An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2 (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, July 13, 2018, 14:05 (73 days ago) @ dhw
edited by Balance_Maintained, Friday, July 13, 2018, 14:21

dhw: If only you would define "information", your argument might become clearer.

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

DHW Why can’t information also mean instructions for new organs to be invented?

Because it does not fit the observed data. There is a difinitive increase in information and complexity. If the information already existed, it would be expressed in the current cell, not the subsequent generation.


dhw: 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?

DAVID: 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.

DHW Tony has not spelt out his alternative theory, but it would seem to be God’s separate creation of the species. (He’ll correct me if I’m wrong.) Do you accept this as a reasonable alternative to common descent?


I have, in a two part set of facts and falsifiable predictions. Please stop saying that I have not laid out my hypothesis. What you seem to want is a story, but story time is not science.


dhw: Why is it not conceivable that your God designed the whole evolutionary mechanism for speciation and variation to develop out of the same genetic programming language he invented right at the beginning of life?

TONY: My hypothesis Does allow for variation, but not speciation as we currently view it. The primary reason is this: my hypothesis predicts that Genetic information will be function specific and limited in variation by requirements of the complexity involved. There is no known method to add the information needed to make diverge into a new species, and the information does not, to our knowledge, exist in prior species. We have no evidence of inventive functionality at the cellular level. New functionality appears fully formed. […] Without speciation, the vast bush of life would look far different.

dhw Does your prediction that genetic information will be “function specific” mean you predict that innovation will prove to be impossible, and therefore only your God can produce new species?

Adaptation within limits will be possible, but not crossing species boundaries. That said, I do not think the species boundaries will be how we see them today.

DHWYou needn’t be shy with us. It’s better to say what you mean. You are right that there is no evidence that cells can invent something new – that is why it’s a hypothesis. On the other hand, why is your prediction any more valid than my hypothesis or David’s (that his God planned and directed evolution)?

Because there are observations that support mine. We have never observed speciation. That is a pretty glaring defect for any form of evolution that allows for it.


dhw: All of us can show some evidence for our hypotheses, but none of us can provide conclusive evidence even that your God exists, let alone that he did it this way and not that way.

TONY: That is why I have repeatedly asked that we keep God out of the scientific part of this conversation. It isn't a hypothesis about God, but rather about genetic information.

DHW So your hypothesis is that there cannot be a mechanism for innovation, and therefore evolution could not have happened, and therefore….?

My hypothesis is, for the nth time, that DNA is a designed language for programming biological functionality. I make no guess as to the designer or their motives because that is NOT science.


TONY: Actually, David and I both agree, I think, that an organism cannot pass on information it doesn't already contain

DHW... you are not willing to contemplate the possibility that an organism can ACQUIRE new information and then pass it on.

There are four possibilities: invention, acquisition, preprogrammimg, and dabbling(as you call it).

We have no evidence at all of invention. Saying that it happened because there is new information is not logically sound.

David has provided us with numerous cellular mechanics that should prevent genetic acquisition, which is the logical fallacy I was pointing about horizontal gene transfer.

We have no evidence for speciation, nor do we observe early life containing all the genetic information for more complex life, thus denying full pre-programmed evolution.

That leaves dabbling, which fits the evidence of the Cambrian explosion and similar events.


Could a designer have done it otherwise? Certainly. I just want to see the evidence for it laid out in a logical, falsifiable manner before I jump on board.

--
Without darkness there can be no light, no truth without lies.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum