An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2 (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, July 03, 2018, 11:00 (2333 days ago) @ dhw

• 7 That we can not, as of yet, scientifically prove where the information source for DNA originated.

Agreed. That is hardly an alternative to evolution, or even an argument against it.

• 10 The relationship between proteins and DNA must include some form of formal language (purely in the sense of information exchange, which can happen chemically, such as how protein shape can alter gene expression) in order to interact.

Information exchange is crucial to all bodily processes, but I don’t know how that leads us to an alternative to evolution. The cells must communicate, no matter what your theory of speciation might be.

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

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.

• 13 That Functions within a strand of DNA can interact and influence other Functions by altering input parameters, thus changing the environment, but they will be unable to alter another function directly. (Encapsulation)

Why? Again this comes down to the degree of variability – not in connection with changing the environment, but with the environment changing the function of the DNA. Epigenetics means a change in what you call function. But I may have totally misunderstood this, because it is too abstract for me.

Functionality
• 4 There must be a way for external stimuli to be reacted to at a cellular level. (Adaptation)
• 5 The genetic instructions for any given adaptation must already exist within the DNA of the organism.
• 6 Most adaptations will be found to be variables within a Function that are conserved.

Yes, in my terms there has to be a mechanism already present that will enable some organisms to vary the function. (Though let us not forget that the vast majority of all species have failed to survive.) However, you go on to say:

• 7 These Function variables are constrained to within hard limits, as if using a -1 to 1 scale.

How do you know this? All we know is that there are different species. Nobody knows to what extent the variables can vary themselves! I sometimes get the feeling that you are applying computer formulas to organic life, but there are no reference points for speciation, and we are in no position to propose analogies.

• 8 If the hard limits could be identified, outliers beyond those limits, through genetic malfunctions, will be found to be ultimately deleterious to the organism.

Yes, malfunctions will be deleterious. But how does this prove that organisms themselves are incapable of changing functions advantageously? Or….see below.

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

Again, I don’t see how this disproves evolution. To get to the point you have laudably avoided, you quite rightly emphasize all the complexities involved in speciation, but David clearly regards this as support for his own theory of evolution personally directed by his God. In the same theistic context, I can’t see why any of the above should preclude evolution through a function-changing mechanism designed by your God. But once again, I must emphasize that I struggle with the terminology, and everything I have written here is with full acknowledgement that I may have misunderstood you. So let me repeat that I have written it in the hope that some points may be useful to you, but also because I feel you must be onto something that I haven’t grasped, and I am very touched that you have offered it to us to criticize. I regard that as an honour, and apologize if I’ve let you down!