An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2 (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, July 03, 2018, 10:50 (164 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: If the giant that is the current evolutionary model is to be supplanted, something must fill the place it occupied; some theory that answers all of the same questions and more. So, I would like to propose a hypothesis and have you tear it apart for me. Please limit the scope of commentary to the objective facts of the hypothesis. I'm trying to poke holes in it so I can refine it.

This is written in a language I don’t fully understand, and so I’ll begin (and end) with an apology. I’ve read this through several times, and have quite a few objections, but I am horribly aware that these may be based on misunderstandings of what you’ve written. If so, I’ll ask for your forbearance. I’m anxious not to offend you, but you did ask for criticism, so even if just one or two comments are helpful and to the point, it will be worthwhile my probing. Feel free to ignore the rest!

Framework
1 DNA is a modular information project, wherein each chunk of genetic information (Gene) contains the instruction for a particular specified Function.
• 6 That some, if not most, Functions will have variables, or expression modifiers, that can be conserved or inherited both inside the species and to its progeny.

I have to relate this to living organisms, and if one gene with a particular specified function can have variables, why should there not also be potential for variation within whole communities of cells? How variable can a variable be? The potential for variation is a key factor in evolution. I wish I knew more about stem cells, which apparently are capable of performing a wide variety of functions.

7 That Function design will largely be conserved across all species requiring similar function, regardless of heredity. In short, functionality is more important than descent.

More important for what? You say “largely conserved”, which is obviously true when we look at the many features that different species have in common (regarded as evidence of common descent). But it’s the changes in function design (the bits outside the “largely”) that evolutionists believe result in existing organisms becoming new species (= descent).

8 That living organisms, and their cells and cellular machinery, will be subject to the laws of physics as they are the information environment in which their functional programming is designed to operate.

Perhaps you could explain which laws of physics they are subject to, in order to show why evolution doesn’t fit.

9 If DNA is purely information, it will need some method for acting upon the material world, a way of transitioning from information to mass or energy, in accordance with the laws of physics. I should think that, ultimately, this will reveal a side of physics that we do not yet fully comprehend.

How does this offer us an alternative to evolution?

Genetic Information
• 1 That no natural process will add Functions to a species that it did not already possess. This does not preclude appropriating an existing functions by altering its input parameters to achieve a different output.

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.

• 2 That random mutations can not create new information for Natural Selection to act on.

I am also opposed to the theory of random mutations. But supposing the mutations were not random? Supposing organisms were able to engineer their own mutations in order to make use of new information from the environment? See Part Two of your theory plus my concluding comment.

• 4 It is impossible for life to evolve, increase in complexity, without the addition of information.

Agreed.

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

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? (Continued…)


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum