An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2 (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, July 10, 2018, 02:44 (2327 days ago) @ dhw

DHW, you are playing fast and loose with language. The Theory of Evolution is dependent upon random mutations. Period. It is entirely based on chance. A chance that has been proven impossible mathematically according to all we know (which admittedly isn't much).

If something is not random chance, it is designed. Any answer to the Theory of Evolution is going to be rooted in Intelligent Design. Something is either random, or its not. We have all agreed, repeatedly, that random chance is out of the question. That leaves design.

You have been using the word evolution in the less technical sense of to change and, possibly grow over time. I have not stated that things do not change over time. My hypothesis even accounts for genetic heredity and conservation of information over generations.

It has never been observed, to my knowledge, that a species suddenly acquired brand new genetic functionality that it didn't have before. I know they can be manipulated into that, but that is design. I know that they can re-purpose existing functionality to adapt to their environments. But new functionality being inserted into the genome during its own life has not, that I am aware of, been observed. And that is the observation that must be made before I consider the idea of an inventive intelligence at the cellular level, because that is what must be done in order to pass that information to the next generation. I've considered your hypothesis multiple times, but that is the sticking point for me. At least one organism needs to cross the threshhold of adding a working function to their genome during the lifespan of a single celled organism.

Again, this hypothesis does not question the nature of the designer. But if there are questions about things that we see,like the Cambrian Explosion, it gives a new perspective, a new way of looking at the data. A good way to bring science to bear on the questions, and perhaps even find that our way of looking at things is backwards and much of what we think we know is wrong because everyone is looking for random chance in a world full of design. How many lives would be saved if we cracked the universal genetic code down to the programming level? ALS? Alzheimers? Diabetes?

Why are lab mice and pigs useful for finding medications for humans? Maybe if those guys would stop playing make believe and trying to figure out which mousepigasaur screwed a chimpazee to make humans they would start seeing what is right in front of their face.

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