Logic and evolution (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 21, 2016, 18:53 (578 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, July 21, 2016, 19:07

dhw: Once again: you claimed there was no natural explanation for improvement/advance - which means what happened AFTER the origin of life. So why you do consider the scenario I offered to be unnatural?

By inference. Bacteria are still here unchanged. Obviously some became eukaryotes with nuclei and some then joined up as multicellular sheets which then further differentiated into specialized areas. I have presented this article previously. (Wednesday, July 20, 2016, 14:03) It encompasses my thinking completely:


The advances are totally unexplained, not understood and require mental planning to coordinate all the new parts.

dhw: So when you said that research has found that a new structure can be created without adding “new information”, you actually meant science has found that some adaptations lose information. There is a difference.

I agree. But these adaptations are the only advances that we have to study. They contain the suggestion that possibly speciation may involve loss of information. The article noted above feels new information is added for major advances. Seems reasonable so I am left with pre-planning and dabbling.

DAVID: Because of a fact of nature. Antibiotics have been around forever, in some organisms, in soil, etc. Bacteria have been battling them forever. Antibiotics are a new human discovery, not a new invention, and bacteria are naturally resistant to some of them.

dhw; How much simpler it would all have been if only God had given organisms the wherewithal to do their own adapting and inventing!

But He did give them alternate pathways to choose from! You seem to want simplicity. The h-p bush is not simple. You don't like my explanation, but complexity seems the rule. The particle zoo is complex. Quantum mechanics is very complex. But you want simplicity and we are surrounded by things we cannot explain. How about accepting what you see as the normal result of complex planning?

dhw: I know you can only think in terms of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme plus dabbling, but I am querying your statement that “genetic studies of adaptations suggest all the info [needed for evolution] could have been present at the beginning.” ...... How could these plans and instructions have been present at the very beginning if the external information requiring adaptation or allowing for innovation was not present? If you now accept that all the information could NOT have been present at the beginning, and so your God had to dabble, we shall have cleared up that particular issue, and I hope we can also forget about the illogical hypothesis that evolutionary advances are CAUSED by loss of information.

I'm still stuck with what is known: adaptations do/can result from loss of information. With that fact inevidence, it is still possible that God pre-loaded all the information in the beginning, and since He also was running the evolution of the universe He knew what environmental pressures would be brought to bear on developing organisms and set up preparatory changes for them. That or He dabbled. I'm stuck.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum