Scientists Question Darwinism

[The Barbarian]

You do realize that the author completely obliterated any hope for a reasoned conclusion when he appealed to the "evolution of the gaps" fallacy? Pick your god, Barb, and be faithful.

It comes down to evidence. And since the variations also sort out according to evolutionary phylogenies worked out by entirely different evidence, the conclusion is very solidly supported. My God cannot be other than truthful. What about your god?

Would you like me to show you some of that evidence?

Mol Immunol. 2010 Nov-Dec;48(1-3):147-52.
Emergence of the acute-phase protein hemopexin in jawed vertebrates.
Dooley H1, Buckingham EB, Criscitiello MF, Flajnik MF.

Genome Biol Evol. 2019 Mar 1;11(3):597-612. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evz012.
Newly Discovered Occurrences and Gene Tree of the Extracellular Globins and Linker Chains from the Giant Hexagonal Bilayer Hemoglobin in Metazoans.
Belato FA1, Schrago CG1, Coates CJ2, Halanych KM3, Costa-Paiva EM1,4.
Author information
Abstract

Multicellular organisms depend on oxygen-carrying proteins to transport oxygen throughout the body; therefore, proteins such as hemoglobins (Hbs), hemocyanins, and hemerythrins are essential for maintenance of tissues and cellular respiration. Vertebrate Hbs are among the most extensively studied proteins; however, much less is known about invertebrate Hbs. Recent studies of hemocyanins and hemerythrins have demonstrated that they have much wider distributions than previously thought, suggesting that oxygen-binding protein diversity is underestimated across metazoans. Hexagonal bilayer hemoglobin (HBL-Hb), a blood pigment found exclusively in annelids, is a polymer comprised up to 144 extracellular globins and 36 linker chains. To further understand the evolutionary history of this protein complex, we explored the diversity of linkers and extracellular globins from HBL-Hbs using in silico approaches on 319 metazoan and one choanoflagellate transcriptomes. We found 559 extracellular globin and 414 linker genes transcribed in 171 species from ten animal phyla with new records in Echinodermata, Hemichordata, Brachiopoda, Mollusca, Nemertea, Bryozoa, Phoronida, Platyhelminthes, and Priapulida. Contrary to previous suggestions that linkers and extracellular globins emerged in the annelid ancestor, our findings indicate that they have putatively emerged before the protostome-deuterostome split. For the first time, we unveiled the comprehensive evolutionary history of metazoan HBL-Hb components, which consists of multiple episodes of gene gains and losses. Moreover, because our study design surveyed linkers and extracellular globins independently, we were able to cross-validate our results, significantly reducing the rate of false positives. We confirmed that the distribution of HBL-Hb components has until now been underestimated among animals.

 

[Right Divider]

It comes down to evidence. And since the variations also sort out according to evolutionary phylogenies worked out by entirely different evidence, the conclusion is very solidly supported.

That is HUGELY funny, since the interpretation of such "evidence" changes all the time.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It comes down to evidence. And since the variations also sort out according to evolutionary phylogenies worked out by entirely different evidence, the conclusion is very solidly supported.

That is HUGELY funny, since the interpretation of such "evidence" changes all the time.

That's true for creationists, yes. But show me where the evidence I just showed you, was interpreted differently by real scientists over time. I don't seem to find anything like that.

Even honest creationists admit that the evidence for evolution is very solid. And it's more than just observable evolution. Kurt Wise admits that it's very good evidence for common descent in vertebrates, for example.

What do you have?

 

[Right Divider]

Barbarian observes:

:rotfl:

That's true for creationists, yes. But show me where the evidence I just showed you, was interpreted differently by real scientists over time. I don't seem to find anything like that.

Evolutionists, like you, find "evidence" for "evolution" everywhere.

The problem is that it's just variations on what already exists. The "everything descended from from the first thing, that itself came to life from matter in some unknown and unknowable way" version of "evolution" is a fantasy that you will try to justify by any means.

Even honest creationists admit that the evidence for evolution is very solid. And it's more than just observable evolution. Kurt Wise admits that it's very good evidence for common descent in vertebrates, for example.

I'm an honest creationist and I fully understand the difference between observable change and your fairy tale.

What do you have?

Truth.

 

[Stripe]

:mock: Barbarian.

 

[Derf]

It comes down to evidence. And since the variations also sort out according to evolutionary phylogenies worked out by entirely different evidence, the conclusion is very solidly supported.

Would you like me to show you some of that evidence?

Mol Immunol. 2010 Nov-Dec;48(1-3):147-52.
Emergence of the acute-phase protein hemopexin in jawed vertebrates.
Dooley H1, Buckingham EB, Criscitiello MF, Flajnik MF.

Genome Biol Evol. 2019 Mar 1;11(3):597-612. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evz012.
Newly Discovered Occurrences and Gene Tree of the Extracellular Globins and Linker Chains from the Giant Hexagonal Bilayer Hemoglobin in Metazoans.
Belato FA1, Schrago CG1, Coates CJ2, Halanych KM3, Costa-Paiva EM1,4.
Author information
Abstract

Multicellular organisms depend on oxygen-carrying proteins to transport oxygen throughout the body; therefore, proteins such as hemoglobins (Hbs), hemocyanins, and hemerythrins are essential for maintenance of tissues and cellular respiration. Vertebrate Hbs are among the most extensively studied proteins; however, much less is known about invertebrate Hbs. Recent studies of hemocyanins and hemerythrins have demonstrated that they have much wider distributions than previously thought, suggesting that oxygen-binding protein diversity is underestimated across metazoans. Hexagonal bilayer hemoglobin (HBL-Hb), a blood pigment found exclusively in annelids, is a polymer comprised up to 144 extracellular globins and 36 linker chains. To further understand the evolutionary history of this protein complex, we explored the diversity of linkers and extracellular globins from HBL-Hbs using in silico approaches on 319 metazoan and one choanoflagellate transcriptomes. We found 559 extracellular globin and 414 linker genes transcribed in 171 species from ten animal phyla with new records in Echinodermata, Hemichordata, Brachiopoda, Mollusca, Nemertea, Bryozoa, Phoronida, Platyhelminthes, and Priapulida. Contrary to previous suggestions that linkers and extracellular globins emerged in the annelid ancestor, our findings indicate that they have putatively emerged before the protostome-deuterostome split. For the first time, we unveiled the comprehensive evolutionary history of metazoan HBL-Hb components, which consists of multiple episodes of gene gains and losses. Moreover, because our study design surveyed linkers and extracellular globins independently, we were able to cross-validate our results, significantly reducing the rate of false positives. We confirmed that the distribution of HBL-Hb components has until now been underestimated among animals.

Why do you think "the distribution of HBL-Hb components has until now been underestimated among animals"? Is it even remotely possible in your world that they may be starting with bad assumptions? Your article, like so many, only illustrates how bad the predictions were.

And a theory whose predictions fail so often is a theory that fails to fit the data. (That means it's not a very good theory.)

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest to you that the failed assumption was that there would be much less distribution of HBL-Hb components among animals. Instead, they find more development earlier in time the more they look. In other words, animals started out already fully functional, almost as if someone made them that way.

 

[The Barbarian]

That is HUGELY funny, since the interpretation of such "evidence" changes all the time.

That's true for creationists, yes. But show me where the evidence I just showed you, was interpreted differently by real scientists over time. I don't seem to find anything like that.

Evolutionists, like you, find "evidence" for "evolution" everywhere.

So do honest creationists...
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

The problem is that it's just variations on what already exists.

Yeah, that's what evolution is. I thought you knew.

The "everything descended from from the first thing, that itself came to life from matter in some unknown and unknowable way" version of "evolution"...

...is a creationist fantasy that you will try to justify by any means. In fact, evolutionary theory merely assumes that life began somehow, and evolved from there. So pretty much any origin of life is consistent with evolution. Darwin, for example, assumed that God just created the first living things:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species 1878

I'm an honest creationist and I fully understand the difference between observable change and your fairy tale.

As you now realize, it's your fairy tale. The real theory isn't anything like you imagined it to be.

The truth matters. It should matter to you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why do you think "the distribution of HBL-Hb components has until now been underestimated among animals"?

It seems mostly because no one had done a comprehensive survey of taxa in that regard.

Is it even remotely possible in your world

It is remotely possible that orange leprechauns are hiding in your attic. But I don't think it's reason to check your attic in hopes of a pot of gold.

that they may be starting with bad assumptions?

What we don't know is not a measure of what we do know. As you see, no assumptions are necessary.

Your article, like so many, only illustrates how bad the predictions were.

Well over a hundred years ago, a scientist, looking at the middle ear of birds and crocodiles, predicted that there had been animals transitional between dinosaurs and birds. Much later, his prediction was verified. This is, as you know, admitted by YE creationist Kurt Wise to be "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Other predictions included whales with functional legs, organisms transitional between humans and other apes, transitional forms between roaches and termites, wasps and ants, fish and tetrapods, dogs and bears, reptiles and mammals, and many many others. The theory also predicted that DNA relationships should match phylogenies worked out on the basis of transitionals and homologies. And those predictions were also confirmed. Even more convincing, there are no transitionals where there shouldn't be any.

There are many other confirmed predictions of evolutionary theory. Would you like to learn about more of them?

On the other hand, YE creationists Duane Gish predicted there would never be found any whales with legs. Others predicted that there would be no transitional forms. And so on. All of those turned out to be false.

And a theory whose predictions fail so often is a theory that fails to fit the data. (That means it's not a very good theory.)

Yep. It's why very few scientists take creationism seriously.

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest to you that the failed assumption was that there would be much less distribution of HBL-Hb components among animals. Instead, they find more development earlier in time the more they look. In other words, animals started out already fully functional, almost as if someone made them that way.

That's obviously not the case. For example, early whales were not fully functional as marine mammals. Early pterosaurs were not fully functional fliers. Monotremes are not fully endothermic. And so on.

 

[Derf]

That's obviously not the case. For example, early whales were not fully functional as marine mammals. Early pterosaurs were not fully functional fliers. Monotremes are not fully endothermic. And so on.

Monotremes aren't supposed to be fully endothermic. You're assuming a standard for them that doesn't exist. They ARE fully functional as monotremes. There aren't any partially functioning monotremes.

Pterosaurs were great fliers. Even early ones.

"Early whales" were land animals according to your theory. Like "pakicetus" which was at first thought to be semi-aquatic, but is now deemed to be fully terrestrial. But the only reason why it is called an "early whale" and named a whale is because they wanted a whale ancestor. This is the cart leading the horse. This is exactly what I've been talking about. The theory drives the "science", until the facts get so overwhelming they have to abandon that part of the narrative. But the theory which produced the narrative is never abandoned, because it is all they have when no supernatural element is allowed. You should be different, and I'm surprised that you fight so hard to change scripture to match up with a science that keeps having to change its mind.

 

[The Barbarian]

(assertion that transitionals are "fully functional")

Barbarian observes:
That's obviously not the case. For example, early whales were not fully functional as marine mammals. Early pterosaurs were not fully functional fliers. Monotremes are not fully endothermic. And so on.

Monotremes aren't supposed to be fully endothermic.

Here, you're merely telling God what to do. You don't know what He intends for monotremes. Even creationists like those of the Institute for Creation Research and "Answers in Genesis" admit that natural selection can increase fitness in a population and even produce new species, genera, and families.

How do you know He's done with them?

You're assuming a standard for them that doesn't exist. They ARE fully functional as monotremes.

Only if you define "fully functioning monotreme" as "not fully functioning as an endotherm." You can't define away your problem here. Each time, you just cause yourself another problem with an additional assumption.

Pterosaurs were great fliers. Even early ones.

No.

Early pterosaurs (such as Dimorphodon) had long tails that assisted balance, but later pterosaurs (such as Pterodactylus) had no tails, and so may have been more maneuverable flyers.

The Wright Flyer was longitudinally unstable (see here for more). Once aircraft designers learned that aircraft can be made to fly stable, and learned that this is of immense benefit in pilot training, static stability became a requirement for new aircraft. When war in Europe broke out, the British forces were equipped with a superb training aircraft, but it was so stable that it took effort and time to convince it to change course. They were shot down in droves.

From now on, low stability was a prime requirement for fighters and aerobatic aircraft. Static stability is proportional to the control forces (more precisely: To the hinge moment of the respective control surface), so reducing stability gave pilots more response for the same effort. Longitudinal static stability is measured as the relative distance between neutral point (NP) and the center of gravity (CG). See here for more. Longitudinal static stability is achieved by placing the CG ahead of the NP. Shifting the CG back gives you a more responsive airplane, but also one which is more easily disturbed by gusts.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...-inherently-unstable-that-a-human-cant-fly-on

It's like flying a kite without a tail. It can be done, but it requires much more skill. Early pterosaurs were not fully functional flyers, requiring that long "kit tail" to stay in the air. Later pterosaurs were far less stable, but much more maneuverable, becoming fully functional fliers.

"Early whales" were land animals according to your theory. Like "pakicetus" which was at first thought to be semi-aquatic,

No. It was first thought to be marine. You see, the skull was found first, and it's well-adapted for water, including the sigmoid ear bone that allows better hearing in water. Later, when the rest of the skeleton was found, scientists learned it was adapted for water, but still capable of moving on land very well. Ambulocetus, on the other hand, was mostly aquatic, but still somewhat functional on land. Dorudon was probably less functional on land than a seal is today.

But the only reason why it is called an "early whale" and named a whale is because they wanted a whale ancestor.

No, you were misled about that. They called it a whale, because the skull had the characteristics of a whale skull. And lacking the postcranial skeleton, they didn't realize it was a very primitive member of the order.

This is the cart leading the horse.

Rather, it's the evidence leading the conclusion. The skull was that of a primitive whale, so they called it a whale. This is exactly what I've been talking about. Creationist objections, as noted above, are based mostly in not knowing the evidence or the circumstances.

The misunderstandings drive the "objections", until the facts get so overwhelming they have to abandon that part of the narrative. But the belief which produced the narrative is never abandoned, because it is all creationists have when no evidence is allowed.

You should be different, and I'm surprised that you fight so hard to change scripture to match up with a modern revision of the Bible that keeps having to change its mind.

 

[Derf]

(assertion that transitionals are "fully functional")

Barbarian observes:
That's obviously not the case. For example, early whales were not fully functional as marine mammals. Early pterosaurs were not fully functional fliers. Monotremes are not fully endothermic. And so on.


Barbarian follows up with:
Here, you're merely telling God what to do. You don't know what He intends for monotremes. Even creationists like those of the Institute for Creation Research and "Answers in Genesis" admit that natural selection can increase fitness in a population and even produce new species, genera, and families.

Only if you define "fully functioning monotreme" as "not fully functioning as an endotherm." You can't define away your problem here. Each time, you just cause yourself another problem with an additional assumption.

Same goes for you--ONLY if you define monotremes as needing to be fully endothermic can you reach the conclusion that they are somehow deficient in their heat-regulation. But that is exactly what you've done, in all three of these cases--determined what God intended to do and proposed that He hasn't yet done it.

But in all of these cases they functioned just fine for how they were. They weren't seals stuck on land, four-footed beasts banished to the sea, or land or sea animals trying to make it in the air without wings. If they evolved by losing a balancing tail here or there, you can hardly make the case that they must have then all had the same ancestor. And finding animals in the niches between land and sea is quite interesting indeed, but hardly proof of them descending one to another. That's all conjecture. Maybe it's good conjecture, or maybe it's bad. But it's still conjecture. And science is all about overturning previous generations' conjecture. Wait for it...

No.

Early pterosaurs (such as Dimorphodon) had long tails that assisted balance, but later pterosaurs (such as Pterodactylus) had no tails, and so may have been more maneuverable flyers.

The Wright Flyer was longitudinally unstable (see here for more). Once aircraft designers learned that aircraft can be made to fly stable, and learned that this is of immense benefit in pilot training, static stability became a requirement for new aircraft. When war in Europe broke out, the British forces were equipped with a superb training aircraft, but it was so stable that it took effort and time to convince it to change course. They were shot down in droves.

From now on, low stability was a prime requirement for fighters and aerobatic aircraft. Static stability is proportional to the control forces (more precisely: To the hinge moment of the respective control surface), so reducing stability gave pilots more response for the same effort. Longitudinal static stability is measured as the relative distance between neutral point (NP) and the center of gravity (CG). See here for more. Longitudinal static stability is achieved by placing the CG ahead of the NP. Shifting the CG back gives you a more responsive airplane, but also one which is more easily disturbed by gusts.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...-inherently-unstable-that-a-human-cant-fly-on

It's like flying a kite without a tail. It can be done, but it requires much more skill. Early pterosaurs were not fully functional flyers, requiring that long "kit tail" to stay in the air. Later pterosaurs were far less stable, but much more maneuverable, becoming fully functional fliers.

Ah, so you do believe God creates by trial and error. Thanks for that lovely admission.

 

[Right Divider]

Ah, so you do believe God creates by trial and error. Thanks for that lovely admission.

His "god" is lame.

 

[Derf]

His "god" is lame.

Well, he might start out lame, but then, over millions and billions of years, he becomes less lame.

 

[Stripe]

Well, he might start out lame, but then, over millions and billions of years, he becomes less lame.

:rotfl:

 

[The Barbarian]

Same goes for you--ONLY if you define monotremes as needing to be fully endothermic can you reach the conclusion that they are somehow deficient in their heat-regulation.

You're confusing "deficient" with "fully functional." Not the same thing. Monotremes occasionally die because they can't maintain a constant temp, but they usually do O.K. with a partially-functional form of temperature regulation.

Apes don't have fully functional hands, because their need for climbing means longer fingers and a relatively weak and poorly opposable thumb. For them, it's not deficient, even if it's not fully-functional.

You see, "fully-functional" is your determination what God intended to do, and it's a door that swings both ways. And that is exactly what you've done, determined what God intended to do.

Early pterosaurs (such as Dimorphodon) had long tails that assisted balance, but later pterosaurs (such as Pterodactylus) had no tails, and so may have been more maneuverable flyers.


Barbarian observes:
It's like flying a kite without a tail. It can be done, but it requires much more skill. Early pterosaurs were not fully functional flyers, requiring that long "kit tail" to stay in the air. Later pterosaurs were far less stable, but much more maneuverable, becoming fully functional fliers.

Ah, so you do believe God creates by trial and error.

Here, you're merely assuming that God is insufficiently wise and powerful (lame?) to use contingency as well as necessity in His divine providence.

Thanks for that lovely admission.

 

[Derf]

You're confusing "deficient" with "fully functional." Not the same thing. Monotremes occasionally die because they can't maintain a constant temp, but they usually do O.K. with a partially-functional form of temperature regulation.

Apes don't have fully functional hands, because their need for climbing means longer fingers and a relatively weak and poorly opposable thumb. For them, it's not deficient, even if it's not fully-functional.

Sometimes humans die because they can't maintain a constant temp. One version of this is called "hypothermia". Humans would also die often if they needed to swing from trees. They must not be fully functional. By that definition, no creature is fully-functional. And yes, by YOUR usage, "not fully-functional" is the same as "deficient". (Read back over some of your posts with an open mind, and you will see what I'm talking about.)

I think where this leads is to the idea that we are still working to achieve full-functionality, because there might be an improvement on some part of us--some evolution step--that isn't quite complete. Maybe we can eventually change our gender at will, or some such. Is that what you are suggesting?

Or maybe if a creature isn't God Himself, it's not fully functional. That is where evolution must eventually take us: "You can be like God, if you'll just swallow this."

You see, "fully-functional" is your determination what God intended to do, and it's a door that swings both ways. And that is exactly what you've done, determined what God intended to do.

Early pterosaurs (such as Dimorphodon) had long tails that assisted balance, but later pterosaurs (such as Pterodactylus) had no tails, and so may have been more maneuverable flyers.


Barbarian observes:
It's like flying a kite without a tail. It can be done, but it requires much more skill. Early pterosaurs were not fully functional flyers, requiring that long "kit tail" to stay in the air. Later pterosaurs were far less stable, but much more maneuverable, becoming fully functional fliers.

Maybe the tails made them slower, so they couldn't escape the flood for as long as the tail-less ones. You seem to have locked onto the current secular narrative like that's the best anyone will ever come up with. Time will prove you wrong, as it has proven so many other narratives false.

Here, you're merely assuming that God is insufficiently wise and powerful (lame?) to use contingency as well as necessity in His divine providence.

Thanks for that lovely admission.

You're big on projection, aren't you?

I don't have a problem with God using contingency in His divine providence, because it acknowledges that other agents exist. But what is "necessity" for an all-powerful God? Are you saying there is a something outside of God that God has to abide by to get something done? Maybe you should explain better what you mean.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sometimes humans die because they can't maintain a constant temp. One version of this is called "hypothermia". Humans would also die often if they needed to swing from trees.

I used to do that all the time. I would have been better if I had curved digits, longer arms, and shorter legs, but even if I wasn't a fully-function brachiator, I did all right.

They must not be fully functional.

Right. Fortunately, we are adapted for walking on two legs. But we're not fully-functional there, either. Because we evolved from quadrupeds, we have a lot of back, knee, hip, and foot problems. Biomechanically, we are far from optimum.

By that definition, no creature is fully-functional.

And that is why the "fully-functional" story is such a woofer. It's not the way evolution works.

And yes, by YOUR usage, "not fully-functional" is the same as "deficient".

Nope. Feel free to show otherwise.

I think where this leads is to the idea that we are still working to achieve full-functionality

How do you think one would "work" to "achieve full-funtionality?"

because there might be an improvement on some part of us--some evolution step--that isn't quite complete. Maybe we can eventually change our gender at will,

You think that would be an improvement?

Or maybe if a creature isn't God Himself, it's not fully functional. That is where evolution must eventually take us: "You can be like God, if you'll just swallow this."

That makes no sense to a Christian. We were like God right after the Fall.

Maybe the tails made them slower, so they couldn't escape the flood for as long as the tail-less ones.

I have no idea where that came from. Our tails are much too short to be of any effect on anything. In fact, some humans lack a coccyx entirely and never know it, until it turns up on an x-ray.

You seem to have locked onto the current secular narrative like that's the best anyone will ever come up with.

Maybe you spend more time on the "current secular narrative" than I do. I have no idea what you're carrying on about.

Ah, so you do believe God creates by trial and error.

Barbarian observes:
You're big on projection, aren't you?

I don't have a problem with God using contingency in His divine providence, because it acknowledges that other agents exist. But what is "necessity" for an all-powerful God?

As Aquinas writes, whatever He wishes it to be.

Are you saying there is a something outside of God that God has to abide by to get something done?

I think you're projecting, again. Maybe you should explain better what you mean.

 

[Derf]

I used to do that all the time. I would have been better if I had curved digits, longer arms, and shorter legs, but even if I wasn't a fully-function brachiator, I did all right.

You did all right swinging from trees? You mean you were able to function while staying in a tree most of the time and moving from branch to branch without using your legs over a long period of time?

But anyway, since you don't recognize even fully-functioning brachiators as fully-functional, what meaning can we attach to your statements?



I asked what is "necessity" to God

As Aquinas writes, whatever He wishes it to be.

I think you're confusing absolute and conditional necessities. If something is necessary for God to exist, then God isn't the definer of "necessary". If God is using "necessity" in His creation, and He defines what it means, it's a non-sequitor--it isn't necessary to God--He doesn't need it to exist, nor to make other things exist. I.e., He's not bound to some "code of creation" that He has to follow.

 

[The Barbarian]

You did all right swinging from trees? You mean you were able to function while staying in a tree most of the time and moving from branch to branch without using your legs over a long period of time?

Pretty much as long as I wanted. Long as you have trees that can hold you. And I was pretty small at the time. Couldn't do long leaps across space as saimangs and gibbens do. But then, neither can chimps. You figure chimps aren't fully functional brachiators?

Are you beginning to see how "fully functional" is a slippery concept, good for obfuscation, and not much more, when it comes to organisms?

But anyway, since you don't recognize even fully-functioning brachiators as fully-functional, what meaning can we attach to your statements?

My point, exactly.

I asked what is "necessity" to God

Those things that He conceives to be deterministic.

I think you're confusing absolute and conditional necessities.

Nope.

If something is necessary for God to exist,

We're talking about divine providence, not God. God can make things deterministic just as He can make them contingent. It doesn't meant that God has to be deterministic or contingent. The Creator is not the creation.

then God isn't the definer of "necessary". If God is using "necessity" in His creation, and He defines what it means, it's a non-sequitor--it isn't necessary to God--He doesn't need it to exist, nor to make other things exist.

It's necessary to creation, since He made it so. He's quite capable of that.

I.e., He's not bound to some "code of creation" that He has to follow.

Do you think God can lie?

What's wrapping you up here is that God is eternal. He doesn't change at all, and so He is and will be what He always is. The "I am that I am."

 

[The Barbarian]

The question of whether God can deliberately make a mistake is like the question "can God make a rock so big that He can't pick it up?

You're asking the wrong question, which implies a non-eternal God. Different category of thing than anything else.