An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, July 20, 2018, 10:36 (144 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: Common Decent of all life from a single organism does not fit the evidence, violates all sorts of laws across a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines from physics to information theory, and is dependent upon a function (speciation) that has never been observed.

DHW The origin of life remains an unsolved mystery, but I think we would all agree that living organisms exist. Please tell us what scientific evidence you have that organisms can spring into existence from nowhere without a predecessor, and name one observer of this phenomenon.

TONY: The Law of Biogenesis says life can only come from life. My hypothesis, like Darwin 's Evolution, does not attempt to explain the origin of life, only the nature of it as it exists. I think I've stated this three times now.. Maybe four or five.

I am not asking you to explain the origin of life. If life can only come from life, then it stands to reason that all life has descended from the first forms, no matter how these came into existence. That is the meaning of common descent.

DHW: And my point is since life is a continuum from the beginning origin must be considered since it established the basic processes of life homeostasis.

This was posted by David, not by me.

TONY: Evolution has not had to tackle this. They left that to Abiogenesis, which has been an utter failure. As for me, I believe in a designer.

Who are “they”? Yet again, it is perfectly possible to believe in common descent and to believe in a designer who, as you go on to say, “kickstarted” the process. Even Darwin repeatedly says so.

DAVID: There are two ways to use the term common descent as I see it: first is the Darwin view of descent with a natural graduated modification from one form to another. The second is punctuated equilibrium in which there is modification, but the gaps in the modification are so large it is never by graduated modification, but implies a designed modification which is not a result of natural forces. My view is the latter is the correct theory and is what I imply when I use the term common descent. I do not accept Darwin's view of common descent.

dhw: This is a quibble. You accept common descent (i.e. that all life forms except the very first descended from earlier life forms), but you reject gradualism and accept punctuated equilibrium, and you believe in design not chance.

David: Not a quibble, as there are two ways to define common descent, an entirely natural one which I reject and process designed and managed by an agency, God. I was really debating with Tony his dispensing with the common descent idea completely. I think I can define it in a way he might accept.

Throughout this discussion, you have both tried to conflate evolution with the way evolution may have proceeded. There is only one way to define common descent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor. There is "massive"[1] evidence of common descent of all life on Earth from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA).[1][2]In July 2016, scientists reported identifying a set of 355 genes from the LUCA, by comparing the genomes of the three domains of life, archaea, bacteria, and eukaryotes.

Tony rejects this, but you accept it. And it makes no difference to the meaning of the term common descent whether God designed it or not.

David: Same story. Higher concentrations of oxygen allowed for the Cambrian Explosion, but did't cause it.

Tony: And ironically match very closely the predictions that could be made if the biblical creation account is true in terms of processes.

David: The origin of the universe and the Earth and us in Genesis 1-6 sounds just like the Big Bang theory, as a book points out.

Tony: Especially some of the more nuanced details, like that green plants started growing while the earth was still heavily shrouded in clouds, probably algae, and the the clouds were parted to reveal the luminaries as the Earth had a sudden uptick in oxygen.

DAVID: Oxygen is a late arrival to the atmosphere. The book is "Genesis and the Big bang" and uses seven eons for days, which is perfectly compatible with the original Hebrew.

I don’t like to break in on this happy biblical accord, but I'm feeling lonely. David, would you please confirm that you believe in common descent, and reject the bible’s separate creation of each species, including man.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum