Chance v. Design (Evolution)

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, May 05, 2009, 19:58 (5679 days ago) @ dhw

We do seem to have got into a loop! - dhw wrote: "The changes may have been triggered by chance mutations, collisions or environmental influences (agreed), but they could not have happened if the first self-replicating molecules did not already have the code/information/programming/potential capability ... call it what you will ... for variation. And THIS is where you and I part company." - As I see it, the molecules have the potentiality for change, since in the process of replication the atoms may, by accident, get put together in different orders, or one group of atoms may be substituted by another. This does not require any preprogramming. Accidents happen. Gradually, little by little, the code that guides the replication, and the functions it controls, become more complicated. Or to put it in other terms, they contain and pass on more information. - dhw: "/// if a simple explanation leaves a huge gap, and that huge gap requires a leap of faith (not in the theory of evolution but in the theory of abiogenesis), I would not call it 'satisfactory'. That, as I see it, is the major difference between us." - I don't see why the idea that replicating molecules can arise by natural processes requires faith. Since living things now exist and before there were only non-replicating molecules, it is self-evident that something happened. Where faith is required is in supposing that this process was guided by some pre-existing intelligence rather than that it happened naturally.

--
GPJ