An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, July 18, 2018, 13:01 (2318 days ago) @ dhw

DHW:..In our times Gould has come up with punctuated equilibrium, but he doesn’t reject the “theory of evolution”. He modifies it. Even Michael Behe, a leading proponent of Intelligent Design, accepts common descent:

Yes, with a theory entitled "Punctuated Equilibrium" not "The Theory of Evolution".

On this week's Sunday Sequence, the American biochemist Dr Michael Behe explained why he believes Intelligent Design Theory is a scientific proposition rather than a religous belief. Behe accepts much that is widely taught within contemporary science -- including common descent and a universe that is billions of years old -- but argues that Darwian explanations of human evolution fail to make sense of the "irreducible complexity" that can be seen in the world.

His theory is entitled Intelligent Design, not Evolution.

DHW: His argument is not against Darwin’s theory of common descent, which lies at the heart of evolution, but just like yours it is against randomness as an explanation: life, and especially human life, is too complex to have arisen by chance. That is also David’s view. Evolution IS common descent, and current disagreements centre not on whether it happened but on HOW it happened. Here is the conclusion of an article in the Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought:
“Biologists therefore do not argue about whether evolution has taken place, but many details of how evolution proceeds are still matters of controversy.”

That doesn’t mean you must believe in evolution, of course, but it clarifies the distinction you refuse to make. An “Alternative to Evolution” has to be an alternative to common descent. An alternative to Darwinian evolution has to be an alternative to common descent by random mutation. Your design theory provides an alternative to random mutation. It does not provide an alternative to common descent.

It does just that if you follow it to its logical conclusion by stating that ecological needs would be shown to be the cause for genetic similarity instead of descent, in agreement with the evidence. I just posted a couple new research articles that shows how mitochondrial DNA has proven a recent bottle neck from which all modern life emerged. The recent research tears down most of the foundations that both common descent and random mutations are built upon, and follow the idea of a designed language for all life, with species entering and exiting in punctuated equilibrium, at specifically time events, fully formed, and then mutating almost not at all between the last bottle neck and now, with no transitional fossils. A recent study shows that despite geographical (Population) separation, environmental niche served as a way of 'predicting evolutionary repetition'. If it is predictable and repeats, it is non-random. If they are geographically separate, it is not common descent. Instead, as I predicted you see creatures programmed to deal with their environment using the similar programming for similar ecological niches.

Here: Framework #5, #7,
'
5 There will be safe guards in place to prevent incompatible functions either from coexisting or from operating in the same organism at the same time. If co-existence is forced, the organism will generally die, or at the very least, be sterile, preventing the spread of incompatible functions. (These prevent speciation as defined in literature)

7 That Function design will largely be conserved across all species requiring similar function, regardless of heredity. In short, functionality is more important than descent. (This states ecological niche, not common descent, will be shown to be the primary driver for genetic similarity)

Genetic information:

1 That no natural process will add Functions to a species that it did not already possess. This does not preclude appropriating an existing functions by altering its input parameters to achieve a different output.
2 That random mutations can not create new information for Natural Selection to act on.
4 It is impossible for life to evolve, increase in complexity, without the addition of information.
5 There is no known natural process for increasing biological information.

If random mutations can not account for new functionality, then common descent is irrelevant, as is the concept of 'evolving' from simpler to more complex. So, yes, my hypothesis tackles both of the elements of the Theory of Evolution: Common Descent and Natural Selection through random mutation as a means for increased complexity.

I am truly tired of arguing over the TITLE of this friggin piece rather than the content of it, which is what has been happening since I posted it. I'm not playing this word game anymore. Literally all it is doing is taking away from the heart of what I am trying to work towards, and does nothing to continue to help refine the hypothesis. If you want to quibble over it whether or not I titled the post right or whether or not the Theory of Evolution requires random mutations over time transmitted through common descent that are acted upon by natural selection as stated in the literature, then by all means, continue, but I'm not going to participate in that. It is a waste of energy and time and all it does is generate needless friction and tension. Argue the science of my hypothesis.

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