More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, August 08, 2015, 07:53 (3395 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: This is where your Creationism takes on similar dimensions to David's hypothesis - which you criticized so penetratingly (see below) - of a computer programme for all innovations, and complex lifestyles and residences. Now you have God not only creating each prototype separately, but also designing every individual animal, plant, insect and bird that has a symbiotic relationship. Where does this programming end?
TONY: While it is complicated, it is not as complicated as you are making it out to be. As a programmer, I can see how it could be done relatively simply (compared to what you suggest).-The computer programme is not my suggestion but David's, and you criticized it for “preprogramming every possible variation of every possible variant into every single organism.” I share your scepticism. Thank you for the “not as complicated” programme you have suggested, which is a wonderful scheme, beautifully laid out and explained. There isn't room to reproduce it, though I would like to because it is such a model of clarity and systematic thinking.-However, what you are proposing is only slightly different from David's hypothesis. In yours it seems that all the prototypes had their own separate set of programmes for every possible variation etc. The programmes must also have included the symbiotic relationships with variants from other “kinds” (milkweed and Monarch, bees and flowers, Nile crocodile and Egyptian plover), and perhaps - we'll need more details from you - also the weaverbird's nest, the plover's migration, the spider's silk....And so it still seems mighty complicated to me, and I still wonder where programming ends and intelligent inventiveness begins.
 
But perhaps more importantly, your beautiful scheme is only partially opposed to the theory of common descent. All your bird variations evolved from the prototype. That is already common descent. The only difference is that you say God separately created the prototypes, whereas the overall theory of common descent claims that the prototypes evolved from earlier organisms. For instance, although the archaeopteryx is no longer regarded as the prototype bird, most experts seem to agree that it marks a clear transition between non-avian dinosaurs and birds. My point once again is that your version of common descent only differs from others in so far as your theoretical prototype theoretically appears out of the blue made by God, and their theoretical prototype theoretically appears out of the blue from existing organisms (though these themselves may have been programmed by God - David's version - or equipped with the ability to transform themselves - my inventive mechanism.)
 
TONY: This process would explain much of what we actually observe.
•	variation within breeds/prototypes with predefined limits
•	the utter lack of modern evolution
•	Creatures appearing without pre-cursor
•	Shared genetic instruction between creatures with similar environments/diets/functionality.
•	Etc..-David's preprogramming and my inventive mechanism explain all the variations, the lack of precursors, the shared “instructions” and the etc.(!) In order to explain the lack of modern evolution, both you and David would have to read God's mind. At least I could say that we are going through a period of comparative environmental stasis, and it would take a major environmental change to trigger a new explosion of species. (No, I'm not convinced either - but I'm not convinced by any of the hypotheses.)-TONY: The other thing it would do is completely dismantle the Tree of Life. There is no need for pre-cursors or mutations/speciation between one species and another. The bush of life becomes easily explained as a product of variation on prototypes within strict confines. Genetic relationships between species becomes a property of shared functionality between creatures with similar functionality.-I presume you mean that your version changes the tree (common descent) into a bush (descent from several separate forms), but of course that doesn't mean your version is correct. David and I have offered different theistic evolutionary explanations for the Cambrian, “no need” for speciation does not mean that speciation did not happen, and it would be perfectly logical for genetic relationships and similar functionality to occur between creatures descended from a common ancestor.