An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2 (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, July 09, 2018, 12:34 (569 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

tony: First off, I'd like to remind all there there is a Part I to my hypothesis.

My initial response contained comments on both parts of your hypothesis.

tony: I will try to address all the points I can, but DHW, for brevity, I am condensing your points. Apologies in advance if I miss a point here, but if I do, please give me a concise question to answer.

I will also condense.
dhw: Problem I: This #point doesn't undermine evolution!

TONY: [...] The data undermines evolution just fine. Every point I make is meant to provide a logical, testable, repeatable, falsifiable observation based approach to biology that furthers the idea that DNA is a designed language. As a designed language, it is fundamentally incompatible with Darwinian evolution. […] The rules that we have observed indicate that speciation on the scale needed for evolution by common descent, fueled by random mutations and filtered through natural selection can not produce life as we know it.

The argument against chance seems to be the main thrust of your hypothesis: the complexity of DNA and of all the changes needed for speciation. This, of course, is the basis of the whole “Intelligent Design” movement, and I for one agree. It is a major factor in my own agnosticism. And I know David agrees too, as he has written two brilliant books on the subject. But this argument does not in any way invalidate the theory that all organisms have evolved from earlier organisms – not by the methods that Darwin proposed, but by design: your God’s preprogramming and dabbling, according to David; the inventive intelligence of cells/cell communities, according to my alternative hypothesis, with your God as the possible designer of this inventive intelligence.

TONY: On Information
What David and I are referring to as 'information' is more than just random gibberish. It is:
Data that is (1) accurate and timely, (2) specific and organized for a purpose, (3) >presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) can lead to an >increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty.

Read more:
Specificity, Purpose, Context, Meaning, Relevance, Decrease in Uncertainty.
If DNA were the result of random mutations, where is all the noise (random non-sense) in the signal (DNA information strand)? Not only is there virtually no signal noise in any known genome, the information stored shows a high degree of complexity.

The same argument. I agree, and I’m sure David also agrees. Once more it all boils down to an attack on random mutations. That does not invalidate the theory of evolution by design! I also agree with your description of information, and still cannot understand why innovations such as the brain, sexual reproduction etc. cannot be said to add specificity, purpose, context, meaning etc. to the brainlessness and asexuality that preceded them.

TONY: Evolution can not explain the specificity, the complexity, nor the utter lack of signal noise in something generated from supposedly random mutations.
My hypothesis differs because it starts by positing: The information contained within any genome is, and must be, too complex, too specific, and too ubiquitous to be produced by random chance and natural selection.

Your attack on evolution is an attack on chance. Your alternative appears to be design. Many theists believe in evolution as a process designed by their God.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum