An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Tuesday, July 17, 2018, 13:46 (155 days ago) @ dhw

TONY:
Evolution=Random Chance
Design=Intentional, non-random
Literally any hypothesis against evolution will be design vs. chance. Of course at least 50% will design vs. chance.

DHW Again and again you insist that evolution = random chance. It doesn’t! You resolutely refuse to recognize the fact that theistic evolutionists (including our resident panentheist David and the Catholic Church) and our resident agnostic (me) accept the possibility of DESIGNED evolution. Design is not an alternative to evolution, unless you think we are all idiots.

Do me a favor, if you are talking about anything other than the standard Theory of Evolution, as defined in science literature, then please call it something else because it is not what I am talking about. Ok? This tired argument is built solely around you playing the shell and pea game with what is meant when the word Evolution is used. If the hypothesis you are referring to uses the word 'Designed..." anything, it is NOT the Theory of Evolution that my hypothesis is against. I have even stated explicitly that the design could have progressed through special creation, periodic dabbling, or preprogrammed development, though there is enough evidence for me to give less weight to fully automated preprogramming. See...you have me quoted saying exactly that in the quote below..


DHW: Your method is separate creation. If there is a designer, he can choose any method he likes, but there is no experimental evidence to prove that prototypes can spring forth out of nothing.

TONY: My method is a designed language for genetic programming. My personal beliefs have little to do with this hypothesis. My hypothesis does not specify special creation, dabbling, or divine evolution, only a genetic programming language.

DHW Both David and I have already repeatedly accepted all your arguments for a designed language. Once more: that is not an alternative to evolution. Your alternative to evolution, as you have told us elsewhere, is special creation of prototypes. If you had called the thread “design versus chance”, we would not be having this disagreement. Please face up to the fact that evolution is not synonymous with chance.


Well, if you agree with all the arguments for a designed language, then you literally agree with my entire hypothesis, because my hypothesis is not about special creation, nor dabbling, nor preprogramming. Be more clear in your usage of language. I have already clarified this point, repeatedly, in agreement with your statement above, but the Theory of Evolution, in any formal definition, states explicitly that it is based on random mutations and gradual change. That is the Theory of Evolution.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

--
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