An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2 (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, July 06, 2018, 08:29 (166 days ago) @ dhw

I saw the question "How does this [negate] evolution a lot. So let me make a blanket response to that. First and foremost, there are some points in this framework that are directly contradictory to evolution, such as the lack of new information and that common decent can not account for the reuse of specific code functions, which is why they keep having to redesign the family bush. Many of the points are there to expand THIS hypothesis, not to counter evolution. Point of fact, if this theory were proven correct, evolution would crumble under it's own weight. I wouldn't have to waste breath countering it because the observable facts would do that for me.


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.

DHW: 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.

To answer the last first, stem cells are technically unprogrammed cells. Which actually works well with this hypothesis. As to the question of variable domain, I think that depends on the variable. We know, for instance, that there are only a small handful of hair colors that appear in humans. We also know that this variable is typically conserved during procreation. What we don't know, that I am aware of, is how the color pigmentation is controlled at the genetic level. In order to know the domain, we would first have to know which functions controlled it, and what other mechanisms were involved that altered the output of those functions in order to begin to describe what the domain is. Interestingly enough, nearly all natural human hair colors could be described in 2-3 variables.

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.

DHW: 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).

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.


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.

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

Not every point is explicitly designed to undermine evolution. The theory of evolution is not the facts, but rather the story we use to connect all of the facts into a coherrent thought with explanatory power. Biochemistry has taught us that DNA does indeed follow the rules of chemistry, which as any chemist will tell you, is subject to all the laws of the physical world (i.e. physics).

This statement provides predictive power. If we were to find life elsewhere, their biomachinery would also be subject to the same laws of physics that we know, even if the form their life took was completely different to our own. Further, it postulates that we will not discover any metaphysical components in our material bodies.

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.

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.

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


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum