An Alternative to Evolution: pt 1 (Introduction)
by Balance_Maintained 
, U.S.A., Monday, July 02, 2018, 10:10 (2119 days ago)
If the giant that is the current evolutionary model is to be supplanted, something must fill the place it occupied; some theory that answers all of the same questions and more. So, I would like to propose a hypothesis and have you tear it apart for me. Please limit the scope of commentary to the objective facts of the hypothesis. I'm trying to poke holes in it so I can refine it.
I propose that:
*Note - While this is all one hypothesis, I have attempted to try and categorize the points so that they are more easily examined, not on the basis of importance. I have also added a brief aside after each for clarification. For clarity, when I use Function(capital F), I am referring to a function as defined in computer programming. In programming, it means a named section of a program that performs a specific task. In this sense, a function is a type of procedure or routine. Some programming languages make a distinction between a function, which returns a value, and a procedure or method, which performs some operation but does not return a value. In short, a method only alters the internal state, but does not impact the external environment directly. Cells have both, such as activating a cells self-destruct cycle, but for clarity, I limited myself to using the word Function. I use the word Evolve to mean gaining new genetic information and new genetic functionality. Please note that I make no reference nor inference regarding the original source of information, the identity or nature of any designer.
Framework
- 1 DNA is a modular information project, wherein each chunk of genetic information (Gene) contains the instruction for a particular specified Function.
- 2 This coding standard will be repeated across all forms of life found on Earth.
- 3 That the sum total of the output in all valid combinations of Functions represents the possibility space for life as we know it.
- 4 Some Functions will be incompatible, unable operate at the same time in the same organism.
- 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.
- 6 That some, if not most, Functions will have variables, or expression modifiers, that can be conserved or inherited both inside the species and to its progeny.
- 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.
- 8 That living organisms, and their cells and cellular machinery, will be subject to the laws of physics as they are the information environment in which their functional programming is designed to operate.
- 9 If DNA is purely information, it will need some method for acting upon the material world, a way of transitioning from information to mass or energy, in accordance with the laws of physics. I should think that, ultimately, this will reveal a side of physics that we do not yet fully comprehend.
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.
- 3 That Natural Selection may account for inherited variation of conserved Functional Parameters.
- 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.
- 6 If deleterious mutations are conserved, and no new information is being added to the genome, we are in a process of devolution, not evolution.
- 7 That we can not, as of yet, scientifically prove where the information source for DNA originated.
- 8 Because of the critical importance of Function design, multiple processes will be used to prevent and/or repair mutated code.
- 9 That coding mutations will overwhelmingly cause the Function to malfunction, at best being benign, at worst harming or killing the organism.
- 10 The relationship between proteins and DNA must include some form of formal language (purely in the sense of information exchange, which can happen chemically, such as how protein shape can alter gene expression) in order to interact.
- 11 That the information density in even a single living cell will be too complex to be reduced to mere chance.
- 12 That each species will contain a set of baseline parameters that are unique to their species, and fundamentally incompatible with other species, resulting in stillborn or sterile offspring should they be produced at all.
- 13 That Functions within a strand of DNA can interact and influence other Functions by altering input parameters, thus changing the environment, but they will be unable to alter another function directly. (Encapsulation)
Continued in pt 2
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: pt 1 cont..
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, July 15, 2018, 03:42 (2106 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Cont...
Reposted here for clarity and continuity
Functionality
- 1 Any Function may have parameters that will affect the output of the Function when it is expressed.
- 2 That the cellular environment modifies the Functions expression as a input parameter.
- 3 That while real time parameter(input) changes will temporarily alter the Functions output or expression, the Function itself will remain unaltered.
- 4 There must be a way for external stimuli to be reacted to at a cellular level. (Adaptation)
- 5 The genetic instructions for any given adaptation must already exist within the DNA of the organism.
- 6 Most adaptations will be found to be variables within a Function that are conserved.
- 7 These Function variables are constrained to within hard limits, as if using a -1 to 1 scale.
- 8 If the hard limits could be identified, outliers beyond those limits, through genetic malfunctions, will be found to be ultimately deleterious to the organism.
- 9 Because the underlying Function has not been altered, only the input, it is possible for later generations to revert, though the process would take several generations, most likely.
- 10 Reverting to a previous genetic state is only possible if the genetic information required for the initial state has been conserved. Deleterious mutations could prevent later reversion.
- 11 These Functions will have quality control processes that attempt to validate incoming parameter variables and output results.
- 12 That there will be no non-functional code. If a code appears non-functional, it will generally be a function we have not discovered yet. This does not preclude legacy malfunctioning code. Malfunctioning code is non-operative, not non-functional in the sense that it did not originally have a function.
- 13 Life is very dependent upon time and timing. Function timing will be tightly controlled.(Enzymes)
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, July 15, 2018, 04:38 (2106 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
After my initial request to have my hypothesis vetted, I ran into a couple of common problems. First was a problem of definitions, which I will try to clarify here, the other is more of Story Time, for those that just have to have it.
Information
When we talk about information in the context of evolution, we are talking about Information Theory. "Abstractly, it can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty.." On a more practical level, it is about communicating a clear message over chaos; finding out if there is chance that a monkey banging on a typewriter forever would eventually produce shakespear, and when that chance becomes impossible for practical purposes. It also ties in closely with Coding Theory which is primarily concerned with the removal of redundancy and the correction or detection of errors in the transmitted data.
DNA is a quaternary system comprised of AGTC. These genetic bits are read in nucleotide triplets known as codons. There are only 64 possibilities from these 4 characters, AGCT, and they are used to create amino acids, which are in turn used to create proteins. What's interesting is that quaternary is more efficient at storing information, that is, more can be stored using a smaller number of bits. Coding Theory would call this compression.
But God...
Leave God, or any other designer, out of the conversation. That's philosophy or religion, not science. Besides, it is ultimately unecessary. You can study a car, and know the car was designed, without having to make inferences about the designer. You can, however, make inferences about how the designer thinks by studying what was designed and how. Still, inferring possibilities about the nature of the designer is not science.
Q&A
Do I believe in God? Yes.
Do I think he dabbled? Yes.
Is that pertinent to this hypothesis? Only that the designer dabbled, or not. Noting an overall increase in the amount of information in a system means the information had to come from somewhere, and observation tells us that these changes would need to happen between generations, essentially. If they were present in the parent, why weren't they expressed, and how were they acquired? If it is possible to acquire new genetic information gradually, why wasn't that information being processed prematurely, thus killing the host?
Could David or DHW be right? Absolutely! Just point me to the evidence.
Language Difficulties
I've noticed that there has been some difficulty in even thinking about biology without evolution. It is so engrained into thought patterns that even when arguing against it we use a language that was developed entirely to support it as truth, and the language is so fluid and murky as to be meaningless. Are you including Abiogeneis (which violates the Law of Biogenesis) as part of what you mean when you say 'Evolution'? Do you mean common descent and random mutations acted upon by Natural selection? Do you simply mean 'to change'?
You *think* in terms of evolution, such as species. Species that are subjectively classified and whose very classifications are problematic because genetic information disagrees with what we see and have though of as important. Every definition of species fails to match all the data, yet you think speciation is real, without evidence. Any time I press for hard definitions there is a lot of harumphing and paper shuffling. You *think* in terms of Macroevolution, huge leaps of fully complete genetic information, even with all the missing evidence.
In short, how can you hope to find a counter theory to evolution if you only think in terms of evolution?
Falsifiability
You can not prove a negative, and there is little that can be claimed with 100% certainty. However, you can prove something false. Just test it. That is the root of falsifiability. Falsifiabiilty is key to the concept of repeatability, which is fundamental to science. For a statement to be predictive means that, if you were to assume that statement as true, and analyze some data using that assumption, the results should be what you expected, or at the very least near to it. Again, this is key to repeatability. That means that a statement made scientifically should be both predictive and falsifiable.
When I state that the genetic language is a designed language, ubiquitous throughout all life, that statement is both predictive and falsifiable. Find an organism that doesn't use DNA, and it is false. Prove experimentally that what we see can happen by chance, and it is at the very least, on shaky ground. Prove objectively (by intermediate fossils or direct observation) that microevolution leads to macroevolution and it could be considered false, or at the very least on shaky ground. If a statement I made is not falsifiable or predictive, let me know and I will restate it.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
Again I've selected what I consider to be the salient points of your different posts.
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.
TONY: Conclusion: DNA is a DESIGNED LANGUAGE. This is antithetical to Naturalistic Evolution which emphasizes RANDOM CHANCE over DESIGN.
And later you say: “The Theory of Evolution, the formal theory, is based on random mutation.” You keep hammering home the case against chance and for design, and all theistic evolutionists agree with you! Why do you keep ignoring them? An alternative to evolution governed by chance is evolution governed by design.
TONY: […] is it possible for you to talk about the science without talking about the religion?
I have long since accepted the science without the religion. I am an agnostic largely because I recognize the scientific case for design but cannot accept the religion. Forgive me, but I think you are kidding yourself if you believe you can confine yourself to the science of design without anybody realizing that design requires a designer.
DHW: You predict that innovation leading to speciation will prove to be impossible by natural means.
TONY: 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.
You keep talking of faulty cladistics. I would accept this definition of species: a group of organisms capable of interbreeding. And like everyone else, I don’t know how speciation took place. But I find it believable that over millions of years, so many changes took place in so many organisms in so many parts of the world that despite many common features, they could not interbreed. Our quest is to find out why species are definitively different now. So let’s look at your own theory:
In response to David, you wrote that the alternative to common descent was that “he designed prototypes, with built in variability parameters, and that life has stayed within those types and those variability parameters.” (You can’t avoid “he”, can you?) I don’t think you mean these prototypes sprang from thin air, so why is the unobservable process of speciation by divine prototype manufacture more scientific than the unobservable process of divine programming of speciation, or divine provision of autonomous intelligences to conduct their own evolution? All of them fit the design theory.
DHW: I might predict that science will discover natural means of innovation (e.g. cellular intelligence).
TONY: 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.
How can you test that thousands of millions of years ago, a bunch of prototypes appeared out of nowhere?
DHW... you are not willing to contemplate the possibility that an organism can ACQUIRE new information and then pass it on.
Tony: 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.
We are not talking about known processes. Nobody knows what process led to the different species! There is no known process whereby prototypes suddenly sprang into existence. (Back we go to design, a designer, and different design theories.)
TONY: I've noticed that there has been some difficulty in even thinking about biology without evolution. [...] the language is so fluid and murky as to be meaningless. Are you including Abiogeneis (which violates the Law of Biogenesis) as part of what you mean when you say 'Evolution'? Do you mean common descent and random mutations acted upon by Natural selection? Do you simply mean 'to change'?
I’m sorry, but I think it is you who are trapped by language. Of course evolution does not include abiogenesis. Darwin specified that his Origin of Species did NOT cover origin of life (although in later editions he attributed it to a Creator). I keep repeating that I do mean common descent but NOT random mutations. It is you who insist that evolution means random mutations, but I myself reject randomness, as do theistic evolutionists such as our David.
TONY: Every definition of species fails to match all the data, yet you think speciation is real, without evidence. Any time I press for hard definitions there is a lot of harumphing and paper shuffling.
I have no idea what you are referring to. You have given us as good a definition of species as we can get (see above). The theory of evolution proposes that what you call the "prototypes" sprang from earlier forms of life, going all the way back to the first living cells. No harrumphing.
TONY: You *think* in terms of Macroevolution, huge leaps of fully complete genetic information, even with all the missing evidence.
You think of huge leaps of fully complete genetic information in the form of prototypes, which could only have been designed, and theistic evolutionists think of common descent via a process which could only have been designed. Your alternative to evolution is not design – it is separate creation.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, July 15, 2018, 14:18 (2106 days ago) @ dhw
DHW You keep hammering home the case against chance and for design, and all theistic evolutionists agree with you! Why do you keep ignoring them? An alternative to evolution governed by chance is evolution governed by design.
I'm not ignoring them. As of right now, we can not observe the Designer, he/she/it/or otherwise. So I don't, in the hypothesis, speculate or who or what the designer is.
I have acknowdged that other versions of design are possible, and have simply asked for the experimental evidence that the method is possible.
dhw I have long since accepted the science without the religion. I am an agnostic largely because I recognize the scientific case for design but cannot accept the religion.
Realizing that there is a designer does not require any particular assumptions about the designer.
Dhw You keep talking of faulty cladistics. I would accept this definition of species: a group of organisms capable of interbreeding. And like everyone else, I don’t know how speciation took place... Our quest is to find out why species are definitively different now. So let’s look at your own theory:In response to David, you wrote that the alternative to common descent was that “he designed prototypes, with built in variability parameters, and that life has stayed within those types and those variability parameters.” ... Why is the unobservable process of speciation by divine prototype manufacture more scientific than the unobservable process of divine programming of speciation, or divine provision of autonomous intelligences to conduct their own evolution? All of them fit the design theory.
But not all fit the evidence. Speciation has never been observed, and the are multiple failsafe which should actively prevent it from occurring. There is also the information gap, which could be explained by dabbling, if you were willing to accept that he dabbled with literally every individual species.
DHW: I might predict that science will discover natural means of innovation (e.g. cellular intelligence).
TONY: 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.How can you test that thousands of millions of years ago, a bunch of prototypes appeared out of nowhere?
The same way they have failed to prove evolution.... Check the fossil record. Is it a steady linear progression or punctuated equilibrium?
DHW... you are not willing to contemplate the possibility that an organism can ACQUIRE new information and then pass it on.
Tony: 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.DHW We are not talking about known processes. Nobody knows what process led to the different species! There is no known process whereby prototypes suddenly sprang into existence. (Back we go to design, a designer, and different design theories.)
Evolution is a process, as is design. One way or the other, you have to believe the fantastic.... And at the end, it will be a matter of faith.
TONY: I've noticed that there has been some difficulty in even thinking about biology without evolution. [...] the language is so fluid and murky as to be meaningless. Are you including Abiogeneis (which violates the Law of Biogenesis) as part of what you mean when you say 'Evolution'? Do you mean common descent and random mutations acted upon by Natural selection? Do you simply mean 'to change'?DHW Of course evolution does not include abiogenesis. Darwin specified that his Origin of Species did NOT cover origin of life (although in later editions he attributed it to a Creator).
Then why must I?
Dhw I keep repeating that I do mean common descent but NOT random mutations. It is you who insist that evolution means random mutations, but I myself reject randomness, as do theistic evolutionists such as our David.
Actually, it is the text books that insist on random chance. The mainstream theory of evolution depends o random mutations. I can't comment on the requirements of these unspecified other hypotheses. If you reject chance, congratulatiins, you are a theist, not agnostic. There is either random chance or design. Naturalism or Theism. Welcome to theistic design.
TONY: Every definition of species fails to match all the data, yet you think speciation is real, without evidence. Any time I press for hard definitions there is a lot of harumphing and paper shuffling.
I have no idea what you are referring to. You have given us as good a definition of species as we can get (see above). The theory of evolution proposes that what you call the "prototypes" sprang from earlier forms of life, going all the way back to the first living cells. No harrumphing.
TONY: You *think* in terms of Macroevolution, huge leaps of fully complete genetic information, even with all the missing evidence.
You think of huge leaps of fully complete genetic information in the form of prototypes, which could only have been designed, and theistic evolutionists think of common descent via a process which could only have been designed. Your alternative to evolution is not design – it is separate creation.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Sunday, July 15, 2018, 17:25 (2106 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
dhw I have long since accepted the science without the religion. I am an agnostic largely because I recognize the scientific case for design but cannot accept the religion.
Tony: Realizing that there is a designer does not require any particular assumptions about the designer.
Sounds just like my thoughts
Dhw I keep repeating that I do mean common descent but NOT random mutations. It is you who insist that evolution means random mutations, but I myself reject randomness, as do theistic evolutionists such as our David.
Tony: Actually, it is the text books that insist on random chance. The mainstream theory of evolution depends o random mutations. I can't comment on the requirements of these unspecified other hypotheses. If you reject chance, congratulations, you are a theist, not agnostic. There is either random chance or design. Naturalism or Theism. Welcome to theistic design.
Yes!
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
DHW You keep hammering home the case against chance and for design, and all theistic evolutionists agree with you! Why do you keep ignoring them? An alternative to evolution governed by chance is evolution governed by design.
TONY: I'm not ignoring them. As of right now, we can not observe the Designer, he/she/it/or otherwise. So I don't, in the hypothesis, speculate or who or what the designer is.
This thread is called “An Alternative to Evolution”, but at least 50% of your argument relates to design versus chance, and that is not an alternative because many people believe in a designed evolution. Nobody is asking you to speculate on who or what the designer is.
TONY: I have acknowdged that other versions of design are possible, and have simply asked for the experimental evidence that the method is possible.
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.
dhw I have long since accepted the science without the religion. I am an agnostic largely because I recognize the scientific case for design but cannot accept the religion.
TONY: Realizing that there is a designer does not require any particular assumptions about the designer.
I never said it did.
dhw: In response to David, you wrote that the alternative to common descent was that “he designed prototypes, with built in variability parameters, and that life has stayed within those types and those variability parameters.” ... Why is the unobservable process of speciation by divine prototype manufacture more scientific than the unobservable process of divine programming of speciation, or divine provision of autonomous intelligences to conduct their own evolution? All of them fit the design theory.
TONY: But not all fit the evidence. Speciation has never been observed, and the are multiple failsafe which should actively prevent it from occurring. There is also the information gap, which could be explained by dabbling, if you were willing to accept that he dabbled with literally every individual species.
The “multiple failsafe” is what exists now, so of course it prevents species from turning into other species. That is why we devote so much time to finding the cause of speciation! Separate creation of prototypes has never been observed. If by the “information gap” you mean saltations, yes, they could be explained by dabbling (your separate creation of individual species or prototypes), or by David’s programming, or by my cellular intelligence, or by random mutations (which we three reject).
DHW: How can you test that thousands of millions of years ago, a bunch of prototypes appeared out of nowhere?
TONY: The same way they have failed to prove evolution.... Check the fossil record. Is it a steady linear progression or punctuated equilibrium?
I subscribe to punctuated equilibrium. How does that provide a test to prove that a bunch of prototypes appeared out of nowhere? (See above re saltations.)
DHW We are not talking about known processes. Nobody knows what process led to the different species! There is no known process whereby prototypes suddenly sprang into existence. (Back we go to design, a designer, and different design theories.)
TONY: Evolution is a process, as is design. One way or the other, you have to believe the fantastic.... And at the end, it will be a matter of faith.
Precisely. So firstly there is no way you can claim that your “alternative to evolution” – i.e. separate creation of the species – is based on science, and secondly, you do not have to believe the fantastic. You can be an agnostic.
DHW Of course evolution does not include abiogenesis. Darwin specified that his Origin of Species did NOT cover origin of life (although in later editions he attributed it to a Creator).
TONY: Then why must I?
Who said you must? It was you who asked if the theory of evolution included abiogenesis. And I told you it didn’t.
dhw: I keep repeating that I do mean common descent but NOT random mutations. It is you who insist that evolution means random mutations, but I myself reject randomness, as do theistic evolutionists such as our David.
TONY: Actually, it is the text books that insist on random chance. The mainstream theory of evolution depends o random mutations. I can't comment on the requirements of these unspecified other hypotheses. If you reject chance, congratulatiins, you are a theist, not agnostic. There is either random chance or design. Naturalism or Theism. Welcome to theistic design.
Why “text books”? Is there some authority that lays down the law on which books you must study? I’m sure David could give you a long reading list of books that cover theistic evolution, and you might begin with his own The Atheist Delusion, which offers as powerful a case for design as you could wish for. Yes, there is either random chance or design, as there is or there isn’t a designer God. I find it just as difficult to believe in a sourceless, boundless super-intelligence called Yahweh as I do in chance. You rightly say that at the end, it will be a matter of faith. I do not have faith. I neither believe nor disbelieve. Now you know what I mean by agnosticism!
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, July 16, 2018, 17:24 (2105 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: This thread is called “An Alternative to Evolution”, but at least 50% of your argument relates to design versus chance, and that is not an alternative because many people believe in a designed evolution. Nobody is asking you to speculate on who or what the designer is.
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: 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.
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.
There are points in my hypothesis that can be falsified without overturning the entire hypothesis, such as the part about speciation. If some system is found that allows that, it will still be too complex for random chance.
dhw I have long since accepted the science without the religion. I am an agnostic largely because I recognize the scientific case for design but cannot accept the religion.
I am honestly amazed that you can maintain such unbalanced logic for so long, my friend. You deny random chance, recognize the science for design, recognize that with science we make inferences about things we can't see, yet can not fathom the same inferences made from scientific observations of design as to the nature of the Designer. Instead, you recognize design, at every level of existence that our science can observe, and choose to remain blind to the obvious inference that the designer is very, very real, and that much about Him(because in English we tend to refer to creatures we can't identify with masculine gender pronouns, and I do not know a suitable gender androgynous pronoun) can be learned and inferred through studying this amazing creation of His.
Seriously, and no offense to anyone, but who cares about religion? What does religion have to do with faith, or belief in something you can't see? Life and the Universe as we know it, from the black holes to the quarks, requires a designer. Seeing this grand design, as design, one can only conclude that this universe and all that is in it has been awe-inspiringly and beautifully crafted with what can only be qualified as love.
Budah, Allah, YHWH, Alien Builder Bob...whomever you believe did it...you can infer much about their personality from the works of their 'mind' and 'hands'. As for me, Jehovah(YHWH) is my God. He knows this. So, I do not feel the need to disrupt the possibility of getting people to recognize design by bringing him into the discussion prematurely. Instead, I am focused on getting people to recognize and acknowledge that it WAS designed, setting aside the question of by whom for a separate discussion.
By the same token, recognizing that there is a designer allows us to ask questions from a different perspective. We can ask why something would be done a certain way, and follow logical chains to discover interplay between different design elements. We stop thinking of our Universe as a collection of random meaningless events and look for how everything fits together into a unified, harmonious whole.
Unfortunately, you can not fill a cup that is already full, and science's cup is full of Naturalism at the moment. How can you get them to pour out their cup, and refill it from a fresh perspective? The only way I know, the only way they will listen to, is to give it to them in cold, hard, indisputable facts. To lay it out logically in an airtight case how everything from the bottom up works as a unified whole. The complexity of any one system may be waved off as chance, but the complexity and interplay between everything in the Universe can hardly be waved off. It is a system, designed from the ground up, and while there is most assuredly a certain amount of randomness, the laws that govern all things are too complex and informationally rich to be anything but designed.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Monday, July 16, 2018, 18:34 (2105 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DHW: This thread is called “An Alternative to Evolution”, but at least 50% of your argument relates to design versus chance, and that is not an alternative because many people believe in a designed evolution. Nobody is asking you to speculate on who or what the designer is.
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: 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.There are points in my hypothesis that can be falsified without overturning the entire hypothesis, such as the part about speciation. If some system is found that allows that, it will still be too complex for random chance.
dhw I have long since accepted the science without the religion. I am an agnostic largely because I recognize the scientific case for design but cannot accept the religion.
Tony: I am honestly amazed that you can maintain such unbalanced logic for so long, my friend. You deny random chance, recognize the science for design, recognize that with science we make inferences about things we can't see, yet can not fathom the same inferences made from scientific observations of design as to the nature of the Designer. Instead, you recognize design, at every level of existence that our science can observe, and choose to remain blind to the obvious inference that the designer is very, very real, and that much about Him(because in English we tend to refer to creatures we can't identify with masculine gender pronouns, and I do not know a suitable gender androgynous pronoun) can be learned and inferred through studying this amazing creation of His.Seriously, and no offense to anyone, but who cares about religion? What does religion have to do with faith, or belief in something you can't see? Life and the Universe as we know it, from the black holes to the quarks, requires a designer. Seeing this grand design, as design, one can only conclude that this universe and all that is in it has been awe-inspiringly and beautifully crafted with what can only be qualified as love.
Budah, Allah, YHWH, Alien Builder Bob...whomever you believe did it...you can infer much about their personality from the works of their 'mind' and 'hands'. As for me, Jehovah(YHWH) is my God. He knows this. So, I do not feel the need to disrupt the possibility of getting people to recognize design by bringing him into the discussion prematurely. Instead, I am focused on getting people to recognize and acknowledge that it WAS designed, setting aside the question of by whom for a separate discussion.By the same token, recognizing that there is a designer allows us to ask questions from a different perspective. We can ask why something would be done a certain way, and follow logical chains to discover interplay between different design elements. We stop thinking of our Universe as a collection of random meaningless events and look for how everything fits together into a unified, harmonious whole.
Unfortunately, you can not fill a cup that is already full, and science's cup is full of Naturalism at the moment. How can you get them to pour out their cup, and refill it from a fresh perspective? The only way I know, the only way they will listen to, is to give it to them in cold, hard, indisputable facts. To lay it out logically in an airtight case how everything from the bottom up works as a unified whole. The complexity of any one system may be waved off as chance, but the complexity and interplay between everything in the Universe can hardly be waved off. It is a system, designed from the ground up, and while there is most assuredly a certain amount of randomness, the laws that govern all things are too complex and informationally rich to be anything but designed.
Hear, hear! Beautiful summary for design. There must be a designing mind. No other logical result, no matter how strange it seems that an immaterial eternal designing mind exists.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
DHW: This thread is called “An Alternative to Evolution”, but at least 50% of your argument relates to design versus chance, and that is not an alternative because many people believe in a designed evolution. Nobody is asking you to speculate on who or what the designer is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
dhw I have long since accepted the science without the religion. I am an agnostic largely because I recognize the scientific case for design but cannot accept the religion.
TONY: I am honestly amazed that you can maintain such unbalanced logic for so long, my friend. You deny random chance, recognize the science for design, recognize that with science we make inferences about things we can't see, yet can not fathom the same inferences made from scientific observations of design as to the nature of the Designer. Instead, you recognize design, at every level of existence that our science can observe, and choose to remain blind to the obvious inference that the designer is very, very real, and that much about Him […] can be learned and inferred through studying this amazing creation of His.
I have explained why I find it as difficult to believe in a designer God as I do to believe in chance. You have acknowledged this in as vivid and perceptive a manner as possible: “One way or the other, you have to believe the fantastic…And at the end it will be a matter of faith.” We are confronted by two “fantastic” explanations, but you cannot understand why someone might be unwilling to take the leap of faith you have taken in committing yourself to one of these fantastic explanations. As for "unbalanced logic", have you never heard the story of the logical ass who died because he couldn't choose between two identical bags of hay? In the eyes of theists and atheists alike, I am the logical ass, though I hope to stay alive a bit longer!
The rest of your post is, as always, admirably eloquent, and filled with sentiments that I can totally sympathize with, but it has nothing to do with an alternative to evolution.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, July 17, 2018, 13:46 (2104 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.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 17, 2018, 18:12 (2104 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony:
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).
All I accept is that life appears to have evolved from one-celled organisms to us in a bush like pattern. I think it was designed by God who guided the process.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
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.
TONY: 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.
And you go on to produce an article with the heading “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.” But science didn’t stop 150 years ago, and theories are being modified all the time. Darwin insisted that Nature doesn’t make jumps. 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:
Michael Behe defends Intelligent Design Theory - BBC
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2010/11/michael_behe_defends_intellige.html
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 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. When the Catholic Church says it accepts evolution, it does not say it accepts randomness; it accepts common descent. If you want linguistic precision (you asked me to be more clear in my use of language), then the heading for this thread should be "An Alternative to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Random Mutations". You do not offer an alternative to David’s theory of evolution by divine design, or my theory of evolution by cellular intelligence.
TONY: 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…..
Agreed. You are against that part of Darwin's theory which attributes evolution to random mutations. So if you now add to your list the possibility that the design could have progressed through the descent of one organism from another, bingo, you will have evolution by design – an alternative to evolution by random mutations. What could be clearer than that?
TONY: […] 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.
You then produce the summary of Darwin’s theory, which of course includes his theory of how evolution proceeds gradually by random mutations, and many scientists do stick rigidly to it. By all means attack them for doing so. But this is 2018, not 1859. Look at David’s comment below the quote:
DAVID: All I accept is that life appears to have evolved from one-celled organisms to us in a bush like pattern. I think it was designed by God who guided the process.
How then can you say that your theory of a designed language is an alternative to evolution, when David suggests that your designed language explains “how evolution proceeds” (Fontana)?
You want clarity. Then once again: make it clear that your design theory offers an alternative to the random component of Darwin's theory (gradualism is another point at issue), but not to common descent.
DAVID: Speaking for Tony, there are only chance or design as possibilities, and for Darwinists only chance exists.
By which I take it you mean random mutations as opposed to design. Atheistic so-called “Darwinists” have seized on Darwin’s theory as if somehow it disproved the existence of God, but Darwin himself rejected this distortion. He was an agnostic, and saw no reason why his theory should offend anyone’s religious beliefs.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, July 18, 2018, 13:01 (2103 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.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 18, 2018, 15:33 (2103 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: 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.
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.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, July 19, 2018, 06:28 (2102 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: 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.
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.
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.
Your theory is that God dabbled. Fine. But if he dabbled enough for species barriers to form where none had existed before, can we really call that common decent? There was no Parent>Child informational gradualism that lead to speciation. Without that, how is the term common descent not grossly misleading?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Thursday, July 19, 2018, 18:06 (2102 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
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.
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.
Your theory is that God dabbled. Fine. But if he dabbled enough for species barriers to form where none had existed before, can we really call that common decent? There was no Parent>Child informational gradualism that lead to speciation. Without that, how is the term common descent not grossly misleading?
Do you believe life started as single celled animals and gradually changed into complex organisms like us?
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, July 19, 2018, 23:17 (2101 days ago) @ David Turell
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.
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.
Your theory is that God dabbled. Fine. But if he dabbled enough for species barriers to form where none had existed before, can we really call that common decent? There was no Parent>Child informational gradualism that lead to speciation. Without that, how is the term common descent not grossly misleading?
David: Do you believe life started as single celled animals and gradually changed into complex organisms like us?
No, I do not. For a number of reasons. First and foremost is the vast variety of life; both plant and animal. Yet, within all that variety is an order and organization that should not exist. It, by all rights, should be more chaotic and less homologous, less structured, lest organized. And yet, it is so organized that for the vast majority of things we can look at them and identify them categorically(bird, fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal, etc.) even if we don't know their 'given' name.
Now if you asked me if I believed all variety came from a base prototype of a given kind, I could conceive that as highly probable. From a programming stand point it appears like a Class>Subclass>Instance hierarchy. Bird>Finch>Specific Finch, where each sub-category contains mutually exclusive code specific to their ecological niche and physiological needs.
If I were to create a computer program for this, I would create a class of type Bird. I would program Bird with all the information needed for something to be a bird.
From there, there are two options. Option one, when the first new instance of this bird came into existence and reproduced, a limited amount of it's genome was able to pass to offspring. There would be information that was mutually exclusive, or mutually inclusive, as needed, so that the resultant off-spring were incapable of combining. Subsequent generations would be variations on a theme. That is the way to do it algorithmically, essentially evolution by design.
However, I do not think the designer would have, or possibly could have (due to inherent limitations of the environment), done it this way. It is too haphhazard. Personally, I think that he would have programmed a subclass of Bird, for example Finch. So, Finch inherits all the traits of Bird, then override the ones that must be overridden, discards any unnecessary data. Within the Finch subclass, there would be certain traits, such as beak_length, feather_color, etc. and tests for acceptable values, most likely within a given range that could be measured from 0 to 1, or -1 to 1. The actual values don't matter, only that I am referring to variation within a limited specified window for any given trait. There would likely be checks that compared traits to ensure that no non-functional combinations occurred. Doing it in this manner seems consistent with what we see in terms of variation within ranges without the chaos of random chance.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Friday, July 20, 2018, 01:36 (2101 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
David: Do you believe life started as single celled animals and gradually changed into complex organisms like us?
Tony: No, I do not. For a number of reasons. First and foremost is the vast variety of life; both plant and animal. Yet, within all that variety is an order and organization that should not exist. It, by all rights, should be more chaotic and less homologous, less structured, lest organized. And yet, it is so organized that for the vast majority of things we can look at them and identify them categorically(bird, fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal, etc.) even if we don't know their 'given' name.Now if you asked me if I believed all variety came from a base prototype of a given kind, I could conceive that as highly probable. From a programming stand point it appears like a Class>Subclass>Instance hierarchy. Bird>Finch>Specific Finch, where each sub-category contains mutually exclusive code specific to their ecological niche and physiological needs.
If I were to create a computer program for this, I would create a class of type Bird. I would program Bird with all the information needed for something to be a bird.From there, there are two options. Option one, when the first new instance of this bird came into existence and reproduced, a limited amount of it's genome was able to pass to offspring. There would be information that was mutually exclusive, or mutually inclusive, as needed, so that the resultant off-spring were incapable of combining. Subsequent generations would be variations on a theme. That is the way to do it algorithmically, essentially evolution by design.
However, I do not think the designer would have, or possibly could have (due to inherent limitations of the environment), done it this way. It is too haphhazard. Personally, I think that he would have programmed a subclass of Bird, for example Finch. So, Finch inherits all the traits of Bird, then override the ones that must be overridden, discards any unnecessary data. Within the Finch subclass, there would be certain traits, such as beak_length, feather_color, etc. and tests for acceptable values, most likely within a given range that could be measured from 0 to 1, or -1 to 1. The actual values don't matter, only that I am referring to variation within a limited specified window for any given trait. There would likely be checks that compared traits to ensure that no non-functional combinations occurred. Doing it in this manner seems consistent with what we see in terms of variation within ranges without the chaos of random chance.
You have given your programmer approach and I find it very instructional and how I might imagine God doing it, but with the proviso that God also controls the environment which would limit the haphazard issue.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, July 20, 2018, 06:18 (2101 days ago) @ David Turell
David: Do you believe life started as single celled animals and gradually changed into complex organisms like us?
Tony: No, I do not. For a number of reasons. First and foremost is the vast variety of life; both plant and animal. Yet, within all that variety is an order and organization that should not exist. It, by all rights, should be more chaotic and less homologous, less structured, lest organized. And yet, it is so organized that for the vast majority of things we can look at them and identify them categorically(bird, fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal, etc.) even if we don't know their 'given' name.Now if you asked me if I believed all variety came from a base prototype of a given kind, I could conceive that as highly probable. From a programming stand point it appears like a Class>Subclass>Instance hierarchy. Bird>Finch>Specific Finch, where each sub-category contains mutually exclusive code specific to their ecological niche and physiological needs.
If I were to create a computer program for this, I would create a class of type Bird. I would program Bird with all the information needed for something to be a bird.From there, there are two options. Option one, when the first new instance of this bird came into existence and reproduced, a limited amount of it's genome was able to pass to offspring. There would be information that was mutually exclusive, or mutually inclusive, as needed, so that the resultant off-spring were incapable of combining. Subsequent generations would be variations on a theme. That is the way to do it algorithmically, essentially evolution by design.
However, I do not think the designer would have, or possibly could have (due to inherent limitations of the environment), done it this way. It is too haphhazard. Personally, I think that he would have programmed a subclass of Bird, for example Finch. So, Finch inherits all the traits of Bird, then override the ones that must be overridden, discards any unnecessary data. Within the Finch subclass, there would be certain traits, such as beak_length, feather_color, etc. and tests for acceptable values, most likely within a given range that could be measured from 0 to 1, or -1 to 1. The actual values don't matter, only that I am referring to variation within a limited specified window for any given trait. There would likely be checks that compared traits to ensure that no non-functional combinations occurred. Doing it in this manner seems consistent with what we see in terms of variation within ranges without the chaos of random chance.
David: You have given your programmer approach and I find it very instructional and how I might imagine God doing it, but with the proviso that God also controls the environment which would limit the haphazard issue.
I think it is important to distinguish what you mean by control.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Friday, July 20, 2018, 15:31 (2101 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: However, I do not think the designer would have, or possibly could have (due to inherent limitations of the environment), done it this way. It is too haphhazard. Personally, I think that he would have programmed a subclass of Bird, for example Finch. So, Finch inherits all the traits of Bird, then override the ones that must be overridden, discards any unnecessary data. Within the Finch subclass, there would be certain traits, such as beak_length, feather_color, etc. and tests for acceptable values, most likely within a given range that could be measured from 0 to 1, or -1 to 1. The actual values don't matter, only that I am referring to variation within a limited specified window for any given trait. There would likely be checks that compared traits to ensure that no non-functional combinations occurred. Doing it in this manner seems consistent with what we see in terms of variation within ranges without the chaos of random chance.
David: You have given your programmer approach and I find it very instructional and how I might imagine God doing it, but with the proviso that God also controls the environment which would limit the haphazard issue.
Tony: I think it is important to distinguish what you mean by control.
If God created the universe it should be simple to also make create whatever type of climate that is needed. Do you see a limit to God's abilities?
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, July 20, 2018, 16:59 (2101 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: However, I do not think the designer would have, or possibly could have (due to inherent limitations of the environment), done it this way. It is too haphhazard. Personally, I think that he would have programmed a subclass of Bird, for example Finch. So, Finch inherits all the traits of Bird, then override the ones that must be overridden, discards any unnecessary data. Within the Finch subclass, there would be certain traits, such as beak_length, feather_color, etc. and tests for acceptable values, most likely within a given range that could be measured from 0 to 1, or -1 to 1. The actual values don't matter, only that I am referring to variation within a limited specified window for any given trait. There would likely be checks that compared traits to ensure that no non-functional combinations occurred. Doing it in this manner seems consistent with what we see in terms of variation within ranges without the chaos of random chance.
David: You have given your programmer approach and I find it very instructional and how I might imagine God doing it, but with the proviso that God also controls the environment which would limit the haphazard issue.
Tony: I think it is important to distinguish what you mean by control.
David: If God created the universe it should be simple to also make create whatever type of climate that is needed. Do you see a limit to God's abilities?
I don't see a limit to God's abilities, however, I do see limits within the material universe. Just like a good engineer must consider the limits of the materials they are using for their creations, so to must God. Nothing that we see in existence is shoehorned or forced into place in a way that defies the laws governing the material world. God does not override his own laws because they are there for good reason. Science has shown us numerous examples of things that, were they not just so, would cause the universe and everything in it to fall to pieces.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Friday, July 20, 2018, 18:34 (2101 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: I think it is important to distinguish what you mean by control.
David: If God created the universe it should be simple to also make create whatever type of climate that is needed. Do you see a limit to God's abilities?
Tony: I don't see a limit to God's abilities, however, I do see limits within the material universe. Just like a good engineer must consider the limits of the materials they are using for their creations, so to must God. Nothing that we see in existence is shoehorned or forced into place in a way that defies the laws governing the material world. God does not override his own laws because they are there for good reason. Science has shown us numerous examples of things that, were they not just so, would cause the universe and everything in it to fall to pieces.
Like the rules that define fine tuning.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, July 20, 2018, 18:49 (2101 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: I think it is important to distinguish what you mean by control.
David: If God created the universe it should be simple to also make create whatever type of climate that is needed. Do you see a limit to God's abilities?
Tony: I don't see a limit to God's abilities, however, I do see limits within the material universe. Just like a good engineer must consider the limits of the materials they are using for their creations, so to must God. Nothing that we see in existence is shoehorned or forced into place in a way that defies the laws governing the material world. God does not override his own laws because they are there for good reason. Science has shown us numerous examples of things that, were they not just so, would cause the universe and everything in it to fall to pieces.
David: Like the rules that define fine tuning.
Precisely. Take Earth for example. Tilt the axis a little more, spin it a little faster, a little bit closer or further from the sun, the oceans a little deeper or a little shallower; if any of these things changes more than marginally everything, and I do mean everything, dies. The weather is a combination of all of these factors and more. In order for God to change the climate, it would likely need some fairly significant changes from the core of the earth up.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Saturday, July 21, 2018, 01:46 (2100 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: I think it is important to distinguish what you mean by control.
David: If God created the universe it should be simple to also make create whatever type of climate that is needed. Do you see a limit to God's abilities?
Tony: I don't see a limit to God's abilities, however, I do see limits within the material universe. Just like a good engineer must consider the limits of the materials they are using for their creations, so to must God. Nothing that we see in existence is shoehorned or forced into place in a way that defies the laws governing the material world. God does not override his own laws because they are there for good reason. Science has shown us numerous examples of things that, were they not just so, would cause the universe and everything in it to fall to pieces.
David: Like the rules that define fine tuning.
t ony: Precisely. Take Earth for example. Tilt the axis a little more, spin it a little faster, a little bit closer or further from the sun, the oceans a little deeper or a little shallower; if any of these things changes more than marginally everything, and I do mean everything, dies. The weather is a combination of all of these factors and more. In order for God to change the climate, it would likely need some fairly significant changes from the core of the earth up.
But then there is the weapon of Chixculub that changed a lot.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, July 21, 2018, 03:51 (2100 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: I think it is important to distinguish what you mean by control.
David: If God created the universe it should be simple to also make create whatever type of climate that is needed. Do you see a limit to God's abilities?
Tony: I don't see a limit to God's abilities, however, I do see limits within the material universe. Just like a good engineer must consider the limits of the materials they are using for their creations, so to must God. Nothing that we see in existence is shoehorned or forced into place in a way that defies the laws governing the material world. God does not override his own laws because they are there for good reason. Science has shown us numerous examples of things that, were they not just so, would cause the universe and everything in it to fall to pieces.
David: Like the rules that define fine tuning.
t ony: Precisely. Take Earth for example. Tilt the axis a little more, spin it a little faster, a little bit closer or further from the sun, the oceans a little deeper or a little shallower; if any of these things changes more than marginally everything, and I do mean everything, dies. The weather is a combination of all of these factors and more. In order for God to change the climate, it would likely need some fairly significant changes from the core of the earth up.
David: But then there is the weapon of Chixculub that changed a lot.
No doubt that event was major. I am still skeptical on dating methods(no, I am not a young earth creationist), and that makes it hard for me to agree on timelines
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Saturday, July 21, 2018, 06:18 (2100 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
David: Like the rules that define fine tuning.
t ony: Precisely. Take Earth for example. Tilt the axis a little more, spin it a little faster, a little bit closer or further from the sun, the oceans a little deeper or a little shallower; if any of these things changes more than marginally everything, and I do mean everything, dies. The weather is a combination of all of these factors and more. In order for God to change the climate, it would likely need some fairly significant changes from the core of the earth up.
David: But then there is the weapon of Chixculub that changed a lot.
Tony: No doubt that event was major. I am still skeptical on dating methods(no, I am not a young earth creationist), and that makes it hard for me to agree on timelines
But 10 million years plus or minus the 64 million years ago event makes no difference to the dinos.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
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.
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.
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.
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.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, July 19, 2018, 15:01 (2102 days ago) @ dhw
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.
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.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Thursday, July 19, 2018, 18:51 (2102 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.
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.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, July 19, 2018, 23:30 (2101 days ago) @ David Turell
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.
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.
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. I believe this system is designed and I see that designer's touch everywhere, in intricate details too meticulously formed and perfectly functional to be anything but the work of a master craftsman. If that master craftsman was skilled, knowledgeable, and powerful, then I am certain he could figure out how to kickstart it, just like our programmers know how to start up the little digital worlds that we create, with all their many inhabitants, like children unknowingly copying their parent.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Friday, July 20, 2018, 01:45 (2101 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.
David: 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.
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. I believe this system is designed and I see that designer's touch everywhere, in intricate details too meticulously formed and perfectly functional to be anything but the work of a master craftsman. If that master craftsman was skilled, knowledgeable, and powerful, then I am certain he could figure out how to kickstart it, just like our programmers know how to start up the little digital worlds that we create, with all their many inhabitants, like children unknowingly copying their parent.
Evolutionary theory and theorists don't want to touch this because of it miracle nature, but it is obvious original life had to have many of the elements present today, or it would not have begun an d survived. I can only agree with you about a designer. Knowing what we know, nothing else is a logical conclusion.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
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.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Friday, July 20, 2018, 15:43 (2101 days ago) @ dhw
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.
dhw: 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.
dhw: 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.
I agree in an overall view that single cells were the start of life and subsequent steps became more and more complex until humans arrived. I don't reject the separate creation Bible theory, since I also think God stepped into the process continuously or at various points (dabbling). None of me is on your picket fence.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, July 20, 2018, 17:07 (2101 days ago) @ David Turell
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.
dhw: 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.
This is the part I have a problem with: ALL LIFE from ONE LUCA. There are too many problems with that concept for me to accept it.
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.
dhw: 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.
I agree in an overall view that single cells were the start of life and subsequent steps became more and more complex until humans arrived. I don't reject the separate creation Bible theory, since I also think God stepped into the process continuously or at various points (dabbling). None of me is on your picket fence.
Davids version is certainly a possibility, primarily because it accounts for the addition of new information when needed to account for things that simply were not needed in previous iterations of life.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Friday, July 20, 2018, 18:39 (2101 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
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.
dhw: 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: This is the part I have a problem with: ALL LIFE from ONE LUCA. There are too many problems with that concept for me to accept it.
What LUCA might have contained as a gene structure is a scientific guess, and is only one representation of how the organism really operated to maintain its life, which involves homeostatic mechanisms well beyond the number of genes.
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.
dhw: 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.
David: I agree in an overall view that single cells were the start of life and subsequent steps became more and more complex until humans arrived. I don't reject the separate creation Bible theory, since I also think God stepped into the process continuously or at various points (dabbling). None of me is on your picket fence.
Davids version is certainly a possibility, primarily because it accounts for the addition of new information when needed to account for things that simply were not needed in previous iterations of life.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
dhw: 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.
DAVID: I agree in an overall view that single cells were the start of life and subsequent steps became more and more complex until humans arrived. I don't reject the separate creation Bible theory, since I also think God stepped into the process continuously or at various points (dabbling). None of me is on your picket fence.
There is a huge difference between continuous dabbling and dabbling at various points. Continuous means without a break. Even preprogramming then goes out of the window, and we are left with your belief that every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder was personally dabbled by your God. Goodbye to evolution. “At various points” does allow for evolution, but leaves the amount wide open. And yet you are not on a picket fence.
Let’s try a simple question. Do you think humans and apes have a common ancestor?
dhw: 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.
dhw: 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.
TONY: This is the part I have a problem with: ALL LIFE from ONE LUCA. There are too many problems with that concept for me to accept it.
(I sympathize. There are too many problems with the concept of a sourceless, conscious, universal mind for me to accept it.) In the context of evolution, Darwin’s theory which you so detest is that all life is descended from a few forms or one, and we do not know how the original few forms or one came into being. If, as you pointed out, “life can only come from life”, you can hardly deny the logic.
TONY: David’s version is certainly a possibility, primarily because it accounts for the addition of new information when needed to account for things that simply were not needed in previous iterations of life.
In the theistic version of my own hypothesis, I also allow for occasional dabbling, but absolutely not for continuous dabbling. I do not believe for one moment that your God dabbled every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, let alone every change in climate and environment that is so closely linked to the vast variety of life forms. In the agnostic version of my hypothesis, it is the cells themselves that work out all the different ways of coping with or exploiting environmental change. “Agnostic” because I leave open the question of their origin. And if an atheist were participating in this discussion, I would firstly point to the complexity argument regarding not only the origin of the first cells but also the progression of evolution from single cells to ants and dogs and whales and humans. And if he/she acknowledged that belief in random mutations required a massive dose of faith, I would point out that the ONLY atheistic alternative would then be the intelligence of cells.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Saturday, July 21, 2018, 20:03 (2100 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I agree in an overall view that single cells were the start of life and subsequent steps became more and more complex until humans arrived. I don't reject the separate creation Bible theory, since I also think God stepped into the process continuously or at various points (dabbling). None of me is on your picket fence.
dhw: There is a huge difference between continuous dabbling and dabbling at various points. Continuous means without a break. Even preprogramming then goes out of the window, and we are left with your belief that every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder was personally dabbled by your God. Goodbye to evolution. “At various points” does allow for evolution, but leaves the amount wide open. And yet you are not on a picket fence.
Think! No fence. If God guided every step in evolving humans, evolution occurred with common descent.
dhw: Let’s try a simple question. Do you think humans and apes have a common ancestor?
Yes.
TONY: David’s version is certainly a possibility, primarily because it accounts for the addition of new information when needed to account for things that simply were not needed in previous iterations of life.
dhw: In the theistic version of my own hypothesis, I also allow for occasional dabbling, but absolutely not for continuous dabbling. I do not believe for one moment that your God dabbled every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, let alone every change in climate and environment that is so closely linked to the vast variety of life forms. In the agnostic version of my hypothesis, it is the cells themselves that work out all the different ways of coping with or exploiting environmental change. “Agnostic” because I leave open the question of their origin. And if an atheist were participating in this discussion, I would firstly point to the complexity argument regarding not only the origin of the first cells but also the progression of evolution from single cells to ants and dogs and whales and humans. And if he/she acknowledged that belief in random mutations required a massive dose of faith, I would point out that the ONLY atheistic alternative would then be the intelligence of cells.
And my question to you is where/how do intelligent cells find the new information to use for complex advances in evolving organisms. And if the information is already present (as in pre-programmed) how do they know how to omit some and rearranged other parts of it, all of which requires foresight as to what is required in the future living form. Lets use whales ass an example of the changes required.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
DAVID: I agree in an overall view that single cells were the start of life and subsequent steps became more and more complex until humans arrived. I don't reject the separate creation Bible theory, since I also think God stepped into the process continuously or at various points (dabbling). None of me is on your picket fence.
dhw: There is a huge difference between continuous dabbling and dabbling at various points. Continuous means without a break. Even preprogramming then goes out of the window, and we are left with your belief that every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder was personally dabbled by your God. Goodbye to evolution. “At various points” does allow for evolution, but leaves the amount wide open. And yet you are not on a picket fence.
DAVID: Think! No fence. If God guided every step in evolving humans, evolution occurred with common descent.
A few days ago I asked if you believed your God dabbled with existing life forms or created them from scratch. You replied: “I believe God designed the Cambrian Explosion. Is that scratchiness enough?” And you went on to say: “I still think common descent is the proper theory, with God dabbling at points like the Cambrian Explosion.” I assumed these references to “scratchiness” and “dabbling” meant that he created the Cambrian species from scratch. This seems to be confirmed by your statement above that you do not reject the separate creation theory – the exact opposite of common descent – and even think your God might have “stepped into the process continuously”. Or maybe only “at various points”. So you believe in common descent but you don’t reject the separate creation theory, which may have been continuous, and you are not sitting on the fence.
TONY: David’s version is certainly a possibility, primarily because it accounts for the addition of new information when needed to account for things that simply were not needed in previous iterations of life.
dhw: In the theistic version of my own hypothesis, I also allow for occasional dabbling, but absolutely not for continuous dabbling. I do not believe for one moment that your God dabbled every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, let alone every change in climate and environment that is so closely linked to the vast variety of life forms. In the agnostic version of my hypothesis, it is the cells themselves that work out all the different ways of coping with or exploiting environmental change. “Agnostic” because I leave open the question of their origin. And if an atheist were participating in this discussion, I would firstly point to the complexity argument regarding not only the origin of the first cells but also the progression of evolution from single cells to ants and dogs and whales and humans. And if he/she acknowledged that belief in random mutations required a massive dose of faith, I would point out that the ONLY atheistic alternative would then be the intelligence of cells.
DAVID: And my question to you is where/how do intelligent cells find the new information to use for complex advances in evolving organisms. And if the information is already present (as in pre-programmed) how do they know how to omit some and rearranged other parts of it, all of which requires foresight as to what is required in the future living form. Lets use whales ass an example of the changes required.
According to one of your theories, your God provided the first living cells with programmes for every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life (apart from those he dabbled). How did subsequent organisms “know how to omit” the millions of irrelevant programmes? Do we now have your God continuously dabbling to switch off 99.999% of the programmes installed?
In answer to your question, we know for a fact that some organisms are able to make changes to themselves in order to cope with changes in the environment. They do not anticipate – they react. I do not believe for one second that pre-whales looked into the future and prepared themselves for life in the water. I believe that all the changes would have taken place after they entered the water, and all the different stages represented improvements as they accustomed themselves to life in the water. Perhaps you would explain to us why your God prepared them in advance, and then kept on making changes until they reached their current form. Incompetence? Experimenting? The same question would apply to your theory that all he really wanted to produce was Homo sapiens, so why bother with all the other homos and hominins? Incompetence? Experimenting? And why bother with eight stages of whale if all he wanted was us?
More generally, I have agreed over and over again that there is no proof that cell communities are capable of major innovations. It is a hypothesis, like the existence of a God who individually preprogrammed or dabbled every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Sunday, July 22, 2018, 14:45 (2099 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Think! No fence. If God guided every step in evolving humans, evolution occurred with common descent.
dhw: A few days ago I asked if you believed your God dabbled with existing life forms or created them from scratch. ...This seems to be confirmed by your statement above that you do not reject the separate creation theory – the exact opposite of common descent – and even think your God might have “stepped into the process continuously”. Or maybe only “at various points”. So you believe in common descent but you don’t reject the separate creation theory, which may have been continuous, and you are not sitting on the fence.
As explained before I view the term common descent in a specific way, which is obviously not your definition. Life started as single cells and in stages of increasing complexity reached humans with subsequent stages based on previous ones. God guided it continuously or intermittently. Your common descent differs how? Because you think it is all natural? My 'evolution' looks just like yours.
DAVID: And my question to you is where/how do intelligent cells find the new information to use for complex advances in evolving organisms. And if the information is already present (as in pre-programmed) how do they know how to omit some and rearranged other parts of it, all of which requires foresight as to what is required in the future living form. Lets use whales ass an example of the changes required.
dhw: According to one of your theories, your God provided the first living cells with programmes for every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life (apart from those he dabbled). How did subsequent organisms “know how to omit” the millions of irrelevant programmes? Do we now have your God continuously dabbling to switch off 99.999% of the programmes installed?
Same problem. I see the same evolution you do, but I have God guiding it.
dhw: In answer to your question, we know for a fact that some organisms are able to make changes to themselves in order to cope with changes in the environment. They do not anticipate – they react. I do not believe for one second that pre-whales looked into the future and prepared themselves for life in the water. I believe that all the changes would have taken place after they entered the water, and all the different stages represented improvements as they accustomed themselves to life in the water.
Here you are equating enormous species change in whale stages as simple adaptations! You are as usual reverting to Darwin.
dhw: Perhaps you would explain to us why your God prepared them in advance, and then kept on making changes until they reached their current form. Incompetence? Experimenting? The same question would apply to your theory that all he really wanted to produce was Homo sapiens, so why bother with all the other homos and hominins? Incompetence? Experimenting? And why bother with eight stages of whale if all he wanted was us?
My answer has always been balance of nature to provide eaten energy for life to continue the long process of evolution. I don't know the answer to the question why did God evolved life instead of direct creation of endpoints, but I know that complexities of life required a designer.
dhw: More generally, I have agreed over and over again that there is no proof that cell communities are capable of major innovations. It is a hypothesis, like the existence of a God who individually preprogrammed or dabbled every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life.
We all know there is no proof. Some of us want a reasonable explanation, not fence sitting.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
DAVID: Think! No fence. If God guided every step in evolving humans, evolution occurred with common descent.
dhw: A few days ago I asked if you believed your God dabbled with existing life forms or created them from scratch. ...This seems to be confirmed by your statement above that you do not reject the separate creation theory – the exact opposite of common descent – and even think your God might have “stepped into the process continuously”. Or maybe only “at various points”. So you believe in common descent but you don’t reject the separate creation theory, which may have been continuous, and you are not sitting on the fence.
DAVID: As explained before I view the term common descent in a specific way, which is obviously not your definition. Life started as single cells and in stages of increasing complexity reached humans with subsequent stages based on previous ones. God guided it continuously or intermittently. Your common descent differs how? Because you think it is all natural? My 'evolution' looks just like yours.
Of course it looks like mine! We both believe that life started with single cells and became increasingly complex, developing not just into humans but into every single species that ever existed! But you refuse to recognize that separate creation is the direct opposite of common descent, and you claim that the Cambrian was separate creation, and your use of terms like “dabble”, “guide”, “step in” therefore also suggests separate creation which you now say may have been continuous. In fact your concept of God’s “guidance” (which may = separate creation) applies not only to speciation but also to every lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. God “steps in” to design them all. The discussion is not about how evolution “looks”, but how it happened, and your view is that your God may have done it all by separate creation, or some of it by separate creation, although you believe in common descent, but you are not fence sitting.
dhw: [..] we know for a fact that some organisms are able to make changes to themselves in order to cope with changes in the environment. They do not anticipate – they react. I do not believe for one second that pre-whales looked into the future and prepared themselves for life in the water. I believe that all the changes would have taken place after they entered the water, and all the different stages represented improvements as they accustomed themselves to life in the water.
DAVID: Here you are equating enormous species change in whale stages as simple adaptations! You are as usual reverting to Darwin.
You are discussing this with me, not with Darwin. I never said the changes were simple, and as always I qualified my argument by acknowledging that it is a hypothesis, as there is no proof that the cell communities are capable of major innovations.
DAVID: We all know there is no proof. Some of us want a reasonable explanation, not fence sitting.
I consider adaptations as evidence of cellular intelligence, and so the hypothesis that the cell communities are also capable of major innovations seems to me at least as reasonable as the hypothesis that these came about through random mutations, or that an unknown designer fiddled with the anatomy of pre-whales before they entered the water, and then kept fiddling and fiddling, because he needed all these changes to provide food so that life could continue until he was able to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Monday, July 23, 2018, 15:27 (2098 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: As explained before I view the term common descent in a specific way, which is obviously not your definition. Life started as single cells and in stages of increasing complexity reached humans with subsequent stages based on previous ones. God guided it continuously or intermittently. Your common descent differs how? Because you think it is all natural? My 'evolution' looks just like yours.
dhw: Of course it looks like mine! We both believe that life started with single cells and became increasingly complex, developing not just into humans but into every single species that ever existed! But you refuse to recognize that separate creation is the direct opposite of common descent, and you claim that the Cambrian was separate creation, and your use of terms like “dabble”, “guide”, “step in” therefore also suggests separate creation which you now say may have been continuous. In fact your concept of God’s “guidance” (which may = separate creation) applies not only to speciation but also to every lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. God “steps in” to design them all. The discussion is not about how evolution “looks”, but how it happened, and your view is that your God may have done it all by separate creation, or some of it by separate creation, although you believe in common descent, but you are not fence sitting.
Our difference is in the definition of the term 'common descent'. From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
"Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor."
This could have been done by God and still be common descent by definition.
DAVID: Here you are equating enormous species change in whale stages as simple adaptations! You are as usual reverting to Darwin.
dhw: You are discussing this with me, not with Darwin. I never said the changes were simple, and as always I qualified my argument by acknowledging that it is a hypothesis, as there is no proof that the cell communities are capable of major innovations.
Thank you.
DAVID: We all know there is no proof. Some of us want a reasonable explanation, not fence sitting.dhw: I consider adaptations as evidence of cellular intelligence, and so the hypothesis that the cell communities are also capable of major innovations seems to me at least as reasonable as the hypothesis that these came about through random mutations, or that an unknown designer fiddled with the anatomy of pre-whales before they entered the water, and then kept fiddling and fiddling, because he needed all these changes to provide food so that life could continue until he was able to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.
Back on the fence.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
dhw: […] you refuse to recognize that separate creation is the direct opposite of common descent, and you claim that the Cambrian was separate creation, and your use of terms like “dabble”, “guide”, “step in” therefore also suggests separate creation which you now say may have been continuous. In fact your concept of God’s “guidance” (which may = separate creation) applies not only to speciation but also to every lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. God “steps in” to design them all. The discussion is not about how evolution “looks”, but how it happened, and your view is that your God may have done it all by separate creation, or some of it by separate creation, although you believe in common descent, but you are not fence sitting.
DAVID: Our difference is in the definition of the term 'common descent'. From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
"Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor."
DAVID: This could have been done by God and still be common descent by definition.
I have already quoted a Wikipedia definition of common descent, and there is no difference whatsoever between us! Last week you wrote: “I don’t reject the separate creation Bible theory, since I also think God stepped into the process continuously or at various points (dabbling). None of me is on your picket fence.” You don’t seem to realize that separate creation means that all life does NOT come from a single ancestor! It is the opposite of common descent. And so you believe in common descent but you do not reject separate creation, which may even have been continuous, but you are not on the fence!
DAVID: We all know there is no proof. Some of us want a reasonable explanation, not fence sitting.
dhw: I consider adaptations as evidence of cellular intelligence, and so the hypothesis that the cell communities are also capable of major innovations seems to me at least as reasonable as the hypothesis that these came about through random mutations, or that an unknown designer fiddled with the anatomy of pre-whales before they entered the water, and then kept fiddling and fiddling, because he needed all these changes to provide food so that life could continue until he was able to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.
DAVID: Back on the fence.
You have missed the point. Do you really and truly believe that all the non sequiturs of the third hypothesis make it reasonable?
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 24, 2018, 15:32 (2097 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Our difference is in the definition of the term 'common descent'. From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent"Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor."
DAVID: This could have been done by God and still be common descent by definition.
dhw: I have already quoted a Wikipedia definition of common descent, and there is no difference whatsoever between us! Last week you wrote: “I don’t reject the separate creation Bible theory, since I also think God stepped into the process continuously or at various points (dabbling). None of me is on your picket fence.” You don’t seem to realize that separate creation means that all life does NOT come from a single ancestor! It is the opposite of common descent. And so you believe in common descent but you do not reject separate creation, which may even have been continuous, but you are not on the fence!
IF God started life and then designed every subsequent stage of life until He arrived at humans, that is descent from a common ancestor. It is not natural common descent, it is theistic common descent. Common descent looked at from that perspective is common descent. It would just like the history of evolution we see today. No fence involved here.
DAVID: We all know there is no proof. Some of us want a reasonable explanation, not fence sitting.dhw: I consider adaptations as evidence of cellular intelligence, and so the hypothesis that the cell communities are also capable of major innovations seems to me at least as reasonable as the hypothesis that these came about through random mutations, or that an unknown designer fiddled with the anatomy of pre-whales before they entered the water, and then kept fiddling and fiddling, because he needed all these changes to provide food so that life could continue until he was able to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.
DAVID: Back on the fence.
dhw: You have missed the point. Do you really and truly believe that all the non sequiturs of the third hypothesis make it reasonable?
I don't find a third hypothesis in the above discussion.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
DAVID: Our difference is in the definition of the term 'common descent'. From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
"Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor."
DAVID: This could have been done by God and still be common descent by definition.
dhw: I have already quoted a Wikipedia definition of common descent, and there is no difference whatsoever between us! Last week you wrote: “I don’t reject the separate creation Bible theory, since I also think God stepped into the process continuously or at various points (dabbling). None of me is on your picket fence.” You don’t seem to realize that separate creation means that all life does NOT come from a single ancestor! It is the opposite of common descent. And so you believe in common descent but you do not reject separate creation, which may even have been continuous, but you are not on the fence!
DAVID: IF God started life and then designed every subsequent stage of life until He arrived at humans, that is descent from a common ancestor. It is not natural common descent, it is theistic common descent. Common descent looked at from that perspective is common descent. It would just like the history of evolution we see today. No fence involved here.
We are not arguing about theism versus naturalism. You know as well as I do that the Bible teaches separate creation, which means your God created each species separately, and the theory of common descent caused such a stir because it went against the teachings of the Bible. You can believe in God “designing” each species out of preceding species, or setting up a mechanism whereby each species develops out of preceding species, all the way back to the first forms of life, and either of those will be theistic common descent. But then you cannot believe in separate creation, which means he created them separately and not out of preceding species. Please stop pretending to be ignorant!
DAVID: We all know there is no proof. Some of us want a reasonable explanation, not fence sitting.
dhw: I consider adaptations as evidence of cellular intelligence, and so the hypothesis that the cell communities are also capable of major innovations seems to me at least as reasonable as the hypothesis that these came about through random mutations, or that an unknown designer fiddled with the anatomy of pre-whales before they entered the water, and then kept fiddling and fiddling, because he needed all these changes to provide food so that life could continue until he was able to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.
DAVID: Back on the fence.
dhw: You have missed the point. Do you really and truly believe that all the non sequiturs of the third hypothesis make it reasonable?
DAVID: I don't find a third hypothesis in the above discussion.
1) Cellular intelligence, 2) random mutations, 3) your sequence of non sequiturs. Do you really believe that 3) is “reasonable”?
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 25, 2018, 18:21 (2096 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: IF God started life and then designed every subsequent stage of life until He arrived at humans, that is descent from a common ancestor. It is not natural common descent, it is theistic common descent. Common descent looked at from that perspective is common descent. It would just like the history of evolution we see today. No fence involved here.
dhw: We are not arguing about theism versus naturalism. You know as well as I do that the Bible teaches separate creation, which means your God created each species separately, and the theory of common descent caused such a stir because it went against the teachings of the Bible. You can believe in God “designing” each species out of preceding species, or setting up a mechanism whereby each species develops out of preceding species, all the way back to the first forms of life, and either of those will be theistic common descent. But then you cannot believe in separate creation, which means he created them separately and not out of preceding species. Please stop pretending to be ignorant!
It should be quite clear to you, even if you don't seem to see it, my theistic evolution always describes God creating first life and proceeding to design each stage from the last one, using some parts of the last one and adding to it, just as auto model evolves from an earlier form to a later one. I'm not pretending and you are not clearly following what I write. And you know I don't follow the Bible or follow the idea that each stage is completely separate and an original creation from scratch..
DAVID: We all know there is no proof. Some of us want a reasonable explanation, not fence sitting.dhw: I consider adaptations as evidence of cellular intelligence, and so the hypothesis that the cell communities are also capable of major innovations seems to me at least as reasonable as the hypothesis that these came about through random mutations, or that an unknown designer fiddled with the anatomy of pre-whales before they entered the water, and then kept fiddling and fiddling, because he needed all these changes to provide food so that life could continue until he was able to produce the brain of Homo sapiens.
DAVID: Back on the fence.
dhw: You have missed the point. Do you really and truly believe that all the non sequiturs of the third hypothesis make it reasonable?
DAVID: I don't find a third hypothesis in the above discussion.
dhw: 1) Cellular intelligence, 2) random mutations, 3) your sequence of non sequiturs. Do you really believe that 3) is “reasonable”?
You keep seeing non-sequiturs where none exist.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
dhw: We are not arguing about theism versus naturalism. You know as well as I do that the Bible teaches separate creation, which means your God created each species separately, and the theory of common descent caused such a stir because it went against the teachings of the Bible. You can believe in God “designing” each species out of preceding species, or setting up a mechanism whereby each species develops out of preceding species, all the way back to the first forms of life, and either of those will be theistic common descent. But then you cannot believe in separate creation, which means he created them separately and not out of preceding species. Please stop pretending to be ignorant!
DAVID: It should be quite clear to you, even if you don't seem to see it, my theistic evolution always describes God creating first life and proceeding to design each stage from the last one, using some parts of the last one and adding to it, just as auto model evolves from an earlier form to a later one. I'm not pretending and you are not clearly following what I write. And you know I don't follow the Bible or follow the idea that each stage is completely separate and an original creation from scratch.
Which is all fine. So why did you write: “I don’t reject the separate creation Bible theory”?
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Thursday, July 26, 2018, 15:27 (2095 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, July 26, 2018, 15:49
dhw: We are not arguing about theism versus naturalism. You know as well as I do that the Bible teaches separate creation, which means your God created each species separately, and the theory of common descent caused such a stir because it went against the teachings of the Bible. You can believe in God “designing” each species out of preceding species, or setting up a mechanism whereby each species develops out of preceding species, all the way back to the first forms of life, and either of those will be theistic common descent. But then you cannot believe in separate creation, which means he created them separately and not out of preceding species. Please stop pretending to be ignorant!
DAVID: It should be quite clear to you, even if you don't seem to see it, my theistic evolution always describes God creating first life and proceeding to design each stage from the last one, using some parts of the last one and adding to it, just as auto model evolves from an earlier form to a later one. I'm not pretending and you are not clearly following what I write. And you know I don't follow the Bible or follow the idea that each stage is completely separate and an original creation from scratch.
dhw: Which is all fine. So why did you write: “I don’t reject the separate creation Bible theory”?
Since I don't follow the Bible I thought inexactly about the Bible's meaning of separate creation as you describe it. I had in mind stepwise creation as in evolution rather than totally separate individual creation implied in the Bible.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, July 27, 2018, 00:23 (2094 days ago) @ David Turell
David:Since I don't follow the Bible I thought inexactly about the Bible's meaning of separate creation as you describe it. I had in mind stepwise creation as in evolution rather than totally separate individual creation implied in the Bible.
It was both stepwise and creation. I think part of the issue is that you are looking at life as independent, and it isn't. It isn't something that could just happen, nor did its happening fail to make an impact.
Let's assume for a moment there is/was a plan, but agree not to speculate the future of that plan for a moment. All that is relevant is that the sequence of events, and the timing of them, was according to plan.
So earth is there, barren, formless, devoid of life. Much like any other planet in the universe. For whatever reason, this planet was picked. Planetary processes were kicked off, heat, gas, water vapor forming the atmosphere.
All good, but the plan needs life, and the planet won't sustain the next stage. So, Kickstart the process with plant life to fix the atmosphere, regulate temperatures, soil binding and breaking(all that yummy volcanic stone to digest).
Then, birds and fish, to spread these early plants all over the face of the planet. Giant lizards to handle what were likely mammoth trees, breaking down that early overrun of plant growth and probably carrion eaters as well.
And so on. By the time mammals were created, and before humans, everything was going according to plan.
Yes, all plants descended from early plants, possibly even a single plant, though that is highly doubtful. These creative periods spanned eons. And it says God prepared a garden. I am certain that, in that amount of time, he could hand designed a few, or at least a few different baseline species during each period.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Friday, July 27, 2018, 00:55 (2094 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
David: Since I don't follow the Bible I thought inexactly about the Bible's meaning of separate creation as you describe it. I had in mind stepwise creation as in evolution rather than totally separate individual creation implied in the Bible.
Tony: It was both stepwise and creation. I think part of the issue is that you are looking at life as independent, and it isn't. It isn't something that could just happen, nor did its happening fail to make an impact.
Agreed
Tony: Let's assume for a moment there is/was a plan, but agree not to speculate the future of that plan for a moment. All that is relevant is that the sequence of events, and the timing of them, was according to plan.So earth is there, barren, formless, devoid of life. Much like any other planet in the universe. For whatever reason, this planet was picked. Planetary processes were kicked off, heat, gas, water vapor forming the atmosphere.
Earth was picked because it had all the attributes the Earth has, unless you imply it was specially made the way it is. Its especialness requires our solar system in the formation.
Tony: All good, but the plan needs life, and the planet won't sustain the next stage. So, Kickstart the process with plant life to fix the atmosphere, regulate temperatures, soil binding and breaking(all that yummy volcanic stone to digest).
The first were photosynthetic cells which eventually became plants.
Tony: Then, birds and fish, to spread these early plants all over the face of the planet. Giant lizards to handle what were likely mammoth trees, breaking down that early overrun of plant growth and probably carrion eaters as well.And so on. By the time mammals were created, and before humans, everything was going according to plan.
Yes, all plants descended from early plants, possibly even a single plant, though that is highly doubtful. These creative periods spanned eons. And it says God prepared a garden. I am certain that, in that amount of time, he could hand designed a few, or at least a few different baseline species during each period.
Thanks for your discussion. Yes, in my view of stepwise evolution I assume original parts were readapted and used again stepwise. Also see this entry here:
Wednesday, March 15, 2017, 00:49
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331172-900-oldest-plantlike-fossils-discovered...
The earliest true plant fossils.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, July 27, 2018, 01:51 (2094 days ago) @ David Turell
David: Since I don't follow the Bible I thought inexactly about the Bible's meaning of separate creation as you describe it. I had in mind stepwise creation as in evolution rather than totally separate individual creation implied in the Bible.
Tony: It was both stepwise and creation. I think part of the issue is that you are looking at life as independent, and it isn't. It isn't something that could just happen, nor did its happening fail to make an impact.
Agreed
Tony: Let's assume for a moment there is/was a plan, but agree not to speculate the future of that plan for a moment. All that is relevant is that the sequence of events, and the timing of them, was according to plan.So earth is there, barren, formless, devoid of life. Much like any other planet in the universe. For whatever reason, this planet was picked. Planetary processes were kicked off, heat, gas, water vapor forming the atmosphere.
Earth was picked because it had all the attributes the Earth has, unless you imply it was specially made the way it is. Its especialness requires our solar system in the formation.
Tony: All good, but the plan needs life, and the planet won't sustain the next stage. So, Kickstart the process with plant life to fix the atmosphere, regulate temperatures, soil binding and breaking(all that yummy volcanic stone to digest).
David: The first were photosynthetic cells which eventually became plants.
Agreed. I honestly imagine that Earth's early atmosphere would have been too toxic for most cellular life.
I'm going to coin a new phrase or two for this discussion "Evolutionary Potential". Let's call that the maximum upward mobility potential for a particular "seed species". A seed species, as I am using it, is a new, novel form that would require an information increase in the genome, most likely coupled Quality and Timing Control mechanisms that had not previously existed in a lineage.
What if God created a small number of seed species, with enough information in them to allow for limited future development, and allowed them to do their thing on earth for a time before planting new seed species. The reason for the limitation is not a limitation on God, but of the environment itself. If he had allowed the genetic information to be released to early, there would most likely be a catastrophic outcome as changes in organisms become incompatible with the environment. So, these limitations on a seed species are the boundaries of its evolutionary potential. New seed species are direct creations. All the variants of them would essentially follow what we actually see in the genetic record.
The first photosynthetic cell would have likely been necessarily limited to, at most, the cellular complexity of a microbial mat, much as we still observe today. Once the atmosphere started to become less hostile, new seed species of plants were put in place and allowed a period to do their work. As for the variety, well, that is not at all hard to picture being done with a relatively small set of controls at the genomic level.
Point being, stop looking for a LUCA for all life, and focus one multiple LUCA for 'kinds' of life.
David: Thanks for your discussion. Yes, in my view of stepwise evolution I assume original parts were readapted and used again stepwise. Also see this entry here:Wednesday, March 15, 2017, 00:49
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331172-900-oldest-plantlike-fossils-discovered...
The earliest true plant fossils.
I do get tired of the binary arguments. God can create, and create intelligently so as to not have to micro-manage everything, but he also must respect the boundries of the rule-sets that the foundation of physical reality is built upon (i.e. physics/chemistry), as well as the rule-sets put in place to govern biology. Using this as a stepping stone, we can analyze the system as a whole, from the universe to the solar system to the planet to life and see how all the timing events had to be just so, and then seek to understand WHY they had to be just so. What would happen if they weren't? What does that tell us?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Friday, July 27, 2018, 04:54 (2094 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
David: Since I don't follow the Bible I thought inexactly about the Bible's meaning of separate creation as you describe it. I had in mind stepwise creation as in evolution rather than totally separate individual creation implied in the Bible.
Tony: It was both stepwise and creation. I think part of the issue is that you are looking at life as independent, and it isn't. It isn't something that could just happen, nor did its happening fail to make an impact.
David: Agreed
Tony: Let's assume for a moment there is/was a plan, but agree not to speculate the future of that plan for a moment. All that is relevant is that the sequence of events, and the timing of them, was according to plan.So earth is there, barren, formless, devoid of life. Much like any other planet in the universe. For whatever reason, this planet was picked. Planetary processes were kicked off, heat, gas, water vapor forming the atmosphere.
David: Earth was picked because it had all the attributes the Earth has, unless you imply it was specially made the way it is. Its especialness requires our solar system in the formation.
Tony: All good, but the plan needs life, and the planet won't sustain the next stage. So, Kickstart the process with plant life to fix the atmosphere, regulate temperatures, soil binding and breaking(all that yummy volcanic stone to digest).
David: The first were photosynthetic cells which eventually became plants.
Tony: Agreed. I honestly imagine that Earth's early atmosphere would have been too toxic for most cellular life.
The Urey/Miller lightning in a bottle had the wrong atmosphere and got amino acids in tar.
Tony: I'm going to coin a new phrase or two for this discussion "Evolutionary Potential". Let's call that the maximum upward mobility potential for a particular "seed species". A seed species, as I am using it, is a new, novel form that would require an information increase in the genome, most likely coupled Quality and Timing Control mechanisms that had not previously existed in a lineage.What if God created a small number of seed species, with enough information in them to allow for limited future development, and allowed them to do their thing on earth for a time before planting new seed species. The reason for the limitation is not a limitation on God, but of the environment itself. If he had allowed the genetic information to be released to early, there would most likely be a catastrophic outcome as changes in organisms become incompatible with the environment. So, these limitations on a seed species are the boundaries of its evolutionary potential. New seed species are direct creations. All the variants of them would essentially follow what we actually see in the genetic record.
The first photosynthetic cell would have likely been necessarily limited to, at most, the cellular complexity of a microbial mat, much as we still observe today. Once the atmosphere started to become less hostile, new seed species of plants were put in place and allowed a period to do their work. As for the variety, well, that is not at all hard to picture being done with a relatively small set of controls at the genomic level.
Point being, stop looking for a LUCA for all life, and focus one multiple LUCA for 'kinds' of life.
David: Thanks for your discussion. Yes, in my view of stepwise evolution I assume original parts were readapted and used again stepwise. Also see this entry here:Wednesday, March 15, 2017, 00:49
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331172-900-oldest-plantlike-fossils-discovered...
The earliest true plant fossils.
Tony: I do get tired of the binary arguments. God can create, and create intelligently so as to not have to micro-manage everything, but he also must respect the boundries of the rule-sets that the foundation of physical reality is built upon (i.e. physics/chemistry), as well as the rule-sets put in place to govern biology. Using this as a stepping stone, we can analyze the system as a whole, from the universe to the solar system to the planet to life and see how all the timing events had to be just so, and then seek to understand WHY they had to be just so. What would happen if they weren't? What does that tell us?
The planning of the environment and the appearance of the organisms had to all fit just as in fine tuning.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
TONY: What if God created a small number of seed species, with enough information in them to allow for limited future development, and allowed them to do their thing on earth for a time before planting new seed species. The reason for the limitation is not a limitation on God, but of the environment itself. If he had allowed the genetic information to be released to early, there would most likely be a catastrophic outcome as changes in organisms become incompatible with the environment. So, these limitations on a seed species are the boundaries of its evolutionary potential. New seed species are direct creations. All the variants of them would essentially follow what we actually see in the genetic record.
This is circular reasoning. If God imposed limitations on plants (and animals), they would not be able to go beyond those limitations, and therefore he would create new plants and animals. You might just as well ask: What if he created a small number of life forms with enough information in them to allow for unlimited future development, including adaptation to and exploitation of new environments? Then they could evolve instead of him needing to create new species directly.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Friday, July 27, 2018, 15:26 (2094 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: What if God created a small number of seed species, with enough information in them to allow for limited future development, and allowed them to do their thing on earth for a time before planting new seed species. The reason for the limitation is not a limitation on God, but of the environment itself. If he had allowed the genetic information to be released to early, there would most likely be a catastrophic outcome as changes in organisms become incompatible with the environment. So, these limitations on a seed species are the boundaries of its evolutionary potential. New seed species are direct creations. All the variants of them would essentially follow what we actually see in the genetic record.
dhw: This is circular reasoning. If God imposed limitations on plants (and animals), they would not be able to go beyond those limitations, and therefore he would create new plants and animals. You might just as well ask: What if he created a small number of life forms with enough information in them to allow for unlimited future development, including adaptation to and exploitation of new environments? Then they could evolve instead of him needing to create new species directly.
Not circular. All you are proposing is a robotic form of producing something new. Robots can replace humans for specific functions, but not multiple new functions beyond the original. That requires not only foresight and planning, but the original program would have to be a placement of the information in God's mind in the genome of each organism..
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, July 27, 2018, 17:49 (2094 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: What if God created a small number of seed species, with enough information in them to allow for limited future development, and allowed them to do their thing on earth for a time before planting new seed species. The reason for the limitation is not a limitation on God, but of the environment itself. If he had allowed the genetic information to be released to early, there would most likely be a catastrophic outcome as changes in organisms become incompatible with the environment. So, these limitations on a seed species are the boundaries of its evolutionary potential. New seed species are direct creations. All the variants of them would essentially follow what we actually see in the genetic record.
DHW This is circular reasoning. If God imposed limitations on plants (and animals), they would not be able to go beyond those limitations, and therefore he would create new plants and animals. You might just as well ask: What if he created a small number of life forms with enough information in them to allow for unlimited future development, including adaptation to and exploitation of new environments? Then they could evolve instead of him needing to create new species directly.
That is not circular reasoning. When we design things, we design them for a purpose, knowing full well there are limitations.we design I order, understanding that the infrastructure must be I place to support our innovations. Some innovations must wait for the right time, or they will simply fail and Peter out. Why is that such an unrealistic concept to be applied to the greatest design ever designed?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
TONY: What if God created a small number of seed species, with enough information in them to allow for limited future development, and allowed them to do their thing on earth for a time before planting new seed species. The reason for the limitation is not a limitation on God, but of the environment itself. If he had allowed the genetic information to be released to early, there would most likely be a catastrophic outcome as changes in organisms become incompatible with the environment. So, these limitations on a seed species are the boundaries of its evolutionary potential. New seed species are direct creations. All the variants of them would essentially follow what we actually see in the genetic record.
dhw: This is circular reasoning. If God imposed limitations on plants (and animals), they would not be able to go beyond those limitations, and therefore he would create new plants and animals. You might just as well ask: What if he created a small number of life forms with enough information in them to allow for unlimited future development, including adaptation to and exploitation of new environments? Then they could evolve instead of him needing to create new species directly.
DAVID: Not circular. All you are proposing is a robotic form of producing something new. Robots can replace humans for specific functions, but not multiple new functions beyond the original. That requires not only foresight and planning, but the original program would have to be a placement of the information in God's mind in the genome of each organism.
This is precisely the objection I have to your theory that your God provided the first cells with programmes for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life, to be passed down for millions and millions of years, through all the different environments and by all the different cell communities. Every preprogrammed organism according to you is a robot. It simply beggars my belief. On the other hand, what I propose is information in the form of cellular intelligence – precisely the opposite of robotic. We humans invent machines that far exceed our own natural limits. If your God can create a mechanism that enables us to do that, why shouldn’t he have created a mechanism that enables other organisms to do their own inventing, as opposed to them all being robots?
TONY: That is not circular reasoning. When we design things, we design them for a purpose, knowing full well there are limitations.
Why do you compare your God to a human designer? Of course the reasoning is circular. If you design something with limits, you end up with something that has limits.
TONY: …we design I order, understanding that the infrastructure must be I place to support our innovations. Some innovations must wait for the right time, or they will simply fail and Peter out. Why is that such an unrealistic concept to be applied to the greatest design ever designed?
Not unrealistic at all. If your God provided his invention with the means to adapt to different environments, why could he not provide them with the means to exploit different environments by coming up with new inventions? The greatest design ever designed may include the means not only to reproduce, to adapt, to vary, but also to innovate. If humans can innovate, what makes you so sure that other organisms can’t? But I accept the argument that no one has ever observed evolutionary innovation. It’s a hypothesis. No one has ever observed new organisms appearing from nowhere, let alone a God who preprogrammes, dabbles or separately creates them.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Saturday, July 28, 2018, 14:48 (2093 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: This is circular reasoning. If God imposed limitations on plants (and animals), they would not be able to go beyond those limitations, and therefore he would create new plants and animals. You might just as well ask: What if he created a small number of life forms with enough information in them to allow for unlimited future development, including adaptation to and exploitation of new environments? Then they could evolve instead of him needing to create new species directly.
DAVID: Not circular. All you are proposing is a robotic form of producing something new. Robots can replace humans for specific functions, but not multiple new functions beyond the original. That requires not only foresight and planning, but the original program would have to be a placement of the information in God's mind in the genome of each organism.
dhw: This is precisely the objection I have to your theory that your God provided the first cells with programmes for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life, to be passed down for millions and millions of years, through all the different environments and by all the different cell communities. Every preprogrammed organism according to you is a robot. It simply beggars my belief. On the other hand, what I propose is information in the form of cellular intelligence – precisely the opposite of robotic. We humans invent machines that far exceed our own natural limits. If your God can create a mechanism that enables us to do that, why shouldn’t he have created a mechanism that enables other organisms to do their own inventing, as opposed to them all being robots?
Such an inventive mechanism runs by independent organisms has no way to analyze the future needs that an active mind would supply. You are still at the robot stage. We human invent machines better than us because we can envision them. God's program at the beginning of life includes the future vision.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, July 29, 2018, 07:40 (2092 days ago) @ David Turell
dhw: This is circular reasoning. If God imposed limitations on plants (and animals), they would not be able to go beyond those limitations, and therefore he would create new plants and animals. You might just as well ask: What if he created a small number of life forms with enough information in them to allow for unlimited future development, including adaptation to and exploitation of new environments? Then they could evolve instead of him needing to create new species directly.
DAVID: Not circular. All you are proposing is a robotic form of producing something new. Robots can replace humans for specific functions, but not multiple new functions beyond the original. That requires not only foresight and planning, but the original program would have to be a placement of the information in God's mind in the genome of each organism.
I would also like to point out that, despite DHW's continued comparisons, God's dabbling and inventive intelligent cells are not in the same category scientifically. Cellular intelligence is not super-natural, and if it existed we Would see the evidence, not only of its successes, but failures. For God's dabbling, the observations must be indirect, inferences, because God is, by definition, supernatural.
For DHW's hypothesis, we should see observable activity I cells. For dabbling, we should see a set of conditions that confirm design.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Sunday, July 29, 2018, 18:36 (2092 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
dhw: This is circular reasoning. If God imposed limitations on plants (and animals), they would not be able to go beyond those limitations, and therefore he would create new plants and animals. You might just as well ask: What if he created a small number of life forms with enough information in them to allow for unlimited future development, including adaptation to and exploitation of new environments? Then they could evolve instead of him needing to create new species directly.
DAVID: Not circular. All you are proposing is a robotic form of producing something new. Robots can replace humans for specific functions, but not multiple new functions beyond the original. That requires not only foresight and planning, but the original program would have to be a placement of the information in God's mind in the genome of each organism.
Tony: I would also like to point out that, despite DHW's continued comparisons, God's dabbling and inventive intelligent cells are not in the same category scientifically. Cellular intelligence is not super-natural, and if it existed we Would see the evidence, not only of its successes, but failures. For God's dabbling, the observations must be indirect, inferences, because God is, by definition, supernatural.For DHW's hypothesis, we should see observable activity I cells. For dabbling, we should see a set of conditions that confirm design.
My approach has been that single cells, either as bacteria or part of multicellular organisms are programmed to respond to stimuli by a series of molecular reactions which are intelligently designed to solve the problem presented. The scientists dhw quotes simply say the cells react intelligently. Of course they do. Research shows the molecular reactions, nothing more. Intelligently planned reactions, noting no mental action is implied, is the logical conclusion.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
DAVID: My approach has been that single cells, either as bacteria or part of multicellular organisms are programmed to respond to stimuli by a series of molecular reactions which are intelligently designed to solve the problem presented. The scientists dhw quotes simply say the cells react intelligently. Of course they do. Research shows the molecular reactions, nothing more. Intelligently planned reactions, noting no mental action is implied, is the logical conclusion.
I have bombarded you with quotes from eminent scientists like McClintock, Margulis, Albrecht-Buehler, Shapiro who say quite explicitly that cells are intelligent, sentient, cognitive, conscious beings (though of course their intelligence is not to be compared with that of humans). I haven’t got time to go back through them all, but here are some of them:
McClintock: “ the fact that cells are self-aware problem-solving agencies cannot be reasonably disputed.”
William Miller MD author of “The Microcosm Within”
“Cells are cognitive entities possessing great computational power."
Shapiro: ”Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and decision-making capabilities."
When asked why people like you challenge the concept of cellular intelligence, Shapiro replied:: “Large organs chauvinism, so we like to think that only we can do things in a cognitive way.”
Bruce Lipton: "Cells came together in community to share awareness and enhance their survival. The same thing applies as to individuals in a human community. In community, each individual gives up their own "control" of what they are going to do and instead conforms to the coordinating central voice's directives."
Your comment was: "He is with you. He likes purposeful cell committees."
Yes indeed, he too is with me. And like me, he calls them communities.
Margulis said that intelligence was "an intrinsic property of cells".
None of them “simply say the cells react intelligently”. They say a great deal more than that, so please don’t pretend that they have come to the same “logical conclusion” as you have.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Monday, July 30, 2018, 14:46 (2091 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: My approach has been that single cells, either as bacteria or part of multicellular organisms are programmed to respond to stimuli by a series of molecular reactions which are intelligently designed to solve the problem presented. The scientists dhw quotes simply say the cells react intelligently. Of course they do. Research shows the molecular reactions, nothing more. Intelligently planned reactions, noting no mental action is implied, is the logical conclusion.
dhw: I have bombarded you with quotes from eminent scientists like McClintock, Margulis, Albrecht-Buehler, Shapiro who say quite explicitly that cells are intelligent, sentient, cognitive, conscious beings (though of course their intelligence is not to be compared with that of humans). I haven’t got time to go back through them all, but here are some of them:
McClintock: “ the fact that cells are self-aware problem-solving agencies cannot be reasonably disputed.”
William Miller MD author of “The Microcosm Within”
“Cells are cognitive entities possessing great computational power."Shapiro: ”Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and decision-making capabilities."
When asked why people like you challenge the concept of cellular intelligence, Shapiro replied:: “Large organs chauvinism, so we like to think that only we can do things in a cognitive way.”
Bruce Lipton: "Cells came together in community to share awareness and enhance their survival. The same thing applies as to individuals in a human community. In community, each individual gives up their own "control" of what they are going to do and instead conforms to the coordinating central voice's directives."
Your comment was: "He is with you. He likes purposeful cell committees."
Yes indeed, he too is with me. And like me, he calls them communities.Margulis said that intelligence was "an intrinsic property of cells".
None of them “simply say the cells react intelligently”. They say a great deal more than that, so please don’t pretend that they have come to the same “logical conclusion” as you have.
I pretended nothing of the kind. Do you read the same words I write. It is my conclusion as I stated.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
DAVID: My approach has been that single cells, either as bacteria or part of multicellular organisms are programmed to respond to stimuli by a series of molecular reactions which are intelligently designed to solve the problem presented. The scientists dhw quotes simply say the cells react intelligently. Of course they do. Research shows the molecular reactions, nothing more. Intelligently planned reactions, noting no mental action is implied, is the logical conclusion.
dhw: I have bombarded you with quotes from eminent scientists like McClintock, Margulis, Albrecht-Buehler, Shapiro who say quite explicitly that cells are intelligent, sentient, cognitive, conscious beings (though of course their intelligence is not to be compared with that of humans). I haven’t got time to go back through them all, but here are some of them:
McClintock: “ the fact that cells are self-aware problem-solving agencies cannot be reasonably disputed.”
William Miller MD author of “The Microcosm Within”
“Cells are cognitive entities possessing great computational power."
Shapiro: ”Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and decision-making capabilities."
When asked why people like you challenge the concept of cellular intelligence, Shapiro replied:: “Large organs chauvinism, so we like to think that only we can do things in a cognitive way.”
Bruce Lipton: "Cells came together in community to share awareness and enhance their survival. The same thing applies as to individuals in a human community. In community, each individual gives up their own "control" of what they are going to do and instead conforms to the coordinating central voice's directives."
dhw: Your comment was: "He is with you. He likes purposeful cell committees."
Yes indeed, he too is with me. And like me, he calls them communities.
Margulis said that intelligence was "an intrinsic property of cells".
dhw: None of them “simply say the cells react intelligently”. They say a great deal more than that, so please don’t pretend that they have come to the same “logical conclusion” as you have.
DAVID: I pretended nothing of the kind. Do you read the same words I write. It is my conclusion as I stated.
You pretended that “the scientists simply say the cells react intelligently” and that the research shows nothing more than intelligently planned molecular reactions. Therefore the (not “my”) logical conclusion is that “no mental action is required”. Of course that would be “the” logical conclusion. But the scientists don’t “simply say” that, and “nothing more than…” is NOT what their research shows! Your “simply say” leaves out the all-important fact that they say their research shows that mental action IS required. I have corrected this error in your post by quoting what the scientists actually do say.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, July 31, 2018, 13:53 (2090 days ago) @ dhw
edited by Balance_Maintained, Tuesday, July 31, 2018, 13:59
Ever notice that most thread on biology get bogged down in this same debate?
Dhw, unless I am mistaken, David agrees that cells behave intelligently, but thinks that appearance of intelligence is more akin to a highly developed chemical response system, rather than on par with the creative intelligence of humans. And make know doubt, they would need a self-awareness, an analytical intelligence, and a creative intelligence, and the ability to perform such huge knowledge leaps in a single cellular lifespan.
The problem in this discussion, as I have seen it rehashed a dozen times, is a matter of limitations and perhaps some ambiguity on not what qualifies as intelligence, but rather what qualifies as self-reflection and abstract reasoning.
An artificial intelligence can, quite successfully I might add, handle basic I/O and generate such a variety of choices that it can challenge a human mind..a little..in some ways. Do cells show a level of intelligence and reason more advanced than our best A.I. Systems?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 31, 2018, 15:12 (2090 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: Ever notice that most thread on biology get bogged down in this same debate?
Dhw, unless I am mistaken, David agrees that cells behave intelligently, but thinks that appearance of intelligence is more akin to a highly developed chemical response system, rather than on par with the creative intelligence of humans. And make know doubt, they would need a self-awareness, an analytical intelligence, and a creative intelligence, and the ability to perform such huge knowledge leaps in a single cellular lifespan.
The problem in this discussion, as I have seen it rehashed a dozen times, is a matter of limitations and perhaps some ambiguity on not what qualifies as intelligence, but rather what qualifies as self-reflection and abstract reasoning.An artificial intelligence can, quite successfully I might add, handle basic I/O and generate such a variety of choices that it can challenge a human mind..a little..in some ways. Do cells show a level of intelligence and reason more advanced than our best A.I. Systems?
No. They act just like AI outputs.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
TONY: Ever notice that most thread on biology get bogged down in this same debate?
Dhw, unless I am mistaken, David agrees that cells behave intelligently, but thinks that appearance of intelligence is more akin to a highly developed chemical response system, rather than on par with the creative intelligence of humans. And make know doubt, they would need a self-awareness, an analytical intelligence, and a creative intelligence, and the ability to perform such huge knowledge leaps in a single cellular lifespan.
I have repeatedly said that cellular intelligence is not to be compared with human intelligence. But yes, a particular kind of analytical, creative intelligence would certainly be necessary, though I don’t know why you say it has to be in the lifespan of a single cell. Even our own cell communities renew themselves at different intervals, but their information is passed on. You seem to have missed what some of the experts tell us (see my post of 30 July). For example: Shapiro: ”Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and decision-making capabilities." McClintock even goes so far as to say they are self-aware. But as I keep saying, I am offering a hypothesis – namely that this intelligence is also capable of innovation. There is no evidence that it is, just as there is no evidence for any of the hypotheses you and David come up with.
TONY: The problem in this discussion, as I have seen it rehashed a dozen times, is a matter of limitations and perhaps some ambiguity on not what qualifies as intelligence, but rather what qualifies as self-reflection and abstract reasoning.
No ambiguity. I have explicitly stated that I regard sentience, cognition, memory, communication, decision-making, problem-solving etc. as attributes of intelligence, but I do not believe for one minute that individual cells are capable of self-reflection and abstract reasoning. I say there are DEGREES of intelligence. However, many people believe that a certain combination of cells has created precisely the human capabilities you have mentioned. See all our discussions on dualism versus materialism in relation to the human brain.
TONY: An artificial intelligence can, quite successfully I might add, handle basic I/O and generate such a variety of choices that it can challenge a human mind..a little..in some ways. Do cells show a level of intelligence and reason more advanced than our best A.I. Systems?
Yes of course they do. No AI system has yet proved intelligent enough to devise ways of autonomously reproducing itself, healing itself, creating variations of itself, devising new programmes for itself etc. That doesn’t mean the cells/cell communities think and reason as we do, but even our advanced intelligence is not capable of producing what cells produce. And this is why you and David quite understandably push your design theory, which I also find unanswerable. Only with my theist’s hat on, I do not accept your rejection of the idea that your God could have designed cells in such a way that they have their own autonomous “sensory, communication, information-processing, and decision-making capabilities” (Shapiro), which may even extend as far as the creativity required for evolutionary innovation.
DAVID: The scientists dhw quotes simply say the cells react intelligently. Of course they do. Research shows the molecular reactions, nothing more. Intelligently planned reactions, noting no mental action is implied, is the logical conclusion.
dhw: Your “simply say” leaves out the all-important fact that they say their research shows that mental action IS required. I have corrected this error in your post by quoting what the scientists actually do say.
DAVID: And I have said that is their interpretation of what research shows. You are touting interpretations, not any proven reality. My interpretation is just as valid as theirs. Their research shows nothing of the sort!
Your remark was addressed to Tony, and my complaint was against your telling him that the scientists I quote in support of my hypothesis “simply say the cells react intelligently…”, and the research shows nothing more than molecular reactions. That is not what they simply say. Of course their logical conclusions – based on a lifetime of research – are an interpretation, but theirs is as valid as yours, and so I have made it clear that the scientists I quote go far beyond “molecular reactions”, and explicitly support the concept of cellular intelligence – a fact which is entirely missing from your statement.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 01, 2018, 15:17 (2089 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: And I have said that is their interpretation of what research shows. You are touting interpretations, not any proven reality. My interpretation is just as valid as theirs. Their research shows nothing of the sort!dhw: Your remark was addressed to Tony, and my complaint was against your telling him that the scientists I quote in support of my hypothesis “simply say the cells react intelligently…”, and the research shows nothing more than molecular reactions. That is not what they simply say. Of course their logical conclusions – based on a lifetime of research – are an interpretation, but theirs is as valid as yours, and so I have made it clear that the scientists I quote go far beyond “molecular reactions”, and explicitly support the concept of cellular intelligence – a fact which is entirely missing from your statement.
Of course that is their conclusion from observing the molecular reactions. i simply offer an alternate and just as reasonable conclusion.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, August 03, 2018, 09:25 (2087 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: Ever notice that most thread on biology get bogged down in this same debate?
Dhw, unless I am mistaken, David agrees that cells behave intelligently, but thinks that appearance of intelligence is more akin to a highly developed chemical response system, rather than on par with the creative intelligence of humans. And make know doubt, they would need a self-awareness, an analytical intelligence, and a creative intelligence, and the ability to perform such huge knowledge leaps in a single cellular lifespan.DHW: I have repeatedly said that cellular intelligence is not to be compared with human intelligence. But yes, a particular kind of analytical, creative intelligence would certainly be necessary, though I don’t know why you say it has to be in the lifespan of a single cell. Even our own cell communities renew themselves at different intervals, but their information is passed on.
Is there any demonstrable evidence that a cell learns...and do consider for a moment what that actually entails...then stores that knowledge somewhere? Are cells spontaneously adding new genes as storage media for this new information? I mean, let's assume for one second that this is what's happening, and figure out what precisely would be required in order for your cells to do what you say they can do.
Learning - Learning requires stimulus/response systems, which they have, in order to gather data. Now, since they don't have Google (or books), they must needs learn by experimentation. Which means we should see repeated actions from the cell that become more proficient over time. However, merely becoming more efficient at hunting or some such does not, in and of itself, indicate learning. It could simply be strengthening of whatever part of the organism is being used. No, in order to indicate learning, we would need to see the cell attempt something and FAIL, then attempt to do it a different way, over and over, until a successful solution was found. That is not what we observe.
Memory - Now, assuming that the organism does pass the first check, it must now store that information somewhere. Where is the long term data storage that survives cell division? Is there some process that rewrites sections of dna on the fly as a sort of data storage? This is also not what we observe.
Creativity - Ah, this is really where it all falls down. Creativity requires a frame of reference, a goal, a vision. Even without self-awareness or self-reflection, the creative act requires at a minimum abstract reasoning; the ability to imagine. And, in order to bring that creative vision to fruition, it requires the ability to plan, which implies forward thinking and logic.
To make matters more complicated, it would also require cells to learn about things that they have know way to learn about! How would a cell make the leap from cell division to sex? Why would they? What possible information could a asexually reproductive creature have that could possibly allow it to understand that the way it enters into the world and how it procreates, two of the most fundamental truths of a organisms existence, are not the optimal way? And then to plan not one, but two sets of plans that must be fulfilled in a single generation (assuming you get past the memory hurdle). I say fulfilled as in, a Female with no male could not reproduce, and vice versa.
These are not trivial problems for your hypothesis to overcome.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Friday, August 03, 2018, 15:38 (2087 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
TONY: Ever notice that most thread on biology get bogged down in this same debate?
Dhw, unless I am mistaken, David agrees that cells behave intelligently, but thinks that appearance of intelligence is more akin to a highly developed chemical response system, rather than on par with the creative intelligence of humans. And make know doubt, they would need a self-awareness, an analytical intelligence, and a creative intelligence, and the ability to perform such huge knowledge leaps in a single cellular lifespan.DHW: I have repeatedly said that cellular intelligence is not to be compared with human intelligence. But yes, a particular kind of analytical, creative intelligence would certainly be necessary, though I don’t know why you say it has to be in the lifespan of a single cell. Even our own cell communities renew themselves at different intervals, but their information is passed on.
Is there any demonstrable evidence that a cell learns...and do consider for a moment what that actually entails...then stores that knowledge somewhere? Are cells spontaneously adding new genes as storage media for this new information? I mean, let's assume for one second that this is what's happening, and figure out what precisely would be required in order for your cells to do what you say they can do.Learning - Learning requires stimulus/response systems, which they have, in order to gather data. Now, since they don't have Google (or books), they must needs learn by experimentation. Which means we should see repeated actions from the cell that become more proficient over time. However, merely becoming more efficient at hunting or some such does not, in and of itself, indicate learning. It could simply be strengthening of whatever part of the organism is being used. No, in order to indicate learning, we would need to see the cell attempt something and FAIL, then attempt to do it a different way, over and over, until a successful solution was found. That is not what we observe.
Memory - Now, assuming that the organism does pass the first check, it must now store that information somewhere. Where is the long term data storage that survives cell division? Is there some process that rewrites sections of dna on the fly as a sort of data storage? This is also not what we observe.
Creativity - Ah, this is really where it all falls down. Creativity requires a frame of reference, a goal, a vision. Even without self-awareness or self-reflection, the creative act requires at a minimum abstract reasoning; the ability to imagine. And, in order to bring that creative vision to fruition, it requires the ability to plan, which implies forward thinking and logic.
To make matters more complicated, it would also require cells to learn about things that they have know way to learn about! How would a cell make the leap from cell division to sex? Why would they? What possible information could a asexually reproductive creature have that could possibly allow it to understand that the way it enters into the world and how it procreates, two of the most fundamental truths of a organisms existence, are not the optimal way? And then to plan not one, but two sets of plans that must be fulfilled in a single generation (assuming you get past the memory hurdle). I say fulfilled as in, a Female with no male could not reproduce, and vice versa.
These are not trivial problems for your hypothesis to overcome.
dhw's problem is that he is quoting scientists who do single cell studies of response to specific stimuli and extrapolates their findings of 'intelligent' responses to make the point that the cells must have intelligence and that intelligence can be seen in whole organs. It is obvious to me an intelligent designer can create exactly what is seen.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
TONY: Is there any demonstrable evidence that a cell learns [...] then stores that knowledge somewhere?
Cells/cell communities learn all the time! Even single cells learn. How do bacteria survive new conditions if they don’t learn how to cope with them, and if they don’t pass that knowledge on? How do our own cells do the same? Scientists have even pinpointed particular areas of the brain that learn and remember (store knowledge). The brain consists of cell communities!
TONY: Learning requires stimulus/response systems, which they have, in order to gather data. Now, since they don't have Google (or books), they must needs learn by experimentation. Which means we should see repeated actions from the cell that become more proficient over time.
Yes, organisms learn by experimentation. When bacteria are confronted by a new threat, many may die, but eventually they always seem to find a solution, i.e. become “more proficient”. The brain cells of other organisms learn from birth to activate and use the other cell communities that make up the rest of their bodies. And the more they repeat the actions, the more proficient they become. Look at your children.
TONY: ….in order to indicate learning, we would need to see the cell attempt something and FAIL, then attempt to do it a different way, over and over, until a successful solution was found. That is not what we observe.
That is precisely what we observe. See the example of bacteria above. I’d class death as failure. Throughout the history of life, organisms (i.e. cell communities) have been faced with problems, and it is believed that eventually about 99% of them have failed to solve them. Conversely, how would the immune system work if the relevant cells didn’t confront new experiences, come up with strategies, and remember those that work?
TONY: Memory - Now, assuming that the organism does pass the first check, it must now store that information somewhere. Where is the long term data storage that survives cell division? […]
If our cells didn’t pass on the information they’ve learned, how would their successors manage to perform the same tasks? Every innovation that survives entails passing on stored information. Where is the storage system? I’m afraid you’ll have to ask a cytologist!
TONY: Creativity - Ah, this is really where it all falls down. Creativity requires a frame of reference, a goal, a vision. Even without self-awareness or self-reflection, the creative act requires at a minimum abstract reasoning; the ability to imagine. And, in order to bring that creative vision to fruition, it requires the ability to plan, which implies forward thinking and logic.
My hypothesis attributes most innovations (but see below re sex) to the response of cells/cell communities to changing environments. For instance, I do not share David’s belief that his God restructured pre-whales before they entered the water. I suggest that environmental change may have made the water more attractive than the land, and the cell communities made changes to their structure in order to make better use of the new conditions. No abstract reasoning, planning, forward thinking involved. Just the cells responding to environmental challenges or opportunities. And every innovation entails the restructuring of cell communities, whether you like it or not. The question is not whether it happens but how it happens.
TONY: To make matters more complicated, it would also require cells to learn about things that they have no way to learn about! How would a cell make the leap from cell division to sex? […]
I agree with the whole of this paragraph. Sex is one of the great mysteries, and if anyone knew all the answers to all the great mysteries, there would be nothing left but facts! But my hypothesis of cellular intelligence as the driving force of evolution has always allowed for your God being its inventor and your God doing a dabble when he feels like it. Sex might be an instance of a dabble. Perfectly understandable if he created life, watched the intelligent cells produce all the different varieties, but also decided from time to time to intervene. I have never disputed the case for design. But…
TONY: These are not trivial problems for your hypothesis to overcome.
Of course not. That is why it remains a hypothesis, much like the hypothesis that all the mysteries we can’t understand were created by a mystery we can’t understand - namely, an eternal, unknown, unknowable, conscious mind which came from nowhere.
DAVID: dhw's problem is that he is quoting scientists who do single cell studies of response to specific stimuli and extrapolates their findings of 'intelligent' responses to make the point that the cells must have intelligence and that intelligence can be seen in whole organs. It is obvious to me an intelligent designer can create exactly what is seen.
It is the scientists who extrapolate the point that cells are intelligent. Do you really want me to repeat my post of 31 July?
DAVID (under “Bacterial intelligence”): Once again we see that bacteria use purposeful molecular reactions to react to stimuli. These are automatic mechanisms that use enzymes, giant molecules to activate and control the response speedily.
Yes, our senses also work automatically. Intelligence consists in working out how to use the information provided by the senses.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, August 05, 2018, 15:55 (2085 days ago) @ dhw
Ok, just to shortcut through having to edit all our conversation here, I'm going to paraphrase.
DHW, you seem to equate not dying with learning. They are not the same thing, not by any stretch. You know this. You know that is NOT what we are discussing, either. Being the lone survivor does not mean you have learned anything, only that you survived.
What's more, that does not leave any room for the kind of complicated pre-planning that your hypothesis requires. Further, an unpurposed cell community does not equate to the brain, with all of its spatial shape requirements and special tissue type requirements and chemical requirements.
In short, I think you danced all around those points, but didn't actually address any of them with any legitimate evidence of a singe cell doing the things you claim they can do. And it MUST be at the individual cell level, because to get from point A to wherever you are going with it, you have to start with a single cell. That means no cell communities to act as a data store, even if that were possible.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Sunday, August 05, 2018, 19:05 (2085 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: Ok, just to shortcut through having to edit all our conversation here, I'm going to paraphrase.
DHW, you seem to equate not dying with learning. They are not the same thing, not by any stretch. You know this. You know that is NOT what we are discussing, either. Being the lone survivor does not mean you have learned anything, only that you survived.
What's more, that does not leave any room for the kind of complicated pre-planning that your hypothesis requires. Further, an unpurposed cell community does not equate to the brain, with all of its spatial shape requirements and special tissue type requirements and chemical requirements.
In short, I think you danced all around those points, but didn't actually address any of them with any legitimate evidence of a singe cell doing the things you claim they can do. And it MUST be at the individual cell level, because to get from point A to wherever you are going with it, you have to start with a single cell. That means no cell communities to act as a data store, even if that were possible.
It is all part of following the hyperbole of some scientists who equate intelligent cellular reactions with innate intelligence in single cells. As you point out, no way.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
TONY: OK, just to shortcut through having to edit all our conversation here, I'm going to paraphrase.
DHW, you seem to equate not dying with learning. They are not the same thing, not by any stretch. You know this. You know that is NOT what we are discussing, either. Being the lone survivor does not mean you have learned anything, only that you survived.
If an organism, single-cell or multicellular, is faced with a new, life-threatening problem, it has to find a solution or it will not survive. Furthermore, it has to pass the solution on to its descendants. How can you possibly find a solution to a new problem without learning something? This is a process we frequently see in operation today in the form of adaptation: new conditions leading to death or to a change of anatomy (i.e. the cell communities must make some kind of adjustment) or of lifestyle. I equate this with learning. And I also asked you how the immune system would work if the relevant cells didn’t come up with and then remember strategies to deal with new problems. But I acknowledge that the question mark against my hypothesis is whether these self-evident examples of learning can extend so far as to the innovations that are necessary for evolution.
TONY: What's more, that does not leave any room for the kind of complicated pre-planning that your hypothesis requires.
You have ignored the answer I gave last time. My hypothesis attributes most innovations to the cells’ responses to environmental change. Responses, not predictions. I gave you the example of the pre-whale. I do not believe the pre-whale or your God changed legs into fins before it entered the water. I suggest that the changes took place as the pre-whale’s cell communities adapted themselves to life in the water.
TONY: Further, an unpurposed cell community does not equate to the brain, with all of its spatial shape requirements and special tissue type requirements and chemical requirements.
What do you mean by an “unpurposed” cell community? It is a fact that the brain consists of cell communities. My hypothesis is precisely the opposite of “unpurposed”: namely, that they know what they are doing, and that they respond to one another. (In this respect, it makes no difference whether you believe in materialism or dualism.) David and I used the example of the spear. Either the soul or the brain has the new idea of making the weapon. This requires new calculations and new skills, i.e. changes to the brain: maybe additional cells (expansion), new connections (complexification). I see this process as exemplifying purposeful development, as cell communities adjust themselves to cope with or exploit the vast range of ever changing demands and opportunities.
TONY: In short, I think you danced all around those points, but didn't actually address any of them with any legitimate evidence of a singe cell doing the things you claim they can do. And it MUST be at the individual cell level, because to get from point A to wherever you are going with it, you have to start with a single cell. That means no cell communities to act as a data store, even if that were possible.
So do you deny that bacteria (single cells) are able to make changes to themselves in order to adapt to new conditions and are also able to preserve those changes? Yes, it began with single cells, but why do you reject the hypothesis that the combined intelligences of cell communities can take them to points that single cells can’t get to? And why do believe that even though new species came into existence, their cell communities did not store the data that made them into new species? Even if your God created every single organism, he would still have had to put single cells together to make all the multicellular organisms we know of, and the data would still have had to be stored! And if your God could do it, what makes you think your God could not have provided cells with the intelligence to do it themselves?
DAVID: It is all part of following the hyperbole of some scientists who equate intelligent cellular reactions with innate intelligence in single cells. As you point out, no way.
You are insulting the intelligence or possibly even the integrity of those scientists (one of them a Nobel prizewinner) who have made a lifetime study of the subject. Have some respect.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Monday, August 06, 2018, 15:12 (2084 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: It is all part of following the hyperbole of some scientists who equate intelligent cellular reactions with innate intelligence in single cells. As you point out, no way.
dhw: You are insulting the intelligence or possibly even the integrity of those scientists (one of them a Nobel prizewinner) who have made a lifetime study of the subject. Have some respect.
The Nobel committee is made up of humans with political views to skew their choices. Obama before he accomplished anything is one example. Their handling of Einstein is another.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
DAVID: It is all part of following the hyperbole of some scientists who equate intelligent cellular reactions with innate intelligence in single cells. As you point out, no way.
dhw: You are insulting the intelligence or possibly even the integrity of those scientists (one of them a Nobel prizewinner) who have made a lifetime study of the subject. Have some respect.
DAVID: The Nobel committee is made up of humans with political views to skew their choices. Obama before he accomplished anything is one example. Their handling of Einstein is another.
Hardly a reason for your cavalier dismissal of the work of scientists who have spent a lifetime studying the behaviour of cells.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 07, 2018, 17:36 (2083 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: It is all part of following the hyperbole of some scientists who equate intelligent cellular reactions with innate intelligence in single cells. As you point out, no way.
dhw: You are insulting the intelligence or possibly even the integrity of those scientists (one of them a Nobel prizewinner) who have made a lifetime study of the subject. Have some respect.
DAVID: The Nobel committee is made up of humans with political views to skew their choices. Obama before he accomplished anything is one example. Their handling of Einstein is another.
dhw: Hardly a reason for your cavalier dismissal of the work of scientists who have spent a lifetime studying the behaviour of cells.
My interpretation is just valid theirs.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
DAVID: It is all part of following the hyperbole of some scientists who equate intelligent cellular reactions with innate intelligence in single cells. As you point out, no way.
dhw: You are insulting the intelligence or possibly even the integrity of those scientists (one of them a Nobel prizewinner) who have made a lifetime study of the subject. Have some respect.
DAVID: The Nobel committee is made up of humans with political views to skew their choices. Obama before he accomplished anything is one example. Their handling of Einstein is another.
dhw: Hardly a reason for your cavalier dismissal of the work of scientists who have spent a lifetime studying the behaviour of cells.
DAVID: My interpretation is just valid theirs.
Still no justification for dismissing their lifetime’s work as hyperbole and “no way”. This is exactly the same aggressive promotion of prejudice that we both find so repugnant in books like The God Delusion. (Even the title sets the tone.) You have agreed over and over again that it’s a 50/50 balance (their interpretation being just as valid as yours), so any hypothesis based on their findings deserves just as serious consideration as arguments based on equally controversial hypotheses, such as the existence of a soul, an afterlife, a God.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 08, 2018, 18:52 (2082 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: It is all part of following the hyperbole of some scientists who equate intelligent cellular reactions with innate intelligence in single cells. As you point out, no way.
dhw: You are insulting the intelligence or possibly even the integrity of those scientists (one of them a Nobel prizewinner) who have made a lifetime study of the subject. Have some respect.
DAVID: The Nobel committee is made up of humans with political views to skew their choices. Obama before he accomplished anything is one example. Their handling of Einstein is another.
dhw: Hardly a reason for your cavalier dismissal of the work of scientists who have spent a lifetime studying the behaviour of cells.
DAVID: My interpretation is just valid theirs.
dhw: Still no justification for dismissing their lifetime’s work as hyperbole and “no way”. This is exactly the same aggressive promotion of prejudice that we both find so repugnant in books like The God Delusion. (Even the title sets the tone.) You have agreed over and over again that it’s a 50/50 balance (their interpretation being just as valid as yours), so any hypothesis based on their findings deserves just as serious consideration as arguments based on equally controversial hypotheses, such as the existence of a soul, an afterlife, a God.
The 50/50 means the entire conclusion from the results of cellular research is fuzzy. Nothing is clear, and the cells aren't talking.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
DAVID: It is all part of following the hyperbole of some scientists who equate intelligent cellular reactions with innate intelligence in single cells. As you point out, no way.
dhw: You are insulting the intelligence or possibly even the integrity of those scientists (one of them a Nobel prizewinner) who have made a lifetime study of the subject. Have some respect.
DAVID: The Nobel committee is made up of humans with political views to skew their choices. Obama before he accomplished anything is one example. Their handling of Einstein is another.
dhw: Hardly a reason for your cavalier dismissal of the work of scientists who have spent a lifetime studying the behaviour of cells.
DAVID: My interpretation is just valid theirs.
dhw: Still no justification for dismissing their lifetime’s work as hyperbole and “no way”. This is exactly the same aggressive promotion of prejudice that we both find so repugnant in books like The God Delusion. (Even the title sets the tone.) You have agreed over and over again that it’s a 50/50 balance (their interpretation being just as valid as yours), so any hypothesis based on their findings deserves just as serious consideration as arguments based on equally controversial hypotheses, such as the existence of a soul, an afterlife, a God.
DAVID: The 50/50 means the entire conclusion from the results of cellular research is fuzzy. Nothing is clear, and the cells aren't talking.
This is the first time I have heard anyone deny that cells communicate. I thought the 50/50 concerned whether their communication was the result of intelligence or of your God’s preprogramming. The 50/50 principle applies to most of our discussions, and the entire conclusion that there is a soul, there is an afterlife, there is a God, there is no soul, there is no afterlife, there is no God is fuzzy because nothing is clear. Welcome to the AgnosticWeb.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Thursday, August 09, 2018, 19:02 (2081 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: It is all part of following the hyperbole of some scientists who equate intelligent cellular reactions with innate intelligence in single cells. As you point out, no way.
dhw: You are insulting the intelligence or possibly even the integrity of those scientists (one of them a Nobel prizewinner) who have made a lifetime study of the subject. Have some respect.
DAVID: The Nobel committee is made up of humans with political views to skew their choices. Obama before he accomplished anything is one example. Their handling of Einstein is another.
dhw: Hardly a reason for your cavalier dismissal of the work of scientists who have spent a lifetime studying the behaviour of cells.
DAVID: My interpretation is just valid theirs.
dhw: Still no justification for dismissing their lifetime’s work as hyperbole and “no way”. This is exactly the same aggressive promotion of prejudice that we both find so repugnant in books like The God Delusion. (Even the title sets the tone.) You have agreed over and over again that it’s a 50/50 balance (their interpretation being just as valid as yours), so any hypothesis based on their findings deserves just as serious consideration as arguments based on equally controversial hypotheses, such as the existence of a soul, an afterlife, a God.
DAVID: The 50/50 means the entire conclusion from the results of cellular research is fuzzy. Nothing is clear, and the cells aren't talking.
dhw: This is the first time I have heard anyone deny that cells communicate. I thought the 50/50 concerned whether their communication was the result of intelligence or of your God’s preprogramming. The 50/50 principle applies to most of our discussions, and the entire conclusion that there is a soul, there is an afterlife, there is a God, there is no soul, there is no afterlife, there is no God is fuzzy because nothing is clear. Welcome to the AgnosticWeb.
To be clear, of course cells don't talk. The results of cellular research show molecular reactions to stimuli which I think are automatic and you think are some how intelligent. The odds are 50/50 as usual.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
DAVID: The 50/50 means the entire conclusion from the results of cellular research is fuzzy. Nothing is clear, and the cells aren't talking.
dhw: This is the first time I have heard anyone deny that cells communicate.
DAVID: To be clear, of course cells don't talk. The results of cellular research show molecular reactions to stimuli which I think are automatic and you think are some how intelligent. The odds are 50/50 as usual.
But they communicate, which is what I assumed you meant. I can’t recall any researcher arguing that they spoke a human language, if that is what you meant by “talk”. I already answered your second comment: "The 50/50 principle applies to most of our discussions, and the entire conclusion that there is a soul, there is an afterlife, there is a God, there is no soul, there is no afterlife, there is no God is fuzzy because nothing is clear. Welcome to the AgnosticWeb." 50/50 premises should be taken seriously, and not haughtily dismissed as “hyperbole” and “no way”.
DAVID: (under "ANT GROUP ACTIONS") … no thought involved, just receiving a stimulus and automatically responding.
dhw: So when humans have a problem and discuss it and come up with a solution, they think, and even animals and birds do the same, and maybe insects like ants do the same – though they’re a bit small, so I’m never sure whether you believe they think or not – but you know that bacteria don’t. They don’t have brains like ours and they’re much too small. A fine example of what Shapiro calls “Large organisms chauvinism”.
DAVID: Quoting Shapiro, whose work I applaud, proves nothing.
Dismissals as “hyperbole”, “no way”, “no thought involved”, “just receiving a stimulus and automatically responding” also prove nothing. If you admire Shapiro’s work, then perhaps you should take it seriously, bearing in mind that he is not alone in drawing his conclusions.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, August 10, 2018, 13:38 (2080 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The 50/50 means the entire conclusion from the results of cellular research is fuzzy. Nothing is clear, and the cells aren't talking.
dhw: This is the first time I have heard anyone deny that cells communicate.
DAVID: To be clear, of course cells don't talk. The results of cellular research show molecular reactions to stimuli which I think are automatic and you think are some how intelligent. The odds are 50/50 as usual.
But they communicate, which is what I assumed you meant. I can’t recall any researcher arguing that they spoke a human language, if that is what you meant by “talk”. I already answered your second comment: "The 50/50 principle applies to most of our discussions, and the entire conclusion that there is a soul, there is an afterlife, there is a God, there is no soul, there is no afterlife, there is no God is fuzzy because nothing is clear. Welcome to the AgnosticWeb." 50/50 premises should be taken seriously, and not haughtily dismissed as “hyperbole” and “no way”.
DAVID: (under "ANT GROUP ACTIONS") … no thought involved, just receiving a stimulus and automatically responding.
dhw: So when humans have a problem and discuss it and come up with a solution, they think, and even animals and birds do the same, and maybe insects like ants do the same – though they’re a bit small, so I’m never sure whether you believe they think or not – but you know that bacteria don’t. They don’t have brains like ours and they’re much too small. A fine example of what Shapiro calls “Large organisms chauvinism”.
DAVID: Quoting Shapiro, whose work I applaud, proves nothing.
DHW Dismissals as “hyperbole”, “no way”, “no thought involved”, “just receiving a stimulus and automatically responding” also prove nothing. If you admire Shapiro’s work, then perhaps you should take it seriously, bearing in mind that he is not alone in drawing his conclusions.
We don't have to dismiss it. We can test it in the lab by seeing if it only happens 50% of the time, as you suggest. If it happens 100% of the time, as long as conditions are met, then it is not thought based, but entirely chemical reactivity. If it happens along some other distribution, and no other explanation fits, then we could consider it a 'choice' in the classical sense, and postulate that they had to think in order to make that choice.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Friday, August 10, 2018, 14:58 (2080 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The 50/50 means the entire conclusion from the results of cellular research is fuzzy. Nothing is clear, and the cells aren't talking.
dhw: This is the first time I have heard anyone deny that cells communicate.
DAVID: To be clear, of course cells don't talk. The results of cellular research show molecular reactions to stimuli which I think are automatic and you think are some how intelligent. The odds are 50/50 as usual.
But they communicate, which is what I assumed you meant. I can’t recall any researcher arguing that they spoke a human language, if that is what you meant by “talk”. I already answered your second comment: "The 50/50 principle applies to most of our discussions, and the entire conclusion that there is a soul, there is an afterlife, there is a God, there is no soul, there is no afterlife, there is no God is fuzzy because nothing is clear. Welcome to the AgnosticWeb." 50/50 premises should be taken seriously, and not haughtily dismissed as “hyperbole” and “no way”.
DAVID: (under "ANT GROUP ACTIONS") … no thought involved, just receiving a stimulus and automatically responding.
dhw: So when humans have a problem and discuss it and come up with a solution, they think, and even animals and birds do the same, and maybe insects like ants do the same – though they’re a bit small, so I’m never sure whether you believe they think or not – but you know that bacteria don’t. They don’t have brains like ours and they’re much too small. A fine example of what Shapiro calls “Large organisms chauvinism”.
DAVID: Quoting Shapiro, whose work I applaud, proves nothing.
dhw: Dismissals as “hyperbole”, “no way”, “no thought involved”, “just receiving a stimulus and automatically responding” also prove nothing. If you admire Shapiro’s work, then perhaps you should take it seriously, bearing in mind that he is not alone in drawing his conclusions.
Let's leave it at I admire Shapiro's work and interpret it my way .
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, August 10, 2018, 13:03 (2080 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: The 50/50 means the entire conclusion from the results of cellular research is fuzzy. Nothing is clear, and the cells aren't talking.dhw: This is the first time I have heard anyone deny that cells communicate. I thought the 50/50 concerned whether their communication was the result of intelligence or of your God’s preprogramming. The 50/50 principle applies to most of our discussions, and the entire conclusion that there is a soul, there is an afterlife, there is a God, there is no soul, there is no afterlife, there is no God is fuzzy because nothing is clear. Welcome to the AgnosticWeb.
David: To be clear, of course cells don't talk. The results of cellular research show molecular reactions to stimuli which I think are automatic and you think are some how intelligent. The odds are 50/50 as usual.
50/50? That's testable. Is there any chance the cell will NOT react to a given chemical stimulus, or do they react 100% as long as the chemical stimulation requirements are met? By requirements, I mean, are the internal and external conditions right for the chemical process to occur?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Friday, August 10, 2018, 14:45 (2080 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DAVID: The 50/50 means the entire conclusion from the results of cellular research is fuzzy. Nothing is clear, and the cells aren't talking.dhw: This is the first time I have heard anyone deny that cells communicate. I thought the 50/50 concerned whether their communication was the result of intelligence or of your God’s preprogramming. The 50/50 principle applies to most of our discussions, and the entire conclusion that there is a soul, there is an afterlife, there is a God, there is no soul, there is no afterlife, there is no God is fuzzy because nothing is clear. Welcome to the AgnosticWeb.
David: To be clear, of course cells don't talk. The results of cellular research show molecular reactions to stimuli which I think are automatic and you think are some how intelligent. The odds are 50/50 as usual.
Tony: 50/50? That's testable. Is there any chance the cell will NOT react to a given chemical stimulus, or do they react 100% as long as the chemical stimulation requirements are met? By requirements, I mean, are the internal and external conditions right for the chemical process to occur?
The 50/50 is at a different level of interpretation. What is studied is 100% reactions to stimuli. The issue is automatic or intelligent response.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, August 10, 2018, 23:28 (2079 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: The 50/50 means the entire conclusion from the results of cellular research is fuzzy. Nothing is clear, and the cells aren't talking.dhw: This is the first time I have heard anyone deny that cells communicate. I thought the 50/50 concerned whether their communication was the result of intelligence or of your God’s preprogramming. The 50/50 principle applies to most of our discussions, and the entire conclusion that there is a soul, there is an afterlife, there is a God, there is no soul, there is no afterlife, there is no God is fuzzy because nothing is clear. Welcome to the AgnosticWeb.
David: To be clear, of course cells don't talk. The results of cellular research show molecular reactions to stimuli which I think are automatic and you think are some how intelligent. The odds are 50/50 as usual.
Tony: 50/50? That's testable. Is there any chance the cell will NOT react to a given chemical stimulus, or do they react 100% as long as the chemical stimulation requirements are met? By requirements, I mean, are the internal and external conditions right for the chemical process to occur?
daid: The 50/50 is at a different level of interpretation. What is studied is 100% reactions to stimuli. The issue is automatic or intelligent response.
If he observation is that there is a 100% reaction to stimuli, then there is no reason at all to suspect that the organism has a choice. If there is no choice, there is no intelligence.
Definition of intelligence
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria
Notice that is says to 'reason', 'manipulate', and 'think abstractly'. That implies choice. 100% reaction does not imply choice, but compulsion.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by GateKeeper , Saturday, August 11, 2018, 02:29 (2079 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Maybe its a bit of both.
There are volumes of the universe that are processing and learning. Isn't the universe quantum computing right now?
Its the "aliveness" of me that creates the proteins in me. I, indeed all humans, are just complex proteins. I know I can learn and apply knowledge but I have very little control of the cells life cycle in my body past eating right and exercising.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, August 11, 2018, 09:08 (2079 days ago) @ GateKeeper
Gatekeeper: Maybe its a bit of both.
There are volumes of the universe that are processing and learning. Isn't the universe quantum computing right now?
Its the "aliveness" of me that creates the proteins in me. I, indeed all humans, are just complex proteins. I know I can learn and apply knowledge but I have very little control of the cells life cycle in my body past eating right and exercising.
In this line of thought, you are seemingly describing life as a scalar value, from the infinitely small to the infinitely great. In layman's terms, from the smallest quanta to God. That is an interesting hypothesis, however, in order for it to be true, some things would also necessarily be true.
An entity could not be greater in terms of energy, information, or mass, nor have greater needs in terms of energy, information, or mass, than the entity which it is contained inside.
The larger, being comprised of the smaller, contains the sum total of all of the energy, information and mass of the smaller organisms. (See Below: Scaling)
If he smaller organism has greater needs for energy, information, or mass than it's host can provide, it will kill the host.
If the smaller organism kills the host, it must find a new host or go extinct.
The greater organism would be correspondingly more complex in information, energy, and mass.
The greater organism would likely contain a correspondingly greater intelligence. This should be evident by a greater degree of agency, in some form or fashion. We do not know what form this greater agency would be.
If the planet is a living organism, how can we detect it? By what measure does the bacteria judge the human? As to whether the universe is quantum computing, that is unknown and unknowable. We would first need to establish whether a) the universe could think, or b)there were some 'mechanical' function that was constantly crunching numbers.
Scaling
If quanta communities form quarks, and quark communities form atoms, and atom communities form molecules, and molecular communities form cells, then cell communities form multi-cellular life. This brings us to humanity, plants and animals, but what beyond that? Communities, towns, cities, states, etc? What about the next step up from us?
The logical answer is that multi-cellular life is to a planetary host what bateria are to humans. In turn, the planets to the solar systems, solar systems to the galaxy, galaxy to the universe, and we have no clue what lies beyond that. It could very well be that our universe has the universal equivalent of a cellular membrane (background radiation) that prevents us from seeing out beyond it. It is entirely possible that it regresses infinitely in either direction. We will likely not know in our lifetime, if humanity ever learns the answer.
However, if this were true, the amount of information, and presumably the intelligence of the organism also scales. This would make earth, our fledgling planetary home, as unlikely as a single celled organism forming from nothing but but inert chemical soup. What's worse, this unique, beautiful planet has the equivalent of a virus in the form of humanity; a parasitic organism that takes far more than it gives back.
That's right, a parasitic virus that takes more than it contributes, and is even know looking for a way to spread our virulence beyond our current host. Yet, to our knowledge, there is no other host.
I believe what you say is possible. Note, I did not say probable. From a biblical perspective, it is feasible. However, there is one oddity. Unlike most systems, this system is very bi-directional.By that I mean that the universe could not exist without the quanta, and the quanta, as far as we know, do not replenish. It is an interesting hypothesis, but do give thought to its shortcomings as well as its beautiful simplicity.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Saturday, August 11, 2018, 18:37 (2079 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Gatekeeper: Maybe its a bit of both.
There are volumes of the universe that are processing and learning. Isn't the universe quantum computing right now?
Its the "aliveness" of me that creates the proteins in me. I, indeed all humans, are just complex proteins. I know I can learn and apply knowledge but I have very little control of the cells life cycle in my body past eating right and exercising.
Tony: In this line of thought, you are seemingly describing life as a scalar value, from the infinitely small to the infinitely great. In layman's terms, from the smallest quanta to God. That is an interesting hypothesis, however, in order for it to be true, some things would also necessarily be true.
An entity could not be greater in terms of energy, information, or mass, nor have greater needs in terms of energy, information, or mass, than the entity which it is contained inside.The larger, being comprised of the smaller, contains the sum total of all of the energy, information and mass of the smaller organisms. (See Below: Scaling)
If the smaller organism has greater needs for energy, information, or mass than it's host can provide, it will kill the host.
If the smaller organism kills the host, it must find a new host or go extinct.
The greater organism would be correspondingly more complex in information, energy, and mass.
The greater organism would likely contain a correspondingly greater intelligence. This should be evident by a greater degree of agency, in some form or fashion. We do not know what form this greater agency would be.
If the planet is a living organism, how can we detect it? By what measure does the bacteria judge the human? As to whether the universe is quantum computing, that is unknown and unknowable. We would first need to establish whether a) the universe could think, or b)there were some 'mechanical' function that was constantly crunching numbers.
The universe is said to have 10^80 particles, which follow quantum mechanics laws. The realm of Quantum Reality undergirds the physical reality of the universe.
Tony: ScalingIf quanta communities form quarks, and quark communities form atoms, and atom communities form molecules, and molecular communities form cells, then cell communities form multi-cellular life. This brings us to humanity, plants and animals, but what beyond that? Communities, towns, cities, states, etc? What about the next step up from us?
The logical answer is that multi-cellular life is to a planetary host what bateria are to humans. In turn, the planets to the solar systems, solar systems to the galaxy, galaxy to the universe, and we have no clue what lies beyond that. It could very well be that our universe has the universal equivalent of a cellular membrane (background radiation) that prevents us from seeing out beyond it. It is entirely possible that it regresses infinitely in either direction. We will likely not know in our lifetime, if humanity ever learns the answer.
If spacetime is expanding from a Big Bang, it must have a boundary with the nothingness into which is is enlarging. But we cannot reach it if the theory is correct that spacetime curves back on itself.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, August 11, 2018, 19:48 (2079 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: The greater organism would likely contain a correspondingly greater intelligence. This should be evident by a greater degree of agency, in some form or fashion. We do not know what form this greater agency would be.
If the planet is a living organism, how can we detect it? By what measure does the bacteria judge the human? As to whether the universe is quantum computing, that is unknown and unknowable. We would first need to establish whether a) the universe could think, or b)there were some 'mechanical' function that was constantly crunching numbers.
David: The universe is said to have 10^80 particles, which follow quantum mechanics laws. The realm of Quantum Reality undergirds the physical reality of the universe.
Of that there is no doubt. My comments are in regard to the idea that a) the universe is 'quantum computing'. This implies action, either intelligent or mechanical. I am curious as to which he means, because the answer defines whether he sees the universe as a 'living' thing, or a machine.
Tony: ScalingIf quanta communities form quarks, and quark communities form atoms, and atom communities form molecules, and molecular communities form cells, then cell communities form multi-cellular life. This brings us to humanity, plants and animals, but what beyond that? Communities, towns, cities, states, etc? What about the next step up from us?
The logical answer is that multi-cellular life is to a planetary host what bateria are to humans. In turn, the planets to the solar systems, solar systems to the galaxy, galaxy to the universe, and we have no clue what lies beyond that. It could very well be that our universe has the universal equivalent of a cellular membrane (background radiation) that prevents us from seeing out beyond it. It is entirely possible that it regresses infinitely in either direction. We will likely not know in our lifetime, if humanity ever learns the answer.
David: If spacetime is expanding from a Big Bang, it must have a boundary with the nothingness into which is is enlarging. But we cannot reach it if the theory is correct that spacetime curves back on itself.
Again correct. However, there is no way of knowing if there are more than four dimensions, ones that can only be observed at particular scales.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Saturday, August 11, 2018, 20:30 (2079 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: The greater organism would likely contain a correspondingly greater intelligence. This should be evident by a greater degree of agency, in some form or fashion. We do not know what form this greater agency would be.
If the planet is a living organism, how can we detect it? By what measure does the bacteria judge the human? As to whether the universe is quantum computing, that is unknown and unknowable. We would first need to establish whether a) the universe could think, or b)there were some 'mechanical' function that was constantly crunching numbers.
David: The universe is said to have 10^80 particles, which follow quantum mechanics laws. The realm of Quantum Reality undergirds the physical reality of the universe.
Tony: Of that there is no doubt. My comments are in regard to the idea that a) the universe is 'quantum computing'. This implies action, either intelligent or mechanical. I am curious as to which he means, because the answer defines whether he sees the universe as a 'living' thing, or a machine.
Tony: ScalingIf quanta communities form quarks, and quark communities form atoms, and atom communities form molecules, and molecular communities form cells, then cell communities form multi-cellular life. This brings us to humanity, plants and animals, but what beyond that? Communities, towns, cities, states, etc? What about the next step up from us?
The logical answer is that multi-cellular life is to a planetary host what bateria are to humans. In turn, the planets to the solar systems, solar systems to the galaxy, galaxy to the universe, and we have no clue what lies beyond that. It could very well be that our universe has the universal equivalent of a cellular membrane (background radiation) that prevents us from seeing out beyond it. It is entirely possible that it regresses infinitely in either direction. We will likely not know in our lifetime, if humanity ever learns the answer.
David: If spacetime is expanding from a Big Bang, it must have a boundary with the nothingness into which is is enlarging. But we cannot reach it if the theory is correct that spacetime curves back on itself.
Tony: Again correct. However, there is no way of knowing if there are more than four dimensions, ones that can only be observed at particular scales.
Multiple dimensions are math games in my view. I don't think string theory is going anywhere along with Woit and Smolin.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, August 12, 2018, 00:55 (2078 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: The greater organism would likely contain a correspondingly greater intelligence. This should be evident by a greater degree of agency, in some form or fashion. We do not know what form this greater agency would be.
If the planet is a living organism, how can we detect it? By what measure does the bacteria judge the human? As to whether the universe is quantum computing, that is unknown and unknowable. We would first need to establish whether a) the universe could think, or b)there were some 'mechanical' function that was constantly crunching numbers.
David: The universe is said to have 10^80 particles, which follow quantum mechanics laws. The realm of Quantum Reality undergirds the physical reality of the universe.
Tony: Of that there is no doubt. My comments are in regard to the idea that a) the universe is 'quantum computing'. This implies action, either intelligent or mechanical. I am curious as to which he means, because the answer defines whether he sees the universe as a 'living' thing, or a machine.
Tony: ScalingIf quanta communities form quarks, and quark communities form atoms, and atom communities form molecules, and molecular communities form cells, then cell communities form multi-cellular life. This brings us to humanity, plants and animals, but what beyond that? Communities, towns, cities, states, etc? What about the next step up from us?
The logical answer is that multi-cellular life is to a planetary host what bateria are to humans. In turn, the planets to the solar systems, solar systems to the galaxy, galaxy to the universe, and we have no clue what lies beyond that. It could very well be that our universe has the universal equivalent of a cellular membrane (background radiation) that prevents us from seeing out beyond it. It is entirely possible that it regresses infinitely in either direction. We will likely not know in our lifetime, if humanity ever learns the answer.
David: If spacetime is expanding from a Big Bang, it must have a boundary with the nothingness into which is is enlarging. But we cannot reach it if the theory is correct that spacetime curves back on itself.
Tony: Again correct. However, there is no way of knowing if there are more than four dimensions, ones that can only be observed at particular scales.
David: Multiple dimensions are math games in my view. I don't think string theory is going anywhere along with Woit and Smolin.
X,Y,Z and Time are not math games, and quantum physics offers some interesting possibilities through superposition and entanglement. If time and space have no meaning to entangled particles, since changes can happen instantly between two particles regardless of spatial difference, how do we describe the path of communication between them? How is the informational change getting from point A to B?
I am not interested in string theory, nor am I talking about it. However, it is scientifically observable that we humans are not capable of what electrons are. Why is it such a stretch to think that at a similar differences of scale (electrons are to humans as humans are to the universe) that there might be options available at one end of the scale that are not available or accessible to objects at the other end of the scale?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Sunday, August 12, 2018, 15:21 (2078 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: However, there is no way of knowing if there are more than four dimensions, ones that can only be observed at particular scales.
David: Multiple dimensions are math games in my view. I don't think string theory is going anywhere along with Woit and Smolin.
Tony: X,Y,Z and Time are not math games, and quantum physics offers some interesting possibilities through superposition and entanglement. If time and space have no meaning to entangled particles, since changes can happen instantly between two particles regardless of spatial difference, how do we describe the path of communication between them? How is the informational change getting from point A to B?I am not interested in string theory, nor am I talking about it. However, it is scientifically observable that we humans are not capable of what electrons are. Why is it such a stretch to think that at a similar differences of scale (electrons are to humans as humans are to the universe) that there might be options available at one end of the scale that are not available or accessible to objects at the other end of the scale?
Back to the imponderability of quantum mechanics. I think we could explain much if we understood quantum activity.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Saturday, August 11, 2018, 18:18 (2079 days ago) @ GateKeeper
Gatekeeper: Maybe its a bit of both.
There are volumes of the universe that are processing and learning. Isn't the universe quantum computing right now?
Its the "aliveness" of me that creates the proteins in me. I, indeed all humans, are just complex proteins. I know I can learn and apply knowledge but I have very little control of the cells life cycle in my body past eating right and exercising.
You are describing the property of life in the emergent system of homeostasis that makes life living from the organic materials that make us up, even though when we look closely, all we see are automatic organic molecular reactions. Definition from Britannica:
"Homeostasis, any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail."
Life is more than the sum of its material parts.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by GateKeeper , Saturday, August 11, 2018, 23:39 (2078 days ago) @ David Turell
Gatekeeper: Maybe its a bit of both.
There are volumes of the universe that are processing and learning. Isn't the universe quantum computing right now?
Its the "aliveness" of me that creates the proteins in me. I, indeed all humans, are just complex proteins. I know I can learn and apply knowledge but I have very little control of the cells life cycle in my body past eating right and exercising.
You are describing the property of life in the emergent system of homeostasis that makes life living from the organic materials that make us up, even though when we look closely, all we see are automatic organic molecular reactions. Definition from Britannica:"Homeostasis, any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail."
Life is more than the sum of its material parts.
exactly right. let me focus on the biosphere being treated as an organism for practical reasons. One, for obvious reason's, the connection to something bigger for some people. two, for our future. We are in a mass extinction event. I feel treating the planet in a holistic fashion just makes sense.
As you know, conclusions that offer an explanation, a mechanism, and make predictions are more valid than conclusions that don't have all three. And there can be more than one valid conclusion.
I think what many theist and spiritual people are experiencing is the connection to the biosphere. Due our size, it seems infinite to many people just like the surface of the earth seems flat.
Ok, so how do we classify the biosphere? life, non-life, or tweener, like a virus. For me a calculation and measurement would be helpful. If we can calculate it and/or measure it that would help us anchor a statement of belief in something real.
The calculation I use is complexity versus volume ratio. In a cell, there are millions of interactions involving thousands of different proteins, plus organics/inorganic stuff. Using single celled organism as base reference the complexity/volume for the biosphere matches a cell more than a virus and even the most advanced computer isn't even close.
a measurement. This is crude, but it is valid. standing in your backyard. Put a cell, a virus, and a computer on a meter stick. Slide the meter stick back and forth until it you feel the interactions in the biosphere match the register marks. Then, have as many people as you can do the same thing and record the results.
Like you said, I am not sure. But these to two pieces of evidence certainly make treating the biosphere as an organism a very reasonable approach. It makes sense in trying to treat the planet's illness, since you called us a parasite, and makes sense that a complex protein like a human, can sense the biosphere.
I don't call it "god". For me, there is no story line linking all the data that would lead me to a god thing as taught by many religions(like plate tectonics links earthquakes, volcanoes and continental drift) . But "life"? I don't see the problem with saying that's what it looks like.
why do the hard core, reject everything, sect of atheism reject the notion out of hand? I don't get it.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Sunday, August 12, 2018, 15:12 (2078 days ago) @ GateKeeper
David:You are describing the property of life in the emergent system of homeostasis that makes life living from the organic materials that make us up, even though when we look closely, all we see are automatic organic molecular reactions. Definition from Britannica:
"Homeostasis, any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail."
Life is more than the sum of its material parts.
Gatekeeper: exactly right. let me focus on the biosphere being treated as an organism for practical reasons. One, for obvious reason's, the connection to something bigger for some people. two, for our future. We are in a mass extinction event. I feel treating the planet in a holistic fashion just makes sense.
Like you said, I am not sure. But these to two pieces of evidence certainly make treating the biosphere as an organism a very reasonable approach. It makes sense in trying to treat the planet's illness, since you called us a parasite, and makes sense that a complex protein like a human, can sense the biosphere. (my bold)I don't call it "god". For me, there is no story line linking all the data that would lead me to a god thing as taught by many religions(like plate tectonics links earthquakes, volcanoes and continental drift) . But "life"? I don't see the problem with saying that's what it looks like.
why do the hard core, reject everything, sect of atheism reject the notion out of hand? I don't get it.
I agree about atheists. Your comment and I think most of your discussion was directed to Tony (Balanced Maintained) I'd like to hear his thoughts. Note the bold of his statement.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by GateKeeper , Sunday, August 12, 2018, 17:27 (2078 days ago) @ David Turell
David:You are describing the property of life in the emergent system of homeostasis that makes life living from the organic materials that make us up, even though when we look closely, all we see are automatic organic molecular reactions. Definition from Britannica:
"Homeostasis, any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail."
Life is more than the sum of its material parts.
Gatekeeper: exactly right. let me focus on the biosphere being treated as an organism for practical reasons. One, for obvious reason's, the connection to something bigger for some people. two, for our future. We are in a mass extinction event. I feel treating the planet in a holistic fashion just makes sense.
Like you said, I am not sure. But these to two pieces of evidence certainly make treating the biosphere as an organism a very reasonable approach. It makes sense in trying to treat the planet's illness, since you called us a parasite, and makes sense that a complex protein like a human, can sense the biosphere. (my bold)I don't call it "god". For me, there is no story line linking all the data that would lead me to a god thing as taught by many religions(like plate tectonics links earthquakes, volcanoes and continental drift) . But "life"? I don't see the problem with saying that's what it looks like.
why do the hard core, reject everything, sect of atheism reject the notion out of hand? I don't get it.
I agree about atheists. Your comment and I think most of your discussion was directed to Tony (Balanced Maintained) I'd like to hear his thoughts. Note the bold of his statement.
Yes, I quoted wrong post. But it partially fits your comment too. I agree with you, homeostasis is a word I often use to describe the dynamic equilibrium we see around us.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Monday, August 13, 2018, 01:08 (2077 days ago) @ GateKeeper
David:You are describing the property of life in the emergent system of homeostasis that makes life living from the organic materials that make us up, even though when we look closely, all we see are automatic organic molecular reactions. Definition from Britannica:
"Homeostasis, any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail."
Life is more than the sum of its material parts.
Gatekeeper: exactly right. let me focus on the biosphere being treated as an organism for practical reasons. One, for obvious reason's, the connection to something bigger for some people. two, for our future. We are in a mass extinction event. I feel treating the planet in a holistic fashion just makes sense.
Like you said, I am not sure. But these to two pieces of evidence certainly make treating the biosphere as an organism a very reasonable approach. It makes sense in trying to treat the planet's illness, since you called us a parasite, and makes sense that a complex protein like a human, can sense the biosphere. (my bold)I don't call it "god". For me, there is no story line linking all the data that would lead me to a god thing as taught by many religions(like plate tectonics links earthquakes, volcanoes and continental drift) . But "life"? I don't see the problem with saying that's what it looks like.
why do the hard core, reject everything, sect of atheism reject the notion out of hand? I don't get it.
I agree about atheists. Your comment and I think most of your discussion was directed to Tony (Balanced Maintained) I'd like to hear his thoughts. Note the bold of his statement.
Gatekeeper: Yes, I quoted wrong post. But it partially fits your comment too. I agree with you, homeostasis is a word I often use to describe the dynamic equilibrium we see around us.
Glad you are back and actived.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, August 13, 2018, 02:54 (2077 days ago) @ GateKeeper
Gatekeeper: why do the hard core, reject everything, sect of atheism reject the notion out of hand? I don't get it.
I don't get this sentence, or what you are trying to say here. Could you please rephrase and expound upon it?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by GateKeeper , Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 01:06 (2076 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I am saying that some groups of atheists, I call them sects of atheism, have violent reactions to the notion that we exist in a system that looks like life.
But that wasn't the main point of my post.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 04:00 (2076 days ago) @ GateKeeper
Gatekeeper: I am saying that some groups of atheists, I call them sects of atheism, have violent reactions to the notion that we exist in a system that looks like life.
But that wasn't the main point of my post.
I realize it wasn't the main point, it was just an unclear statement. I would also expand that statement to: People, especially people in modern society which shelters them from differing ideas(safe spaces in university), have violent reactions to opinions that are opposed to whatever ideology they support, regardless of what ideology they subscribe to.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 18:59 (2076 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Gatekeeper: I am saying that some groups of atheists, I call them sects of atheism, have violent reactions to the notion that we exist in a system that looks like life.
Tony: But that wasn't the main point of my post.
Gatekeeper: I realize it wasn't the main point, it was just an unclear statement. I would also expand that statement to: People, especially people in modern society which shelters them from differing ideas(safe spaces in university), have violent reactions to opinions that are opposed to whatever ideology they support, regardless of what ideology they subscribe to.
You're describing political correctness rampant among liberals.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 03:44 (2075 days ago) @ David Turell
Gatekeeper: I am saying that some groups of atheists, I call them sects of atheism, have violent reactions to the notion that we exist in a system that looks like life.
Tony: But that wasn't the main point of my post.
Gatekeeper: I realize it wasn't the main point, it was just an unclear statement. I would also expand that statement to: People, especially people in modern society which shelters them from differing ideas(safe spaces in university), have violent reactions to opinions that are opposed to whatever ideology they support, regardless of what ideology they subscribe to.
David:You're describing political correctness rampant among liberals.
When we lose our ability to challenge entrenched ideas, we are set for another round of the dark ages, only this time it will not be dominated by religion
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 04:47 (2075 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Gatekeeper: I am saying that some groups of atheists, I call them sects of atheism, have violent reactions to the notion that we exist in a system that looks like life.
Tony: But that wasn't the main point of my post.
Gatekeeper: I realize it wasn't the main point, it was just an unclear statement. I would also expand that statement to: People, especially people in modern society which shelters them from differing ideas(safe spaces in university), have violent reactions to opinions that are opposed to whatever ideology they support, regardless of what ideology they subscribe to.
David:You're describing political correctness rampant among liberals.
Tony: When we lose our ability to challenge entrenched ideas, we are set for another round of the dark ages, only this time it will not be dominated by religion
Religion, at least the organized type, is losing its grip over the western world. Severe factionalism is what we are getting into.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 05:14 (2075 days ago) @ David Turell
Gatekeeper: I am saying that some groups of atheists, I call them sects of atheism, have violent reactions to the notion that we exist in a system that looks like life.
Tony: But that wasn't the main point of my post.
Gatekeeper: I realize it wasn't the main point, it was just an unclear statement. I would also expand that statement to: People, especially people in modern society which shelters them from differing ideas(safe spaces in university), have violent reactions to opinions that are opposed to whatever ideology they support, regardless of what ideology they subscribe to.
David:You're describing political correctness rampant among liberals.
Tony: When we lose our ability to challenge entrenched ideas, we are set for another round of the dark ages, only this time it will not be dominated by religion
David: Religion, at least the organized type, is losing its grip over the western world. Severe factionalism is what we are getting into.
How is battling over different ideologies different than battling over different religious beliefs?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 15:11 (2075 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Gatekeeper: I am saying that some groups of atheists, I call them sects of atheism, have violent reactions to the notion that we exist in a system that looks like life.
Tony: But that wasn't the main point of my post.
Gatekeeper: I realize it wasn't the main point, it was just an unclear statement. I would also expand that statement to: People, especially people in modern society which shelters them from differing ideas(safe spaces in university), have violent reactions to opinions that are opposed to whatever ideology they support, regardless of what ideology they subscribe to.
David:You're describing political correctness rampant among liberals.
Tony: When we lose our ability to challenge entrenched ideas, we are set for another round of the dark ages, only this time it will not be dominated by religion
David: Religion, at least the organized type, is losing its grip over the western world. Severe factionalism is what we are getting into.
Tony: How is battling over different ideologies different than battling over different religious beliefs?
It isn't. Passionate beliefs.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, August 13, 2018, 02:52 (2077 days ago) @ David Turell
David:You are describing the property of life in the emergent system of homeostasis that makes life living from the organic materials that make us up, even though when we look closely, all we see are automatic organic molecular reactions. Definition from Britannica:
"Homeostasis, any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail."
Life is more than the sum of its material parts.
Gatekeeper: exactly right. let me focus on the biosphere being treated as an organism for practical reasons. One, for obvious reason's, the connection to something bigger for some people. two, for our future. We are in a mass extinction event. I feel treating the planet in a holistic fashion just makes sense.
Like you said, I am not sure. But these to two pieces of evidence certainly make treating the biosphere as an organism a very reasonable approach. It makes sense in trying to treat the planet's illness, since you called us a parasite, and makes sense that a complex protein like a human, can sense the biosphere. (my bold)I don't call it "god". For me, there is no story line linking all the data that would lead me to a god thing as taught by many religions(like plate tectonics links earthquakes, volcanoes and continental drift) . But "life"? I don't see the problem with saying that's what it looks like.
why do the hard core, reject everything, sect of atheism reject the notion out of hand? I don't get it.
David: I agree about atheists. Your comment and I think most of your discussion was directed to Tony (Balanced Maintained) I'd like to hear his thoughts. Note the bold of his statement.
There are three categories of organisms that reside with a host: symbiote, parasite, and a neutral zero-sum passenger. The primary difference between the three is the character of there relationship with their host. Symbiotic relationships are mutually beneficial, parasites are deleterious to the host, and passengers give and take, but only to the extent of a zero-sum (Homeostasis).
From a theistic standpoint, we were designed and created to have a symbiotic relationship with the earth and the other organisms in it. That is, we were supposed to give back as more than we take, the same as the Earth gives us more than it takes from us. Our job was basically to husband the earth and its inhabitants, bringing order to the chaos in a mutually beneficial way that would amplify the rich bounty of this world.
However, we have bastardized that relationship, forsaken our duty to protect and nurture the planet and other life on it, and instead have stripped its resources, destroyed the ozone, poisoned the earth and water, and slaughtered other lifeforms (and each other), often to extinction. By definition, an organism that is deleterious to its host for its own gain is a parasite, and that is exactly what we have become.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Monday, August 13, 2018, 18:18 (2077 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Gatekeeper: why do the hard core, reject everything, sect of atheism reject the notion out of hand? I don't get it.
David: I agree about atheists. Your comment and I think most of your discussion was directed to Tony (Balanced Maintained) I'd like to hear his thoughts. Note the bold of his statement.
Tony: There are three categories of organisms that reside with a host: symbiote, parasite, and a neutral zero-sum passenger. The primary difference between the three is the character of there relationship with their host. Symbiotic relationships are mutually beneficial, parasites are deleterious to the host, and passengers give and take, but only to the extent of a zero-sum (Homeostasis).From a theistic standpoint, we were designed and created to have a symbiotic relationship with the earth and the other organisms in it. That is, we were supposed to give back as more than we take, the same as the Earth gives us more than it takes from us. Our job was basically to husband the earth and its inhabitants, bringing order to the chaos in a mutually beneficial way that would amplify the rich bounty of this world.
However, we have bastardized that relationship, forsaken our duty to protect and nurture the planet and other life on it, and instead have stripped its resources, destroyed the ozone, poisoned the earth and water, and slaughtered other lifeforms (and each other), often to extinction. By definition, an organism that is deleterious to its host for its own gain is a parasite, and that is exactly what we have become.
I like your categories. The human microbiome would fit the passenger classification while they influence us in many ways. And you certainly have a major point in humans plundering the planet. At least it is recognized and remedial measures are on place, sort of.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, August 13, 2018, 19:02 (2077 days ago) @ David Turell
Gatekeeper: why do the hard core, reject everything, sect of atheism reject the notion out of hand? I don't get it.
David: I agree about atheists. Your comment and I think most of your discussion was directed to Tony (Balanced Maintained) I'd like to hear his thoughts. Note the bold of his statement.
Tony: There are three categories of organisms that reside with a host: symbiote, parasite, and a neutral zero-sum passenger. The primary difference between the three is the character of there relationship with their host. Symbiotic relationships are mutually beneficial, parasites are deleterious to the host, and passengers give and take, but only to the extent of a zero-sum (Homeostasis).From a theistic standpoint, we were designed and created to have a symbiotic relationship with the earth and the other organisms in it. That is, we were supposed to give back as more than we take, the same as the Earth gives us more than it takes from us. Our job was basically to husband the earth and its inhabitants, bringing order to the chaos in a mutually beneficial way that would amplify the rich bounty of this world.
However, we have bastardized that relationship, forsaken our duty to protect and nurture the planet and other life on it, and instead have stripped its resources, destroyed the ozone, poisoned the earth and water, and slaughtered other lifeforms (and each other), often to extinction. By definition, an organism that is deleterious to its host for its own gain is a parasite, and that is exactly what we have become.
David: I like your categories. The human microbiome would fit the passenger classification while they influence us in many ways. And you certainly have a major point in humans plundering the planet. At least it is recognized and remedial measures are on place, sort of.
It is not simply a case of plundering the planet, though that definitely happens on a incredible scale. The way human society has developed is toxic, both to the planet and to ourselves. The vast majority of problems that plague humanity emerge directly from the fact that our preferred social construct, that of city dwelling, is not sustainable at scale. It utterly destroys the environment in which the cities emerge, and forces people into very unnatural states by simple proximity. Decentralize the population and, by and large, the problems disappear. Of course, that won't happen naturally any more. Humanity has made its choice in terms of social growth, the outcome is inevitable, and utterly irreversible. Nothing short of a global cataclysm could reconcile humanity with our ancestral home, and unfortunately, I am almost certain that is in the making.
I don't mean to sound like a doomsday crackpot, but it is simply the convergence of thousands of points of data into a single inescapable conclusion. The measures we have taken are inadequate because we have not addressed the underlying cause: cities. Population density spurs pollution, disease, famine, poverty, and eventually, war and death. It has happened repeatedly throughout history. In medicine, we realize that toxicity is largely a matter of dosage. Humans in high concentrations(cities) are toxic. There is no escaping that fact. The greater the concentration, the higher the toxicity. Like other animals, high concentrations lead to competition for resources, which leads to deprivation and violence as the system begins to fail, vainly struggling to re-balance itself.
The earth provides enough resources, even for our current population, but not the way that the resources and people are distributed. We have poisoned our water and air to the point it has become toxic for life. Food is wasted or horded on an unimaginable scale. It's really very sad. You can't even step outside for a breath of 'fresh' air anymore.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Monday, August 13, 2018, 20:25 (2077 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: There are three categories of organisms that reside with a host: symbiote, parasite, and a neutral zero-sum passenger. The primary difference between the three is the character of there relationship with their host. Symbiotic relationships are mutually beneficial, parasites are deleterious to the host, and passengers give and take, but only to the extent of a zero-sum (Homeostasis).
From a theistic standpoint, we were designed and created to have a symbiotic relationship with the earth and the other organisms in it. That is, we were supposed to give back as more than we take, the same as the Earth gives us more than it takes from us. Our job was basically to husband the earth and its inhabitants, bringing order to the chaos in a mutually beneficial way that would amplify the rich bounty of this world.
However, we have bastardized that relationship, forsaken our duty to protect and nurture the planet and other life on it, and instead have stripped its resources, destroyed the ozone, poisoned the earth and water, and slaughtered other lifeforms (and each other), often to extinction. By definition, an organism that is deleterious to its host for its own gain is a parasite, and that is exactly what we have become.
David: I like your categories. The human microbiome would fit the passenger classification while they influence us in many ways. And you certainly have a major point in humans plundering the planet. At least it is recognized and remedial measures are on place, sort of.
Tony: It is not simply a case of plundering the planet, though that definitely happens on a incredible scale. The way human society has developed is toxic, both to the planet and to ourselves. The vast majority of problems that plague humanity emerge directly from the fact that our preferred social construct, that of city dwelling, is not sustainable at scale. It utterly destroys the environment in which the cities emerge, and forces people into very unnatural states by simple proximity. Decentralize the population and, by and large, the problems disappear. Of course, that won't happen naturally any more. Humanity has made its choice in terms of social growth, the outcome is inevitable, and utterly irreversible. Nothing short of a global cataclysm could reconcile humanity with our ancestral home, and unfortunately, I am almost certain that is in the making.I don't mean to sound like a doomsday crackpot, but it is simply the convergence of thousands of points of data into a single inescapable conclusion. The measures we have taken are inadequate because we have not addressed the underlying cause: cities. Population density spurs pollution, disease, famine, poverty, and eventually, war and death. It has happened repeatedly throughout history. In medicine, we realize that toxicity is largely a matter of dosage. Humans in high concentrations(cities) are toxic. There is no escaping that fact. The greater the concentration, the higher the toxicity. Like other animals, high concentrations lead to competition for resources, which leads to deprivation and violence as the system begins to fail, vainly struggling to re-balance itself.
The earth provides enough resources, even for our current population, but not the way that the resources and people are distributed. We have poisoned our water and air to the point it has become toxic for life. Food is wasted or horded on an unimaginable scale. It's really very sad. You can't even step outside for a breath of 'fresh' air anymore.
Your discussion is why I live on a ranch more than 50 miles from Houston, and the local town is perhaps 6,000.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 00:58 (2076 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: There are three categories of organisms that reside with a host: symbiote, parasite, and a neutral zero-sum passenger. The primary difference between the three is the character of there relationship with their host. Symbiotic relationships are mutually beneficial, parasites are deleterious to the host, and passengers give and take, but only to the extent of a zero-sum (Homeostasis).
From a theistic standpoint, we were designed and created to have a symbiotic relationship with the earth and the other organisms in it. That is, we were supposed to give back as more than we take, the same as the Earth gives us more than it takes from us. Our job was basically to husband the earth and its inhabitants, bringing order to the chaos in a mutually beneficial way that would amplify the rich bounty of this world.
However, we have bastardized that relationship, forsaken our duty to protect and nurture the planet and other life on it, and instead have stripped its resources, destroyed the ozone, poisoned the earth and water, and slaughtered other lifeforms (and each other), often to extinction. By definition, an organism that is deleterious to its host for its own gain is a parasite, and that is exactly what we have become.
David: I like your categories. The human microbiome would fit the passenger classification while they influence us in many ways. And you certainly have a major point in humans plundering the planet. At least it is recognized and remedial measures are on place, sort of.
Tony: It is not simply a case of plundering the planet, though that definitely happens on a incredible scale. The way human society has developed is toxic, both to the planet and to ourselves. The vast majority of problems that plague humanity emerge directly from the fact that our preferred social construct, that of city dwelling, is not sustainable at scale. It utterly destroys the environment in which the cities emerge, and forces people into very unnatural states by simple proximity. Decentralize the population and, by and large, the problems disappear. Of course, that won't happen naturally any more. Humanity has made its choice in terms of social growth, the outcome is inevitable, and utterly irreversible. Nothing short of a global cataclysm could reconcile humanity with our ancestral home, and unfortunately, I am almost certain that is in the making.I don't mean to sound like a doomsday crackpot, but it is simply the convergence of thousands of points of data into a single inescapable conclusion. The measures we have taken are inadequate because we have not addressed the underlying cause: cities. Population density spurs pollution, disease, famine, poverty, and eventually, war and death. It has happened repeatedly throughout history. In medicine, we realize that toxicity is largely a matter of dosage. Humans in high concentrations(cities) are toxic. There is no escaping that fact. The greater the concentration, the higher the toxicity. Like other animals, high concentrations lead to competition for resources, which leads to deprivation and violence as the system begins to fail, vainly struggling to re-balance itself.
The earth provides enough resources, even for our current population, but not the way that the resources and people are distributed. We have poisoned our water and air to the point it has become toxic for life. Food is wasted or horded on an unimaginable scale. It's really very sad. You can't even step outside for a breath of 'fresh' air anymore.
David: Your discussion is why I live on a ranch more than 50 miles from Houston, and the local town is perhaps 6,000.
And part of the reason I live on a farm about 50 miles away from the nearest major city
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 18:56 (2076 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: There are three categories of organisms that reside with a host: symbiote, parasite, and a neutral zero-sum passenger. The primary difference between the three is the character of there relationship with their host. Symbiotic relationships are mutually beneficial, parasites are deleterious to the host, and passengers give and take, but only to the extent of a zero-sum (Homeostasis).
From a theistic standpoint, we were designed and created to have a symbiotic relationship with the earth and the other organisms in it. That is, we were supposed to give back as more than we take, the same as the Earth gives us more than it takes from us. Our job was basically to husband the earth and its inhabitants, bringing order to the chaos in a mutually beneficial way that would amplify the rich bounty of this world.
However, we have bastardized that relationship, forsaken our duty to protect and nurture the planet and other life on it, and instead have stripped its resources, destroyed the ozone, poisoned the earth and water, and slaughtered other lifeforms (and each other), often to extinction. By definition, an organism that is deleterious to its host for its own gain is a parasite, and that is exactly what we have become.
David: I like your categories. The human microbiome would fit the passenger classification while they influence us in many ways. And you certainly have a major point in humans plundering the planet. At least it is recognized and remedial measures are on place, sort of.
Tony: It is not simply a case of plundering the planet, though that definitely happens on a incredible scale. The way human society has developed is toxic, both to the planet and to ourselves. The vast majority of problems that plague humanity emerge directly from the fact that our preferred social construct, that of city dwelling, is not sustainable at scale. It utterly destroys the environment in which the cities emerge, and forces people into very unnatural states by simple proximity. Decentralize the population and, by and large, the problems disappear. Of course, that won't happen naturally any more. Humanity has made its choice in terms of social growth, the outcome is inevitable, and utterly irreversible. Nothing short of a global cataclysm could reconcile humanity with our ancestral home, and unfortunately, I am almost certain that is in the making.I don't mean to sound like a doomsday crackpot, but it is simply the convergence of thousands of points of data into a single inescapable conclusion. The measures we have taken are inadequate because we have not addressed the underlying cause: cities. Population density spurs pollution, disease, famine, poverty, and eventually, war and death. It has happened repeatedly throughout history. In medicine, we realize that toxicity is largely a matter of dosage. Humans in high concentrations(cities) are toxic. There is no escaping that fact. The greater the concentration, the higher the toxicity. Like other animals, high concentrations lead to competition for resources, which leads to deprivation and violence as the system begins to fail, vainly struggling to re-balance itself.
The earth provides enough resources, even for our current population, but not the way that the resources and people are distributed. We have poisoned our water and air to the point it has become toxic for life. Food is wasted or horded on an unimaginable scale. It's really very sad. You can't even step outside for a breath of 'fresh' air anymore.
David: Your discussion is why I live on a ranch more than 50 miles from Houston, and the local town is perhaps 6,000.
Tony: And part of the reason I live on a farm about 50 miles away from the nearest major city
Twin thinkers!
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Saturday, August 11, 2018, 17:21 (2079 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
david: The 50/50 is at a different level of interpretation. What is studied is 100% reactions to stimuli. The issue is automatic or intelligent response.
Tony: If the observation is that there is a 100% reaction to stimuli, then there is no reason at all to suspect that the organism has a choice. If there is no choice, there is no intelligence.Definition of intelligence
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteriaNotice that is says to 'reason', 'manipulate', and 'think abstractly'. That implies choice. 100% reaction does not imply choice, but compulsion.
Obviously I'm on your side. Humans are interpreting the reactions. In bacteria how many reactions are there? They can sense other bacteria, food, temperature change, dangerous noxious material, but little more. Each of their reactions are through molecular reactions that are 'intelligent' as in an interpretation of the results of the reactions. Thus some human scientists propose that the cells act intelligently. Of course they do if they were designed by intelligence to react that way automatically.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 31, 2018, 15:23 (2090 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: My approach has been that single cells, either as bacteria or part of multicellular organisms are programmed to respond to stimuli by a series of molecular reactions which are intelligently designed to solve the problem presented. The scientists dhw quotes simply say the cells react intelligently. Of course they do. Research shows the molecular reactions, nothing more. Intelligently planned reactions, noting no mental action is implied, is the logical conclusion.
dhw: None of them “simply say the cells react intelligently”. They say a great deal more than that, so please don’t pretend that they have come to the same “logical conclusion” as you have.
DAVID: I pretended nothing of the kind. Do you read the same words I write. It is my conclusion as I stated.
Note the bold. That is all research shows!
dhw: You pretended that “the scientists simply say the cells react intelligently” and that the research shows nothing more than intelligently planned molecular reactions. Therefore the (not “my”) logical conclusion is that “no mental action is required”. Of course that would be “the” logical conclusion. But the scientists don’t “simply say” that, and “nothing more than…” is NOT what their research shows! Your “simply say” leaves out the all-important fact that they say their research shows that mental action IS required. I have corrected this error in your post by quoting what the scientists actually do say. (my bold)
And I have said that is their interpretation of what research shows. You are touting interpretations, not any proven reality. My interpretation is just as valid as theirs. Their research shows nothing of the sort! Please think more clearly. See Tony's comments today.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, July 25, 2018, 22:23 (2095 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Our difference is in the definition of the term 'common descent'. From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
"Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor."DAVID: This could have been done by God and still be common descent by definition.
dhw: I have already quoted a Wikipedia definition of common descent, and there is no difference whatsoever between us! Last week you wrote: “I don’t reject the separate creation Bible theory, since I also think God stepped into the process continuously or at various points (dabbling). None of me is on your picket fence.” You don’t seem to realize that separate creation means that all life does NOT come from a single ancestor! It is the opposite of common descent. And so you believe in common descent but you do not reject separate creation, which may even have been continuous, but you are not on the fence!
DAVID: IF God started life and then designed every subsequent stage of life until He arrived at humans, that is descent from a common ancestor. It is not natural common descent, it is theistic common descent. Common descent looked at from that perspective is common descent. It would just like the history of evolution we see today. No fence involved here.
DHW: We are not arguing about theism versus naturalism. You know as well as I do that the Bible teaches separate creation, which means your God created each species separately, and the theory of common descent caused such a stir because it went against the teachings of the Bible. You can believe in God “designing” each species out of preceding species, or setting up a mechanism whereby each species develops out of preceding species, all the way back to the first forms of life, and either of those will be theistic common descent. But then you cannot believe in separate creation, which means he created them separately and not out of preceding species. Please stop pretending to be ignorant!
Actually, the bible says he created each according to their kind. It doesn't say he personally manicured each one. Just, according to their kind, and at specific times. The problem is that there is a bit of overlap between this and common descent, but there is also a line of demarcation that common descent crosses.Variation through descent from a common ancestor of a given kind, would be acceptable, and likely. Saying all life originated from a single organism, less likely.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Thursday, July 26, 2018, 01:25 (2095 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DAVID: Our difference is in the definition of the term 'common descent'. From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
"Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor."DAVID: This could have been done by God and still be common descent by definition.
dhw: I have already quoted a Wikipedia definition of common descent, and there is no difference whatsoever between us! Last week you wrote: “I don’t reject the separate creation Bible theory, since I also think God stepped into the process continuously or at various points (dabbling). None of me is on your picket fence.” You don’t seem to realize that separate creation means that all life does NOT come from a single ancestor! It is the opposite of common descent. And so you believe in common descent but you do not reject separate creation, which may even have been continuous, but you are not on the fence!
DAVID: IF God started life and then designed every subsequent stage of life until He arrived at humans, that is descent from a common ancestor. It is not natural common descent, it is theistic common descent. Common descent looked at from that perspective is common descent. It would just like the history of evolution we see today. No fence involved here.
DHW: We are not arguing about theism versus naturalism. You know as well as I do that the Bible teaches separate creation, which means your God created each species separately, and the theory of common descent caused such a stir because it went against the teachings of the Bible. You can believe in God “designing” each species out of preceding species, or setting up a mechanism whereby each species develops out of preceding species, all the way back to the first forms of life, and either of those will be theistic common descent. But then you cannot believe in separate creation, which means he created them separately and not out of preceding species. Please stop pretending to be ignorant!
Tony: Actually, the bible says he created each according to their kind. It doesn't say he personally manicured each one. Just, according to their kind, and at specific times. The problem is that there is a bit of overlap between this and common descent, but there is also a line of demarcation that common descent crosses.Variation through descent from a common ancestor of a given kind, would be acceptable, and likely. Saying all life originated from a single organism, less likely.
I can see a single-celled origin of one type, the Archaea.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
by David Turell , Thursday, July 19, 2018, 18:24 (2102 days ago) @ dhw
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.
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.
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.
You are trying my approach to the common descent definition.
An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon
TONY:
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.
If I’ve understood your terminology correctly, I would have thought this provided a possible clue to the mechanism for common descent, but we simply do not know whether “different outputs” can extend so far as to creating new functions.
2 That random mutations can not create new information for Natural Selection to act on.
Agreed.
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.
I'm not convinced that the symbiotic merging of cells/cell communities is to be discounted, but I'll certainly agree that nobody knows how speciation (which necessitates increasing biological information) took place, and that is why there are different theories.
TONY: 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.
Design can account for new functionality. Common descent is simply the theory that all organisms have descended from earlier organisms, reaching back to the first forms of life. To what is it irrelevant?
TONY: 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.
Calling it irrelevant is hardly tackling it. If you can provide experimental evidence that organisms can spring from nowhere without any predecessor, then you will certainly have a scientific case against common descent and for separate creation.
TONY: 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. […] Argue the science of my hypothesis.
I understand your frustration, but the title only encapsulates what I see as your narrow view of evolution. I have repeatedly agreed with the science of your hypothesis for intelligent design. Design, random mutations and gradualism are not an issue between us. The issue is your insistence that your theory of intelligent design invalidates the theory of common descent - the bedrock of the theory of evolution. Today, however, you have introduced a new line of argument, which may lead to a more fruitful discussion. I pointed out that design does not provide an alternative to common descent.
TONY: 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.
Where do we begin? Ecological needs will cover the whole planet. Is it not conceivable that as early life spread into different environments, a designed mechanism for evolution enabled the descendants from those first life forms to adapt and innovate in order to cope with or exploit the new conditions?
TONY: 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.
I don’t have a problem with the removal of random mutations, with punctuated equilibrium, or with long periods of stasis. “Fully formed” is the great argument against common descent, as exemplified by the Cambrian explosion. David sees that as an instance of his God dabbling. My hypothesis is that a dramatic change in the environment (oxygen being the key) would have offered scope for a dramatic period of inventiveness by the (perhaps God-given) inventive mechanism of cellular intelligence. I think we would all agree that “ecological needs” (I would add opportunities) are a major factor in our hypotheses. The disagreement lies in our guesses as to the means by which organisms cope with or exploit their changing environments. All these guesses involve what you have rightly called “fantastic” explanations, and belief in them requires faith.
TONY: 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.
I agree that it is not random. Convergent evolution can be explained by the hypothesis that organisms facing the same problems will come up with the same solutions, regardless of geographical separation. But if we are talking of common descent, geographical separation is chapter two in the history. As above, the proposal is that life began with a few forms or one, and these forms over hundreds of millions of years spread across the planet, constantly adapting and innovating in accordance with the ecological needs and opportunities that arose. Geographical separation does not preclude common descent.
An Alternative to Evolution: man made traits
by David Turell , Monday, July 23, 2018, 18:49 (2098 days ago) @ dhw
An experiment in Australia has tried to induce an avoidance trait in newborn quolls:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05757-y?utm_source=briefing-dy&utm_mediu...
"The subject of the experiment is one of Australia’s most imperiled marsupials, the northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus). This squirrel-sized carnivore is struggling to survive a decades-long onslaught of poisonous and invasive cane toads, which quolls mistake as prey, with devastating results. The team now working on Indian Island has successfully tested the match-making technique in captive-bred quolls, and reported the results last month in Conservation Biology1.
***
"In the 80 years since agriculture officials introduced the cane toad (Rhinella marina) to northeastern Australia to control a sugar cane-devouring beetle, the amphibians have spread across the state of Queensland, the Northern Territory and large chunks of Western Australia. Their rapid advance has devastated northern-quoll populations, which have shrunk by more than 75%.
***
"Ecologists Ella Kelly and Ben Phillips knew from their previous research that some quoll populations in Queensland had developed an aversion to the toads over the years2. The researchers, both at the University of Melbourne, wondered whether the trait could be successfully bred into vulnerable quoll populations that cane toads hadn’t yet reached. That could make those 'naive' quolls more resilient to toad invasions, if enough animals in a given group have the trait.
"To test this idea, the scientists bred animals in captivity, mixing northern quolls from a toad-infested area of Queensland that displayed an aversion to toads with naive quolls from a toad-free island in the Northern Territory. Kelly and Phillips then exposed the resulting offspring to a toad leg to gauge whether the young quolls recognized the threat. They found that most of the young quolls wouldn’t touch the toad legs.
"The finding suggests that the trait is inherited, rather than taught by mother quolls, and may be dominant, the researchers say. “That’s the first hurdle that needs to be jumped in showing targeted gene flow,” Phillips says. “Without a genetic basis, there is no point in introducing [toad-smart quolls] into the population. And we found there is a genetic basis."
"The captive-quoll study is an important step towards demonstrating that targeted gene flow is a viable strategy to aid quoll conservation, says Sarah Fitzpatrick, a conservation biologist at Michigan State University’s Kellogg Biological Station in Hickory Corners. "Many behaviours are plastic, and therefore are not necessarily controlled by certain genes,” she says. “If this were the case for toad-eating behaviour, targeted gene flow would not work.”
***
"They released 54 quolls on toad-infested Indian Island — a mix of naive Northern Territory quolls, toad-averse quolls from Queensland and hybrid offspring.
"When the researchers returned in April this year to check on the quolls, they found good and bad news. Far fewer quolls survived than the team had anticipated — just 16 animals, according to the researchers’ population estimate. But encouragingly, the group included offspring that seem to be toad-smart, which would suggest that they inherited the trait from their parents. The team is now analysing genetic samples taken from the survivors.
"Kelly and Phillips plan to return to the site again next April to see how the remaining quolls fare. “It will be a long wait,” they write in a draft report on the project."
Comment: Time will tell if it works. A clever idea.
An Alternative to Evolution: man made traits
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, July 24, 2018, 03:03 (2097 days ago) @ David Turell
An experiment in Australia has tried to induce an avoidance trait in newborn quolls:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05757-y?utm_source=briefing-dy&utm_mediu...
"The subject of the experiment is one of Australia’s most imperiled marsupials, the northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus). This squirrel-sized carnivore is struggling to survive a decades-long onslaught of poisonous and invasive cane toads, which quolls mistake as prey, with devastating results. The team now working on Indian Island has successfully tested the match-making technique in captive-bred quolls, and reported the results last month in Conservation Biology1.
***
"In the 80 years since agriculture officials introduced the cane toad (Rhinella marina) to northeastern Australia to control a sugar cane-devouring beetle, the amphibians have spread across the state of Queensland, the Northern Territory and large chunks of Western Australia. Their rapid advance has devastated northern-quoll populations, which have shrunk by more than 75%.
***
"Ecologists Ella Kelly and Ben Phillips knew from their previous research that some quoll populations in Queensland had developed an aversion to the toads over the years2. The researchers, both at the University of Melbourne, wondered whether the trait could be successfully bred into vulnerable quoll populations that cane toads hadn’t yet reached. That could make those 'naive' quolls more resilient to toad invasions, if enough animals in a given group have the trait.
"To test this idea, the scientists bred animals in captivity, mixing northern quolls from a toad-infested area of Queensland that displayed an aversion to toads with naive quolls from a toad-free island in the Northern Territory. Kelly and Phillips then exposed the resulting offspring to a toad leg to gauge whether the young quolls recognized the threat. They found that most of the young quolls wouldn’t touch the toad legs.
"The finding suggests that the trait is inherited, rather than taught by mother quolls, and may be dominant, the researchers say. “That’s the first hurdle that needs to be jumped in showing targeted gene flow,” Phillips says. “Without a genetic basis, there is no point in introducing [toad-smart quolls] into the population. And we found there is a genetic basis."
"The captive-quoll study is an important step towards demonstrating that targeted gene flow is a viable strategy to aid quoll conservation, says Sarah Fitzpatrick, a conservation biologist at Michigan State University’s Kellogg Biological Station in Hickory Corners. "Many behaviours are plastic, and therefore are not necessarily controlled by certain genes,” she says. “If this were the case for toad-eating behaviour, targeted gene flow would not work.”
***
"They released 54 quolls on toad-infested Indian Island — a mix of naive Northern Territory quolls, toad-averse quolls from Queensland and hybrid offspring.
"When the researchers returned in April this year to check on the quolls, they found good and bad news. Far fewer quolls survived than the team had anticipated — just 16 animals, according to the researchers’ population estimate. But encouragingly, the group included offspring that seem to be toad-smart, which would suggest that they inherited the trait from their parents. The team is now analysing genetic samples taken from the survivors.
"Kelly and Phillips plan to return to the site again next April to see how the remaining quolls fare. “It will be a long wait,” they write in a draft report on the project."
David Comment: Time will tell if it works. A clever idea.
Indeed. Hard to determine if it was dumb luck, good genes, or something else entirely, though. I mean, 66% of their study group died. I'm not certain that constitutes evidence that their breeding strategy worked. It is also possible that:
1: The quolls that are not averse to toads have actually LOST or mutated deficient genes that hampers their ability to detect the danger, while the other population that is toad averse simply has DNA that is better preserved.
2: The genetic change is akin to eye color, in that it may be variable and skip generations. Though more likely related to olfactory genes, the same concept applies.
3: If evolution is dependent upon survival of the fittest and we keep interfering, are we setting something up for even bigger failure later?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: man made traits
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 24, 2018, 04:51 (2097 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
David: An experiment in Australia has tried to induce an avoidance trait in newborn quolls:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05757-y?utm_source=briefing-dy&utm_mediu...
"The subject of the experiment is one of Australia’s most imperiled marsupials, the northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus). This squirrel-sized carnivore is struggling to survive a decades-long onslaught of poisonous and invasive cane toads, which quolls mistake as prey, with devastating results. The team now working on Indian Island has successfully tested the match-making technique in captive-bred quolls, and reported the results last month in Conservation Biology1.
***
"In the 80 years since agriculture officials introduced the cane toad (Rhinella marina) to northeastern Australia to control a sugar cane-devouring beetle, the amphibians have spread across the state of Queensland, the Northern Territory and large chunks of Western Australia. Their rapid advance has devastated northern-quoll populations, which have shrunk by more than 75%.
***
"Ecologists Ella Kelly and Ben Phillips knew from their previous research that some quoll populations in Queensland had developed an aversion to the toads over the years2. The researchers, both at the University of Melbourne, wondered whether the trait could be successfully bred into vulnerable quoll populations that cane toads hadn’t yet reached. That could make those 'naive' quolls more resilient to toad invasions, if enough animals in a given group have the trait.
"To test this idea, the scientists bred animals in captivity, mixing northern quolls from a toad-infested area of Queensland that displayed an aversion to toads with naive quolls from a toad-free island in the Northern Territory. Kelly and Phillips then exposed the resulting offspring to a toad leg to gauge whether the young quolls recognized the threat. They found that most of the young quolls wouldn’t touch the toad legs.
"The finding suggests that the trait is inherited, rather than taught by mother quolls, and may be dominant, the researchers say. “That’s the first hurdle that needs to be jumped in showing targeted gene flow,” Phillips says. “Without a genetic basis, there is no point in introducing [toad-smart quolls] into the population. And we found there is a genetic basis."
"The captive-quoll study is an important step towards demonstrating that targeted gene flow is a viable strategy to aid quoll conservation, says Sarah Fitzpatrick, a conservation biologist at Michigan State University’s Kellogg Biological Station in Hickory Corners. "Many behaviours are plastic, and therefore are not necessarily controlled by certain genes,” she says. “If this were the case for toad-eating behaviour, targeted gene flow would not work.”
***
"They released 54 quolls on toad-infested Indian Island — a mix of naive Northern Territory quolls, toad-averse quolls from Queensland and hybrid offspring.
"When the researchers returned in April this year to check on the quolls, they found good and bad news. Far fewer quolls survived than the team had anticipated — just 16 animals, according to the researchers’ population estimate. But encouragingly, the group included offspring that seem to be toad-smart, which would suggest that they inherited the trait from their parents. The team is now analysing genetic samples taken from the survivors.
"Kelly and Phillips plan to return to the site again next April to see how the remaining quolls fare. “It will be a long wait,” they write in a draft report on the project."
David Comment: Time will tell if it works. A clever idea.
Tony: Indeed. Hard to determine if it was dumb luck, good genes, or something else entirely, though. I mean, 66% of their study group died. I'm not certain that constitutes evidence that their breeding strategy worked. It is also possible that:1: The quolls that are not averse to toads have actually LOST or mutated deficient genes that hampers their ability to detect the danger, while the other population that is toad averse simply has DNA that is better preserved.
2: The genetic change is akin to eye color, in that it may be variable and skip generations. Though more likely related to olfactory genes, the same concept applies.
3: If evolution is dependent upon survival of the fittest and we keep interfering, are we setting something up for even bigger failure later?
Australia, being so isolated is an ecologic mess. The Brits introduced all sorts of problem species and the Aussies now are trying to solve the messes created. When I explaining my theories about the importance of the balance of nature I mentioned some of them.
An Alternative to Evolution: Questions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, July 15, 2018, 15:10 (2106 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
When mRNA is being transcribed by rRNA, how are tRNA molecules messaged so that the bring the correct amino acid molecules for protein building?
Is there a level of communication happening outside the Genome, and if so, can we find it and decode it?
What triggers the ticker tape action of rRNA, causing it to advance?
Is there a quality control check that happens before the rRNA advances along the mRNA?
How does the mRNA find the ribosome, or vice versa?
Once proteins are created, what signals are issued to announce the fact so that it can move on to its new assignment?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Questions
by David Turell , Sunday, July 15, 2018, 17:32 (2106 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony:When mRNA is being transcribed by rRNA, how are tRNA molecules messaged so that the bring the correct amino acid molecules for protein building?
Is there a level of communication happening outside the Genome, and if so, can we find it and decode it?
What triggers the ticker tape action of rRNA, causing it to advance?
Is there a quality control check that happens before the rRNA advances along the mRNA?
How does the mRNA find the ribosome, or vice versa?
Once proteins are created, what signals are issued to announce the fact so that it can move on to its new assignment?
All of this exactly what we do not know. It is why we have to accept design, and an enormous store of information for function.
An Alternative to Evolution: Questions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, July 16, 2018, 02:38 (2105 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony:When mRNA is being transcribed by rRNA, how are tRNA molecules messaged so that the bring the correct amino acid molecules for protein building?
Is there a level of communication happening outside the Genome, and if so, can we find it and decode it?
What triggers the ticker tape action of rRNA, causing it to advance?
Is there a quality control check that happens before the rRNA advances along the mRNA?
How does the mRNA find the ribosome, or vice versa?
Once proteins are created, what signals are issued to announce the fact so that it can move on to its new assignment?
David: All of this exactly what we do not know. It is why we have to accept design, and an enormous store of information for function.
Anyone want to wager that the answer will be found to be a different kind of signal, something from the EM spectrum. Something chemical independent.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Questions
by David Turell , Monday, July 16, 2018, 15:22 (2105 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony:When mRNA is being transcribed by rRNA, how are tRNA molecules messaged so that the bring the correct amino acid molecules for protein building?
Is there a level of communication happening outside the Genome, and if so, can we find it and decode it?
What triggers the ticker tape action of rRNA, causing it to advance?
Is there a quality control check that happens before the rRNA advances along the mRNA?
How does the mRNA find the ribosome, or vice versa?
Once proteins are created, what signals are issued to announce the fact so that it can move on to its new assignment?
David: All of this exactly what we do not know. It is why we have to accept design, and an enormous store of information for function.
Tony: Anyone want to wager that the answer will be found to be a different kind of signal, something from the EM spectrum. Something chemical independent.
I wouldn't be surprised
An Alternative to Evolution: Questions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, July 16, 2018, 17:35 (2105 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony:When mRNA is being transcribed by rRNA, how are tRNA molecules messaged so that the bring the correct amino acid molecules for protein building?
Is there a level of communication happening outside the Genome, and if so, can we find it and decode it?
What triggers the ticker tape action of rRNA, causing it to advance?
Is there a quality control check that happens before the rRNA advances along the mRNA?
How does the mRNA find the ribosome, or vice versa?
Once proteins are created, what signals are issued to announce the fact so that it can move on to its new assignment?
David: All of this exactly what we do not know. It is why we have to accept design, and an enormous store of information for function.
Tony: Anyone want to wager that the answer will be found to be a different kind of signal, something from the EM spectrum. Something chemical independent.
David: I wouldn't be surprised
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Questions
by David Turell , Monday, July 16, 2018, 18:42 (2105 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony:When mRNA is being transcribed by rRNA, how are tRNA molecules messaged so that the bring the correct amino acid molecules for protein building?
Is there a level of communication happening outside the Genome, and if so, can we find it and decode it?
What triggers the ticker tape action of rRNA, causing it to advance?
Is there a quality control check that happens before the rRNA advances along the mRNA?
How does the mRNA find the ribosome, or vice versa?
Once proteins are created, what signals are issued to announce the fact so that it can move on to its new assignment?
David: All of this exactly what we do not know. It is why we have to accept design, and an enormous store of information for function.
Tony: Anyone want to wager that the answer will be found to be a different kind of signal, something from the EM spectrum. Something chemical independent.
David: I wouldn't be surprised
Thank you for a fascinating article. Electric current creates/carries electromagnetic radiation, and life runs partially on electricity as well as secretory and molecular signals.
An Alternative to Evolution: Questions
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, July 17, 2018, 05:30 (2104 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony:When mRNA is being transcribed by rRNA, how are tRNA molecules messaged so that the bring the correct amino acid molecules for protein building?
Is there a level of communication happening outside the Genome, and if so, can we find it and decode it?
What triggers the ticker tape action of rRNA, causing it to advance?
Is there a quality control check that happens before the rRNA advances along the mRNA?
How does the mRNA find the ribosome, or vice versa?
Once proteins are created, what signals are issued to announce the fact so that it can move on to its new assignment?
David: All of this exactly what we do not know. It is why we have to accept design, and an enormous store of information for function.
Tony: Anyone want to wager that the answer will be found to be a different kind of signal, something from the EM spectrum. Something chemical independent.
David: I wouldn't be surprised
David: Thank you for a fascinating article. Electric current creates/carries electromagnetic radiation, and life runs partially on electricity as well as secretory and molecular signals.
I also thought it was interesting that they responded to sound. We also know that they can respond to other parts of the em spectrum, such as magnetism, and gravity (and yes, gravity has been confirmed as part of the em spectrum, as I have been predicted on this site a few years back). This also ties back to my hypothesis Framework #8 & #9. Operating on the level of the em spectrum also allows for superfast communication that is not limited by chemical reaction times. It could explain parts of the cellular communication network.
If I may hazard a crude observation, it seems to me like the cellular communication system is much like the one designed by humans, though undoubtedly far superior. The brain acts as a central server, passing data through high throughput data transmission lines (the nervous system). The nerves themselves act like cellphone towers, broadcasting the signal they have received through the hard lines of the nervous system. If cells are able to rebroadcast the signal on some level of the em spectrum, it could account for some of the lightening fast response times we see in living creatures.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Questions
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 17, 2018, 15:13 (2104 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
David: Thank you for a fascinating article. Electric current creates/carries electromagnetic radiation, and life runs partially on electricity as well as secretory and molecular signals.
Tony: I also thought it was interesting that they responded to sound. We also know that they can respond to other parts of the em spectrum, such as magnetism, and gravity (and yes, gravity has been confirmed as part of the em spectrum, as I have been predicted on this site a few years back). This also ties back to my hypothesis Framework #8 & #9. Operating on the level of the em spectrum also allows for superfast communication that is not limited by chemical reaction times. It could explain parts of the cellular communication network.If I may hazard a crude observation, it seems to me like the cellular communication system is much like the one designed by humans, though undoubtedly far superior. The brain acts as a central server, passing data through high throughput data transmission lines (the nervous system). The nerves themselves act like cellphone towers, broadcasting the signal they have received through the hard lines of the nervous system. If cells are able to rebroadcast the signal on some level of the em spectrum, it could account for some of the lightening fast response times we see in living creatures.
you've made important points. If you go to 'search' you will see we have discussed all of this intermittently in the past, even about light: Wednesday, January 02, 2013, 15:25 in an entry I produced for Bbella.
An Alternative to Evolution: Confirmations
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, July 17, 2018, 08:43 (2104 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
A recent article adds confirmation to a few predictions from my hypothesis. It demonstrates ubiquity of the programming language, and a system wide level of complexity that Darwinism can not explain. Why would every bar code be different?
It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.
But is that true?
"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.
For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP.
The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
"This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP.
That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?
Was there some catastrophic event 200,000 years ago that nearly wiped the slate clean?
And then Creationist Weigh In
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
An Alternative to Evolution: Confirmations
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 17, 2018, 17:47 (2104 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: A recent article adds confirmation to a few predictions from my hypothesis. It demonstrates ubiquity of the programming language, and a system wide level of complexity that Darwinism can not explain. Why would every bar code be different?
It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.But is that true?
"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.
For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP.
The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
"This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP.
That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?
Was there some catastrophic event 200,000 years ago that nearly wiped the slate clean?
And then Creationist Weigh In
The end of the article is a part you might have added:
Which brings us back to our question: why did the overwhelming majority of species in existence today emerge at about the same time?
Darwin perplexed
Environmental trauma is one possibility, explained Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at The Rockefeller University.
"Viruses, ice ages, successful new competitors, loss of prey—all these may cause periods when the population of an animal drops sharply," he told AFP, commenting on the study.
"In these periods, it is easier for a genetic innovation to sweep the population and contribute to the emergence of a new species."
But the last true mass extinction event was 65.5 million years ago when a likely asteroid strike wiped out land-bound dinosaurs and half of all species on Earth. This means a population "bottleneck" is only a partial explanation at best.
"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.
"It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."
In this view, a species only lasts a certain amount of time before it either evolves into something new or goes extinct.
And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.
"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."
The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.
Comment: Pure punctuated equilibrium. Not much of Darwin remains except his idea of common descent.