An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2 (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, July 15, 2018, 03:39 (157 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: So if your God dabbles (as opposed to preprogrammes) something completely new, like the knotty nest or the first brain, he does not provide any new “information”?

If a designer dabbled, then yes, information it being added.

DHW: Facts and predictions without a conclusion do not in my book constitute a hypothesis, which I would define as a not yet proven explanation for a group of facts. I don’t equate explanations with stories.

Conclusion: DNA is a DESIGNED LANGUAGE. This is antithetical to Naturalistic Evolution which emphasizes RANDOM CHANCE over DESIGN. Like Darwin, I recognize that it is impossible for science to study God directly, so I tried to leave him out of it As soon as I put the word God in this hypothesis, it is no longer a scientific hypothesis.

Did God do it, I believe so. However, my hypothesis can be proven regardless of whether the designer was God. It is possible to recognize design. We do it all the time. When we start from the position of "This was designed", we ask different questions and examine the data under a different set of lenses. So, as much as I know it will be difficult, is it possible for you to talk about the science without talking about the religion?

DHW: You predict that innovation leading to speciation will prove to be impossible by natural means.

To test this, breed a bird with a cat and let me know how it goes, or a rat with a dog, or any other two diffinitively different species.

DHW: I might predict that science will discover natural means of innovation (e.g. cellular intelligence).

How can this be tested? As long as there is no evidence, you can just keep saying "We haven't found it yet" and there would be no way to disprove the negative.

DHW David might predict the discovery of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every innovation (info present from the beginning).

How can this be tested? As long as there is no evidence, you can just keep saying "We haven't found it yet" and there would be no way to disprove the negative.

DHW: Why is your prediction more “falsifiable” and more scientific than these?

Because mine CAN be falsified conclusively, neither of the other two statements can. The latter two statements are like the missing transition fossils for evolution.

TONY: 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: It is because we have never observed speciation that we have different hypotheses. Nobody has ever observed a God designing the universe, life, and species...that is a pretty glaring defect for any hypothesis.

Of course, which is why you will not find God in my hypothesis. I do not speculate on the nature of the Designer, only that the language of genetics is designed. We can detect design, an inference made by analyzing secondary data like specified complexity, just as we studied gravitation waves for years without being able to detect them directly by predictable effects.


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

There could have been a mechanism for innovation. I've only said there needs to be some evidence for it. For that matter, we COULD have popped into existence yesterday and everything we think we remember is a lie, a product of highly confused cellular information. But, again, there is no evidence to support such a claim.


TONY: My hypothesis is, for the nth time, that DNA is a designed language for programming biological functionality. ...

DHW: ... many evolutionists believe that evolution is the product of design.

The Theory of Evolution, the formal theory, is based on random mutation.


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

I didn't say I was unwilling to contemplate it, I said the evidence is actually AGAINST it. There are too many processes whose sole function is to prevent and repair changes to the genome.

TONY: 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.

DHW Maybe genetic acquisition IS possible. See quotes from the article David posted.

David posted two articles back to back:

The first proposed, because we see this gene in many species, it MUST have jumped between them. There was no observation of the jump, but the gene MUST have jumped because they found it where they didn't expect it. Damn mosquitos. The second was about a function that prevents changes to the genome.

DHW: No matter how you define “species”, the evidence for speciation is that species exist. We have no evidence for how it happened. I share your scepticism re fully preprogrammed evolution.

So, can we infer from this statement that because we have multiple types of stars, these stars must have somehow merged and divided to create the new varieties? No, of course not! The evidence states that there are species. This statement is true. That is all. The EVIDENCE does NOT tell us that species separated. It does not even imply that species separated. THis is a big deal, in a way, so I will post it to its own thread.

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


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum