An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2 (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, July 06, 2018, 16:51 (163 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: 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.

And it is this act of communication that actively undermines evolution, because all life 'speaks' the same 'language'. If evolution were true, we could expect that at least ONE new bio-chemical language would have evolved, or at the very least the language itself would have evolved. But no. Instead that biological language appears fully formed and persists unchanged across every species to have ever existed on planet Earth. The languages informational complexity, sudden fully formed existence, universal usage and extreme conservation or original form all indicate a designed language, much like C++.

• 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.

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.

• 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)

DHW: 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.

Because it places constraints, limits on this ability. To be clear, the 'environment' here is the biological and informational environment of the host organism. If one Function produces a protein, another Function can use that protein to do something else. The output of the second function is dependent upon the output of the first. However, the first function can not go in and directly rearrange the instructions of the second function. It can only affect it by altering its own output. This is a testable, falsifiable concept, as good science should be. It is also something that would show an undeniable sophistication that could only be designed. my terms there has to be a mechanism already present that will enable some organisms to vary the function... However, you go on to say:

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

DHW: How do you know this? All we know is that there are different species. Nobody knows to what extent the variables can vary themselves!...

We know that humans can be covered in hair, head to toe, more hairy, less hairy, and hairless. We know that Full Hair and No Hair are the extremes (-1 & 1), & I suspect the distribution along the spectrum follows the bell curve closely. We know that natural human hair colors are within a fairly limited band of the color spectrum. You never see anyone with naturally blue or green hair. So, we CAN say that there are hard limits on variability.

Oh, by the way.....Why aren't there reference points for speciation? If evolution were true, they should be everywhere, shouldn't they? The simple fact that we do not have them should give anyone pause when considering evolution.

• 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.

..How does this prove that organisms themselves are incapable of changing functions advantageously?

It doesn't. But if you want to propose that, you have to show where the level of available genetic information had INCREASED, was NEW, and NOVEL. If you found that, it would break this whole theory.

• 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.

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