An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2 (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, July 15, 2018, 20:59 (2321 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: (to Tony): You don't seem to believe in common descent, but based on your discussion of rearranging parts, doesn't that imply each stage came from the past stage?

dhw: Precisely. David and I agree for once!

DAVID: I don't agree with what you believe. What is rearranged is DNA, not a primary change in parts. That is always secondary.

dhw: You were arguing that each stage came from a past stage, and that = common descent. I also think that each stage came from a past stage, and that = common descent.

DAVID: God running the process of evolution is a form of common descent.

Tony: ONLY IF speciation, as a process, occurs, which we have not observed. The alternative is that he designed prototypes, with built in variability parameters, and that life has stayed within those types and those variability parameters.

David: What you are proposing sounds like pure dhw. Original forms had built-in ways to reform themselves into something more complex. No dabbling required.

Tony: It is a difference in degrees. Did the designer not dabble at all(preprogrammed everything), dabble a little(prototypes with limited variation), or dabble constantly (special creation for every variety?

My view is that he dabbled a little, when appropriate and necessary, leaving the code for limited variation to handle the rest.

David: Again this means your view is that an enormous library of information was put into the beginning of life. We cannot separate creation of life from what happened afterward.

The only difference I see is the idea that a single organism Contained all the info for everything. That doesn't make sense from a design standpoint t

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