An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2 (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, July 12, 2018, 15:31 (2324 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Fits my point that all the needed information for life from bacteria to humans was present from the beginning.
TONY: I think it is premature to make that assumption. As a designer, that strikes me as intuitively wrong. You don't design the end and work your way back, usually, especially with more complex systems.

DAVID: If God can see the future, my thought is not unreasonable.
TONY: But what does the evidence say? The evidence is that we have these events like the Cambrian explosion. A whole slew of new life forms emerging fully formed with no intermediates. If we were to contrast Cambrian lifeforms versus early life forms, would they have more or less information and complexity?

dhw: Tony has asked David the same question as my own: why can’t a new organ/organism contain and pass on information that did not exist before? And I have repeatedly asked for a definition of “information” – request repeatedly ignored. The only answer we get is: “I believe all the necessary info for life and evolution was present from the beginning. The loss of information from mutations means everything needed was present at the first cell.” But David, you also believe your God dabbled. Is it not possible that he added “information” to whatever he dabbled with? If only you would define "information", your argument might become clearer.

I can only tell you that information is the instructions for life to be formed and continue.

DAVID: My approach: [Evolution] Guided by God with all the information/instructions provided at the beginning of life fits Tony and not the theory of random mutations driving anything.

dhw: All of us agree that random mutations are out. But Tony rejects evolution and common descent. As you are our resident theistic evolutionist, won't you please explain why you reject Tony's arguments against the form of evolution you believe in?

I know Tony has a different view of evolution, but I agree with him that DNA is a designed code. I think Tony prefers dabbling as a definite event. I only consider it as possible.