David: Alternative[s] to Evolution 1 & 2 are fabulous contributions to this discussion which I view as an analysis of God's guiding hand. The recognition of the importance of implanted information is a prime point.

Tony: Well, I intentionally left god out of it. I didn't want the hypothesis biased by theology. Rather, I wanted to ignore the information source for the moment and focus on observable fact that does not NEED a story. If we are just talking about what IS, does this theory fit the observations?

It certainly does.

Can you find any holes in it, or something I missed?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Tony: I will respond more fully when I am at a computer, but the two points that preclude evolution are the absence of new information and the deleterious effects of mutations. Sorry to be so brief, but responding by cell phone is horrible.

As a follow up point, though, evolution only makes s sense if random chance is the only instigating force.

Can you tell me why you do not consider theistic evolution run by God?

Tony: • 11 That the information density in even a single living cell will be too complex to be reduced to mere chance.

DHW: Agreed. But you are simply attacking one aspect of Darwin’s theory of evolution. The complexity is a major argument for theistic evolutionists – it is not an argument against evolution.

Tony: This is a hypothesis, and this is one of the predictions of said hypothesis, and one which our math and science, the observable facts, seems to agree. If true, this postulate would indicate that abiogenesis is impossible, as well as pointing to the fact that multi-cellularity complexity on the scale of a human is too informationally complex to be chance.

Agreed, Abiogenesis is impossible.

Tony: • 13 Life is very dependent upon time and timing. Function timing will be tightly controlled.(Enzymes)

DHW: Again, I don’t see how this disproves evolution. .. I can’t see why any of the above should preclude evolution through a function-changing mechanism designed by your God.

If that there were a Function that allowed the creation of new Functions, why don't we see more new, unique, functions? And if we do find them, we could locate the Function-changing Function, which would still be too complex for random chance, thus confirming this hypothesis, even if some small edits to it needed to be made.

I shared this with you, David, and George because I respect your opinions and your minds. I've been honored to converse with the three of you and have learned a tremendous amount through the research I had to do just to hold my own in these discussions. In a very real way, it is you three that have challenged me enough to force me to try and tackle this problem in a non-theistic fashion.

You've done a great job.

I am going to try and summarize the points at issue, because this thread is becoming too diffuse for me to handle! But once again, I’ll start with an apology because I continue to struggle with your terminology.

The first issue is that you keep talking about your hypothesis, but you have not told us what it is. A vast proportion of your list of scientific facts boils down to life being too complex to have evolved by chance, abiogenesis is impossible, and therefore design is the only solution. I find this argument unanswerable, and it is a major factor in my own agnosticism. (This is not the place to explain the other half of my agnosticism, which is my objections to the God theory). But this argument has nothing to do with the theory of common descent. And that is why there are many theistic evolutionists, who reject chance for the same reason as you do.

Here are some more points:
1 Stem cells that perform different functions fit in very neatly with evolution.

2 The fact that organisms have so many structures in common is strong evidence for common descent. I don’t know why you focus on minor variations such as hair colour. It is major innovations that are the problem for evolution. You are right that nobody has ever observed them, and that science has not discovered any mechanism that could invent them. David thinks his God either preprogrammed them or dabbled them. I propose cellular intelligence (possibly designed by your God), which some scientists regard as a fact, though we do not know if that intelligence stretches so far as to invent new organs. It is just a hypothesis. Now please tell us your own hypothesis.

3 “Mutations are deleterious.” If you take the word “mutation” to mean change, there is no avoiding the fact that every innovation is a mutation. Once more you are rigidly focused on chance, but if changes were designed (e.g. by your God, or by intelligent cell communities) they would not be deleterious. And Natural Selection simply preserves those that are advantageous. Again, no reason for rejecting evolution.

4 You wrote: “The theory of evolution is not the facts, but rather the story we use to connect all of the facts into a coherent thought with explanatory power.” Yes indeed. That is the case with all hypotheses. So what is yours?

5 Do you know all the laws of physics? Have you found the key to the mysteries of quantum mechanics? Have you travelled all over the universe to be able to say you know that all forms of life must obey the same laws? And how does this part of your hypothesis disprove evolution?

6 You wrote: “Further, it postulates that we will not discover any metaphysical components in our material bodies.” I’m not going to argue for metaphysics, but I’ll argue the toss against any physicist who claims that he knows for a fact that the material world is the only reality, all psychic experiences are hocus-pocus, and consciousness can be explained by our material cells.

7 Endosymbiosis: I don’t understand how two separate organisms can combine into one without each providing new information for the other, but perhaps I’d best leave this to the experts.

8 All cells communicate. All organisms are made up of cells. Yes, their language has persisted, and gives every impression of having been designed. All part of the argument against chance. But not against evolution! On the contrary, if cells have been able to communicate since the very beginning of life, that fits in with the idea that they could combine and experiment intentionally, especially when faced with challenges from the natural environment, and possibly even when a changed environment offered opportunities for innovation.

9 ..You say my hypothesis that organisms themselves may be capable of changing functions advantageously requires proof that the level of available genetic information had INCREASED, was NEW, and NOVEL. I’m afraid you’ll have to explain this to me. I assume you accept that bacteria, trilobites, etc. preceded humans. Are you saying that there has been no increase in genetic information? Nothing new? Forgive my denseness – perhaps this again boils down to your definition of information. But whatever it boils down to, I would like you to tell us your own hypothesis, and how it disproves the theory that all changes took place successively in existing organisms (= common descent).

Tony: I shared this with you, David, and George because I respect your opinions and your minds. I've been honored to converse with the three of you and have learned a tremendous amount through the research I had to do just to hold my own in these discussions. In a very real way, it is you three that have challenged me enough to force me to try and tackle this problem in a non-theistic fashion.

I see this as a kind of symbiosis! We all bring different information/opinions to the task of trying to solve the unsolvable, and I for one have benefited enormously from the discussions with you, David and many others during the 10 plus years of the website’s existence. And the respect is mutual!

TONY: 5 There is no known natural process for increasing biological information.

dhw: Yes there is: endosymbiosis. But in any case, how do you define increasing biological information? If an organism is able to adapt its body to new information coming from the environment, how can it do so without adding biological information? Millions of bacteria may be killed by new antibiotics, but somehow eventually they find a biological way to counter the threat. Why does this not count as increasing biological information? And how can we know the limitations of cells to restructure themselves in the face of environmental change?

DAVID: Endosymbiosis does not increase biologic information. The info already pre-exists in the symbiotic organism. It is simply added to its host.

dhw: As I understand it – but I’m open to correction – the “symbiotic organism” is a merger between two organisms, the one living inside the other, which exchange biological information, each to the other’s benefit (in those cases where the merger is beneficial to both parties). If one set of biological information is “added” to another, doesn’t that mean an increase?

The amount of total information used in life does not change, but the two symbiotic organisms add to each other, as you state.

TONY: 5 There is no known natural process for increasing biological information.

dhw: Yes there is: endosymbiosis. But in any case, how do you define increasing biological information? If an organism is able to adapt its body to new information coming from the environment, how can it do so without adding biological information? Millions of bacteria may be killed by new antibiotics, but somehow eventually they find a biological way to counter the threat. Why does this not count as increasing biological information? And how can we know the limitations of cells to restructure themselves in the face of environmental change?

DAVID: Endosymbiosis does not increase biologic information. The info already pre-exists in the symbiotic organism. It is simply added to its host.

As I understand it – but I’m open to correction – the “symbiotic organism” is a merger between two organisms, the one living inside the other, which exchange biological information, each to the other’s benefit (in those cases where the merger is beneficial to both parties). If one set of biological information is “added” to another, doesn’t that mean an increase?

No, because:

• Symbiosis does not mean that genetic information was shared between parties.
  
• There is no indication that Symbiosis increases the genetic information in either organism
  
• If either party were to 'evolve' it would likely break the symbiotic nature of their relationship. Natural symbiosis works more like a trade deal then a research agreement, at least according to the observed data.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Tony: And it is those precise changes in function design that evolution CAN'T handle, despite its claims. There is NO mechanism for adding NEW information to DNA that we have ever observed. None. Mutations are deleterious the vast majority of times, mutations can not account for changes that must be concurrent and fully functioning because not fully functioning typically means death, which means Natural Selection should actually PREVENT creatures from evolving. If anything, it's function (as a principle) would be to conserve genetic integrity by killing off genetic mutations. The vast number of things that must happen 'just so' in order for any organism to live are simply too complex for chance. Saying that it happened because they exist is illogical.

This is a key observation. To me it means God coded every bit of necessary information from the beginning.

dhw: I don’t understand the second point, but endosymbiosis runs directly counter to your first point, and again is an important factor in modern evolutionary theory.

tony: No, it doesn't. Mitochondria, for example, are suspected of having been seperate organisms (I do not care to speculate on that), and they have their own DNA. Their DNA functions like all other DNA, but it doesn't add NEW information to the cell. That information originated with the mitochondria, is conserved by the mitochondria, and to our knowledge, is not integrated into the host cell.

David: My recent entry states the mitochondria directly influence the nucleus.

The genetic code used by all life only consists of 64 nucleotide triplets across all life as we know it, and those 64 nucleotide triplets are reused extensively. These nucleotide triplets are read to create proteins from amino acids. Evolutionary theory calls these "Highly Conserved", referencing common decent, but this hypothesis does not need that story. Under this hypothesis, genes, proteins, microproteins, amino acids, histones, etc are EXPECTED to appear in a wide variety of organisms. The fact that the cell nucleus contains many of the same genes is about and extraordinary as saying many words in the English language use 'ing' somewhere in their formation. Of course they do! Why wouldn't they? That is ONLY surprising if you are starting from the premise of evolution by common descent and random mutation. In other words, the fact that both mitochondria and the cell nucleus contain some of the same genetic code is expected, even predicted, by this hypothesis, and needs no unobserved fictional love story to explain them. They are there because the cell(as a whole) and mitochondria share certain requirements, and thus contain the code for those requirements.

Mitochondria present a lot of challenges for the theory of evolution, creating as many problems as they solve. However, these are ONLY problems for evolution. As a matter of design, it makes perfect sense that the four primary types of mitochondria are used ubiquitously throughout all life because all life needs energy, and four basic solutions were all that were needed to fit most every environment, and largely differ in the amount of energy they produce. As an experiment, one could exchange the mitochondria of two organisms that use different types of mitochondria and observe the results. My thought is that death would be the result, either by extreme ATP deficiency or an over-abundance of ATP that the host cell is not able to accomodate. The differences in ATP production are rather large, as are the environmental requirements for each type. It is acknowledged that mitochondria seems to be based more on environmental needs than species, which is also in accordance with my hypothesis.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

dhw: You keep harping on about information and sticking rigidly to the specialized use of the word mutation. That is understandable, but you can hardly deny that evolution involves change (another meaning of the word mutation). Please answer the question I asked above: did the first brain not add “information” to that which existed in brainless organisms?

DAVID: See Tony's explanation. A brain is not information. It is an object and it came from existing information in original DNA.

Tony’s explanation of information is specificity, purpose, context, meaning etc., and DNA is a designed language, and each gene has a specific function. Of course the brain is an object. But if the brain never existed before, and then gets passed on to future generations, does it not contain specific, purposeful, meaningful genetic information that was not present in brainless organisms?

dhw: The same argument. I agree, and I’m sure David also agrees. Once more it all boils down to an attack on random mutations. That does not invalidate the theory of evolution by design! I also agree with your description of information, and still cannot understand why innovations such as the brain, sexual reproduction etc. cannot be said to add specificity, purpose, context, meaning etc. to the brainlessness and asexuality that preceded them.

DAVID: You are confusing advances in complexity with information which produces the complexity. Complexity occurs but information is not added, only altered. Humans are highly complex, but their DNA is smaller than many organisms.

First of all, I must say I am surprised that as a theistic evolutionist yourself, you are not prepared to defend your view of divinely designed evolution, or perhaps like me you are waiting for more details of Tony’s alternative.

I find the whole discussion on “information” as confusing as ever, and this may be due to my unfamiliarity with scientific jargon. However, I am here to learn. As above, I don’t understand why a new organ cannot contain and pass on information that did not exist before. So please define exactly what YOU mean by information. (Tony’s definition was the above list of nouns, but one can always introduce new meanings, functions, purposes.) DNA is not information. It is a substance that carries information. Why can't it carry new information? I don’t understand the relevance of your final remark. But perhaps all this will become clear when you give me your definition of information!

TONY: DHW, you are playing fast and loose with language. The Theory of Evolution is dependent upon random mutations. Period. It is entirely based on chance. A chance that has been proven impossible mathematically according to all we know (which admittedly isn't much).

Tony, you are closing your eyes to the fact that there are evolutionists who believe that God designed the whole process, and they reject random mutations in favour of design. David is one of them. Period.

TONY: If something is not random chance, it is designed. Any answer to the Theory of Evolution is going to be rooted in Intelligent Design. Something is either random, or its not. We have all agreed, repeatedly, that random chance is out of the question. That leaves design.

Precisely the argument of our dear friend David, a theistic evolutionist, and I wish he would say so himself.

TONY: It has never been observed, to my knowledge, that a species suddenly acquired brand new genetic functionality that it didn't have before.

Yes, innovation is the problem.

TONY: I know they can be manipulated into that, but that is design. I know that they can re-purpose existing functionality to adapt to their environments. But new functionality being inserted into the genome during its own life has not, that I am aware of, been observed. And that is the observation that must be made before I consider the idea of an inventive intelligence at the cellular level, because that is what must be done in order to pass that information to the next generation.

All agreed. I keep saying it myself: we know organisms can adapt, but we do not know if the mechanism for adaptation can extend so far as to innovation. That is why it is a hypothesis.

TONY: I've considered your hypothesis multiple times, but that is the sticking point for me. At least one organism needs to cross the threshhold of adding a working function to their genome during the lifespan of a single celled organism.

And why do you think your God is incapable of doing just that? Or incapable of installing a mechanism that would enable cells to do just that?

Tony: Again, this hypothesis does not question the nature of the designer. But if there are questions about things that we see,like the Cambrian Explosion, it gives a new perspective, a new way of looking at the data. A good way to bring science to bear on the questions, and perhaps even find that our way of looking at things is backwards and much of what we think we know is wrong because everyone is looking for random chance in a world full of design. How many lives would be saved if we cracked the universal genetic code down to the programming level? ALS? Alzheimers? Diabetes?

All fine, except that back you go to random chance. The history of life as we know it shows a vast bush of organisms that have come and gone. As far as we know, humans are a late development. As far as we know, bacteria have been here since the year dot. So why do you think your God could not have designed a mechanism for life to produce a vast bush of organisms that have come and gone, starting with bacteria and (possibly) culminating in us humans? If we accept your belief in God, the alternative here is not chance versus design. It is between evolution designed by God and….what designed by God? You still haven’t told us!

Tony: DHW, you are playing fast and loose with language. The Theory of Evolution is dependent upon random mutations. Period. It is entirely based on chance. A chance that has been proven impossible mathematically according to all we know (which admittedly isn't much).

If something is not random chance, it is designed. Any answer to the Theory of Evolution is going to be rooted in Intelligent Design. Something is either random, or its not. We have all agreed, repeatedly, that random chance is out of the question. That leaves design.

You have been using the word evolution in the less technical sense of to change and, possibly grow over time. I have not stated that things do not change over time. My hypothesis even accounts for genetic heredity and conservation of information over generations.

It has never been observed, to my knowledge, that a species suddenly acquired brand new genetic functionality that it didn't have before. I know they can be manipulated into that, but that is design. I know that they can re-purpose existing functionality to adapt to their environments. But new functionality being inserted into the genome during its own life has not, that I am aware of, been observed. And that is the observation that must be made before I consider the idea of an inventive intelligence at the cellular level, because that is what must be done in order to pass that information to the next generation. I've considered your hypothesis multiple times, but that is the sticking point for me. At least one organism needs to cross the threshhold of adding a working function to their genome during the lifespan of a single celled organism.

Again, this hypothesis does not question the nature of the designer. But if there are questions about things that we see,like the Cambrian Explosion, it gives a new perspective, a new way of looking at the data. A good way to bring science to bear on the questions, and perhaps even find that our way of looking at things is backwards and much of what we think we know is wrong because everyone is looking for random chance in a world full of design. How many lives would be saved if we cracked the universal genetic code down to the programming level? ALS? Alzheimers? Diabetes?

Why are lab mice and pigs useful for finding medications for humans? Maybe if those guys would stop playing make believe and trying to figure out which mousepigasaur screwed a chimpazee to make humans they would start seeing what is right in front of their face.

Brilliant exposition.