to those that influence the course of evolution? Do you think disease only started with sapiens? You yourself gave us the example of dinosaurs dying of cancer. These are the errors we deal with now. It makes no difference to the argument! You have stated over and over again that your God could not stop or control the errors in pre-sapiens time, but corrected “as much as he could”. So much for total control. As for evolution, your new theory is that it was caused by random mutations (“errors”), and the beneficial ones were selected by God (Darwin says they were selected by Nature). This is the opposite of your previous theory that your God directly designed every species.

DAVID:The only contradictions are in your head. Your friend, David, has always known about DNA errors, as well as errors by any and all biochemical molecules. It is a fact of the system God created all those molecules are subject to strict instructions and backup systems. But they still make errors. I knew you would be startled when I introduced this subject, but I knew I had to broaden your knowledge. […]

dhw: I think most people, including even me, are aware that when something goes wrong with their bodies, something has gone wrong with their bodies. I am only startled by such arguments as God – if he exists – has created a system that always makes mistakes which he can’t control, although he is in total control, and he corrected ALL the errors although he only corrected as many as he could, and he left backup systems which sometimes work and sometimes don’t, although he couldn’t correct those mistakes himself, and he’s like an author correcting his mistakes, except that unlike the author it’s not his fault if there are mistakes to correct, and God is all-powerful and all-knowing except when he is not all-powerful and all-knowing.

DAVID: I'll stick by my clear explanation above. You confusion is complete because you constantly conflate God during evolution as He coded DNA to advance the complexity of organisms and the errors in DNA and other molecules today, when evolution is over and we are in charge. God did the best He could in giving us the tight editing controls we see in cellular reproduction.

Again you are confining pre-sapiens errors to those that affected the course of evolution. The same system also led to disease in pre-sapiens times, and those are the kind of errors we are still trying to correct today. Yes, I am confused. I don’t understand how he can be in total control of random errors which he can’t stop or control (your words, not mine). Are you saying he could control errors relating to evolution but not errors relating to disease? Why not? If he could destroy those not beneficial to evolution, why couldn’t he destroy those not beneficial to health? Please clarify which errors he could/could not control.

DAVID: I'm sure you have no idea how the chromosomes rearrange themselves and split apart to make two new cells with twin (hopefully) DNA's. Read up on the process of mitosis, the complexity of the multiple molecular actions that help chromosomes split properly. Your eyes will roll back in your head and you will finally leave the concept of chance evolution completely.

I have rejected chance. My (theistic) theory is that the cells themselves designed the changes using their perhaps God-given intelligence. It’s you who insist that the “errors” which have led to evolutionary change are random, and all your God can do is “allow” them to survive (as opposed to deliberately designing the changes leading to speciation).

DAVID: What I saw in my microscope as a med student looked so simple. With current research the complexity of how it is really accomplished is spectacular. And it is protected by an amazing editing system to throw out junk that might appear. […] The editing is required from the beginning of cellular reproduction at the origin of life. without the editing we would not be here. Only a designer fits. […]

All fine with me, but we are not discussing the case for design! You have totally ignored the whole paragraph in which I have listed the contradictions in your theory. I’ve bolded it for you, as I wouldn't like you to miss it twice!

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

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 12, 2020, 18:09 (42 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So the “final result” is a system which always has made and always will make mistakes! And according to you, he could not stop or control these mistakes, and yet he is in full control. And although he designed the system, the mistakes were/are not his fault.

DAVID: You are not thinking clearly. You agree molecules can make mistakes when in action. Again there are two time periods. During evolution a DNA mistake can change the course of evolution, and since God is in charge (in my view) of coding all DNA evolutionary advances (speciation), He corrects every error going off course. In our current time period He is not correcting as I view evolution as completed. Now we are responsible for corrections. All of this is logical and fits My theory.

dhw: Why are you confining pre-sapiens “errors” to those that influence the course of evolution? Do you think disease only started with sapiens? You yourself gave us the example of dinosaurs dying of cancer. These are the errors we deal with now. It makes no difference to the argument! You have stated over and over again that your God could not stop or control the errors in pre-sapiens time, but corrected “as much as he could”.

Dinosaur cancer is just an example of errors while living during all of evolution. God does not try or bother to correct those. See my statement now bolded above. God codes all DNA for evolutionary advances, but DNA can make mistakes, which he corrects or accepts if it fits His plans.

dhw: So much for total control. As for evolution, your new theory is that it was caused by random mutations (“errors”), and the beneficial ones were selected by God (Darwin says they were selected by Nature). This is the opposite of your previous theory that your God directly designed every species.

See above . Read more carefully. Not so. He designs all advances in new species, but allows beneficial mutations. You are beginning to understand my view of errors during evolution affecting the progression of evolution and errors while living, now or during evolution


dhw: I think most people, including even me, are aware that when something goes wrong with their bodies, something has gone wrong with their bodies. I am only startled by such arguments as God – if he exists – has created a system that always makes mistakes which he can’t control, although he is in total control, and he corrected ALL the errors although he only corrected as many as he could, and he left backup systems which sometimes work and sometimes don’t, although he couldn’t correct those mistakes himself, and he’s like an author correcting his mistakes, except that unlike the author it’s not his fault if there are mistakes to correct, and God is all-powerful and all-knowing except when he is not all-powerful and all-knowing.

A total distortion of my position, as stated. My quote in red needs to be shown in original context because it never fit my thinking about God's total control of DNA evolution coding.


DAVID: I'll stick by my clear explanation above. You confusion is complete because you constantly conflate God during evolution as He coded DNA to advance the complexity of organisms and the errors in DNA and other molecules today, when evolution is over and we are in charge. God did the best He could in giving us the tight editing controls we see in cellular reproduction.

dhw: Again you are confining pre-sapiens errors to those that affected the course of evolution. The same system also led to disease in pre-sapiens times, and those are the kind of errors we are still trying to correct today. Yes, I am confused. I don’t understand how he can be in total control of random errors which he can’t stop or control (your words, not mine). Are you saying he could control errors relating to evolution but not errors relating to disease? Why not?

See above. Living disease in already produced species may lead to necessary deaths. God ignores those DNA mistakes, but cannot allow DNA changes that set evolution off course.

DAVID: I'm sure you have no idea how the chromosomes rearrange themselves and split apart to make two new cells with twin (hopefully) DNA's. Read up on the process of mitosis, the complexity of the multiple molecular actions that help chromosomes split properly. Your eyes will roll back in your head and you will finally leave the concept of chance evolution completely.

dhw: It’s you who insist that the “errors” which have led to evolutionary change are random, and all your God can do is “allow” them to survive (as opposed to deliberately designing the changes leading to speciation).

Again distortion. God only allows chance mutations that fit his plans, stated many times now.
He maintains tight control in designing new evolutionary DNA. As an editor He allows chance beneficial mutations.

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

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 12, 2020, 22:55 (42 days ago) @ David Turell

This article shows that simple humans can edit DNA to make a protein. Must be real easy for God to edit DNA:

https://phys.org/news/2020-08-chemists-genetic-code-coli-21st.html

"Rice University chemist Han Xiao and his team have successfully expanded the genetic code of Escherichia coli bacteria to produce a synthetic building block, a "noncanonical amino acid." The result is a living indicator for oxidative stress.

***

"The new study does just that by engineering bacteria to produce the extra amino acid, called 5-hydroxyl-tryptophan (5HTP), which appears naturally in humans as a precursor to the neurotransmitter serotonin, but not in E. coli. The novel production of 5HTP prompts the bacteria to produce a protein that fluoresces when the organism is under metabolic stress."

Comment: It required much work, but it is successful. This still doesn't tell us how God might code new species, but that is what I think God did to manage the process of evolution

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

by dhw, Thursday, August 13, 2020, 10:45 (41 days ago) @ David Turell

David’s new error theory is so confused and confusing that I will try to unravel it, using his own words. First of all, what are these errors? “These biological accidents are chance events, accidents not a designers fault.” When do they occur? Always: “DNA as a molecule can always make mistakes and will during evolution and now in a different time period.” The latter comment refers to pre-sapiens evolution as one period, when God was active, and the present, in which God is inactive and we are “in charge to handle molecular mistakes.

If, for the sake of this discussion, we accept the existence of God, we must now tackle two basic questions: 1) how much control does God have over these accidents, and 2) what role do they play in David’s theory of evolution?
Re control: “You do not understand the issue that high speed reactions can have errors God can’t control.”
No form of any God could control molecular mistakes in free-floating molecules which are supposed to respond properly to specific stimuli.”

David divides the errors into two categories: those that cause disease and death, and those which ”During evolution… can change the course of evolution.” As regards the latter, despite the blanket rejection of the possibility of divine control (which apparently means that although he designed the system, the errors are not his fault), “if it is a bad mutation, as most are, He deletes it. If it happens to be beneficial for the advancing evolutionary code He wants, he keeps it.” I’ll return to this later. As regards the former: “ Dinosaur cancer is just an example of errors while living during all of evolution. God does not try or bother to correct those.” However, this is directly contradicted by the following exchange:

dhw: How could he have directly dabbled or provided the first cells with a 3.8-billion-year programme to correct errors he could not correct?

DAVID: I don't know when He recognized the problem during evolution, but I would guess quite early as we know of cell-splitting problems, which means bacteria could certainly have reproductive problems. Note the blue comment: He put in backups, so He was correcting as much as He could.

Clearly, then, he had limited control over the errors from early on in evolution, and the backups – which were equally prone to error – prove that he did “bother”. We are therefore left with a God who mysteriously only had limited control over some accidents (disease and death) and yet had total control over others (affecting the course of evolution). We must remember that ALL of these errors take place in the same system which God himself designed. David himself confirms the lack of control: “I am the one willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing and he can’t stop molecular errors in a system he created.” (Elsewhere David has repeatedly emphasized that his God is all-powerful and is always in total control.)

As regards evolution, until now David’s theory has been that his God directly designed every species, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc, in the history of life, and all of these were “part of the goal of evolving humans”. The direct design entailed either a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for each development, or a direct dabble. However, if a random mutation could “change the course of evolution”, then quite clearly it was not part of the original 3.8-billion-year-old programme. This even extends to humans: “A mutational error favoured by natural selection or by God may have arranged for our human evolution”. Without preprogramming, we are left with divine dabbling, but this entailed accepting or rejecting the change of direction - not designing it. Since these random mutations were ALWAYS happening, clearly evolution was constantly switching directions, and all God could do was allow it to happen or stop it from happening. Goodbye, then, to targeted evolution by design.

This view of God, no longer all-powerful and all-knowing, and no longer with a fixed programme that directly designs every life form etc. in history, opens the door to every theory that I have proposed: if his goal was humans, he may have experimented to get what he wanted (let’s see if these random mutations will get us there), or the random mutations may have given him the idea later on in the ever changing history. Or maybe he WANTED the randomness and deliberately designed a system that would provide unpredictable mutations because he WANTED the higgledy-piggledy and ever changing bush. The only theory that is not supported by all the above is that in which an all-powerful God had total control over evolution, had one specific life form – H. sapiens (plus food supply) – as his goal, but directly designed millions of other life forms that had nothing to do with H. sapiens.

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

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 13, 2020, 15:55 (41 days ago) @ dhw

There is no point in trying to correct the mishmash of your translation of my theory of how God deals with evolution and His knowledge that functioning molecules make mistakes. First, God is in charge of running evolution. Therefor He has total control of the final output at each advancing stage of evolutionary complexity. He codes the genome to his satisfaction. However, the living species can develop DNA copy errors and start to mutate into a direction God likes, because it fits His planned advances in complexity. He allows that to continue. However a bad mutation in God's view will be edited out, and disappear. He has total control of each stage output entering into the next advanced stage.

Note I am separating the discussion into two distinct time periods. Mistakes during evolution are totally under God control. However during the time period of simply living as an evolved species, we know from our own experience, mistakes happen. The dinosaur cancer dhw worries about is no issue for God to act. It was the result of copy error. The dinosaur dies, but its death has no relationship to advancing evolution. God doesn't care or even take notice. This fits our current reality. We are in charge of all health corrections, if possible.

I follow Adler in accepting humans are God's final goal. History tells us God, who is in charge of creating all of reality, evolved us from bacteria. That simple logic escapes dhw, a problem for him I've never understood. My view of God is He knows exactly what He is doing. He has a specific goal, and He proceeded knowing fully what to expect from molecular errors.

I've known about the molecular errors problem long before I joined this website in discussion. When I started this discussion a few days ago, I knew it would upset things and said so. In my view, God does not experiment, He doesn't change his mind in midstream, He is not interested in spectacle. dhw's God and mine cannot even be reconciled in any way. dhw's God is a humanized version of what I think about God. A God who can create the complex universe, evolve it, create the Milky Way, evolve it, create the Earth as the ideal planet for life, evolve it, create life, and evolve it, is a teleologically driven God. Not dhw 's mamby-pamby god.

This is all quite clear to me as totally logical, based on the God I imagine. I don't care to respond to my quotes taken out of context, when I'm not sure which time period is under discussion: evolutionary time, or while living time when looking at molecular errors, which we know occurred in both time periods.

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

by dhw, Friday, August 14, 2020, 10:14 (41 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There is no point in trying to correct the mishmash of your translation of my theory of how God deals with evolution and His knowledge that functioning molecules make mistakes. First, God is in charge of running evolution.

I would rather you corrected the “mishmash” than simply dodged the arguments, which you now force me to repeat. First, there are different ways of “running” things, as is made clear by the fact that you have offered one theory and I have offered several different theories.

DAVID: Therefore He has total control of the final output at each advancing stage of evolutionary complexity. He codes the genome to his satisfaction. However, the living species can develop DNA copy errors and start to mutate into a direction God likes, because it fits His planned advances in complexity. He allows that to continue. However a bad mutation in God's view will be edited out, and disappear. He has total control of each stage output entering into the next advanced stage.

Here you simply repeat your theory. You ignore your contradictory statements about control (see later), but the major problem is that it contradicts your theory that your all-powerful God’s only purpose was to design H. sapiens, but first he directly designed millions of other life forms etc. The errors you refer to are “chance events, accidents not a designer’s fault” and “DNA as a molecule can always make mistakes and will during evolution and now in a different time.” (see later). These errors can “change the course of evolution”, and indeed “a mutational error favored by natural selection or by God may have arranged our human evolution”. Please explain how God “allowing” random mutations to change the course of evolution is consistent with God directly designing all life forms, including us.

DAVID: I don't care to respond to my quotes taken out of context, when I'm not sure which time period is under discussion: evolutionary time, or while living time when looking at molecular errors, which we know occurred in both time periods.

I was scrupulously careful to indicate which quotes applied to which period, as below.

DAVID: Note I am separating the discussion into two distinct time periods. Mistakes during evolution are totally under God control. However during the time period of simply living as an evolved species, we know from our own experience, mistakes happen. The dinosaur cancer dhw worries about is no issue for God to act. It was the result of copy error. The dinosaur dies, but its death has no relationship to advancing evolution. God doesn't care or even take notice. This fits our current reality. We are in charge of all health corrections, if possible.

In my introduction I made it clear that there were two periods (bolded above): pre-sapiens evolution and the present. Later I distinguished between errors that cause disease and death, and those which “During evolution…can change the course of evolution.” Re the dinosaur, you guessed that disease occurred “quite early”, and your God “put in backups, so He was correcting as much as he could.” Clearly then he cared and took notice, but had a limited degree of control. Since all these errors take place in the same mechanism, I don’t understand how your God could have total control over the evolutionary “errors” and yet only have limited control over the disease-makers. In quote after quote you emphasize that your God CAN’T control the errors: “No form of any God could control molecular mistakes in free-floating molecules which are supposed to respond properly to specific stimuli” and “You do not understand the issue that high speed reactions can have errors God can’t control.

DAVID: I follow Adler in accepting humans are God's final goal. History tells us God, who is in charge of creating all of reality, evolved us from bacteria. That simple logic escapes dhw, a problem for him I've never understood. My view of God is He knows exactly what He is doing. He has a specific goal, and He proceeded knowing fully what to expect from molecular errors. (dhw’s bold)

Your attempts to ignore the illogical elements of your original theory are dealt with on the other thread. My God would also know exactly what he was doing, and would have a specific goal or goals. That is why I propose that he might have deliberately designed the system with all its errors, instead of your version, which is that he designed it but the errors were not his fault! What do you mean by he knew fully what to expect (bolded)? He could not stop the random errors from occurring but could only “allow” them to change the course of evolution, so are you saying he knew in advance which errors would be beneficial or harmful? You say you are “the one willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing and he can’t stop molecular errors in a system he created.” Please tell us, then, what your God did NOT know about the errors.

The rest of your post reiterates your beliefs about God and your rejection of my alternative interpretations of his nature and possible purposes. It has nothing to do with your “error theory”, but I will transfer the end to the other thread.

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

by David Turell @, Friday, August 14, 2020, 18:12 (40 days ago) @ dhw

Before starting in bits and pieces rather than statements, let my note that my thinking and analysis of what God might do is under constant change, and the past quotes of mine you take from my stream of consciousness replies and gleefully present as my set-in-stone opinion are not ever permanent theory. Frankly, I'd never fully delved into the issue of molecular mistakes and God's handling of them in any thoughtful detail. What I wrote yesterday is exactly where I am at this point.

DAVID: Therefore He has total control of the final output at each advancing stage of evolutionary complexity. He codes the genome to his satisfaction. However, the living species can develop DNA copy errors and start to mutate into a direction God likes, because it fits His planned advances in complexity. He allows that to continue. However a bad mutation in God's view will be edited out, and disappear. He has total control of each stage output entering into the next advanced stage.

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

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


DAVID: Note I am separating the discussion into two distinct time periods. Mistakes during evolution are totally under God control. However during the time period of simply living as an evolved species, we know from our own experience, mistakes happen. The dinosaur cancer dhw worries about is no issue for God to act. It was the result of copy error. The dinosaur dies, but its death has no relationship to advancing evolution. God doesn't care or even take notice. This fits our current reality. We are in charge of all health corrections, if possible.

dhw: Since all these errors take place in the same mechanism, I don’t understand how your God could have total control over the evolutionary “errors” and yet only have limited control over the disease-makers.

I've eliminated your misuse of my old quotes. I've explained the above clearly, but will repeat again. IMHO God seriously edits evolutionary genome changes, but what happens to individual organisms is of no matter to Him, as shown by currently when we are in charge of helping

DAVID: I follow Adler in accepting humans are God's final goal. History tells us God, who is in charge of creating all of reality, evolved us from bacteria. That simple logic escapes dhw, a problem for him I've never understood. My view of God is He knows exactly what He is doing. He has a specific goal, and He proceeded knowing fully what to expect from molecular errors. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: Your attempts to ignore the illogical elements of your original theory are dealt with on the other thread. My God would also know exactly what he was doing, and would have a specific goal or goals. That is why I propose that he might have deliberately designed the system with all its errors, instead of your version, which is that he designed it but the errors were not his fault! What do you mean by he knew fully what to expect (bolded)? He could not stop the random errors from occurring but could only “allow” them to change the course of evolution, so are you saying he knew in advance which errors would be beneficial or harmful? You say you are “the one willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing and he can’t stop molecular errors in a system he created.” Please tell us, then, what your God did NOT know about the errors.

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


dhw: The rest of your post reiterates your beliefs about God and your rejection of my alternative interpretations of his nature and possible purposes. It has nothing to do with your “error theory”, but I will transfer the end to the other thread.

I have a different view of God than you do. That won't change.

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

by dhw, Saturday, August 15, 2020, 12:00 (39 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Before starting in bits and pieces rather than statements, let my note that my thinking and analysis of what God might do is under constant change, and the past quotes of mine you take from my stream of consciousness replies and gleefully present as my set-in-stone opinion are not ever permanent theory. Frankly, I'd never fully delved into the issue of molecular mistakes and God's handling of them in any thoughtful detail. What I wrote yesterday is exactly where I am at this point.

I appreciate your honesty, but wish you had written this in a different spirit. I do not gleefully present the contradictions you keep defending. We are both on a quest for logical explanations of life’s history and a possible God’s possible nature and purpose(s). You do present your opinions as if they were set in stone, and you resolutely ignore or even defend the contradictions. I try to point them out. What else can I do? No, you have clearly never delved into the issue, and I have repeatedly asked you to rethink this particular theory. Thank you for doing so.

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

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

There is nothing wrong with a random mutation or with chance playing a role. But if chance can play a role in changing the course of evolution, and all God can do is “allow” it to survive, then this blatantly contradicts your original theory that your all-powerful, all-knowing God had everything planned from the beginning and directly designed every species as “part of the goal of evolving humans”. Now you tell us he is not all-powerful and not all-knowing and did not directly design every species. The only way you could fit these ideas together would be if you had your God wanting to create humans but not knowing how to do it. Lucky us, a random mutation showed him the way! However, this idea is anathema to you, because despite your new theory, you still want to cling to your old theory, as is all too evident from our discussions on the other thread. Please feel free to revise one or other of these two theories.

DAVID: The dinosaur cancer dhw worries about is no issue for God to act. It was the result of copy error. The dinosaur dies, but its death has no relationship to advancing evolution. God doesn't care or even take notice. This fits our current reality. We are in charge of all health corrections, if possible.

dhw: Since all these errors take place in the same mechanism, I don’t understand how your God could have total control over the evolutionary “errors” and yet only have limited control over the disease-makers.

DAVID: I've eliminated your misuse of my old quotes. I've explained the above clearly, but will repeat again. IMHO God seriously edits evolutionary genome changes, but what happens to individual organisms is of no matter to Him, as shown by currently when we are in charge of helping.

Everything you write becomes an “old quote” the day after you’ve written it. What am I supposed to comment on if it’s not what you have written? Here you say that during evolution he didn’t care about or notice the disease-causing errors. Are you then rescinding your guess that disease began “quite early as we know of cell-splitting problems, which means bacteria could certainly have reproductive problems. […] He put in backups, so He was correcting as much as he could”? Why did he put in backups and correct as much as he could if he didn’t care?

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

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

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

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

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

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 15, 2020, 15:24 (39 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, August 15, 2020, 15:32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

by dhw, Sunday, August 16, 2020, 08:44 (39 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What is wrong with a random chance mutation, if it fits God's plan to be allowed to pass through??? Chance can play a role!!!

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

DAVID: You've made an excellent point. I still view God as designing each complicated advance to a new species. Using the strange whale series as an example, and remembering epigenetic adaptations, each step required many alterations in physical form and physiology. When a stage began to modify itself epigenetically in a way that God saw would not lead logically to the next planned step, He would step in and change it. Conversely, if it was a good step, He allowed it. You should be very comfortable with that view. I am. It fully allows for God's recognition that free-to-act molecules under strict instructions will still make occasional mistakes, the start of this discussion.
And later:
DAVID: I expect you to agree with my presentation, now more clearly thought through with your helpful critique. I find no contradictions. Will you?

I am not at all comfortable with your presentation, and I don’t see it as being relevant to the major problem your error theory creates. I see the whale series as a natural progression of changes to improve the organism’s chances of survival in its maritime environment. No random mutations but, as you indicate yourself, an ongoing series of adaptations. This has nothing to do with “errors” that change the direction of evolution and which God “allows” to survive. Please don’t let us be diverted by the history of the whale. You are still lumbered with conflicting theories: that your God’s sole purpose from the very beginning was to create H. sapiens, that he had the whole of evolution planned in advance and was in total control, and yet now he has become dependent on random mutations which he could not control other than allowing them to survive if he thought they might take him in the direction he wanted to go. Chance versus design has been a constant theme throughout all our years of discussion, in which you have ridiculed chance and opted solely for direct design in the form of preprogramming and/or dabbling. Suddenly you are in favour of random mutations as playing a major role in speciation. In this respect, you have sided with Darwin in one of the few aspects of his theory that I had joined you in rejecting!

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

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

The two genome “errors” that we are concerned with are those harmful ones that cause disease and death, and those beneficial ones that cause changes to the course of evolution (i.e. innovations). He could hardly have provided backups for beneficial evolutionary mutations he didn’t even know were going to happen! Those that cause disease and death took place throughout evolution. You say he wasn’t bothered about them. So once again, why did he provide backups to correct as many as he could?

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

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 16, 2020, 19:53 (38 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: I am not at all comfortable with your presentation, and I don’t see it as being relevant to the major problem your error theory creates. I see the whale series as a natural progression of changes to improve the organism’s chances of survival in its maritime environment. No random mutations but, as you indicate yourself, an ongoing series of adaptations. This has nothing to do with “errors” that change the direction of evolution and which God “allows” to survive....
The two genome “errors” that we are concerned with are those harmful ones that cause disease and death, and those beneficial ones that cause changes to the course of evolution (i.e. innovations).

I need to try again. My basic premise is God is in charge of all creation including evolution. His goal is humans appearing. He codes the genome from the beginning of life and dabbles when He has to. He knows that protein living molecules make mistakes. So the genome mechanism has backup copy error editing to stop what it can. During evolution most DNA mistakes are errors and are removed by dabbling. The few good mutations are obviously allowed and must be viewed as omissions in God's pre-planning, and fits my thought that the God of the Bible does not foresee everything perfectly as organisms adapt and climate evolves. Adler's finding that most evolution is an automatic removal of DNA code must also be noted and supports my idea of pre-planning. The loss of code could be automatic or dabbles. Since all living organisms have an adaptive ability God must keep watch during evolution that everything is on course.

That discussion does not cover errors while living, speciation not involved. That is what we observe now as I consider evolution over. All living organisms are DNA protected by copy error systems. These are very important because our cells are constantly dividing and reinventing us. The copy systems are the same systems present in evolution. During evolution they served duplicate roles, advancing evolution and protecting proper copying. Now the copy systems are still present to protect us from DNA copy diseases. God does not act now. We do the job, as well as we can. During evolution God worried about the course of evolution, not individual DNA diseases (dino cancer). This exposition fits errors into my theory system.

I don't accept your natural system of evolution. God speciates and the whale series demands design. The massive phenotypical and physiological species changes require design.

In thinking about what I present strictly follow your statement I have bolded.

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

by dhw, Monday, August 17, 2020, 09:08 (38 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The two genome “errors” that we are concerned with are those harmful ones that cause disease and death, and those beneficial ones that cause changes to the course of evolution (i.e. innovations).

DAVID: I need to try again. My basic premise is God is in charge of all creation including evolution. His goal is humans appearing. He codes the genome from the beginning of life and dabbles when He has to. He knows that protein living molecules make mistakes. So the genome mechanism has backup copy error editing to stop what it can.

Which errors are you referring to? Clearly he would not devise backup copy error editing to stop the random beneficial “errors” that change the course of evolution! And so we can only go back to your original statement that early on in evolution he put in backups related to disease and death, “so He was correcting as much as he could”. These are the “errors” you say he has now left us to try and correct, and the backups contradict your statement that he didn’t bother about this category of error during pre-sapiens evolution.

DAVID: During evolution most DNA mistakes are errors and are removed by dabbling. The few good mutations are obviously allowed and must be viewed as omissions in God's pre-planning, and fits my thought that the God of the Bible does not foresee everything perfectly as organisms adapt and climate evolves.

Until now you have constantly reiterated that all species were directly designed, and nothing was left to chance, and God knew precisely what he was doing from the very beginning. You reject any possibility of his having to experiment (i.e. not knowing everything from the start) but now you have him actually relying on chance to offer him unforeseen ways to help him achieve what you think was his goal.

DAVID: Adler's finding that most evolution is an automatic removal of DNA code must also be noted and supports my idea of pre-planning. The loss of code could be automatic or dabbles. Since all living organisms have an adaptive ability God must keep watch during evolution that everything is on course.

I thought this was Behe’s idea. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your brand new theory that speciation was NOT pre-planned, that your God relied on random mutations to “change the course of evolution”, and that his role was precisely the same as Darwin’s natural selection.

DAVID: That discussion does not cover errors while living, speciation not involved. That is what we observe now as I consider evolution over. All living organisms are DNA protected by copy error systems. These are very important because our cells are constantly dividing and reinventing us. The copy systems are the same systems present in evolution. During evolution they served duplicate roles, advancing evolution and protecting proper copying. Now the copy systems are still present to protect us from DNA copy diseases. God does not act now. We do the job, as well as we can. During evolution God worried about the course of evolution, not individual DNA diseases (dino cancer). This exposition fits errors into my theory system. (dhw's bold)

But it does not fit your God’s provision DURING evolution of backups for individual diseases, as above. And we must continue to emphasize that these backup systems are also full of errors, once again demonstrating your God’s lack of control over his copy system. You have quite rightly acknowledged my earlier point that the copy systems are the same. And so you have him able to destroy all the bad errors relating to evolution, but incapable of destroying all the bad errors relating to death and disease. Do you not regard this as odd?I’m sorry, but your theory is still full of contradictions, and you are creating an image of God that renders him less and less in control and more and more incompetent.

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

by David Turell @, Monday, August 17, 2020, 19:45 (37 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I need to try again. My basic premise is God is in charge of all creation including evolution. His goal is humans appearing. He codes the genome from the beginning of life and dabbles when He has to. He knows that protein living molecules make mistakes. So the genome mechanism has backup copy error editing to stop what it can.

dhw: Which errors are you referring to?


During evolution most DNA mistakes are errors and are removed by dabbling. The few good mutations are obviously allowed and can be viewed either omissions in God's pre-planning, or simply fitting, in a general sense, God's planning to evolve humans in a slightly altered way.

dhw: Until now you have constantly reiterated that all species were directly designed, and nothing was left to chance, and God knew precisely what he was doing from the very beginning. You reject any possibility of his having to experiment (i.e. not knowing everything from the start) but now you have him actually relying on chance to offer him unforeseen ways to help him achieve what you think was his goal.

There is no reliance on chance. Read the above comment. No experimentation. Your bias is showing. During evolution He created backup editing for DNA errors to help control the evolutionary path to humans. Diseases that appeared from DNA errors during living, were not corrected by God, the dino cancer the best example.


DAVID: Adler's finding that most evolution is an automatic removal of DNA code must also be noted and supports my idea of pre-planning. The loss of code could be automatic or dabbles. Since all living organisms have an adaptive ability God must keep watch during evolution that everything is on course.

dhw: I thought this was Behe’s idea.

Brain fart, Behe. My comment still fits.


DAVID: That discussion does not cover errors while living, speciation not involved. That is what we observe now as I consider evolution over. All living organisms are DNA protected by copy error systems. These are very important because our cells are constantly dividing and reinventing us. The copy systems are the same systems present in evolution. During evolution they served duplicate roles, advancing evolution and protecting proper copying. Now the copy systems are still present to protect us from DNA copy diseases. God does not act now. We do the job, as well as we can. During evolution God worried about the course of evolution, not individual DNA diseases (dino cancer). This exposition fits errors into my theory system. (dhw's bold)

dhw: But it does not fit your God’s provision DURING evolution of backups for individual diseases, as above. And we must continue to emphasize that these backup systems are also full of errors, once again demonstrating your God’s lack of control over his copy system. You have quite rightly acknowledged my earlier point that the copy systems are the same. And so you have him able to destroy all the bad errors relating to evolution, but incapable of destroying all the bad errors relating to death and disease. Do you not regard this as odd?I’m sorry, but your theory is still full of contradictions, and you are creating an image of God that renders him less and less in control and more and more incompetent.

Your confusion about living organisms is total. Errors while living are a tiny percentage of DNA reproduction second by second as we live. What you seem to constantly misunderstand is that your body and mine is not the one we were born with and grew up with. Everything with the exception of bone that remodels and the brain that mainly reorganizes is changed!! Death has to occur: God doesn't worry about rare living errors. Your bold is off base.

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

by dhw, Tuesday, August 18, 2020, 10:48 (36 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: During evolution most DNA mistakes are errors and are removed by dabbling. The few good mutations are obviously allowed and can be viewed either omissions in God's pre-planning, or simply fitting, in a general sense, God's planning to evolve humans in a slightly altered way.

We agreed that there are two categories of errors: one that affects evolution, and one that causes diseases and death (see later). “Omissions in God’s pre-planning” already weakens your original theory that your all-powerful, all-knowing God always knew what he wanted and how he would get it. But we now have random mutations changing the course of evolution, luckily fitting a not all-powerful, not all-knowing God’s plan to evolve humans, and for millions and millions of years (the errors are ongoing) helping to produce life forms etc. that have nothing whatsoever to do with your God’s direct design of H. sapiens and his food supply.

dhw: Until now you have constantly reiterated that all species were directly designed, and nothing was left to chance, and God knew precisely what he was doing from the very beginning. You reject any possibility of his having to experiment (i.e. not knowing everything from the start) but now you have him actually relying on chance to offer him unforeseen ways to help him achieve what you think was his goal.

DAVID: There is no reliance on chance. Read the above comment. No experimentation. Your bias is showing.

Experimentation is simply ONE theory to link the vast pre-human bush with your insistence that your God’s one and only goal was to design H. sapiens. I have proposed several other explanations, and remain open-minded about them all. My point was that experimentation would be far less damaging to your image of God than having him reliant on chance. And I’m sorry, but if mutational errors can “change the course of evolution”, and “a mutational error favoured by natural selection or by God may have arranged our human evolution”, and the most your God can do is “allow” these mutations to survive, he is reliant on chance. And only a couple of days ago, your emphatic response to my objections was: “What is wrong with a random chance mutation, if it fits God’s plan to be allowed to pass through??? Chance can play a role!!!” Lucky God, that chance threw up changes that enabled him to fulfil the goal you have imposed on him.

DAVID: During evolution He created backup editing for DNA errors to help control the evolutionary path to humans. Diseases that appeared from DNA errors during living, were not corrected by God, the dino cancer the best example.

What backup editing? According to you, if an evolutionary “error” occurred that was beneficial, he allowed it to survive. If it was not beneficial, he destroyed it. Your so-called backups could therefore only apply to the disease-causing errors, and you even claim that these are still to be found as we humans grapple with their consequences.

dhw: And we must continue to emphasize that these backup systems are also full of errors, once again demonstrating your God’s lack of control over his copy system. You have quite rightly acknowledged my earlier point that the copy systems are the same. And so you have him able to destroy all the bad errors relating to evolution, but incapable of destroying all the bad errors relating to death and disease. Do you not regard this as odd?

DAVID: Your confusion about living organisms is total. Errors while living are a tiny
percentage of DNA reproduction second by second as we live. What you seem to constantly misunderstand is that your body and mine is not the one we were born with and grew up with. Everything with the exception of bone that remodels and the brain that mainly reorganizes is changed!! Death has to occur: God doesn't worry about rare living errors. Your bold is off base.

My bold emphasizes your God’s lack of control. The fact that our bodies are constantly changing is totally irrelevant to this error theory of yours. According to you – but correct me if I’m wrong - he has designed a system that makes errors which may change the course of evolution and which may also cause disease and death. As regards the first, he can allow them to survive or he can destroy them. These are changes to evolution which he did not design, and this contradicts your first theory, which had him directly designing every life form. As regards the second, despite your protestations to the contrary, he worried about them to the extent that “He put in backups, so He was correcting as much as he could.” Backups make no sense if you try to apply them to the first category of error. And it also makes no sense to claim that, although all the errors took place in the same system, he could destroy all the bad errors but he could not destroy all the bad errors.

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

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 18, 2020, 18:08 (36 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: During evolution most DNA mistakes are errors and are removed by dabbling. The few good mutations are obviously allowed and can be viewed either omissions in God's pre-planning, or simply fitting, in a general sense, God's planning to evolve humans in a slightly altered way.

dhw: We agreed that there are two categories of errors: one that affects evolution, and one that causes diseases and death (see later). “Omissions in God’s pre-planning” already weakens your original theory that your all-powerful, all-knowing God always knew what he wanted and how he would get it.

Your bias shows. I view God as all-powerful for many reasons. He created the universe based on quantum uncertainty and evolved it. Created the Earth and evolved it to allow life to be started there by His action and live there and evolve to create humans under his direct control. What He cannot control is the moment by moment molecular reaction errors during life which He created. Therefore He placed the backups for genome control, estimated by science at 99.99% effective. God cannot absolutely control those molecules, even while using quantum uncertainty that He understands and allows even if we don't understand it.

dhw: But we now have random mutations changing the course of evolution, luckily fitting a not all-powerful, not all-knowing God’s plan to evolve humans,

The random mutations are explained above. God runs evolution; He is in charge of speciation and He acts as final editor-in-charge over any DNA errors that appear removing all bad ones and allowing minor variations that fit His purpose. Remember 'good' mutations are extremely rare per science.

dhw: Experimentation is simply ONE theory to link the vast pre-human bush with your insistence that your God’s one and only goal was to design H. sapiens. I have proposed several other explanations, and remain open-minded about them all. My point was that experimentation would be far less damaging to your image of God than having him reliant on chance.

I've removed all your quotes from my previous posts as I was working through my thoughts about errors. it has been a work in process, not all thought-through at the beginning and bouncing ideas off you to help me progress. I've now completely reached a coherent theory about God's handling errors during evolution and while organisms live.


dhw: And we must continue to emphasize that these backup systems are also full of errors, once again demonstrating your God’s lack of control over his copy system. You have quite rightly acknowledged my earlier point that the copy systems are the same. And so you have him able to destroy all the bad errors relating to evolution, but incapable of destroying all the bad errors relating to death and disease. Do you not regard this as odd?

DAVID: Your confusion about living organisms is total. Errors while living are a tiny
percentage of DNA reproduction second by second as we live. What you seem to constantly misunderstand is that your body and mine is not the one we were born with and grew up with. Everything with the exception of bone that remodels and the brain that mainly reorganizes is changed!! Death has to occur: God doesn't worry about rare living errors. Your bold is off base.

dhw: My bold emphasizes your God’s lack of control. The fact that our bodies are constantly changing is totally irrelevant to this error theory of yours. According to you – but correct me if I’m wrong - he has designed a system that makes errors which may change the course of evolution and which may also cause disease and death. As regards the first, he can allow them to survive or he can destroy them. These are changes to evolution which he did not design, and this contradicts your first theory, which had him directly designing every life form.

A total distortion of my theory as now presented. Every error has to fit His plans for it to be allowed to remain. He edits fully all species changes.

dhw: As regards the second, despite your protestations to the contrary, he worried about them to the extent that “He put in backups, so He was correcting as much as he could.” Backups make no sense if you try to apply them to the first category of error. And it also makes no sense to claim that, although all the errors took place in the same system, he could destroy all the bad errors but he could not destroy all the bad errors.

Again confusion about which errors are discussed. During evolution , all bad errors changing the course of evolution are destroyed, and the very rare good ones remain as they fit God's purposes. God speciates under full editing control of the genomes. Above, I've mentioned good mutations as possible 'omissions', a possibility which you think weakens God's powers. That is a correct observation. An all-powerful God could theoretically omit something. Let's consider it a sop to your fully humanized experimenting God, but I can easily go back to a totally all-powerful description. Perhaps, as I ponder the errors and how to fit them in, I should stick with completely all-powerful.

During life errors are allowed as that cause required deaths. Vast differences in considering which error is viewed.

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

by dhw, Wednesday, August 19, 2020, 11:15 (35 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've removed all your quotes from my previous posts as I was working through my thoughts about errors. it has been a work in process, not all thought-through at the beginning and bouncing ideas off you to help me progress. I've now completely reached a coherent theory about God's handling errors during evolution and while organisms live.

I’m glad to have helped, but removing all quotes does not tell me which of your “not thought-through” ideas you have abandoned. I can only comment on what you say and have said. Sadly, your announcement that your theory is now coherent does not make it coherent.

dhw: We agreed that there are two categories of errors: one that affects evolution, and one that causes diseases and death (see later). “Omissions in God’s pre-planning” already weakens your original theory that your all-powerful, all-knowing God always knew what he wanted and how he would get it.

DAVID: Your bias shows. I view God as all-powerful for many reasons.

What bias? Either God is all-powerful or he is not! You give examples of his power, and then tell us:

DAVID: What He cannot control is the moment by moment molecular reaction errors during life which He created.

You then try to minimize this lack of control, but you have told us that the random (i.e. not designed) errors in your God’s system are responsible for changes in the course of evolution (controllable), and for diseases and death (uncontrollable). So he is not all-powerful. How does this make me biased?

DAVID: The random mutations are explained above. God runs evolution; He is in charge of speciation and He acts as final editor-in-charge over any DNA errors that appear removing all bad ones and allowing minor variations that fit His purpose. Remember 'good' mutations are extremely rare per science.

Are you now saying these random “errors” did NOT change the course of evolution, and that “a mutational error favoured by natural selection or by God” could NOT have “arranged our human evolution”? What are these “minor variations” that you have suddenly introduced to replace the errors that can change the course of evolution?

dhw: According to you – but correct me if I’m wrong - he has designed a system that makes errors which may change the course of evolution and which may also cause disease and death. As regards the first, he can allow them to survive or he can destroy them. These are changes to evolution which he did not design, and this contradicts your first theory, which had him directly designing every life form.

DAVID: A total distortion of my theory as now presented. Every error has to fit His plans for it to be allowed to remain. He edits fully all species changes.

What distortion? He did not design the errors, whereas in your original theory he directly designs every life form. An editor who allows something is not a designer who designs something. But thank you for restoring “species changes” in place of “minor variations”.

dhw: As regards the second, despite your protestations to the contrary, he worried about them to the extent that “He put in backups, so He was correcting as much as he could.” […]

DAVID: Again confusion about which errors are discussed. During evolution, all bad errors changing the course of evolution are destroyed […] Above, I've mentioned good mutations as possible 'omissions', a possibility which you think weakens God's powers. That is a correct observation.

Thank you. But the confusion about which errors is yours. The backups, which indicate that “He was correcting as much as he could” can only refer to errors that cause disease and death. He did not require backups for the evolutionary errors he allowed! And so your claim that he did not care about disease-causing errors ( ignored here) cannot be true, and again this reveals his lack of control.

DAVID: An all-powerful God could theoretically omit something. Let's consider it a sop to your fully humanized experimenting God, but I can easily go back to a totally all-powerful description. Perhaps, as I ponder the errors and how to fit them in, I should stick with completely all-powerful.

He would only be all-powerful if he deliberately omitted something, which has been my proposal all along: namely, that the system he invented (if he exists) was the system he intended to create, and the so-called “errors” were produced by a mechanism deliberately designed to create the countless variations of life forms etc. that go to make up life’s history. The “molecules” were given the freedom to go their own way. Please keep pondering!

DAVID: During life errors are allowed as that cause required deaths. Vast differences in considering which error is viewed.

Yes indeed. And doesn’t it strike you as odd that your God had full editorial control (all-powerful) over evolutionary errors, but limited editorial control (not all-powerful) over disease-causing errors (he corrected what he could), although they all occur within the same system as he designed it? And we haven’t even mentioned your passionate defence of the evolutionary role played by chance (“Chance can play a role!!!”) countered by “There is no reliance on chance”. I’m sorry, but I do not think you have “completely reached a coherent theory”, or that the contradictions are due to bias on my part.

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

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 19, 2020, 19:54 (35 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The random mutations are explained above. God runs evolution; He is in charge of speciation and He acts as final editor-in-charge over any DNA errors that appear removing all bad ones and allowing minor variations that fit His purpose. Remember 'good' mutations are extremely rare per science.

dhw: Are you now saying these random “errors” did NOT change the course of evolution, and that “a mutational error favoured by natural selection or by God” could NOT have “arranged our human evolution”? What are these “minor variations” that you have suddenly introduced to replace the errors that can change the course of evolution?

I am correcting your distorted understanding, since I have introduced the FACT that living molecules can make mistakes and, therefore, during evolution errors involving new speciation have to be edited and corrected by God. Bad mutations are simply deleted. There is a possibility of 'good' slight variation on what God planned, and I can see Him allowing it. Note, only a possibility this happens, but I have to accept that mutations are occasionally 'good' ( as science shows) and account for how God might handle them.


dhw: What distortion? He did not design the errors, whereas in your original theory he directly designs every life form. An editor who allows something is not a designer who designs something. But thank you for restoring “species changes” in place of “minor variations”.

dhw: As regards the second, despite your protestations to the contrary, he worried about them to the extent that “He put in backups, so He was correcting as much as he could.” […]

The backups apply mainly to mistakes while organisms live to protect them during repeated copying that might lead to living damage. On further consideration, there should not be backups regarding DNA speciation changes. God must keep exact editing controls when He speciates.

DAVID: An all-powerful God could theoretically omit something. Let's consider it a sop to your fully humanized experimenting God, but I can easily go back to a totally all-powerful description. Perhaps, as I ponder the errors and how to fit them in, I should stick with completely all-powerful.

dhw: He would only be all-powerful if he deliberately omitted something, which has been my proposal all along: namely, that the system he invented (if he exists) was the system he intended to create, and the so-called “errors” were produced by a mechanism deliberately designed to create the countless variations of life forms etc. that go to make up life’s history. The “molecules” were given the freedom to go their own way. Please keep pondering!

The point is God cannot control molecular errors. God creates the bush of life purposely. No special error mechanism, your wild idea.


DAVID: During life errors are allowed as that cause required deaths. Vast differences in considering which error is viewed.

dhw: Yes indeed. And doesn’t it strike you as odd that your God had full editorial control (all-powerful) over evolutionary errors, but limited editorial control (not all-powerful) over disease-causing errors (he corrected what he could), although they all occur within the same system as he designed it? '

I've explained all that before. God runs evolution, speciates and edits. During life He has put in backups to help life while life constantly reproduces its cells, but death is part of the plan. It is not important to God to save us from living errors. We know that from what we observe now. We are in charge.

And we haven’t even mentioned your passionate defence of the evolutionary role played by chance (“Chance can play a role!!!”) countered by “There is no reliance on chance”. I’m sorry, but I do not think you have “completely reached a coherent theory”, or that the contradictions are due to bias on my part.

With your help I've totally reconsidered my thinking about chance in regard to speciation. God accepts only minor variations in genome evolutionary changes. He is a precise editor.

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

by dhw, Thursday, August 20, 2020, 11:05 (34 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God runs evolution; He is in charge of speciation and He acts as final editor-in-charge over any DNA errors that appear removing all bad ones and allowing minor variations that fit His purpose. Remember 'good' mutations are extremely rare per science.

dhw: Are you now saying these random “errors” did NOT change the course of evolution, and that “a mutational error favoured by natural selection or by God” could NOT have “arranged our human evolution”? What are these “minor variations” that you have suddenly introduced to replace the errors that can change the course of evolution?

DAVID: I am correcting your distorted understanding, since I have introduced the FACT that living molecules can make mistakes and, therefore, during evolution errors involving new speciation have to be edited and corrected by God. Bad mutations are simply deleted. There is a possibility of 'good' slight variation on what God planned, and I can see Him allowing it. Note, only a possibility this happens, but I have to accept that mutations are occasionally 'good' ( as science shows) and account for how God might handle them.

What “distorted understanding”? I have repeated your own words, and asked you whether they still apply. Your response is as confusing as ever. Instead of these errors changing the course of evolution, and possibly even “arranging” our own evolution, they have suddenly become a mere possibility of “slight variation”. And yet they also “involve new speciation”! How does new speciation mean slight variation? And why does he have to correct the errors if they are good and he allows them go through? This whole theory is becoming more and more nebulous and confusing, but you accuse me of distorting it!

dhw: What distortion? He did not design the errors, whereas in your original theory he directly designs every life form. An editor who allows something is not a designer who designs something. But thank you for restoring “species changes” in place of “minor variations”.

dhw: As regards the second, despite your protestations to the contrary, he worried about them to the extent that “He put in backups, so He was correcting as much as he could.” […]
DAVID: The backups apply mainly to mistakes while organisms live to protect them during repeated copying that might lead to living damage. On further consideration, there should not be backups regarding DNA speciation changes. God must keep exact editing controls when He speciates.

Once again he edits (not designs) speciation changes, so these can hardly be called “slight variations”. I pointed out to you that backups could only refer to errors involving disease and death, but you claimed he was not bothered about these. Why would he create backups if he was not bothered?

DAVID: […] Perhaps, as I ponder the errors and how to fit them in, I should stick with completely all-powerful.

dhw: He would only be all-powerful if he deliberately omitted something, which has been my proposal all along: namely, that the system he invented (if he exists) was the system he intended to create, and the so-called “errors” were produced by a mechanism deliberately designed to create the countless variations of life forms etc. that go to make up life’s history. The “molecules” were given the freedom to go their own way.

DAVID: The point is God cannot control molecular errors. God creates the bush of life purposely. No special error mechanism, your wild idea.

I agree that if God exists, he would have created the bush purposely. And if he couldn’t control the ”errors”, the bush has arisen out of the freedom he gave to molecules to go their own way! It’s make-your-mind-up time: either he was incapable of controlling them, as you have just said, or he didn’t WANT to control them, which would explain why he built a system that went its own way to create the whole bush.

dhw: And we haven’t even mentioned your passionate defence of the evolutionary role played by chance (“Chance can play a role!!!”) countered by “There is no reliance on chance”. I’m sorry, but I do not think you have “completely reached a coherent theory”, or that the contradictions are due to bias on my part.

DAVID: With your help I've totally reconsidered my thinking about chance in regard to speciation. God accepts only minor variations in genome evolutionary changes. He is a precise editor.

It’s comforting to know that these discussions can result in such a U-turn. Perhaps eventually you will also sort out the muddle of what your God can and can’t control, and what he edits and what he designs. And perhaps you will even consider the possibility that your God deliberately invented a system in which molecules went their own free way, because that was what he wanted. At least this would restore some of the dignity you have tried so hard to take away from him – or have you also withdrawn your claim that you are “the one who is willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing and he can’t stop molecular errors in a system he created”?

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

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 20, 2020, 14:34 (34 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I am correcting your distorted understanding, since I have introduced the FACT that living molecules can make mistakes and, therefore, during evolution errors involving new speciation have to be edited and corrected by God. Bad mutations are simply deleted. There is a possibility of 'good' slight variation on what God planned, and I can see Him allowing it. Note, only a possibility this happens, but I have to accept that mutations are occasionally 'good' ( as science shows) and account for how God might handle them.

dhw: What “distorted understanding”? I have repeated your own words, and asked you whether they still apply. Your response is as confusing as ever. Instead of these errors changing the course of evolution, and possibly even “arranging” our own evolution, they have suddenly become a mere possibility of “slight variation”. And yet they also “involve new speciation”! How does new speciation mean slight variation? And why does he have to correct the errors if they are good and he allows them go through? This whole theory is becoming more and more nebulous and confusing, but you accuse me of distorting it!

Not nebulous to me. I am working on a very coherent theory to include errors in the genome during evolution. And you are helping. Genome errors during evolution require God editing is a simple response.
[…]

DAVID: The backups apply mainly to mistakes while organisms live to protect them during repeated copying that might lead to living damage. On further consideration, there should not be backups regarding DNA speciation changes. God must keep exact editing controls when He speciates.

dhw: Once again he edits (not designs) speciation changes, so these can hardly be called “slight variations”. I pointed out to you that backups could only refer to errors involving disease and death, but you claimed he was not bothered about these. Why would he create backups if he was not bothered?

He is trying to protect the living but having backups, but you asked about Him stepping in and correcting, and we know he doesn't.


dhw: And we haven’t even mentioned your passionate defence of the evolutionary role played by chance (“Chance can play a role!!!”) countered by “There is no reliance on chance”. I’m sorry, but I do not think you have “completely reached a coherent theory”, or that the contradictions are due to bias on my part.

DAVID: With your help I've totally reconsidered my thinking about chance in regard to speciation. God accepts only minor variations in genome evolutionary changes. He is a precise editor.

dhw: It’s comforting to know that these discussions can result in such a U-turn. Perhaps eventually you will also sort out the muddle of what your God can and can’t control, and what he edits and what he designs. And perhaps you will even consider the possibility that your God deliberately invented a system in which molecules went their own free way, because that was what he wanted. At least this would restore some of the dignity you have tried so hard to take away from him – or have you also withdrawn your claim that you are “the one who is willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing and he can’t stop molecular errors in a system he created”?

I don't know how all-everything God is as the Bible describes. You make Him very human as you describe His thinking. Why blame me? The quote is a concession. Errors exist during living and must have existed during evolution, and so I must account for them with God in charge.

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

by dhw, Friday, August 21, 2020, 08:11 (34 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I am correcting your distorted understanding, since I have introduced the FACT that living molecules can make mistakes and, therefore, during evolution errors involving new speciation have to be edited and corrected by God. Bad mutations are simply deleted. There is a possibility of 'good' slight variation on what God planned, and I can see Him allowing it. Note, only a possibility this happens, but I have to accept that mutations are occasionally 'good' ( as science shows) and account for how God might handle them.

dhw: What “distorted understanding”? I have repeated your own words, and asked you whether they still apply. Your response is as confusing as ever. Instead of these errors changing the course of evolution, and possibly even “arranging” our own evolution, they have suddenly become a mere possibility of “slight variation”. And yet they also “involve new speciation”! How does new speciation mean slight variation? And why does he have to correct the errors if they are good and he allows them go through? This whole theory is becoming more and more nebulous and confusing, but you accuse me of distorting it!

DAVID: Not nebulous to me. I am working on a very coherent theory to include errors in the genome during evolution. And you are helping. Genome errors during evolution require God editing is a simple response.

Glad to help. Here comes more help. Your response completely ignores my questions! How does “new speciation” come to mean “slight variation”, and why must God correct or “edit” errors that are good? What is there to correct? Previously he “allowed” them to survive, and he destroyed the bad ones. This is no different from Darwin’s natural selection, in which beneficial mutations survive and non-beneficial ones do not survive. Your God’s role in speciation therefore becomes as passive (i.e. non-designing) as that of natural selection.
[…]

dhw: I pointed out to you that backups could only refer to errors involving disease and death, but you claimed he was not bothered about these. Why would he create backups if he was not bothered?

DAVID: He is trying to protect the living by having backups, but you asked about Him stepping in and correcting, and we know he doesn't.

You said he wasn’t bothered about the disease-causing errors during pre-sapiens evolution. Once more, please answer the question: why would he have created backups if he was not bothered?

dhw: And we haven’t even mentioned your passionate defence of the evolutionary role played by chance (“Chance can play a role!!!”) countered by “There is no reliance on chance”.

DAVID: With your help I've totally reconsidered my thinking about chance in regard to speciation. God accepts only minor variations in genome evolutionary changes. He is a precise editor.

See above re minor variations and “editing”.

dhw: It’s comforting to know that these discussions can result in such a U-turn. Perhaps eventually you will also sort out the muddle of what your God can and can’t control, and what he edits and what he designs. And perhaps you will even consider the possibility that your God deliberately invented a system in which molecules went their own free way, because that was what he wanted. At least this would restore some of the dignity you have tried so hard to take away from him – or have you also withdrawn your claim that you are “the one who is willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing and he can’t stop molecular errors in a system he created”?

DAVID: I don't know how all-everything God is as the Bible describes. You make Him very human as you describe His thinking. Why blame me? The quote is a concession. Errors exist during living and must have existed during evolution, and so I must account for them with God in charge.

Why is it more “human” for him to create what he wanted to create than for him to create what he didn’t want to create and what he therefore had to keep trying (often unsuccessfully) to correct? The quote is a concession to what? You keep telling us he is all-powerful, but then you keep repeating that he can’t control the errors, which means he is not all-powerful. Furthermore, you keep repeating that he EDITS errors that lead to speciation. And so let me repeat: Firstly, errors involving speciation cannot be “slight variations”. Secondly, you don’t “edit” something that is already beneficial. Thirdly, “editing” means he does not design species but relies on chance to give him something to work on (except that there is no need for him to work on it), whereas elsewhere you keep telling us he directly designed all species. I hope this will help you to a clearer presentation of your so far very incoherent new theory!

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

by David Turell @, Friday, August 21, 2020, 19:07 (33 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Not nebulous to me. I am working on a very coherent theory to include errors in the genome during evolution. And you are helping. Genome errors during evolution require God editing is a simple response.

dhw: Glad to help. Here comes more help. Your response completely ignores my questions!

I've edited out your reply as totally off base. Good mutations during evolution that fit God's plans may be considered as slightly different but acceptable and be allowed. All bad mutations are removed ( and we know most mutations are bad).


dhw: I pointed out to you that backups could only refer to errors involving disease and death, but you claimed he was not bothered about these. Why would he create backups if he was not bothered?

DAVID: He is trying to protect the living by having backups, but you asked about Him stepping in and correcting, and we know he doesn't.

dhw: You said he wasn’t bothered about the disease-causing errors during pre-sapiens evolution. Once more, please answer the question: why would he have created backups if he was not bothered?

Don't you consider Him a kindly God? Death is programmed in but organisms have to exist to create the giant diverse bush, and the ecosystems, that also have to evolve and create top predators as complete systems. In life the backup systems are 99.9999+% accurate.


dhw: It’s comforting to know that these discussions can result in such a U-turn. Perhaps eventually you will also sort out the muddle of what your God can and can’t control, and what he edits and what he designs. And perhaps you will even consider the possibility that your God deliberately invented a system in which molecules went their own free way, because that was what he wanted. At least this would restore some of the dignity you have tried so hard to take away from him – or have you also withdrawn your claim that you are “the one who is willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing and he can’t stop molecular errors in a system he created”?

DAVID: I don't know how all-everything God is as the Bible describes. You make Him very human as you describe His thinking. Why blame me? The quote is a concession. Errors exist during living and must have existed during evolution, and so I must account for them with God in charge.

dhw: The quote is a concession to what? You keep telling us he is all-powerful, but then you keep repeating that he can’t control the errors, which means he is not all-powerful.

I've introduced the FACT of molecular error. I've, satisfactorily for me, theorized how He would approach this problem during evolution. Tight editing to make sure evolution follows His plans.

dhw: Furthermore, you keep repeating that he EDITS errors that lead to speciation. And so let me repeat: Firstly, errors involving speciation cannot be “slight variations”. Secondly, you don’t “edit” something that is already beneficial. Thirdly, “editing” means he does not design species but relies on chance to give him something to work on (except that there is no need for him to work on it), whereas elsewhere you keep telling us he directly designed all species. I hope this will help you to a clearer presentation of your so far very incoherent new theory!

Forget the past as I worked it out. All stages are designed completely by Him as shown above. New mutations that fit His plans, but are very slightly different can theoretically be allowed by God as long as the planned overall course of evolution from bacteria to humans is not changed. Your confusion has helped a great deal, showing me where I have not explained errors in evolution with clarity. The errors in current life demand a consideration of errors during evolution. We have done that.

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

by David Turell @, Friday, August 21, 2020, 19:40 (33 days ago) @ David Turell

In this study errors in mouse DNA were corrected by humans. If we can do it, God could certainly have edited DNA during evolution:

https://phys.org/news/2020-08-tiny-therapeutic-delivery-safely-genetic.html

"Inserting genetic material into the body to treat diseases caused by gene mutations can work, scientists say—but getting those materials to the right place safely is tricky.

"Scientists report today in the journal Science Advances that the lipid-based nanoparticles they engineered, carrying two sets of protein-making instructions, showed in animal studies that they have the potential to function as therapies for two genetic disorders.

"In one experiment, the payload-containing nanoparticles prompted the production of the missing clotting protein in mice that are models for hemophilia. In another test, the nanoparticles' cargo reduced the activation level of a gene that, when overactive, interferes with clearance of cholesterol from the bloodstream.

***

"This work builds upon a collection of lipid-like spherical compounds that Dong and colleagues had previously developed to deliver messenger RNA. This line of particles was designed to target disorders involving genes that are expressed in the liver.

"The team experimented with various structural changes to those particles, effectively adding "tails" of different types of molecules to them, before landing on the structure that made the materials the most stable. The tiny compounds have a big job to do: embarking on a journey through the bloodstream, carrying molecules to the target location, releasing the ideal concentration of messenger RNA cargo at precisely the right time and safely degrading.

"The tests in mice suggested these particles could do just that.

Comment: If we can do it, it should be no problem for God.

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

by dhw, Saturday, August 22, 2020, 11:18 (32 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Not nebulous to me. I am working on a very coherent theory to include errors in the genome during evolution. And you are helping. Genome errors during evolution require God editing is a simple response.

dhw: Glad to help. Here comes more help. Your response completely ignores my questions!

DAVID: I've edited out your reply as totally off base.

Later you write: “Forget the past as I worked it out.” And “Your confusion has helped a great deal, showing me where I have not explained errors in evolution with clarity.” My reply was in the form of two highly relevant questions concerning confusing statements in the same post: How does “new speciation” come to mean “slight variation”, and why must your God “edit” errors that are already good?

Our discussion began a month ago, when I wrote: “It is clearly absurd to argue that God could not control or correct his errors in the system he created, but then he gave cells instructions on how to control or correct the errors he could not control or correct when he created the system.” This according to you showed “a total misunderstanding of the problem”. Since then you have lurched from one contradiction to another, but even now, when I point them out, I am “totally off base”, and I am confused because you have not explained your theory “with clarity”. I’m sorry, but you have not explained your theory with clarity because it is riddled with contradictions.

Here is the theory you started out with: God designed the system, but the errors – which he could not control – were not his fault. There are two types of errors: those that affect evolution, and those that cause disease and death. The former, when beneficial, can change the course of evolution, and may even have “arranged our human evolution”, and God “allows” them to survive but destroys those that are not beneficial. (The same process as Darwin’s natural selection, and a clear argument against direct design of all species.) He was not bothered about the disease-causing errors, but provided backups and corrected what he could, which can only mean that he did bother. His lack of control showed that he was not all-powerful and was not all-knowing, and as for his reliance on chance: “What is wrong with a random chance mutation, if it fits God’s plan to be allowed to pass through??? Chance can play a role!!!” Note the emphatic punctuation.

Your current theory concerning evolution: All stages are designed completely by Him. The three question marks and three exclamation marks in defence of chance have magically evolved into: “There is no reliance on chance” (quoted from a different post), and God is back to being all-powerful and all-knowing. New mutations can theoretically be allowed by God as long as the planned overall course of evolution from bacteria to humans is not changed. Goodbye to mutations that change the course of evolution, except that in the same paragraph, errors involving “new speciation” became “slight variations”, and even now you write: “Tight editing to make sure evolution follows His plans.” Why do very slightly different mutations that do not change his planned course require tight editing? What must he corrected if, instead of changing the course of evolution, they have no effect on the course of evolution?

As far as the disease-causing errors are concerned, we are still left with the claim that he was and is not bothered about them, but he provided backups. You, who complain bitterly when I dare to propose theories entailing one or other of the human attributes you agree he probably has, then comment: “Don't you consider Him a kindly God?” Maybe he is. But how does that fit in with your repeated assertions that he didn’t care or bother about this category of “error”? And how come that he corrected what he could, left it to us to sort out the rest of the mess (he’s apparently washed his hands of it), and yet “in life the backup systems are 99.9999+% accurate”? How does a God who can’t control or even correct all these errors, but doesn’t care, come up with 99.9999+% corrections?

But apparently such questions are totally off base, and I am confused because you have not explained your theory “with clarity”. Your theory as it stands today leaves evolutionary errors with no significance at all, and disease-causing errors in a fog of uncertainty over your God’s attitude and degree of control. Maybe we should not just forget the past but forget the whole theory and move on.
xxxxxxx
DAVID: In this study errors in mouse DNA were corrected by humans. If we can do it, God could certainly have edited DNA during evolution:
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-tiny-therapeutic-delivery-safely-genetic.html

QUOTE: "Inserting genetic material into the body to treat diseases caused by gene mutations can work, scientists say—but getting those materials to the right place safely is tricky.”
In your latest version, he didn’t need to edit DNA errors during evolution, but my question to you was: if he could control evolutionary errors, why couldn’t he control disease-causing errors? Your comment above should read: if humans can correct disease-causing errors, why couldn’t God?

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

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 22, 2020, 15:19 (32 days ago) @ dhw

An example of copy editing problems during life in mitochondria. A mouse study:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6506/931.2?utm_campaign=ec_sci_2020-08-20


"Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is a separate genome found in eukaryotic cells that is maternally inherited. Mutations in mtDNA underlie several human diseases, and the accumulation of these mutations has been associated with aging. Arbeithuber et al. used duplex sequencing to trace accumulation of spontaneous mtDNA mutations in oocytes, brain, and muscle cells of mice. Ten-month-old mothers showed a two- to threefold increased rate of mtDNA mutation compared with their 1-month-old pups. The authors found that the D-loop, a stretch of triple-stranded highly variable DNA in the noncoding region of the circular mtDNA where replication initiates, accumulated the most mutations. These mtDNA mutations occurred in patterns, indicating that they were caused by replication errors. It is possible that inheritance of aged mtDNA from older mothers may have health consequences for their offspring." (my bold)

Comment: Most genome mutations are copy errors. The actual rate is much higher than the final product, since an enormous number behind the scenes are corrected before final appearance in completed form.

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

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 22, 2020, 22:06 (32 days ago) @ David Turell

Double strand DNA breaks have cellular repair mechanisms. Thistudy has a method to follow the mechanisms:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200821141154.htm

"A new bioluminescent reporter that tracks DNA double stranded break (DSB) repair in cells has been developed by researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and the Academia Sinica in Taiwan. The international team's novel bioluminescent repair reporter (BLRR)-based system can be used to monitor DNA repair pathways directly in animals as well as cell lines. No such system previously existed for in vivo studies. These pathways play a crucial role in multiple conditions, including cancer.

"'One of the main reasons cancer cells are resistant to treatment is that they can inherently repair the DNA damage caused by radiation and chemotherapy," explains Christian Elias Badr, PhD, investigator in the Department of Neurology at MGH and co-senior author of the paper. The study's other co-senior author is Charles Pin-Kuang Lai, PhD, at the Academia Sinica in Taiwan.

***

"A cell may recognize the damage and use its intrinsic DNA damage response (DDR) to reduce DSB-caused cell death. As a result, the cancer cell's own DNA repair mechanisms can promote drug resistance and recurrence in some malignancies. Researchers would like to know more about them.

***

"BLRR uses secreted Gaussia and Vargula luciferases to detect homology-directed repair (HDR) and non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) -- the two major pathways to DSB repair. Using BLRR. Researchers can track HDR and NHEJ-related activities over time in cells. It also detects DSB repairs in xenografted tumors in vivo."

Comment: this article indirectly informs us that cells have more than one system to repair broken DNA double strands. These repair mechanisms must be present to maintain life.

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

by dhw, Sunday, August 23, 2020, 13:38 (31 days ago) @ David Turell

Double strand DNA breaks have cellular repair mechanisms. This study has a method to follow the mechanisms:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200821141154.htm

QUOTES: "'One of the main reasons cancer cells are resistant to treatment is that they can inherently repair the DNA damage caused by radiation and chemotherapy…"

"A cell may recognize the damage and use its intrinsic DNA damage response (DDR) to reduce DSB-caused cell death. As a result, the cancer cell's own DNA repair mechanisms can promote drug resistance and recurrence in some malignancies."

DAVID: this article indirectly informs us that cells have more than one system to repair broken DNA double strands. These repair mechanisms must be present to maintain life.

Have I missed something here? As I understand it, these particular repair mechanisms destroy life.

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

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 23, 2020, 19:04 (31 days ago) @ dhw

David: Double strand DNA breaks have cellular repair mechanisms. This study has a method to follow the mechanisms:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200821141154.htm

QUOTES: "'One of the main reasons cancer cells are resistant to treatment is that they can inherently repair the DNA damage caused by radiation and chemotherapy…"

"A cell may recognize the damage and use its intrinsic DNA damage response (DDR) to reduce DSB-caused cell death. As a result, the cancer cell's own DNA repair mechanisms can promote drug resistance and recurrence in some malignancies."

DAVID: this article indirectly informs us that cells have more than one system to repair broken DNA double strands. These repair mechanisms must be present to maintain life.

dhw: Have I missed something here? As I understand it, these particular repair mechanisms destroy life.

This study was on cancer cells, but the mechanism is present in all cells, so when cancer appears it uses all available mechanisms present in cells to protect itself against treatment. I should have explained that.

Back to David's theory of evolution: Talbott on cell death

by David Turell @, Monday, August 24, 2020, 01:13 (31 days ago) @ David Turell

Cells are constantly dying and reproducing and must do this as errorless as possible. Talbott's description illustrates:

https://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/bk/thesis_34.htm

"Every organism is continually dying in order to live. Breaking-down activities are prerequisites for building up. Complex molecules are synthesized, only to be degraded later, with their constituents recycled or excreted. In multicellular organisms such as vertebrates, many cells must die so that others may divide, differentiate, and proliferate. Many cancers reflect a failure to counterbalance proliferation with properly directed death processes.

"You and I have distinct fingers and toes thanks to massive cell death during development. The early embryo’s paddle-like hands give way to the more mature form as cells die and the spaces between our digits are “hollowed out”. In general, our various organs are sculpted through cell death as well as cell growth and multiplication. During development the body produces far more neurons than the adult will possess, and an estimated ninety-five percent of the cell population of the thymus gland dies off by the time the mature gland is formed.

"Despite all this life and death, I doubt whether anyone would be tempted to describe the embryo’s cells as “red in tooth and claw”. Nor do I think anyone would appeal to “survival of the fittest” or natural selection as a fundamental principle governing what goes on during normal development. The life and death of cells appears to be governed, rather, by the developing form of the whole in which they participate.

***

"How does the cell accomplish the task of DNA replication, or the repair of DNA lesions? How does a cell divide? How does it produce proteins? How does it derive energy for its actions through metabolism? And how does it regulate all these activities in relation to the needs of the whole cell and organism?

"Here’s just one example. A current challenge embraced by molecular biologists is to understand how hundreds of diverse and diffusible molecules in a watery medium come together and coordinate their interactions in order to carry out the intricate, extended narrative of RNA splicing. In this process they must remove sections of a complex RNA molecule and “stitch” the remaining pieces together in the extremely precise manner required to obtain a functional result. It must all be accomplished in just the right way to yield (through additional, equally elaborate processes) the exact form of the specific protein required right now, in this cell, as opposed to the somewhat different form that may be required later or in a different cell.

"There you see Weiss’ principles of micro-indeterminacy and macro-determinacy on vivid display. If we had to explain RNA splicing merely by summing up the individual, law-like behaviors of those hundreds of molecules, with all their degrees of freedom, we would know beyond any doubt: the exponentially multiplying random molecular deviations from the elaborate and drawn-out task at hand would quickly reduce the entire process to a chaotic mess so far as that task was concerned. This is simple physics and chemistry, which were not “made” to sustain meaningful narratives.

***

"Moreover, at the sub-cellular level we see molecules moving and interacting within a fluid medium in order to carry out carefully sequenced narratives — tasks so complex that they challenge our most sophisticated abilities to unravel and articulate their endless nuances. These narrative achievements, which might seem to require a remarkable and practiced synchronization of activities, are accomplished, as we saw a moment ago, despite the fact that the innumerable molecules involved possess many degrees of freedom as they diffuse through the cell’s plasm. And also despite the fact that the context-sensitive task at hand is never exactly the same in any two of the trillions of cells in our bodies, or at any two moments of a several-decades-long life. The rigidly defined and consistent structural constraints necessary for rendering the programmed operation of a computer reliable and mechanistic are altogether absent." (my bold)

Comment: These disconnected but profound excerpts from Talbott should be carefully read, and clearly explain why I am so concerned with error control. Despite constant death and reproduction the vast majority of all organisms live from birth to life without problems. It is due to instructive and editing mechanisms which help control the seeming chaos of the watery interior of the active cell. As I consider God the author of all this messy arrangement, it is my point that God created both life's instructed processes but also the error controls from the very advent/beginning of life. HE HAD TO or there would have been a very short tenure for life. The errors were not God's desire or any part of His intent. Life emerges from the actions and interactions of thousands of simultaneous molecular processes. We know of no other way it could have been designed. I will state that for God there was no other way. You cannot defend your constant inferences God desires errors either during evolution or during just living. No one knows the rate of protection from errors. My guess in in the trillions every day.

Back to David's theory of evolution: Talbott on cell death

by dhw, Monday, August 24, 2020, 13:10 (30 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Cells are constantly dying and reproducing and must do this as errorless as possible. Talbott's description illustrates:
https://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/bk/thesis_34.htm

The whole article can be summed up by this one quote:

TALBOTT: These narrative achievements, which might seem to require a remarkable and practiced synchronization of activities, are accomplished, as we saw a moment ago, despite the fact that the innumerable molecules involved possess many degrees of freedom as they diffuse through the cell’s plasm.

The focus is on the success of the system, whereas you began our discussion by focusing on the errors. I cannot find a single reference here to your God correcting or editing errors he can/can’t control. Your own comment also lays stress on the success of the system, and I will reply point by point:

DAVID: These disconnected but profound excerpts from Talbott should be carefully read, and clearly explain why I am so concerned with error control. [dhw: No they don’t.] Despite constant death and reproduction the vast majority of all organisms live from birth to life without problems. [dhw: It is the problems that we are concerned with, and I’m surprised that as a doctor you do not count diseases as errors your God can’t/couldn’t correct and which apparently he has left us humans to grapple with. Earlier you also emphasized the huge role that errors played in the advance of evolution, but subsequently reduced this to “slight variations” which had no effect on evolution. See my final comment.] It is due to instructive and editing mechanisms which help control the seeming chaos of the watery interior of the active cell. As I consider God the author of all this messy arrangement, it is my point that God created both life's instructed processes but also the error controls from the very advent/beginning of life. HE HAD TO or there would have been a very short tenure for life. The errors were not God's desire or any part of His intent. [dhw: So he designed the system, did not want and could not control the errors, and yet simultaneously designed controls for the errors he could not control, many of which don't work so it's up to us to correct them. And don't forget that he required death - see below.] Life emerges from the actions and interactions of thousands of simultaneous molecular processes. We know of no other way it could have been designed. [dhw: Agreed. Maybe we are ignorant.] I will state that for God there was no other way. [dhw: Who knows?] You cannot defend your constant inferences God desires errors either during evolution or during just living.[dhw: Whoa! Nobody forced him to invent physical life and death! If he exists, that was what he wanted. You believe he is immortal and conscious, so if he’d wanted an immortal, conscious being, he could have invented one – and some folk believe he has done just that, when they talk of our “immortal soul”. Why are you so rigidly opposed to the idea that whatever he produced is what he WANTED to produce?] No one knows the rate of protection from errors. My guess in in the trillions every day. [dhw: Not bad for a God who can’t control the errors. But in any case, this discussion centres upon the errors (a) against which we are NOT protected: those that still cause disease and death and which he has left to us to correct, and (b) which earlier in your posts changed the course of evolution but now play an insignificant role, which makes me wonder why you bothered to mention them in the first place.]

Back to David's theory of evolution: Talbott on cell death

by David Turell @, Monday, August 24, 2020, 15:28 (30 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Cells are constantly dying and reproducing and must do this as errorless as possible. Talbott's description illustrates:
https://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/bk/thesis_34.htm

The whole article can be summed up by this one quote:

TALBOTT: These narrative achievements, which might seem to require a remarkable and practiced synchronization of activities, are accomplished, as we saw a moment ago, despite the fact that the innumerable molecules involved possess many degrees of freedom as they diffuse through the cell’s plasm.

dhw: The focus is on the success of the system, whereas you began our discussion by focusing on the errors. I cannot find a single reference here to your God correcting or editing errors he can/can’t control. Your own comment also lays stress on the success of the system, and I will reply point by point:

DAVID: These disconnected but profound excerpts from Talbott should be carefully read, and clearly explain why I am so concerned with error control. [dhw: No they don’t.] Despite constant death and reproduction the vast majority of all organisms live from birth to life without problems. [dhw: It is the problems that we are concerned with, and I’m surprised that as a doctor you do not count diseases as errors your God can’t/couldn’t correct and which apparently he has left us humans to grapple with. Earlier you also emphasized the huge role that errors played in the advance of evolution, but subsequently reduced this to “slight variations” which had no effect on evolution. See my final comment.] It is due to instructive and editing mechanisms which help control the seeming chaos of the watery interior of the active cell. As I consider God the author of all this messy arrangement, it is my point that God created both life's instructed processes but also the error controls from the very advent/beginning of life. HE HAD TO or there would have been a very short tenure for life. The errors were not God's desire or any part of His intent. [dhw: So he designed the system, did not want and could not control the errors, and yet simultaneously designed controls for the errors he could not control, many of which don't work so it's up to us to correct them. And don't forget that he required death - see below.] Life emerges from the actions and interactions of thousands of simultaneous molecular processes. We know of no other way it could have been designed. [dhw: Agreed. Maybe we are ignorant.] I will state that for God there was no other way. [dhw: Who knows?] You cannot defend your constant inferences God desires errors either during evolution or during just living.[dhw: Whoa! Nobody forced him to invent physical life and death! If he exists, that was what he wanted. You believe he is immortal and conscious, so if he’d wanted an immortal, conscious being, he could have invented one – and some folk believe he has done just that, when they talk of our “immortal soul”. Why are you so rigidly opposed to the idea that whatever he produced is what he WANTED to produce?] No one knows the rate of protection from errors. My guess in in the trillions every day. [dhw: Not bad for a God who can’t control the errors. But in any case, this discussion centres upon the errors (a) against which we are NOT protected: those that still cause disease and death and which he has left to us to correct, and (b) which earlier in your posts changed the course of evolution but now play an insignificant role, which makes me wonder why you bothered to mention them in the first place.]

Your bias misses the way I view the problem in a totally and apparently incomprehensible way to you. We live with a biological system in which molecules are free to make mistakes. The problem for one (not you) who believes in an all-powerful (probable for me) God, it requires an explanation I can live with. I had to work it out and I have for my own satisfaction with entries on this website. The massive editing systems tell me God obviously knew of the problem in advance (how could He not?) and prepared life for it. I used Talbott from one point of my view. You don't interpret Talbott as ID and I do. He is amazed at the very purposeful activities in cells, and agency, but never a mention of God. I have no idea what he believe at that level of thought. He never allows it.

Back to David's theory of evolution: Talbott on cell death

by dhw, Tuesday, August 25, 2020, 09:12 (30 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your bias misses the way I view the problem in a totally and apparently incomprehensible way to you. We live with a biological system in which molecules are free to make mistakes. The problem for one (not you) who believes in an all-powerful (probable for me) God, it requires an explanation I can live with. I had to work it out and I have for my own satisfaction with entries on this website.

There is no point in going through all your statements and all my comments from the last post, as this post will lead to the same set of problems. I don’t know why you accuse me of bias just because I point out all the contradictions in your arguments. You have yourself already withdrawn some of them, though not all: 1) your God – who varies between being all-powerful and not being all-powerful (I see you’re back to all-powerful today), all-knowing and not all-knowing, controls errors which he can’t control. 2) He isn’t bothered about disease-causing errors, but he provides backups to correct them (even though he can’t correct them). He doesn’t care, but he does care. 3) Errors change the course of evolution, even to the extent that they may have organized our own evolution, and all he can do is “allow” them to survive if he likes them and kill them off if he doesn’t (God as natural selector), but such errors now turn out to be minor variations, and chance – at one time championed with multiple exclamation marks – now plays no role, so why bother to mention the evolutionary errors (random mutations) in the first place?

DAVID: The massive editing systems tell me God obviously knew of the problem in advance (how could He not?) and prepared life for it.

How could he prepare life for it if he himself couldn’t control/correct mistakes, and now leaves it to us to sort out the mess? You have forgotten about death, which was “required” – obviously by him, since nobody else was around. If he required it, don’t you think his design would have deliberately been made to cause it and to cause the diseases (errors) that lead to death?

DAVID: I used Talbott from one point of my view. You don't interpret Talbott as ID and I do. He is amazed at the very purposeful activities in cells, and agency, but never a mention of God. I have no idea what he believe at that level of thought. He never allows it.

I think we are all amazed at the purposeful activities of cells. They might even be interpreted as evidence that cells are intelligent. But the issue here is your attempt to find an explanation of the errors that you can “live with”. I don’t think it’s my bias that has created all the above confusion, and Talbott is a red herring. See the other thread for more confusion.

Back to David's theory of evolution: Talbott on cell death

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 25, 2020, 19:06 (29 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your bias misses the way I view the problem in a totally and apparently incomprehensible way to you. We live with a biological system in which molecules are free to make mistakes. The problem for one (not you) who believes in an all-powerful (probable for me) God, it requires an explanation I can live with. I had to work it out and I have for my own satisfaction with entries on this website.

dhw: There is no point in going through all your statements and all my comments from the last post, as this post will lead to the same set of problems. I don’t know why you accuse me of bias just because I point out all the contradictions in your arguments. You have yourself already withdrawn some of them, though not all: 1) your God – who varies between being all-powerful and not being all-powerful (I see you’re back to all-powerful today), all-knowing and not all-knowing, controls errors which he can’t control. 2) He isn’t bothered about disease-causing errors, but he provides backups to correct them (even though he can’t correct them). He doesn’t care, but he does care. 3) Errors change the course of evolution, even to the extent that they may have organized our own evolution, and all he can do is “allow” them to survive if he likes them and kill them off if he doesn’t (God as natural selector), but such errors now turn out to be minor variations, and chance – at one time championed with multiple exclamation marks – now plays no role, so why bother to mention the evolutionary errors (random mutations) in the first place?

I've explained it clearly. The ability to have errors bothered me, so I had to work out a theory had settled my mind by bouncing it off your skepticism which in its confusion is quite helpful. During evolution minor mutation variations can be adopted/allowed as of no consequence, and major off-course ones are edited out as God speciates the next stage of evolution of all species. During life the errors are in the main controlled by editing systems provided by God from the beginning of life who knew full well about the problem.


DAVID: The massive editing systems tell me God obviously knew of the problem in advance (how could He not?) and prepared life for it.

dhw: How could he prepare life for it if he himself couldn’t control/correct mistakes, and now leaves it to us to sort out the mess? You have forgotten about death, which was “required” – obviously by him, since nobody else was around. If he required it, don’t you think his design would have deliberately been made to cause it and to cause the diseases (errors) that lead to death?

Your usual confusion. Death is required as we both agree, but living organisms living as long as they can is also required. Please remember our bodies are constantly in massive turn over as cells are replaced constantly, but you and I look in the mirror and see the same image. Why? God's error-correction editing systems work so well. Yet errors slip in that we have the smarts to correct in large part.


DAVID: I used Talbott from one point of my view. You don't interpret Talbott as ID and I do. He is amazed at the very purposeful activities in cells, and agency, but never a mention of God. I have no idea what he believe at that level of thought. He never allows it.

dhw: I think we are all amazed at the purposeful activities of cells. They might even be interpreted as evidence that cells are intelligent. But the issue here is your attempt to find an explanation of the errors that you can “live with”. I don’t think it’s my bias that has created all the above confusion, and Talbott is a red herring. See the other thread for more confusion.

As stated above I'm no longer puzzled and like my explanations. Talbott is no red herring. He expresses the organized chaos of the cell interior beautifully, which is what leads to molecular errors.

Back to David's theory of evolution: Talbott on cell death

by dhw, Wednesday, August 26, 2020, 07:49 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I don’t know why you accuse me of bias just because I point out all the contradictions in your arguments. You have yourself already withdrawn some of them, though not all: 1) your God – who varies between being all-powerful and not being all-powerful (I see you’re back to all-powerful today), all-knowing and not all-knowing, controls errors which he can’t control. 2) He isn’t bothered about disease-causing errors, but he provides backups to correct them (even though he can’t correct them). He doesn’t care, but he does care. 3) Errors change the course of evolution, even to the extent that they may have organized our own evolution, and all he can do is “allow” them to survive if he likes them and kill them off if he doesn’t (God as natural selector), but such errors now turn out to be minor variations, and chance – at one time championed with multiple exclamation marks – now plays no role, so why bother to mention the evolutionary errors (random mutations) in the first place?

DAVID: I've explained it clearly. The ability to have errors bothered me, so I had to work out a theory had settled my mind by bouncing it off your skepticism which in its confusion is quite helpful. During evolution minor mutation variations can be adopted/allowed as of no consequence, and major off-course ones are edited out as God speciates the next stage of evolution of all species. During life the errors are in the main controlled by editing systems provided by God from the beginning of life who knew full well about the problem.

I’m a little surprised to see your blatant contradictions described in terms of my confusion, but we’ll let that pass. If evolutionary errors are of no consequence, I don't know why they bothered you. The “errors” that cause disease and death bother us all. I still don’t understand how you can say in one breath that your God can’t control them, but he can control them by means of editing systems, but the thought occurs to me that what you meant is that he can’t PREVENT them. I hope that helps. But if he installed editing systems from the beginning of life, surely they should have edited out the errors before they even appeared! For example, cancer is a typical “error”. Clearly he did NOT install an editing system to remove the cancerous cells. And so he’s apparently left it to us to work out an “editing” system. Ditto every disease you can think of that requires human intervention. Your original explanation was that he didn’t care. What is your explanation now?

dhw: You have forgotten about death, which was “required” – obviously by him, since nobody else was around. If he required it, don’t you think his design would have deliberately been made to cause it and to cause the diseases (errors) that lead to death?

DAVID: Your usual confusion. Death is required as we both agree, but living organisms living as long as they can is also required. Please remember our bodies are constantly in massive turn over as cells are replaced constantly, but you and I look in the mirror and see the same image. Why? God's error-correction editing systems work so well. Yet errors slip in that we have the smarts to correct in large part.

We see the same image because the system is working, not because this “editing system” is constantly correcting errors. The problem is errors that are not corrected (e.g. cancer), and lead to disease and death, which your God “required”. How could he have ensured death without ensuring that there were errors that could not be corrected?

Back to David's theory of evolution: Talbott on cell death

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 26, 2020, 18:39 (28 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've explained it clearly. The ability to have errors bothered me, so I had to work out a theory had settled my mind by bouncing it off your skepticism which in its confusion is quite helpful. During evolution minor mutation variations can be adopted/allowed as of no consequence, and major off-course ones are edited out as God speciates the next stage of evolution of all species. During life the errors are in the main controlled by editing systems provided by God from the beginning of life who knew full well about the problem.

dhw: I’m a little surprised to see your blatant contradictions described in terms of my confusion, but we’ll let that pass. If evolutionary errors are of no consequence, I don't know why they bothered you. The “errors” that cause disease and death bother us all. I still don’t understand how you can say in one breath that your God can’t control them, but he can control them by means of editing systems, but the thought occurs to me that what you meant is that he can’t PREVENT them. I hope that helps. But if he installed editing systems from the beginning of life, surely they should have edited out the errors before they even appeared! For example, cancer is a typical “error”. Clearly he did NOT install an editing system to remove the cancerous cells. And so he’s apparently left it to us to work out an “editing” system. Ditto every disease you can think of that requires human intervention. Your original explanation was that he didn’t care. What is your explanation now?

The bold is quite surprising, and clearly shows how I have confused you. I've said all along, in my words, God couldn't prevent errors, which is the same as saying living molecules can make errors on their own in the high speed molecular living systems. God put in the editing systems because HE knew all of the problems all along, despite designing life the best He could. As for cancer there are many editing systems which are put in place to prevent them in the copy-error prevention role played during cell division by many parts of the mechanism. I finally have the sense that you seem to begin to understand what I am portraying. I still view Him as all-powerful considering all He has created. What He cann ot control are not warts!


dhw: You have forgotten about death, which was “required” – obviously by him, since nobody else was around. If he required it, don’t you think his design would have deliberately been made to cause it and to cause the diseases (errors) that lead to death?

DAVID: Your usual confusion. Death is required as we both agree, but living organisms living as long as they can is also required. Please remember our bodies are constantly in massive turn over as cells are replaced constantly, but you and I look in the mirror and see the same image. Why? God's error-correction editing systems work so well. Yet errors slip in that we have the smarts to correct in large part.

dhw: We see the same image because the system is working, not because this “editing system” is constantly correcting errors. The problem is errors that are not corrected (e.g. cancer), and lead to disease and death, which your God “required”. How could he have ensured death without ensuring that there were errors that could not be corrected?

As usual you have forgotten parts of the issue. Look in the mirror. I do. We are both aging, and that is built in. We will pass away with or without errors.

Back to David's theory of evolution: Talbott on cell death

by dhw, Thursday, August 27, 2020, 14:21 (27 days ago) @ David Turell

You had used the word “control” ambiguously to mean “prevent” and also to mean “make something do what you want it to do”. I should have cottoned on earlier. Matter settled. Thank you.

I then asked you to explain why he didn’t install an anti-cancer “editing systems” (along with editing systems for all the other diseases which continue to kills us). Your previous explanation was that he didn’t care.

DAVID: God put in the editing systems because He knew all of the problems all along, despite designing life the best He could. As for cancer there are many editing systems which are put in place to prevent them in the copy-error prevention role played during cell division by many parts of the mechanism. I finally have the sense that you seem to begin to understand what I am portraying. I still view Him as all-powerful considering all He has created. What He cannot control are not warts!

I don’t know what editing systems prevent cancer, but I do know that whatever systems there are have not prevented cancer, and we humans continue to look for means to prevent, control or cure it. It would appear then that the problem was not that he didn’t care, but he tried his best and failed. We are back to your God’s incompetence, although he is all-powerful when he is not incompetent. Except that we have another problem: death is “required”.

DAVID: Your usual confusion. Death is required as we both agree, but living organisms living as long as they can is also required. Please remember our bodies are constantly in massive turn over as cells are replaced constantly, but you and I look in the mirror and see the same image. Why? God's error-correction editing systems work so well. Yet errors slip in that we have the smarts to correct in large part.

dhw: We see the same image because the system is working, not because this “editing system” is constantly correcting errors. The problem is errors that are not corrected (e.g. cancer), and lead to disease and death, which your God “required”. How could he have ensured death without ensuring that there were errors that could not be corrected?

DAVID: As usual you have forgotten parts of the issue. Look in the mirror. I do. We are both aging, and that is built in. We will pass away with or without errors.

You have ignored my answer to your “mirror” argument, and totally ignored my question.

DAVID: Another molecular error leading to cancer:
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-uncontrolled-molecule-rare-liver-cancer.html
DAVID: Here again we see that either a molecular error or a cancer-caused error can lead to uncontrolled cancer growth and spread. The controls are present at first, telling us God foresaw errors and tried to correct for them, both by the controls of cAMP and examples I've presented of editing.

Here we see again a clear example of your God’s incompetence, leaving us poor humans to try and do what he apparently couldn’t. If I believed in God, I could believe that he was capable of experimenting, of getting new ideas, of enjoying his creations, of deliberately leaving molecules and cells to do their own designing and make their own errors. But I would find it very hard to believe that he would be so incompetent as to try and correct mistakes he couldn’t prevent, fail, and simply leave it to us lesser beings to sort out the mess he had left behind.

Back to David's theory of evolution: Talbott on cell death

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 27, 2020, 15:37 (27 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You had used the word “control” ambiguously to mean “prevent” and also to mean “make something do what you want it to do”. I should have cottoned on earlier. Matter settled. Thank you.

I then asked you to explain why he didn’t install an anti-cancer “editing systems” (along with editing systems for all the other diseases which continue to kills us). Your previous explanation was that he didn’t care.

Thank you for beginning to understand my view about errors..


DAVID: God put in the editing systems because He knew all of the problems all along, despite designing life the best He could. As for cancer there are many editing systems which are put in place to prevent them in the copy-error prevention role played during cell division by many parts of the mechanism. I finally have the sense that you seem to begin to understand what I am portraying. I still view Him as all-powerful considering all He has created. What He cannot control are not warts!

dhw: I don’t know what editing systems prevent cancer, but I do know that whatever systems there are have not prevented cancer, and we humans continue to look for means to prevent, control or cure it. It would appear then that the problem was not that he didn’t care, but he tried his best and failed. We are back to your God’s incompetence, although he is all-powerful when he is not incompetent. Except that we have another problem: death is “required”.

Your 'new' take as usual is to denigrate God. The editing systems are 99.9999999+% perfect but reproduction is constant, so cancer turns up.


DAVID: Your usual confusion. Death is required as we both agree, but living organisms living as long as they can is also required. Please remember our bodies are constantly in massive turn over as cells are replaced constantly, but you and I look in the mirror and see the same image. Why? God's error-correction editing systems work so well. Yet errors slip in that we have the smarts to correct in large part.

dhw: We see the same image because the system is working, not because this “editing system” is constantly correcting errors. The problem is errors that are not corrected (e.g. cancer), and lead to disease and death, which your God “required”. How could he have ensured death without ensuring that there were errors that could not be corrected?

DAVID: As usual you have forgotten parts of the issue. Look in the mirror. I do. We are both aging, and that is built in. We will pass away with or without errors.

dhw: You have ignored my answer to your “mirror” argument, and totally ignored my question.

Not ignored at all. Please recognize the point that aging itself without major disease exists. Many folks and animals just die from wearing out. We all have to die to make room. You may not like God for it, but aging is built in all by itself.


DAVID: Another molecular error leading to cancer:
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-uncontrolled-molecule-rare-liver-cancer.html
DAVID: Here again we see that either a molecular error or a cancer-caused error can lead to uncontrolled cancer growth and spread. The controls are present at first, telling us God foresaw errors and tried to correct for them, both by the controls of cAMP and examples I've presented of editing.

dhw: Here we see again a clear example of your God’s incompetence, leaving us poor humans to try and do what he apparently couldn’t. If I believed in God, I could believe that he was capable of experimenting, of getting new ideas, of enjoying his creations, of deliberately leaving molecules and cells to do their own designing and make their own errors. But I would find it very hard to believe that he would be so incompetent as to try and correct mistakes he couldn’t prevent, fail, and simply leave it to us lesser beings to sort out the mess he had left behind.

Your obvious bias is showing. I accept God despite all the warts you invent. Instead of expressing wonder at all He created, you carefully try and describe faults that don't exist in my mind. I didn't realize how narrow your concepts are.

Back to David's theory of evolution: Talbott on cell death

by dhw, Friday, August 28, 2020, 10:33 (26 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God put in the editing systems because He knew all of the problems all along, despite designing life the best He could. As for cancer there are many editing systems which are put in place to prevent them in the copy-error prevention role played during cell division by many parts of the mechanism. I finally have the sense that you seem to begin to understand what I am portraying. I still view Him as all-powerful considering all He has created. What He cannot control are not warts!

dhw: I don’t know what editing systems prevent cancer, but I do know that whatever systems there are have not prevented cancer, and we humans continue to look for means to prevent, control or cure it. It would appear then that the problem was not that he didn’t care, but he tried his best and failed. We are back to your God’s incompetence, although he is all-powerful when he is not incompetent. Except that we have another problem: death is “required”.

DAVID: Your 'new' take as usual is to denigrate God. The editing systems are 99.9999999+% perfect but reproduction is constant, so cancer turns up.

This is not MY new take! It is you who tell us that he designed life “as best he could”, and despite your made-up statistic, you have told us that he has left us to correct the errors that he did not correct. I don’t know how cancer “turns up” out of constant reproduction (misprint?), but I do know that there are plenty of other diseases that also kill both young and old in spite of all the backups you say your God left behind to control the errors he could not control. The denigration of your God is yours – you have depicted him as incapable of controlling these disease-causing errors, whereas my proposal is that he deliberately created a system that would allow beneficial and deleterious changes, to produce the vast variety of life plus the ending of life through the “required” death. My God gets what he wants. Yours apparently doesn’t. Which of these is a denigration?

DAVID: Your usual confusion. Death is required as we both agree, but living organisms living as long as they can is also required. Please remember our bodies are constantly in massive turn over as cells are replaced constantly, but you and I look in the mirror and see the same image. Why? God's error-correction editing systems work so well. Yet errors slip in that we have the smarts to correct in large part.

dhw: We see the same image because the system is working, not because this “editing system” is constantly correcting errors. The problem is errors that are not corrected (e.g. cancer), and lead to disease and death, which your God “required”. How could he have ensured death without ensuring that there were errors that could not be corrected?

DAVID: As usual you have forgotten parts of the issue. Look in the mirror. I do. We are both aging, and that is built in. We will pass away with or without errors.

dhw: You have ignored my answer to your “mirror” argument, and totally ignored my question.

DAVID: Not ignored at all. Please recognize the point that aging itself without major disease exists. Many folks and animals just die from wearing out. We all have to die to make room. You may not like God for it, but aging is built in all by itself.

We are not discussing ageing or even death from old age! We are discussing death caused by diseases such as cancer, which your God tried to control and couldn’t. Originally, he didn’t care, but then in your "new take" you changed that to his lack of control, but never mind, it’s only 0.000001% of failure according to your research into causes of death.

dhw: If I believed in God, I could believe that he was capable of experimenting, of getting new ideas, of enjoying his creations, of deliberately leaving molecules and cells to do their own designing and make their own errors. But I would find it very hard to believe that he would be so incompetent as to try and correct mistakes he couldn’t prevent, fail, and simply leave it to us lesser beings to sort out the mess he had left behind.

DAVID: Your obvious bias is showing. I accept God despite all the warts you invent. Instead of expressing wonder at all He created, you carefully try and describe faults that don't exist in my mind. I didn't realize how narrow your concepts are.

The warts are your invention, not mine. It is you who have told us that he tried to correct the mistakes but couldn’t, and has left us to do our best. You know perfectly well that I share your wonderment at all the miracles of life, and I cannot see how my openness to such theistic theories as experimentation, having new ideas, enjoying his creations, giving organisms a free hand to do their own designing, make my concepts narrower than your own belief that your sometimes all-powerful God designs everything, produces errors which he can’t control, and faffs around for 3.X billion years directly designing anything but the one species (plus food supply) that he wants to design.

Back to David's theory of evolution: Talbott on cell death

by David Turell @, Friday, August 28, 2020, 22:58 (26 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your 'new' take as usual is to denigrate God. The editing systems are 99.9999999+% perfect but reproduction is constant, so cancer turns up.

dhw: This is not MY new take! It is you who tell us that he designed life “as best he could”, and despite your made-up statistic, you have told us that he has left us to correct the errors that he did not correct. I don’t know how cancer “turns up” out of constant reproduction (misprint?),

The bolds show you don't understand the biochemistry of life. I've told you, the large majority of our cells are in constant cell division, and the made-up statistic is to try to give you an approximation of the magnitude of the needed editing protections to maintain proper DNA which is almost always what results.

dhw: ...my proposal is that he deliberately created a system that would allow beneficial and deleterious changes, to produce the vast variety of life plus the ending of life through the “required” death. My God gets what he wants. Yours apparently doesn’t. Which of these is a denigration?

Again denigration of my view of God:


DAVID: Your usual confusion. Death is required as we both agree, but living organisms living as long as they can is also required. Please remember our bodies are constantly in massive turn over as cells are replaced constantly, but you and I look in the mirror and see the same image. Why? God's error-correction editing systems work so well. Yet errors slip in that we have the smarts to correct in large part.

dhw: We see the same image because the system is working, not because this “editing system” is constantly correcting errors. The problem is errors that are not corrected (e.g. cancer), and lead to disease and death, which your God “required”. How could he have ensured death without ensuring that there were errors that could not be corrected?

DAVID: As usual you have forgotten parts of the issue. Look in the mirror. I do. We are both aging, and that is built in. We will pass away with or without errors.

dhw: You have ignored my answer to your “mirror” argument, and totally ignored my question.

DAVID: Not ignored at all. Please recognize the point that aging itself without major disease exists. Many folks and animals just die from wearing out. We all have to die to make room. You may not like God for it, but aging is built in all by itself.

dhw: We are not discussing ageing or even death from old age! We are discussing death caused by diseases such as cancer, which your God tried to control and couldn’t. Originally, he didn’t care, but then in your "new take" you changed that to his lack of control, but never mind, it’s only 0.000001% of failure according to your research into causes of death.

What you fail to see as you criticize the picture of God I present, is the surprisingly great success rate of a living high-speed system in which protein molecules are relied upon to act correctly.


dhw: If I believed in God, I could believe that he was capable of experimenting, of getting new ideas, of enjoying his creations, of deliberately leaving molecules and cells to do their own designing and make their own errors. But I would find it very hard to believe that he would be so incompetent as to try and correct mistakes he couldn’t prevent, fail, and simply leave it to us lesser beings to sort out the mess he had left behind.

DAVID: Your obvious bias is showing. I accept God despite all the warts you invent. Instead of expressing wonder at all He created, you carefully try and describe faults that don't exist in my mind. I didn't realize how narrow your concepts are.

dhw: The warts are your invention, not mine. It is you who have told us that he tried to correct the mistakes but couldn’t, and has left us to do our best. You know perfectly well that I share your wonderment at all the miracles of life, and I cannot see how my openness to such theistic theories as experimentation, having new ideas, enjoying his creations, giving organisms a free hand to do their own designing, make my concepts narrower than your own belief that your sometimes all-powerful God designs everything, produces errors which he can’t control, and faffs around for 3.X billion years directly designing anything but the one species (plus food supply) that he wants to design.

The bold is your total distortion of the points in this discussion I have presented. God does not 'PRODUCE ERRORS'. The problem is they cannot be prevented but can be edited out most of the time. Still your warts. Stick to wonderment with me. The red is your constant humanizing purposes for God we can not validate in any way.

Back to David's theory of evolution: Talbott on cell death

by dhw, Saturday, August 29, 2020, 12:07 (25 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your 'new' take as usual is to denigrate God. The editing systems are 99.9999999+% perfect but reproduction is constant, so cancer turns up.

dhw: This is not MY new take! It is you who tell us that he designed life “as best he could”, and despite your made-up statistic, you have told us that he has left us to correct the errors that he did not correct. I don’t know how cancer “turns up” out of constant reproduction (misprint?).

DAVID: The bolds show you don't understand the biochemistry of life. I've told you, the large majority of our cells are in constant cell division, and the made-up statistic is to try to give you an approximation of the magnitude of the needed editing protections to maintain proper DNA which is almost always what results.

This whole thread is devoted to the errors, i.e. when things go wrong. I don’t know how cancer turns up out of constant reproduction. I thought it was the consequence of errors in the reproduction, as are so many of the diseases that your God tried but failed to control and so has left to us to correct. We've left Talbott behind now, and this thread is also devoted to “God’s error corrections”. If you wish to change it to “all the things God got right in the first place”, then start a new thread.

dhw: ...my proposal is that he deliberately created a system that would allow beneficial and deleterious changes, to produce the vast variety of life plus the ending of life through the “required” death. My God gets what he wants. Yours apparently doesn’t. Which of these is a denigration?

DAVID: Again denigration of my view of God.

And not denigration of God, as you put it. I regard your view of your God as denigrating, in so far as you have him designing a system which produces errors that he cannot prevent or control, even though he tries his best to do so. My proposal is that the system he designed is the system he wanted to design.

DAVID: Please recognize the point that aging itself without major disease exists. Many folks and animals just die from wearing out. We all have to die to make room. You may not like God for it, but aging is built in all by itself.

dhw: We are not discussing ageing or even death from old age! We are discussing death caused by diseases such as cancer, which your God tried to control and couldn’t. Originally, he didn’t care, but then in your "new take" you changed that to his lack of control, but never mind, it’s only 0.000001% of failure according to your research into causes of death.

David: What you fail to see as you criticize the picture of God I present, is the surprisingly great success rate of a living high-speed system in which protein molecules are relied upon to act correctly.

You said you started this thread because you wanted to find a way of explaining the errors. Now all you want to talk about are the successes.

DAVID: Your obvious bias is showing. I accept God despite all the warts you invent. Instead of expressing wonder at all He created, you carefully try and describe faults that don't exist in my mind. I didn't realize how narrow your concepts are.

dhw: The warts are your invention, not mine. It is you who have told us that he tried to correct the mistakes but couldn’t, and has left us to do our best. You know perfectly well that I share your wonderment at all the miracles of life, and I cannot see how my openness to such theistic theories as experimentation, having new ideas, enjoying his creations, giving organisms a free hand to do their own designing, make my concepts narrower than your own belief that your sometimes all-powerful God designs everything, produces errors which he can’t control, and faffs around for 3.X billion years directly designing anything but the one species (plus food supply) that he wants to design.

DAVID: The bold is your total distortion of the points in this discussion I have presented. God does not 'PRODUCE ERRORS'. The problem is they cannot be prevented but can be edited out most of the time. Still your warts. Stick to wonderment with me. The red is your constant humanizing purposes for God we can not validate in any way.

If God designed a system which produces errors, he produced errors even though he didn’t want to. This is hardly a total distortion. You started the thread hoping to explain the errors, and now that your explanations have created a mass of contradictions, all you want to talk about is what went right instead of what went wrong. I join you in wonderment at the former, but that is no reason for changing the subject. You grumbled at the narrowness of my concepts, and I have listed the broad variety of my concepts. The narrowness of your concepts, and the consequent accumulation of contradictions, is epitomized by your refusal to consider any proposal that endows God with any human attributes, although you agree that he probably has thought patterns and attributes similar to ours.

Back to David's theory of evolution: Talbott on cell death

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 29, 2020, 17:57 (25 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The bolds show you don't understand the biochemistry of life. I've told you, the large majority of our cells are in constant cell division, and the made-up statistic is to try to give you an approximation of the magnitude of the needed editing protections to maintain proper DNA which is almost always what results.

dhw: This whole thread is devoted to the errors, i.e. when things go wrong. I don’t know how cancer turns up out of constant reproduction. I thought it was the consequence of errors in the reproduction, as are so many of the diseases that your God tried but failed to control and so has left to us to correct.

The point of the error discussion is to show you that despite the errors the vast majority of all organisms continue through their lives unchanged due to the excellent editing, the exact opposite of tack you take in your interpretations. Your bias is showing.


dhw: ...my proposal is that he deliberately created a system that would allow beneficial and deleterious changes, to produce the vast variety of life plus the ending of life through the “required” death. My God gets what he wants. Yours apparently doesn’t. Which of these is a denigration?

DAVID: Again denigration of my view of God.

dhw: And not denigration of God, as you put it. I regard your view of your God as denigrating, in so far as you have him designing a system which produces errors that he cannot prevent or control, even though he tries his best to do so. My proposal is that the system he designed is the system he wanted to design.

Yes, it is His design. Concentrate on the amazing accuracy of his editing system.


David: What you fail to see as you criticize the picture of God I present, is the surprisingly great success rate of a living high-speed system in which protein molecules are relied upon to act correctly.

You said you started this thread because you wanted to find a way of explaining the errors. Now all you want to talk about are the successes.

DAVID: Your obvious bias is showing. I accept God despite all the warts you invent. Instead of expressing wonder at all He created, you carefully try and describe faults that don't exist in my mind. I didn't realize how narrow your concepts are.

dhw: The warts are your invention, not mine. It is you who have told us that he tried to correct the mistakes but couldn’t, and has left us to do our best. You know perfectly well that I share your wonderment at all the miracles of life, and I cannot see how my openness to such theistic theories as experimentation, having new ideas, enjoying his creations, giving organisms a free hand to do their own designing, make my concepts narrower than your own belief that your sometimes all-powerful God designs everything, produces errors which he can’t control, and faffs around for 3.X billion years directly designing anything but the one species (plus food supply) that he wants to design.

DAVID: The bold is your total distortion of the points in this discussion I have presented. God does not 'PRODUCE ERRORS'. The problem is they cannot be prevented but can be edited out most of the time. Still your warts. Stick to wonderment with me. The red is your constant humanizing purposes for God we can not validate in any way.

dhw: If God designed a system which produces errors, he produced errors even though he didn’t want to. This is hardly a total distortion.

What a twisted line of thought. The errors are in His system, but that mean He caused them. Errors are accidents of function. If another car runs into yours is that your fault?

dhw: You started the thread hoping to explain the errors, and now that your explanations have created a mass of contradictions, all you want to talk about is what went right instead of what went wrong. I join you in wonderment at the former, but that is no reason for changing the subject. You grumbled at the narrowness of my concepts, and I have listed the broad variety of my concepts. The narrowness of your concepts, and the consequent accumulation of contradictions, is epitomized by your refusal to consider any proposal that endows God with any human attributes, although you agree that he probably has thought patterns and attributes similar to ours.

I'm sorry if I finally opened your mind to another aspect of God's biology. The negative reactions on your part are your confusion about God in general. Of course I look at the positive. That is my view. Your comments are continuously negative.

Back to David's theory of evolution: Talbott on cell death

by dhw, Sunday, August 30, 2020, 09:05 (25 days ago) @ David Turell

We've left Talbott behind, and this belongs to the "errors" thread, but we may as well carry on here.

dhw: This whole thread is devoted to the errors, i.e. when things go wrong. I don’t know how cancer turns up out of constant reproduction. I thought it was the consequence of errors in the reproduction, as are so many of the diseases that your God tried but failed to control and so has left to us to correct.

DAVID: The point of the error discussion is to show you that despite the errors the vast majority of all organisms continue through their lives unchanged due to the excellent editing, the exact opposite of tack you take in your interpretations. Your bias is showing.

What bias? A few days ago you wrote: “The ability to have errors bothered me, so I had to work out a theory that settled my mind by bouncing it off your scepticism which in its confusion is quite helpful.” The theory you came up with initially was that the evolutionary errors could change the course of evolution, so your God only allowed those that he thought were beneficial, and he didn’t care about the disease-causing errors, although he provided backups, but even these sometimes didn’t work. You asked me to forget all about the first theory, because you didn’t like to side with Darwin on the subject of random mutations and natural selection, or with me when I “bounced” back the image of a God who was not only incompetent but also uncaring. And so evolutionary errors turned into slight variations that we needn’t bother about, and disease-causing errors only amount to 0.0000001% of all errors, so we shouldn’t worry about them. What we should do is:

DAVID: Concentrate on the amazing accuracy of his editing system.

You were bothered by the errors and set out to find a theory that would settle your mind. Congratulations. You have settled your mind by deciding not to bother about the errors at all and just to focus on all the successes. Even better, having raised the problem, you can now blame me for bothering about it.

DAVID: Your obvious bias is showing. I accept God despite all the warts you invent. Instead of expressing wonder at all He created, you carefully try and describe faults that don't exist in my mind. I didn't realize how narrow your concepts are.

dhw: The warts are your invention, not mine. It is you who have told us that he tried to correct the mistakes but couldn’t, and has left us to do our best. You know perfectly well that I share your wonderment at all the miracles of life, and I cannot see how my openness to such theistic theories as experimentation, having new ideas, enjoying his creations, giving organisms a free hand to do their own designing, make my concepts narrower than your own belief that your sometimes all-powerful God designs everything, produces errors which he can’t control, and faffs around for 3.X billion years directly designing anything but the one species (plus food supply) that he wants to design.

DAVID: The bold is your total distortion of the points in this discussion I have presented. God does not 'PRODUCE ERRORS'. The problem is they cannot be prevented but can be edited out most of the time. Still your warts. Stick to wonderment with me. The red is your constant humanizing purposes for God we can not validate in any way.

dhw: If God designed a system which produces errors, he produced errors even though he didn’t want to. This is hardly a total distortion.
Re humanizing, see “Back to David’s Theory of Evolution”.

DAVID: What a twisted line of thought. The errors are in His system, but that [doesn’t] mean He caused them. Errors are accidents of function. If another car runs into yours is that your fault?

Silly analogy. If someone designs a car with "errors" that make it break down, whose fault is it?

Back to David's theory of evolution: Talbott on cell death

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 30, 2020, 19:06 (24 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your obvious bias is showing. I accept God despite all the warts you invent. Instead of expressing wonder at all He created, you carefully try and describe faults that don't exist in my mind. I didn't realize how narrow your concepts are.

dhw: The warts are your invention, not mine. It is you who have told us that he tried to correct the mistakes but couldn’t, and has left us to do our best. You know perfectly well that I share your wonderment at all the miracles of life, and I cannot see how my openness to such theistic theories as experimentation, having new ideas, enjoying his creations, giving organisms a free hand to do their own designing, make my concepts narrower than your own belief that your sometimes all-powerful God designs everything, produces errors which he can’t control, and faffs around for 3.X billion years directly designing anything but the one species (plus food supply) that he wants to design.

DAVID: The bold is your total distortion of the points in this discussion I have presented. God does not 'PRODUCE ERRORS'. The problem is they cannot be prevented but can be edited out most of the time. Still your warts. Stick to wonderment with me. The red is your constant humanizing purposes for God we can not validate in any way.

dhw: If God designed a system which produces errors, he produced errors even though he didn’t want to. This is hardly a total distortion.
Re humanizing, see “Back to David’s Theory of Evolution”.

DAVID: What a twisted line of thought. The errors are in His system, but that [doesn’t] mean He caused them. Errors are accidents of function. If another car runs into yours is that your fault?

dhw: Silly analogy. If someone designs a car with "errors" that make it break down, whose fault is it?

Still confused. I described an accidental happening, not design, which you avoided answering. No one designs a car with errors, but they are discovered and corrected by recalls. God's editing system shows He knew molecules would make errors by mistake. Those mistakes are not God's fault. The molecules are under precise instructions to follow. And they do the vast majority of time.

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

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 22, 2020, 20:54 (32 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Our discussion began a month ago,.. I’m sorry, but you have not explained your theory with clarity because it is riddled with contradictions.

Your current theory concerning evolution: All stages are designed completely by Him. The three question marks and three exclamation marks in defence of chance have magically evolved into: “There is no reliance on chance” (quoted from a different post), and God is back to being all-powerful and all-knowing. New mutations can theoretically be