An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2 (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 07, 2018, 19:25 (160 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Here are some more points:

2 The fact that organisms have so many structures in common is strong evidence for common descent. 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.

You are correct to limit the concept of cellular intelligence. All that is observed is the cells are programmed to act intelligently in their own interest and living activity, nothing more.


dhw: 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.

Natural selection is a nebulous tautology, to which you keep scurrying back, to use your terms. Certainly there is natural competition but that does not provide for speciation.


dhw: 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.

No new information is added to the total information in living roganisms.


dhw: 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.

Cells cannot invent without a sense of purpose to understand what is required to be new in the process of development. You are granting the cells the ability of foresight!


dhw: 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?

Mutations generally destroy existing information, which is why I say God programmed everything into the beginning of life. When He dabbled it was not to increase information.

Please forgive me for sneaking into a discussion with Tony to express my thinking.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum