An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2 (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, July 02, 2018, 10:10 (165 days ago)

Cont...

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: pt 2

by David Turell @, Monday, July 02, 2018, 15:50 (165 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Alternative[s] to Evolution 1 & 2 are fabulous contributions to this discussion which I view as an analysis of God's guiding hand. The recognition of the importance of implanted information is a prime point.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, July 02, 2018, 16:35 (165 days ago) @ David Turell

David: Alternative[s] to Evolution 1 & 2 are fabulous contributions to this discussion which I view as an analysis of God's guiding hand. The recognition of the importance of implanted information is a prime point.

Well, I intentionally left god out of it. I didn't want the hypothesis biased by theology. Rather, I wanted to ignore the information source for the moment and focus on observable fact that does not NEED a story. If we are just talking about what IS, does this theory fit the observations?

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Monday, July 02, 2018, 17:41 (165 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

David: Alternative[s] to Evolution 1 & 2 are fabulous contributions to this discussion which I view as an analysis of God's guiding hand. The recognition of the importance of implanted information is a prime point.


Tony: Well, I intentionally left god out of it. I didn't want the hypothesis biased by theology. Rather, I wanted to ignore the information source for the moment and focus on observable fact that does not NEED a story. If we are just talking about what IS, does this theory fit the observations?

It certainly does.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, July 02, 2018, 22:40 (164 days ago) @ David Turell

David: Alternative[s] to Evolution 1 & 2 are fabulous contributions to this discussion which I view as an analysis of God's guiding hand. The recognition of the importance of implanted information is a prime point.


Tony: Well, I intentionally left god out of it. I didn't want the hypothesis biased by theology. Rather, I wanted to ignore the information source for the moment and focus on observable fact that does not NEED a story. If we are just talking about what IS, does this theory fit the observations?


It certainly does.

Can you find any holes in it, or something I missed?

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 03, 2018, 00:22 (164 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

David: Alternative[s] to Evolution 1 & 2 are fabulous contributions to this discussion which I view as an analysis of God's guiding hand. The recognition of the importance of implanted information is a prime point.


Tony: Well, I intentionally left god out of it. I didn't want the hypothesis biased by theology. Rather, I wanted to ignore the information source for the moment and focus on observable fact that does not NEED a story. If we are just talking about what IS, does this theory fit the observations?


David: It certainly does.


Tony: Can you find any holes in it, or something I missed?

In 13 timing is not just enzymes. it includes feedback loops

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by dhw, Tuesday, July 03, 2018, 10:50 (164 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: 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.

This is written in a language I don’t fully understand, and so I’ll begin (and end) with an apology. I’ve read this through several times, and have quite a few objections, but I am horribly aware that these may be based on misunderstandings of what you’ve written. If so, I’ll ask for your forbearance. I’m anxious not to offend you, but you did ask for criticism, so even if just one or two comments are helpful and to the point, it will be worthwhile my probing. Feel free to ignore the rest!

Framework
1 DNA is a modular information project, wherein each chunk of genetic information (Gene) contains the instruction for a particular specified Function.
• 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.

I have to relate this to living organisms, and if one gene with a particular specified function can have variables, why should there not also be potential for variation within whole communities of cells? How variable can a variable be? The potential for variation is a key factor in evolution. I wish I knew more about stem cells, which apparently are capable of performing a wide variety of functions.

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.

More important for what? You say “largely conserved”, which is obviously true when we look at the many features that different species have in common (regarded as evidence of common descent). But it’s the changes in function design (the bits outside the “largely”) that evolutionists believe result in existing organisms becoming new species (= 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.

Perhaps you could explain which laws of physics they are subject to, in order to show why evolution doesn’t fit.

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.

How does this offer us an alternative to evolution?

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.

I don’t understand the second point, but endosymbiosis runs directly counter to your first point, and again is an important factor in modern evolutionary theory.

• 2 That random mutations can not create new information for Natural Selection to act on.

I am also opposed to the theory of random mutations. But supposing the mutations were not random? Supposing organisms were able to engineer their own mutations in order to make use of new information from the environment? See Part Two of your theory plus my concluding comment.

• 4 It is impossible for life to evolve, increase in complexity, without the addition of information.

Agreed.

5 There is no known natural process for increasing biological information.

Yes there is: endosymbiosis. But in any case, how do you define increasing biological information? If an organism is able to adapt its body to new information coming from the environment, how can it do so without adding biological information? Millions of bacteria may be killed by new antibiotics, but somehow eventually they find a biological way to counter the threat. Why does this not count as increasing biological information? And how can we know the limitations of cells to restructure themselves in the face of environmental change? (Continued…)

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by dhw, Tuesday, July 03, 2018, 11:00 (164 days ago) @ dhw

• 7 That we can not, as of yet, scientifically prove where the information source for DNA originated.

Agreed. That is hardly an alternative to evolution, or even an argument against it.

• 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.

Information exchange is crucial to all bodily processes, but I don’t know how that leads us to an alternative to evolution. The cells must communicate, no matter what your theory of speciation might be.

• 11 That the information density in even a single living cell will be too complex to be reduced to mere chance.

Agreed. But you are simply attacking one aspect of Darwin’s theory of evolution. The complexity is a major argument for theistic evolutionists – it is not an argument against evolution.

• 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)

Why? Again this comes down to the degree of variability – not in connection with changing the environment, but with the environment changing the function of the DNA. Epigenetics means a change in what you call function. But I may have totally misunderstood this, because it is too abstract for me.

Functionality
• 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.

Yes, in my terms there has to be a mechanism already present that will enable some organisms to vary the function. (Though let us not forget that the vast majority of all species have failed to survive.) However, you go on to say:

7 These Function variables are constrained to within hard limits, as if using a -1 to 1 scale.

How do you know this? All we know is that there are different species. Nobody knows to what extent the variables can vary themselves! I sometimes get the feeling that you are applying computer formulas to organic life, but there are no reference points for speciation, and we are in no position to propose analogies.

• 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.

Yes, malfunctions will be deleterious. But how does this prove that organisms themselves are incapable of changing functions advantageously? Or….see below.

• 13 Life is very dependent upon time and timing. Function timing will be tightly controlled.(Enzymes)

Again, I don’t see how this disproves evolution. To get to the point you have laudably avoided, you quite rightly emphasize all the complexities involved in speciation, but David clearly regards this as support for his own theory of evolution personally directed by his God. In the same theistic context, I can’t see why any of the above should preclude evolution through a function-changing mechanism designed by your God. But once again, I must emphasize that I struggle with the terminology, and everything I have written here is with full acknowledgement that I may have misunderstood you. So let me repeat that I have written it in the hope that some points may be useful to you, but also because I feel you must be onto something that I haven’t grasped, and I am very touched that you have offered it to us to criticize. I regard that as an honour, and apologize if I’ve let you down!

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, July 06, 2018, 03:49 (161 days ago) @ dhw

I will respond more fully when I am at a computer, but the two points that preclude evolution are the absence of new information and the deleterious effects of mutations. Sorry to be so brief, but responding by cell phone is horrible.

As a follow up point, though, evolution only makes s sense if random chance is the only instigating force.

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Friday, July 06, 2018, 04:37 (161 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: I will respond more fully when I am at a computer, but the two points that preclude evolution are the absence of new information and the deleterious effects of mutations. Sorry to be so brief, but responding by cell phone is horrible.

As a follow up point, though, evolution only makes s sense if random chance is the only instigating force.

Can you tell me why you do not consider theistic evolution run by God?

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, July 06, 2018, 08:01 (161 days ago) @ David Turell

Tony: I will respond more fully when I am at a computer, but the two points that preclude evolution are the absence of new information and the deleterious effects of mutations. Sorry to be so brief, but responding by cell phone is horrible.

As a follow up point, though, evolution only makes s sense if random chance is the only instigating force.


David: Can you tell me why you do not consider theistic evolution run by God?

I have considered it, and I am ambivalent towards it. The reason I do not include it in this hypothesis, though, is that it starts a slippery slope towards unquestioning faith. The tendency would be to answer every question with "God did it" and no further inquiry. In science, that is bad. In religion, that is bad. Further, you know as well as I do that any mention of God in a scientific hypothesis is explicitly forbidden. I feel like I am close to the truth with this, and do not want it discarded out of hand because I include God in its workings. Either this hypothesis stands or falls based solely on its scientific merit. Though, at this moment I feel like the preponderance of evidence is in my favor.

For me personally, "God did it" is a given. My digging into his creation is to examine how and why he did certain things, at least to the extent that humans can divine such things. I am ok with knowing that he made flowers give off signals that only their pollinators can detect.And I am ok with knowing that he enabled their pollinators to detect them. However, those statements do not answer HOW, though in this case, why is readily apparent. As I learn HOW he does/did things, I learn more about him, and stand humbled and in awe of his power, wisdom, and overwhelming love.

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Friday, July 06, 2018, 19:55 (161 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: I will respond more fully when I am at a computer, but the two points that preclude evolution are the absence of new information and the deleterious effects of mutations. Sorry to be so brief, but responding by cell phone is horrible.

As a follow up point, though, evolution only makes s sense if random chance is the only instigating force.


David: Can you tell me why you do not consider theistic evolution run by God?


Tony: I have considered it, and I am ambivalent towards it. The reason I do not include it in this hypothesis, though, is that it starts a slippery slope towards unquestioning faith. The tendency would be to answer every question with "God did it" and no further inquiry. In science, that is bad. In religion, that is bad. Further, you know as well as I do that any mention of God in a scientific hypothesis is explicitly forbidden. I feel like I am close to the truth with this, and do not want it discarded out of hand because I include God in its workings. Either this hypothesis stands or falls based solely on its scientific merit. Though, at this moment I feel like the preponderance of evidence is in my favor.

For me personally, "God did it" is a given. My digging into his creation is to examine how and why he did certain things, at least to the extent that humans can divine such things. I am ok with knowing that he made flowers give off signals that only their pollinators can detect.And I am ok with knowing that he enabled their pollinators to detect them. However, those statements do not answer HOW, though in this case, why is readily apparent. As I learn HOW he does/did things, I learn more about him, and stand humbled and in awe of his power, wisdom, and overwhelming love.

Very clear. Thank you.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by dhw, Friday, July 06, 2018, 10:50 (161 days ago) @ David Turell

TONY: I will respond more fully when I am at a computer, but the two points that preclude evolution are the absence of new information and the deleterious effects of mutations. Sorry to be so brief, but responding by cell phone is horrible.
As a follow up point, though, evolution only makes sense if random chance is the only instigating force.

DAVID: Can you tell me why you do not consider theistic evolution run by God?

I posed the same question in my own post, and offered two alternatives to random chance: David’s God-directed form, and my intelligent cell theory, which also allows for God as the initial instigating force. If mutations are deliberately designed, they will not be deleterious. I don’t know what you mean by the “absence of new information”. The expression is far too vague for me. At one time there were no brains, penises, wings. I'd say they all required new information, but if the information was there from the beginning, and was simply used for new purposes, that still doesn't invalidate the idea that your God started with relatively simple organisms and progressively gave them new structures. That’s evolution and common descent. And if he endowed cells/cell communities with the autonomous intelligence to do their own inventing (much as we are endeavouring to endow robots with autonomous intelligence), once again we have an evolutionary theory that will explain the higgledy-piggledy history of life on earth and leaves out chance altogether, apart from the effects of environmental change (though that may also have been part of your God’s plan). I needn’t go into the non-theistic version here, since both you and David are committed theists and the discussion concerns evolution and not the existence of God.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I see you have posted a more detailed response, but I don't even have time to read it now! I'll get back to this tomorrow.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by David Turell @, Friday, July 06, 2018, 20:12 (161 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: I will respond more fully when I am at a computer, but the two points that preclude evolution are the absence of new information and the deleterious effects of mutations. Sorry to be so brief, but responding by cell phone is horrible.
As a follow up point, though, evolution only makes sense if random chance is the only instigating force.

DAVID: Can you tell me why you do not consider theistic evolution run by God?

dhw: I posed the same question in my own post, and offered two alternatives to random chance: David’s God-directed form, and my intelligent cell theory, which also allows for God as the initial instigating force. If mutations are deliberately designed, they will not be deleterious. I don’t know what you mean by the “absence of new information”. The expression is far too vague for me. At one time there were no brains, penises, wings. I'd say they all required new information, but if the information was there from the beginning, and was simply used for new purposes, that still doesn't invalidate the idea that your God started with relatively simple organisms and progressively gave them new structures. That’s evolution and common descent. And if he endowed cells/cell communities with the autonomous intelligence to do their own inventing (much as we are endeavouring to endow robots with autonomous intelligence), once again we have an evolutionary theory that will explain the higgledy-piggledy history of life on earth and leaves out chance altogether, apart from the effects of environmental change (though that may also have been part of your God’s plan). I needn’t go into the non-theistic version here, since both you and David are committed theists and the discussion concerns evolution and not the existence of God.

When, where and how information to run evolution appeared is a key and major issue.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, July 06, 2018, 16:51 (161 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: Information exchange is crucial to all bodily processes, but I don’t know how that leads us to an alternative to evolution. The cells must communicate, no matter what your theory of speciation might be.

And it is this act of communication that actively undermines evolution, because all life 'speaks' the same 'language'. If evolution were true, we could expect that at least ONE new bio-chemical language would have evolved, or at the very least the language itself would have evolved. But no. Instead that biological language appears fully formed and persists unchanged across every species to have ever existed on planet Earth. The languages informational complexity, sudden fully formed existence, universal usage and extreme conservation or original form all indicate a designed language, much like C++.


• 11 That the information density in even a single living cell will be too complex to be reduced to mere chance.

DHW: Agreed. But you are simply attacking one aspect of Darwin’s theory of evolution. The complexity is a major argument for theistic evolutionists – it is not an argument against evolution.

This is a hypothesis, and this is one of the predictions of said hypothesis, and one which our math and science, the observable facts, seems to agree. If true, this postulate would indicate that abiogenesis is impossible, as well as pointing to the fact that multi-cellularity complexity on the scale of a human is too informationally complex to be chance.


• 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)

DHW: Why? Again this comes down to the degree of variability – not in connection with changing the environment, but with the environment changing the function of the DNA. Epigenetics means a change in what you call function. But I may have totally misunderstood this, because it is too abstract for me.

Because it places constraints, limits on this ability. To be clear, the 'environment' here is the biological and informational environment of the host organism. If one Function produces a protein, another Function can use that protein to do something else. The output of the second function is dependent upon the output of the first. However, the first function can not go in and directly rearrange the instructions of the second function. It can only affect it by altering its own output. This is a testable, falsifiable concept, as good science should be. It is also something that would show an undeniable sophistication that could only be designed.

DHW:..in my terms there has to be a mechanism already present that will enable some organisms to vary the function... However, you go on to say:

7 These Function variables are constrained to within hard limits, as if using a -1 to 1 scale.

DHW: How do you know this? All we know is that there are different species. Nobody knows to what extent the variables can vary themselves!...

We know that humans can be covered in hair, head to toe, more hairy, less hairy, and hairless. We know that Full Hair and No Hair are the extremes (-1 & 1), & I suspect the distribution along the spectrum follows the bell curve closely. We know that natural human hair colors are within a fairly limited band of the color spectrum. You never see anyone with naturally blue or green hair. So, we CAN say that there are hard limits on variability.

Oh, by the way.....Why aren't there reference points for speciation? If evolution were true, they should be everywhere, shouldn't they? The simple fact that we do not have them should give anyone pause when considering evolution.


• 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.

..How does this prove that organisms themselves are incapable of changing functions advantageously?

It doesn't. But if you want to propose that, you have to show where the level of available genetic information had INCREASED, was NEW, and NOVEL. If you found that, it would break this whole theory.


• 13 Life is very dependent upon time and timing. Function timing will be tightly controlled.(Enzymes)

DHW: Again, I don’t see how this disproves evolution. .. I can’t see why any of the above should preclude evolution through a function-changing mechanism designed by your God.

If that there were a Function that allowed the creation of new Functions, why don't we see more new, unique, functions? And if we do find them, we could locate the Function-changing Function, which would still be too complex for random chance, thus confirming this hypothesis, even if some small edits to it needed to be made.

I shared this with you, David, and George because I respect your opinions and your minds. I've been honored to converse with the three of you and have learned a tremendous amount through the research I had to do just to hold my own in these discussions. In a very real way, it is you three that have challenged me enough to force me to try and tackle this problem in a non-theistic fashion.

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Friday, July 06, 2018, 21:33 (161 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: • 11 That the information density in even a single living cell will be too complex to be reduced to mere chance.

DHW: Agreed. But you are simply attacking one aspect of Darwin’s theory of evolution. The complexity is a major argument for theistic evolutionists – it is not an argument against evolution.


Tony: This is a hypothesis, and this is one of the predictions of said hypothesis, and one which our math and science, the observable facts, seems to agree. If true, this postulate would indicate that abiogenesis is impossible, as well as pointing to the fact that multi-cellularity complexity on the scale of a human is too informationally complex to be chance.

Agreed, Abiogenesis is impossible.


Tony: • 13 Life is very dependent upon time and timing. Function timing will be tightly controlled.(Enzymes)

DHW: Again, I don’t see how this disproves evolution. .. I can’t see why any of the above should preclude evolution through a function-changing mechanism designed by your God.


If that there were a Function that allowed the creation of new Functions, why don't we see more new, unique, functions? And if we do find them, we could locate the Function-changing Function, which would still be too complex for random chance, thus confirming this hypothesis, even if some small edits to it needed to be made.

I shared this with you, David, and George because I respect your opinions and your minds. I've been honored to converse with the three of you and have learned a tremendous amount through the research I had to do just to hold my own in these discussions. In a very real way, it is you three that have challenged me enough to force me to try and tackle this problem in a non-theistic fashion.

You've done a great job.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by dhw, Saturday, July 07, 2018, 11:47 (160 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

I am going to try and summarize the points at issue, because this thread is becoming too diffuse for me to handle! But once again, I’ll start with an apology because I continue to struggle with your terminology.

The first issue is that you keep talking about your hypothesis, but you have not told us what it is. A vast proportion of your list of scientific facts boils down to life being too complex to have evolved by chance, abiogenesis is impossible, and therefore design is the only solution. I find this argument unanswerable, and it is a major factor in my own agnosticism. (This is not the place to explain the other half of my agnosticism, which is my objections to the God theory). But this argument has nothing to do with the theory of common descent. And that is why there are many theistic evolutionists, who reject chance for the same reason as you do.

Here are some more points:
1 Stem cells that perform different functions fit in very neatly with evolution.

2 The fact that organisms have so many structures in common is strong evidence for common descent. I don’t know why you focus on minor variations such as hair colour. It is major innovations that are the problem for evolution. You are right that nobody has ever observed them, and that science has not discovered any mechanism that could invent them. David thinks his God either preprogrammed them or dabbled them. I propose cellular intelligence (possibly designed by your God), which some scientists regard as a fact, though we do not know if that intelligence stretches so far as to invent new organs. It is just a hypothesis. Now please tell us your own hypothesis.

3 “Mutations are deleterious.” If you take the word “mutation” to mean change, there is no avoiding the fact that every innovation is a mutation. Once more you are rigidly focused on chance, but if changes were designed (e.g. by your God, or by intelligent cell communities) they would not be deleterious. And Natural Selection simply preserves those that are advantageous. Again, no reason for rejecting evolution.

4 You wrote: “The theory of evolution is not the facts, but rather the story we use to connect all of the facts into a coherent thought with explanatory power.” Yes indeed. That is the case with all hypotheses. So what is yours?

5 Do you know all the laws of physics? Have you found the key to the mysteries of quantum mechanics? Have you travelled all over the universe to be able to say you know that all forms of life must obey the same laws? And how does this part of your hypothesis disprove evolution?

6 You wrote: “Further, it postulates that we will not discover any metaphysical components in our material bodies.” I’m not going to argue for metaphysics, but I’ll argue the toss against any physicist who claims that he knows for a fact that the material world is the only reality, all psychic experiences are hocus-pocus, and consciousness can be explained by our material cells.

7 Endosymbiosis: I don’t understand how two separate organisms can combine into one without each providing new information for the other, but perhaps I’d best leave this to the experts.

8 All cells communicate. All organisms are made up of cells. Yes, their language has persisted, and gives every impression of having been designed. All part of the argument against chance. But not against evolution! On the contrary, if cells have been able to communicate since the very beginning of life, that fits in with the idea that they could combine and experiment intentionally, especially when faced with challenges from the natural environment, and possibly even when a changed environment offered opportunities for innovation.

9 ..You say my hypothesis that organisms themselves may be capable of changing functions advantageously requires proof that the level of available genetic information had INCREASED, was NEW, and NOVEL. I’m afraid you’ll have to explain this to me. I assume you accept that bacteria, trilobites, etc. preceded humans. Are you saying that there has been no increase in genetic information? Nothing new? Forgive my denseness – perhaps this again boils down to your definition of information. But whatever it boils down to, I would like you to tell us your own hypothesis, and how it disproves the theory that all changes took place successively in existing organisms (= common descent).

Tony: I shared this with you, David, and George because I respect your opinions and your minds. I've been honored to converse with the three of you and have learned a tremendous amount through the research I had to do just to hold my own in these discussions. In a very real way, it is you three that have challenged me enough to force me to try and tackle this problem in a non-theistic fashion.

I see this as a kind of symbiosis! We all bring different information/opinions to the task of trying to solve the unsolvable, and I for one have benefited enormously from the discussions with you, David and many others during the 10 plus years of the website’s existence. And the respect is mutual!

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 07, 2018, 19:25 (160 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Here are some more points:

2 The fact that organisms have so many structures in common is strong evidence for common descent. It is major innovations that are the problem for evolution. You are right that nobody has ever observed them, and that science has not discovered any mechanism that could invent them. David thinks his God either preprogrammed them or dabbled them. I propose cellular intelligence (possibly designed by your God), which some scientists regard as a fact, though we do not know if that intelligence stretches so far as to invent new organs.

You are correct to limit the concept of cellular intelligence. All that is observed is the cells are programmed to act intelligently in their own interest and living activity, nothing more.


dhw: 3 “Mutations are deleterious.” If you take the word “mutation” to mean change, there is no avoiding the fact that every innovation is a mutation. Once more you are rigidly focused on chance, but if changes were designed (e.g. by your God, or by intelligent cell communities) they would not be deleterious. And Natural Selection simply preserves those that are advantageous. Again, no reason for rejecting evolution.

Natural selection is a nebulous tautology, to which you keep scurrying back, to use your terms. Certainly there is natural competition but that does not provide for speciation.


dhw: 7 Endosymbiosis: I don’t understand how two separate organisms can combine into one without each providing new information for the other, but perhaps I’d best leave this to the experts.

No new information is added to the total information in living roganisms.


dhw: 8 All cells communicate. All organisms are made up of cells. Yes, their language has persisted, and gives every impression of having been designed. All part of the argument against chance. But not against evolution! On the contrary, if cells have been able to communicate since the very beginning of life, that fits in with the idea that they could combine and experiment intentionally, especially when faced with challenges from the natural environment, and possibly even when a changed environment offered opportunities for innovation.

Cells cannot invent without a sense of purpose to understand what is required to be new in the process of development. You are granting the cells the ability of foresight!


dhw: 9 ..You say my hypothesis that organisms themselves may be capable of changing functions advantageously requires proof that the level of available genetic information had INCREASED, was NEW, and NOVEL. I’m afraid you’ll have to explain this to me.I assume you accept that bacteria, trilobites, etc. preceded humans. Are you saying that there has been no increase in genetic information? Nothing new?

Mutations generally destroy existing information, which is why I say God programmed everything into the beginning of life. When He dabbled it was not to increase information.

Please forgive me for sneaking into a discussion with Tony to express my thinking.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by dhw, Sunday, July 08, 2018, 11:55 (159 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Here are some more points:
2 The fact that organisms have so many structures in common is strong evidence for common descent. It is major innovations that are the problem for evolution. You are right that nobody has ever observed them, and that science has not discovered any mechanism that could invent them. David thinks his God either preprogrammed them or dabbled them. I propose cellular intelligence (possibly designed by your God), which some scientists regard as a fact, though we do not know if that intelligence stretches so far as to invent new organs.

DAVID: You are correct to limit the concept of cellular intelligence. All that is observed is the cells are programmed to act intelligently in their own interest and living activity, nothing more.

Yes, it is a hypothesis, no more observable than the hypothesis that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. But at least the basic premise of intelligence IS observable, through the manner in which organisms adapt, and the manner in which single cells (bacteria) are able to solve new problems.

dhw: 3 “Mutations are deleterious.” If you take the word “mutation” to mean change, there is no avoiding the fact that every innovation is a mutation. Once more you are rigidly focused on chance, but if changes were designed (e.g. by your God, or by intelligent cell communities) they would not be deleterious. And Natural Selection simply preserves those that are advantageous. Again, no reason for rejecting evolution.

DAVID: Natural selection is a nebulous tautology, to which you keep scurrying back, to use your terms. Certainly there is natural competition but that does not provide for speciation.

Of course it doesn’t, and I didn’t say it did! It is non-creative and “simply preserves those [innovations] that are advantageous.” Please stop erecting straw men.

dhw: 7 Endosymbiosis: I don’t understand how two separate organisms can combine into one without each providing new information for the other, but perhaps I’d best leave this to the experts.

DAVID: No new information is added to the total information in living organisms.

I don’t understand what you and Tony mean by "information", so let me extend the discussion beyond endosymbiosis to ALL organisms Once there was no such thing as organisms with brain, sexual reproduction, liver. So when they first appeared, did they add nothing new to the information available to their predecessors? See also below.

dhw: 8 All cells communicate. All organisms are made up of cells. Yes, their language has persisted, and gives every impression of having been designed. All part of the argument against chance. But not against evolution! On the contrary, if cells have been able to communicate since the very beginning of life, that fits in with the idea that they could combine and experiment intentionally, especially when faced with challenges from the natural environment, and possibly even when a changed environment offered opportunities for innovation.

DAVID: Cells cannot invent without a sense of purpose to understand what is required to be new in the process of development. You are granting the cells the ability of foresight!

We know that cells can react to different environments by making changes to themselves. And I am suggesting (it’s a hypothesis) that their reactions may even extend to finding new ways of using environmental change to their advantage through changes that go beyond simple adaptation. Not so much foresight as inventiveness, not predicting the changes to their living conditions, but reacting to them inventively – just as we humans do.

dhw: 9 ..You say my hypothesis that organisms themselves may be capable of changing functions advantageously requires proof that the level of available genetic information had INCREASED, was NEW, and NOVEL. I’m afraid you’ll have to explain this to me.I assume you accept that bacteria, trilobites, etc. preceded humans. Are you saying that there has been no increase in genetic information? Nothing new?

DAVID: Mutations generally destroy existing information, which is why I say God programmed everything into the beginning of life. When He dabbled it was not to increase information.

Firstly, mutation in the sense of “change” doesn’t destroy existing “information” but in my interpretation of the word adds to it when it actually works. But once again I don’t understand your use of “information”. If your God dabbled to design the weaverbird’s nest, he added to the information about how to build knotty nests. “Here’s what you do, weavy – you tie a knot here. And a knot there.” “Oh, I didn’t know that!” said the bird. “You have added to the information I had about nest-building.” But of course by definition, if your God knows everything, then no information can be added to your God’s knowledge. That is very different from saying that he does not increase the amount of information contained in the cell communities he dabbled with or preprogrammed.

DAVID: Please forgive me for sneaking into a discussion with Tony to express my thinking.

Absolutely nothing to forgive. We are all in this together!

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 08, 2018, 22:35 (158 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Here are some more points:
2 The fact that organisms have so many structures in common is strong evidence for common descent. It is major innovations that are the problem for evolution. You are right that nobody has ever observed them, and that science has not discovered any mechanism that could invent them. David thinks his God either preprogrammed them or dabbled them. I propose cellular intelligence (possibly designed by your God), which some scientists regard as a fact, though we do not know if that intelligence stretches so far as to invent new organs.

DAVID: You are correct to limit the concept of cellular intelligence. All that is observed is the cells are programmed to act intelligently in their own interest and living activity, nothing more.

Yes, it is a hypothesis, no more observable than the hypothesis that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. But at least the basic premise of intelligence IS observable, through the manner in which organisms adapt, and the manner in which single cells (bacteria) are able to solve new problems.

I still disagree. All that is seen is cells react with intelligent responses, which could be programmed


dhw: 3 “Mutations are deleterious.” If you take the word “mutation” to mean change, there is no avoiding the fact that every innovation is a mutation. Once more you are rigidly focused on chance, but if changes were designed (e.g. by your God, or by intelligent cell communities) they would not be deleterious. And Natural Selection simply preserves those that are advantageous. Again, no reason for rejecting evolution.

DAVID: Natural selection is a nebulous tautology, to which you keep scurrying back, to use your terms. Certainly there is natural competition but that does not provide for speciation.

dhw: Of course it doesn’t, and I didn’t say it did! It is non-creative and “simply preserves those [innovations] that are advantageous.” Please stop erecting straw men.

Not a straw man. We don't know that it preserves anything. It is circular reasoning.


dhw: 7 Endosymbiosis: I don’t understand how two separate organisms can combine into one without each providing new information for the other, but perhaps I’d best leave this to the experts.

DAVID: No new information is added to the total information in living organisms.

dhw: I don’t understand what you and Tony mean by "information", so let me extend the discussion beyond endosymbiosis to ALL organisms Once there was no such thing as organisms with brain, sexual reproduction, liver. So when they first appeared, did they add nothing new to the information available to their predecessors? See also below.

It is stated that all mutations remove genetic information


DAVID: Cells cannot invent without a sense of purpose to understand what is required to be new in the process of development. You are granting the cells the ability of foresight!

dhw: We know that cells can react to different environments by making changes to themselves. And I am suggesting (it’s a hypothesis) that their reactions may even extend to finding new ways of using environmental change to their advantage through changes that go beyond simple adaptation. Not so much foresight as inventiveness, not predicting the changes to their living conditions, but reacting to them inventively – just as we humans do.

This again is the itty-bitty steps of Darwinism


dhw: 9 ..You say my hypothesis that organisms themselves may be capable of changing functions advantageously requires proof that the level of available genetic information had INCREASED, was NEW, and NOVEL. I’m afraid you’ll have to explain this to me.I assume you accept that bacteria, trilobites, etc. preceded humans. Are you saying that there has been no increase in genetic information? Nothing new?

DAVID: Mutations generally destroy existing information, which is why I say God programmed everything into the beginning of life. When He dabbled it was not to increase information.

dhw: Firstly, mutation in the sense of “change” doesn’t destroy existing “information” but in my interpretation of the word adds to it when it actually works. But once again I don’t understand your use of “information”.

See above. Mutations remove information that once existed in the genome, according to the experts.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by dhw, Monday, July 09, 2018, 12:26 (158 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are correct to limit the concept of cellular intelligence. All that is observed is the cells are programmed to act intelligently in their own interest and living activity, nothing more.

Dhw: Yes, it is a hypothesis, no more observable than the hypothesis that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. But at least the basic premise of intelligence IS observable, through the manner in which organisms adapt, and the manner in which single cells (bacteria) are able to solve new problems.

DAVID: I still disagree. All that is seen is cells react with intelligent responses, which could be programmed.

“Could be” programmed. And “could be” the product of autonomous intelligence. 50/50. That’s good enough for the hypothesis to be taken seriously.

dhw: 3 “Mutations are deleterious.” If you take the word “mutation” to mean change, there is no avoiding the fact that every innovation is a mutation. Once more you are rigidly focused on chance, but if changes were designed (e.g. by your God, or by intelligent cell communities) they would not be deleterious. And Natural Selection simply preserves those that are advantageous. Again, no reason for rejecting evolution.
DAVID: Natural selection is a nebulous tautology, to which you keep scurrying back, to use your terms. Certainly there is natural competition but that does not provide for speciation.
dhw: Of course it doesn’t, and I didn’t say it did! It is non-creative and “simply preserves those [innovations] that are advantageous.” Please stop erecting straw men.
DAVID: Not a straw man. We don't know that it preserves anything. It is circular reasoning.

I keep agreeing that it is circular reasoning, but that is not a reason for rejecting the theory of evolution! Not worth arguing about.

dhw: 7 Endosymbiosis: I don’t understand how two separate organisms can combine into one without each providing new information for the other, but perhaps I’d best leave this to the experts.
DAVID: No new information is added to the total information in living organisms.
dhw: I don’t understand what you and Tony mean by "information", so let me extend the discussion beyond endosymbiosis to ALL organisms Once there was no such thing as organisms with brain, sexual reproduction, liver. So when they first appeared, did they add nothing new to the information available to their predecessors?
DAVID: It is stated that all mutations remove genetic information.

That is not an answer to my question. (See also below)

DAVID: Cells cannot invent without a sense of purpose to understand what is required to be new in the process of development. You are granting the cells the ability of foresight!
dhw: We know that cells can react to different environments by making changes to themselves. And I am suggesting (it’s a hypothesis) that their reactions may even extend to finding new ways of using environmental change to their advantage through changes that go beyond simple adaptation. Not so much foresight as inventiveness, not predicting the changes to their living conditions, but reacting to them inventively – just as we humans do.
DAVID: This again is the itty-bitty steps of Darwinism.

We have long since agreed that Darin’s gradualism and rejection of saltations is wrong (and so did some of his contemporaries). That does not invalidate the theory of common descent. Nor does it invalidate my hypothesis.

dhw: 9 ..You say my hypothesis that organisms themselves may be capable of changing functions advantageously requires proof that the level of available genetic information had INCREASED, was NEW, and NOVEL. I’m afraid you’ll have to explain this to me.I assume you accept that bacteria, trilobites, etc. preceded humans. Are you saying that there has been no increase in genetic information? Nothing new?
DAVID: Mutations generally destroy existing information, which is why I say God programmed everything into the beginning of life. When He dabbled it was not to increase information.
dhw: Firstly, mutation in the sense of “change” doesn’t destroy existing “information” but in my interpretation of the word adds to it when it actually works. But once again I don’t understand your use of “information”.
DAVID: See above. Mutations remove information that once existed in the genome, according to the experts.

You keep harping on about information and sticking rigidly to the specialized use of the word mutation. That is understandable, but you can hardly deny that evolution involves change (another meaning of the word mutation). Please answer the question I asked above: did the first brain not add “information” to that which existed in brainless organisms?

And just to clarify, with regard to your own use of “mutations”, although I am as opposed as you are to the random form being a driving force of evolution, it is worth noting that they are not all harmful and some may be beneficial
https://genetics.thetech.org/about-genetics/mutations-and-disease

QUOTE: Few mutations are bad for you. In fact, some mutations can be beneficial. Over time, genetic mutations create genetic diversity, which keeps populations healthy. Many mutations have no effect at all. These are called silent mutations.
But the mutations we hear about most often are the ones that cause disease.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by David Turell @, Monday, July 09, 2018, 15:23 (158 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You keep harping on about information and sticking rigidly to the specialized use of the word mutation. That is understandable, but you can hardly deny that evolution involves change (another meaning of the word mutation). Please answer the question I asked above: did the first brain not add “information” to that which existed in brainless organisms?

See Tony's explanation. A brain is not information. It is an object and it came from existing information in original DNA.


dhw: And just to clarify, with regard to your own use of “mutations”, although I am as opposed as you are to the random form being a driving force of evolution, it is worth noting that they are not all harmful and some may be beneficial

https://genetics.thetech.org/about-genetics/mutations-and-disease

Good mutations and bad come from a loss of information in DNA

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 03, 2018, 19:43 (164 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Agreed.

5 There is no known natural process for increasing biological information.

Yes there is: endosymbiosis. But in any case, how do you define increasing biological information? If an organism is able to adapt its body to new information coming from the environment, how can it do so without adding biological information? Millions of bacteria may be killed by new antibiotics, but somehow eventually they find a biological way to counter the threat. Why does this not count as increasing biological information? And how can we know the limitations of cells to restructure themselves in the face of environmental change? (Continued…)

Endosymbiosis does not increase biologic information. The info already pre-exists in the symbiotic organism. It is simply added to its host.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by dhw, Wednesday, July 04, 2018, 11:23 (163 days ago) @ David Turell

TONY: 5 There is no known natural process for increasing biological information.

dhw: Yes there is: endosymbiosis. But in any case, how do you define increasing biological information? If an organism is able to adapt its body to new information coming from the environment, how can it do so without adding biological information? Millions of bacteria may be killed by new antibiotics, but somehow eventually they find a biological way to counter the threat. Why does this not count as increasing biological information? And how can we know the limitations of cells to restructure themselves in the face of environmental change?

DAVID: Endosymbiosis does not increase biologic information. The info already pre-exists in the symbiotic organism. It is simply added to its host.

As I understand it – but I’m open to correction – the “symbiotic organism” is a merger between two organisms, the one living inside the other, which exchange biological information, each to the other’s benefit (in those cases where the merger is beneficial to both parties). If one set of biological information is “added” to another, doesn’t that mean an increase?

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 04, 2018, 17:35 (163 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: 5 There is no known natural process for increasing biological information.

dhw: Yes there is: endosymbiosis. But in any case, how do you define increasing biological information? If an organism is able to adapt its body to new information coming from the environment, how can it do so without adding biological information? Millions of bacteria may be killed by new antibiotics, but somehow eventually they find a biological way to counter the threat. Why does this not count as increasing biological information? And how can we know the limitations of cells to restructure themselves in the face of environmental change?

DAVID: Endosymbiosis does not increase biologic information. The info already pre-exists in the symbiotic organism. It is simply added to its host.

dhw: As I understand it – but I’m open to correction – the “symbiotic organism” is a merger between two organisms, the one living inside the other, which exchange biological information, each to the other’s benefit (in those cases where the merger is beneficial to both parties). If one set of biological information is “added” to another, doesn’t that mean an increase?

The amount of total information used in life does not change, but the two symbiotic organisms add to each other, as you state.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, July 06, 2018, 17:02 (161 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: 5 There is no known natural process for increasing biological information.

dhw: Yes there is: endosymbiosis. But in any case, how do you define increasing biological information? If an organism is able to adapt its body to new information coming from the environment, how can it do so without adding biological information? Millions of bacteria may be killed by new antibiotics, but somehow eventually they find a biological way to counter the threat. Why does this not count as increasing biological information? And how can we know the limitations of cells to restructure themselves in the face of environmental change?

DAVID: Endosymbiosis does not increase biologic information. The info already pre-exists in the symbiotic organism. It is simply added to its host.

As I understand it – but I’m open to correction – the “symbiotic organism” is a merger between two organisms, the one living inside the other, which exchange biological information, each to the other’s benefit (in those cases where the merger is beneficial to both parties). If one set of biological information is “added” to another, doesn’t that mean an increase?

No, because:

  • Symbiosis does not mean that genetic information was shared between parties.
  • There is no indication that Symbiosis increases the genetic information in either organism
  • If either party were to 'evolve' it would likely break the symbiotic nature of their relationship. Natural symbiosis works more like a trade deal then a research agreement, at least according to the observed data.

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Friday, July 06, 2018, 21:37 (160 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: 5 There is no known natural process for increasing biological information.

dhw: Yes there is: endosymbiosis. But in any case, how do you define increasing biological information? If an organism is able to adapt its body to new information coming from the environment, how can it do so without adding biological information? Millions of bacteria may be killed by new antibiotics, but somehow eventually they find a biological way to counter the threat. Why does this not count as increasing biological information? And how can we know the limitations of cells to restructure themselves in the face of environmental change?

DAVID: Endosymbiosis does not increase biologic information. The info already pre-exists in the symbiotic organism. It is simply added to its host.

dhw: As I understand it – but I’m open to correction – the “symbiotic organism” is a merger between two organisms, the one living inside the other, which exchange biological information, each to the other’s benefit (in those cases where the merger is beneficial to both parties). If one set of biological information is “added” to another, doesn’t that mean an increase?


Tony: No, because:

  • Symbiosis does not mean that genetic information was shared between parties.
  • There is no indication that Symbiosis increases the genetic information in either organism
  • If either party were to 'evolve' it would likely break the symbiotic nature of their relationship. Natural symbiosis works more like a trade deal then a research agreement, at least according to the observed data.

Right on!

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, July 06, 2018, 08:29 (161 days ago) @ dhw

I saw the question "How does this [negate] evolution a lot. So let me make a blanket response to that. First and foremost, there are some points in this framework that are directly contradictory to evolution, such as the lack of new information and that common decent can not account for the reuse of specific code functions, which is why they keep having to redesign the family bush. Many of the points are there to expand THIS hypothesis, not to counter evolution. Point of fact, if this theory were proven correct, evolution would crumble under it's own weight. I wouldn't have to waste breath countering it because the observable facts would do that for me.


Framework
1 DNA is a modular information project, wherein each chunk of genetic information (Gene) contains the instruction for a particular specified Function.
• 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.

DHW: I have to relate this to living organisms, and if one gene with a particular specified function can have variables, why should there not also be potential for variation within whole communities of cells? How variable can a variable be? The potential for variation is a key factor in evolution. I wish I knew more about stem cells, which apparently are capable of performing a wide variety of functions.

To answer the last first, stem cells are technically unprogrammed cells. Which actually works well with this hypothesis. As to the question of variable domain, I think that depends on the variable. We know, for instance, that there are only a small handful of hair colors that appear in humans. We also know that this variable is typically conserved during procreation. What we don't know, that I am aware of, is how the color pigmentation is controlled at the genetic level. In order to know the domain, we would first have to know which functions controlled it, and what other mechanisms were involved that altered the output of those functions in order to begin to describe what the domain is. Interestingly enough, nearly all natural human hair colors could be described in 2-3 variables.

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.

DHW: More important for what? You say “largely conserved”, which is obviously true when we look at the many features that different species have in common (regarded as evidence of common descent). But it’s the changes in function design (the bits outside the “largely”) that evolutionists believe result in existing organisms becoming new species (= descent).

And it is those precise changes in function design that evolution CAN'T handle, despite its claims. There is NO mechanism for adding NEW information to DNA that we have ever observed. None. Mutations are deleterious the vast majority of times, mutations can not account for changes that must be concurrent and fully functioning because not fully functioning typically means death, which means Natural Selection should actually PREVENT creatures from evolving. If anything, it's function (as a principle) would be to conserve genetic integrity by killing off genetic mutations. The vast number of things that must happen 'just so' in order for any organism to live are simply too complex for chance. Saying that it happened because they exist is illogical.


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.

DHW: Perhaps you could explain which laws of physics they are subject to, in order to show why evolution doesn’t fit.

Not every point is explicitly designed to undermine evolution. The theory of evolution is not the facts, but rather the story we use to connect all of the facts into a coherrent thought with explanatory power. Biochemistry has taught us that DNA does indeed follow the rules of chemistry, which as any chemist will tell you, is subject to all the laws of the physical world (i.e. physics).

This statement provides predictive power. If we were to find life elsewhere, their biomachinery would also be subject to the same laws of physics that we know, even if the form their life took was completely different to our own. Further, it postulates that we will not discover any metaphysical components in our material bodies.

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.

I don’t understand the second point, but endosymbiosis runs directly counter to your first point, and again is an important factor in modern evolutionary theory.

No, it doesn't. Mitochondria, for example, are suspected of having been seperate organisms (I do not care to speculate on that), and they have their own DNA. Their DNA functions like all other DNA, but it doesn't add NEW information to the cell. That information originated with the mitochondria, is conserved by the mitochondria, and to our knowledge, is not integrated into the host cell.

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Friday, July 06, 2018, 20:02 (161 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: And it is those precise changes in function design that evolution CAN'T handle, despite its claims. There is NO mechanism for adding NEW information to DNA that we have ever observed. None. Mutations are deleterious the vast majority of times, mutations can not account for changes that must be concurrent and fully functioning because not fully functioning typically means death, which means Natural Selection should actually PREVENT creatures from evolving. If anything, it's function (as a principle) would be to conserve genetic integrity by killing off genetic mutations. The vast number of things that must happen 'just so' in order for any organism to live are simply too complex for chance. Saying that it happened because they exist is illogical.

This is a key observation. To me it means God coded every bit of necessary information from the beginning.


dhw: I don’t understand the second point, but endosymbiosis runs directly counter to your first point, and again is an important factor in modern evolutionary theory.


tony: No, it doesn't. Mitochondria, for example, are suspected of having been seperate organisms (I do not care to speculate on that), and they have their own DNA. Their DNA functions like all other DNA, but it doesn't add NEW information to the cell. That information originated with the mitochondria, is conserved by the mitochondria, and to our knowledge, is not integrated into the host cell.

My recent entry states the mitochondria directly influence the nucleus.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Saturday, July 07, 2018, 03:15 (160 days ago) @ David Turell

Tony: And it is those precise changes in function design that evolution CAN'T handle, despite its claims. There is NO mechanism for adding NEW information to DNA that we have ever observed. None. Mutations are deleterious the vast majority of times, mutations can not account for changes that must be concurrent and fully functioning because not fully functioning typically means death, which means Natural Selection should actually PREVENT creatures from evolving. If anything, it's function (as a principle) would be to conserve genetic integrity by killing off genetic mutations. The vast number of things that must happen 'just so' in order for any organism to live are simply too complex for chance. Saying that it happened because they exist is illogical.


This is a key observation. To me it means God coded every bit of necessary information from the beginning.


dhw: I don’t understand the second point, but endosymbiosis runs directly counter to your first point, and again is an important factor in modern evolutionary theory.


tony: No, it doesn't. Mitochondria, for example, are suspected of having been seperate organisms (I do not care to speculate on that), and they have their own DNA. Their DNA functions like all other DNA, but it doesn't add NEW information to the cell. That information originated with the mitochondria, is conserved by the mitochondria, and to our knowledge, is not integrated into the host cell.


David: My recent entry states the mitochondria directly influence the nucleus.

The genetic code used by all life only consists of 64 nucleotide triplets across all life as we know it, and those 64 nucleotide triplets are reused extensively. These nucleotide triplets are read to create proteins from amino acids. Evolutionary theory calls these "Highly Conserved", referencing common decent, but this hypothesis does not need that story. Under this hypothesis, genes, proteins, microproteins, amino acids, histones, etc are EXPECTED to appear in a wide variety of organisms. The fact that the cell nucleus contains many of the same genes is about and extraordinary as saying many words in the English language use 'ing' somewhere in their formation. Of course they do! Why wouldn't they? That is ONLY surprising if you are starting from the premise of evolution by common descent and random mutation. In other words, the fact that both mitochondria and the cell nucleus contain some of the same genetic code is expected, even predicted, by this hypothesis, and needs no unobserved fictional love story to explain them. They are there because the cell(as a whole) and mitochondria share certain requirements, and thus contain the code for those requirements.

Mitochondria present a lot of challenges for the theory of evolution, creating as many problems as they solve. However, these are ONLY problems for evolution. As a matter of design, it makes perfect sense that the four primary types of mitochondria are used ubiquitously throughout all life because all life needs energy, and four basic solutions were all that were needed to fit most every environment, and largely differ in the amount of energy they produce. As an experiment, one could exchange the mitochondria of two organisms that use different types of mitochondria and observe the results. My thought is that death would be the result, either by extreme ATP deficiency or an over-abundance of ATP that the host cell is not able to accomodate. The differences in ATP production are rather large, as are the environmental requirements for each type. It is acknowledged that mitochondria seems to be based more on environmental needs than species, which is also in accordance with 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: pt 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 07, 2018, 15:38 (160 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

dhw: I don’t understand the second point, but endosymbiosis runs directly counter to your first point, and again is an important factor in modern evolutionary theory.


tony: No, it doesn't. Mitochondria, for example, are suspected of having been seperate organisms (I do not care to speculate on that), and they have their own DNA. Their DNA functions like all other DNA, but it doesn't add NEW information to the cell. That information originated with the mitochondria, is conserved by the mitochondria, and to our knowledge, is not integrated into the host cell.


David: My recent entry states the mitochondria directly influence the nucleus.


Tony: The genetic code used by all life only consists of 64 nucleotide triplets across all life as we know it, and those 64 nucleotide triplets are reused extensively. These nucleotide triplets are read to create proteins from amino acids. Evolutionary theory calls these "Highly Conserved", referencing common decent, but this hypothesis does not need that story. Under this hypothesis, genes, proteins, microproteins, amino acids, histones, etc are EXPECTED to appear in a wide variety of organisms. The fact that the cell nucleus contains many of the same genes is about and extraordinary as saying many words in the English language use 'ing' somewhere in their formation. Of course they do! Why wouldn't they? That is ONLY surprising if you are starting from the premise of evolution by common descent and random mutation. In other words, the fact that both mitochondria and the cell nucleus contain some of the same genetic code is expected, even predicted, by this hypothesis, and needs no unobserved fictional love story to explain them. They are there because the cell(as a whole) and mitochondria share certain requirements, and thus contain the code for those requirements.


Mitochondria present a lot of challenges for the theory of evolution, creating as many problems as they solve. However, these are ONLY problems for evolution. As a matter of design, it makes perfect sense that the four primary types of mitochondria are used ubiquitously throughout all life because all life needs energy, and four basic solutions were all that were needed to fit most every environment, and largely differ in the amount of energy they produce. As an experiment, one could exchange the mitochondria of two organisms that use different types of mitochondria and observe the results. My thought is that death would be the result, either by extreme ATP deficiency or an over-abundance of ATP that the host cell is not able to accomodate. The differences in ATP production are rather large, as are the environmental requirements for each type. It is acknowledged that mitochondria seems to be based more on environmental needs than species, which is also in accordance with my hypothesis.

Your great discussion of mitochondria goes to support my design theories, although I understand that is not your intent.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, July 09, 2018, 04:23 (158 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

First off, I'd like to remind all there there is aPart I to my hypothesis.
I will try to address all the points I can, but DHW, for brevity, I am condensing your points. Apologies in advance if I miss a point here, but if I do, please give me a concise question to answer.

DHW Problem I: This #point doesn't undermine evolution!

Darwin's theory fit the evidence as they knew it at the time. Darwin was brilliant in his observations, and his conclusions were very reasonable. However, we have learned things, made observations, and collected and collated volumes of data the likes of which Darwin could scarce imagine. Common Descent has more holes than finely aged swiss cheese; in terms of dating, timescales, informational complexity, cross-species conserved genes that make the phylogenic tree unmappable under Evolutionary theory because it would require genetic loops or concurrent/convergent evolution among disparate species in order to explain why creatures have certain genes. We can witness the mental gymnastics required just by examining how many times the bushy tree of life has needed to be restructured and how many outliers there are.

Every point I make is not meant to undermine evolution. The data undermines evolution just fine. Every point I make is meant to provide a logical, testable, repeatable, falsifiable observation based approach to biology that furthers the idea that DNA is a designed language. As a designed language, it is fundamentally incompatible with Darwinian evolution.

That is not to say that everything we have discovered using evolutionary theory is wrong, either. Much of the data, the observations, and a lot the real rubber-meets-the-road science
is valid science, and the results of such experiments must be able to be explained under this new hypothetical model. The rules that we have observed indicate that speciation on the scale needed for evolution by common descent, fueled by random mutations and filtered through natural selection can not produce life as we know it.

On Information

What David and I are referring to as 'information' is more than just random gibberish. It is:

Data that is (1) accurate and timely, (2) specific and organized for a purpose, (3) >presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) can lead to an >increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty.


Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/information.html

Specificity, Purpose, Context, Meaning, Relevance, Decrease in Uncertainty.

You could write AGCT infinitely in a random string and eventually come out with every gene every discovered....but most of what you get is garbage. However, we know that strands of DNA are not random. They are specific. They code specific proteins in specific ways, in order to fill a biological purpose, in the context of the species and environment in which they exist. They have meaning to the cellular machinery, in that they convey instructions on how to perform tasks that are relevant to the functions of living.

By definition, DNA is information. The one thing not covered so far is how complex that information is. If DNA were the result of random mutations, where is all the the noise (random non-sense) in the signal (DNA information strand)? Not only is there virtually no signal noise in any known genome, the information stored shows a high degree of complexity.

Biological complexity refers to a measure of the intricateness,
or complication, of a biological organism that is
directly related to that organism’s ability to successfully
function in a complex environment. Because organismal
complexity is difficult to define, several different measures
of complexity are often used as proxies for biological complexity,
such as structural, functional, or sequence complexity.
While the complexity of single proteins can be
estimated using tools from information theory, a whole
organism’s biological complexity is reflected in its set of
expressed proteins and its interactions, whereas the complexity
of an ecosystem is summarized by the network of
interacting species and their interaction with the environment.


You could say that the number of proteins that a genome can code for is the sum of its complexity, but obviously, the organisms overall environment, the interactions within it, and the ability to detect and respond to changes within the environment increases the complexity greatly. Evolution can not explain the specificity, the complexity, nor the utter lack of signal noise in something generated from supposedly random mutations.

My hypothesis differs because it starts by positing: The information contained within any genome is, and must be, too complex, too specific, and too ubiquitous to be produced by random chance and natural selection. DNA is a designed language that transcends species, environments, and phenotype, universally found in every living creature. Each gene is programmed in this language for a purpose, behaving as a Function (an algorithm that takes an input and returns an output). It is a language written in chemistry. Physically, it is subject to the laws of chemistry, and by extension the laws of physics. Informationally, it follows what few laws we understand from Information Theory.

--
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 2

by dhw, Monday, July 09, 2018, 12:34 (158 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

tony: First off, I'd like to remind all there there is a Part I to my hypothesis.

My initial response contained comments on both parts of your hypothesis.

tony: I will try to address all the points I can, but DHW, for brevity, I am condensing your points. Apologies in advance if I miss a point here, but if I do, please give me a concise question to answer.

I will also condense.
dhw: Problem I: This #point doesn't undermine evolution!

TONY: [...] The data undermines evolution just fine. Every point I make is meant to provide a logical, testable, repeatable, falsifiable observation based approach to biology that furthers the idea that DNA is a designed language. As a designed language, it is fundamentally incompatible with Darwinian evolution. […] The rules that we have observed indicate that speciation on the scale needed for evolution by common descent, fueled by random mutations and filtered through natural selection can not produce life as we know it.

The argument against chance seems to be the main thrust of your hypothesis: the complexity of DNA and of all the changes needed for speciation. This, of course, is the basis of the whole “Intelligent Design” movement, and I for one agree. It is a major factor in my own agnosticism. And I know David agrees too, as he has written two brilliant books on the subject. But this argument does not in any way invalidate the theory that all organisms have evolved from earlier organisms – not by the methods that Darwin proposed, but by design: your God’s preprogramming and dabbling, according to David; the inventive intelligence of cells/cell communities, according to my alternative hypothesis, with your God as the possible designer of this inventive intelligence.

TONY: On Information
What David and I are referring to as 'information' is more than just random gibberish. It is:
Data that is (1) accurate and timely, (2) specific and organized for a purpose, (3) >presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) can lead to an >increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/information.html
Specificity, Purpose, Context, Meaning, Relevance, Decrease in Uncertainty.
If DNA were the result of random mutations, where is all the noise (random non-sense) in the signal (DNA information strand)? Not only is there virtually no signal noise in any known genome, the information stored shows a high degree of complexity.

The same argument. I agree, and I’m sure David also agrees. Once more it all boils down to an attack on random mutations. That does not invalidate the theory of evolution by design! I also agree with your description of information, and still cannot understand why innovations such as the brain, sexual reproduction etc. cannot be said to add specificity, purpose, context, meaning etc. to the brainlessness and asexuality that preceded them.

TONY: Evolution can not explain the specificity, the complexity, nor the utter lack of signal noise in something generated from supposedly random mutations.
My hypothesis differs because it starts by positing: The information contained within any genome is, and must be, too complex, too specific, and too ubiquitous to be produced by random chance and natural selection.

Your attack on evolution is an attack on chance. Your alternative appears to be design. Many theists believe in evolution as a process designed by their God.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by David Turell @, Monday, July 09, 2018, 15:31 (158 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The same argument. I agree, and I’m sure David also agrees. Once more it all boils down to an attack on random mutations. That does not invalidate the theory of evolution by design! I also agree with your description of information, and still cannot understand why innovations such as the brain, sexual reproduction etc. cannot be said to add specificity, purpose, context, meaning etc. to the brainlessness and asexuality that preceded them.

You are confusing advances in complexity with information which produces the complexity. Complexity occurs but information is not added, only altered. Humans are highly complex, but their DNA is smaller than many organisms.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by dhw, Tuesday, July 10, 2018, 10:51 (157 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You keep harping on about information and sticking rigidly to the specialized use of the word mutation. That is understandable, but you can hardly deny that evolution involves change (another meaning of the word mutation). Please answer the question I asked above: did the first brain not add “information” to that which existed in brainless organisms?

DAVID: See Tony's explanation. A brain is not information. It is an object and it came from existing information in original DNA.

Tony’s explanation of information is specificity, purpose, context, meaning etc., and DNA is a designed language, and each gene has a specific function. Of course the brain is an object. But if the brain never existed before, and then gets passed on to future generations, does it not contain specific, purposeful, meaningful genetic information that was not present in brainless organisms?

dhw: The same argument. I agree, and I’m sure David also agrees. Once more it all boils down to an attack on random mutations. That does not invalidate the theory of evolution by design! I also agree with your description of information, and still cannot understand why innovations such as the brain, sexual reproduction etc. cannot be said to add specificity, purpose, context, meaning etc. to the brainlessness and asexuality that preceded them.

DAVID: You are confusing advances in complexity with information which produces the complexity. Complexity occurs but information is not added, only altered. Humans are highly complex, but their DNA is smaller than many organisms.

First of all, I must say I am surprised that as a theistic evolutionist yourself, you are not prepared to defend your view of divinely designed evolution, or perhaps like me you are waiting for more details of Tony’s alternative.

I find the whole discussion on “information” as confusing as ever, and this may be due to my unfamiliarity with scientific jargon. However, I am here to learn. As above, I don’t understand why a new organ cannot contain and pass on information that did not exist before. So please define exactly what YOU mean by information. (Tony’s definition was the above list of nouns, but one can always introduce new meanings, functions, purposes.) DNA is not information. It is a substance that carries information. Why can't it carry new information? I don’t understand the relevance of your final remark. But perhaps all this will become clear when you give me your definition of information!

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 11, 2018, 01:41 (156 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are confusing advances in complexity with information which produces the complexity. Complexity occurs but information is not added, only altered. Humans are highly complex, but their DNA is smaller than many organisms.

dhw First of all, I must say I am surprised that as a theistic evolutionist yourself, you are not prepared to defend your view of divinely designed evolution, or perhaps like me you are waiting for more details of Tony’s alternative.

I have defended it. I have noted that mutations removed information even though increased complexity may appear. Following that point to its logical conclusion, life started with DNA loaded with all the information it might ever need.


dhw: I find the whole discussion on “information” as confusing as ever, and this may be due to my unfamiliarity with scientific jargon. However, I am here to learn. As above, I don’t understand why a new organ cannot contain and pass on information that did not exist before. So please define exactly what YOU mean by information. (Tony’s definition was the above list of nouns, but one can always introduce new meanings, functions, purposes.) DNA is not information. It is a substance that carries information. Why can't it carry new information? I don’t understand the relevance of your final remark. But perhaps all this will become clear when you give me your definition of information!

The genome is a code which carries all the information needed for life. But it is much more than simply making proteins. and there are other factors in the mix. In embryology I've presented that electric changes, physical forces such as position, pressure from other cells, clumps of stem cells that recognize they are in liver position and they change to become all the different liver cells. As you revert to your experts (Buehler), I refer to mine: Mutations remove information.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by dhw, Wednesday, July 11, 2018, 12:05 (156 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are confusing advances in complexity with information which produces the complexity. Complexity occurs but information is not added, only altered. Humans are highly complex, but their DNA is smaller than many organisms.

dhw First of all, I must say I am surprised that as a theistic evolutionist yourself, you are not prepared to defend your view of divinely designed evolution, or perhaps like me you are waiting for more details of Tony’s alternative.

DAVID: I have defended it. I have noted that mutations removed information even though increased complexity may appear. Following that point to its logical conclusion, life started with DNA loaded with all the information it might ever need.

How does this answer Tony’s claim that the theory of evolution itself is invalid because it depends entirely on random mutations? I thought you believed in evolution designed and guided by God.

dhw: I find the whole discussion on “information” as confusing as ever, and this may be due to my unfamiliarity with scientific jargon. However, I am here to learn. As above, I don’t understand why a new organ cannot contain and pass on information that did not exist before. So please define exactly what YOU mean by information. (Tony’s definition was the above list of nouns, but one can always introduce new meanings, functions, purposes.) DNA is not information. It is a substance that carries information. Why can't it carry new information? I don’t understand the relevance of your final remark. But perhaps all this will become clear when you give me your definition of information!

DAVID: The genome is a code which carries all the information needed for life. But it is much more than simply making proteins. and there are other factors in the mix. In embryology I've presented that electric changes, physical forces such as position, pressure from other cells, clumps of stem cells that recognize they are in liver position and they change to become all the different liver cells. As you revert to your experts (Buehler), I refer to mine: Mutations remove information.

How does all this mean that the first brain cannot contain “information” that was not already present in brainless organisms? Why won’t you give me your definition of “information”?

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 11, 2018, 18:25 (156 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I have defended it. I have noted that mutations removed information even though increased complexity may appear. Following that point to its logical conclusion, life started with DNA loaded with all the information it might ever need.

dhw: How does this answer Tony’s claim that the theory of evolution itself is invalid because it depends entirely on random mutations? I thought you believed in evolution designed and guided by God.

My approach: Guided by God with all the information/instructions provided at the beginning of life fits Tony and not the theory of random mutations driving anything.


dhw: I find the whole discussion on “information” as confusing as ever, and this may be due to my unfamiliarity with scientific jargon. However, I am here to learn. As above, I don’t understand why a new organ cannot contain and pass on information that did not exist before. So please define exactly what YOU mean by information. (Tony’s definition was the above list of nouns, but one can always introduce new meanings, functions, purposes.) DNA is not information. It is a substance that carries information. Why can't it carry new information? I don’t understand the relevance of your final remark. But perhaps all this will become clear when you give me your definition of information!

DAVID: The genome is a code which carries all the information needed for life. But it is much more than simply making proteins. and there are other factors in the mix. In embryology I've presented that electric changes, physical forces such as position, pressure from other cells, clumps of stem cells that recognize they are in liver position and they change to become all the different liver cells. As you revert to your experts (Buehler), I refer to mine: Mutations remove information.

dhw: How does all this mean that the first brain cannot contain “information” that was not already present in brainless organisms? Why won’t you give me your definition of “information”?

I believe all the necessary info for life and evolution was present from the beginning. The loss of information from mutations means everything needed was present at the first cell. I keep giving ansers: somehow (because most of the mechanism is not yet discovered) life obviously contains all the information/ instructions it needs to maintain itself, but it is not just in DNA. It is in electrical fields, placement pressures as cells migrate under chemical controls, molecular design, feed back loops, hormonal influences, etc. which are all designed to create homeostasis, the hallmark of living matter. Exactly how all this interfaces is as much the 'ghost in the machine' as soul is for the brain.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Tuesday, July 10, 2018, 02:44 (157 days ago) @ dhw

DHW, you are playing fast and loose with language. The Theory of Evolution is dependent upon random mutations. Period. It is entirely based on chance. A chance that has been proven impossible mathematically according to all we know (which admittedly isn't much).

If something is not random chance, it is designed. Any answer to the Theory of Evolution is going to be rooted in Intelligent Design. Something is either random, or its not. We have all agreed, repeatedly, that random chance is out of the question. That leaves design.

You have been using the word evolution in the less technical sense of to change and, possibly grow over time. I have not stated that things do not change over time. My hypothesis even accounts for genetic heredity and conservation of information over generations.

It has never been observed, to my knowledge, that a species suddenly acquired brand new genetic functionality that it didn't have before. I know they can be manipulated into that, but that is design. I know that they can re-purpose existing functionality to adapt to their environments. But new functionality being inserted into the genome during its own life has not, that I am aware of, been observed. And that is the observation that must be made before I consider the idea of an inventive intelligence at the cellular level, because that is what must be done in order to pass that information to the next generation. I've considered your hypothesis multiple times, but that is the sticking point for me. At least one organism needs to cross the threshhold of adding a working function to their genome during the lifespan of a single celled organism.


Again, this hypothesis does not question the nature of the designer. But if there are questions about things that we see,like the Cambrian Explosion, it gives a new perspective, a new way of looking at the data. A good way to bring science to bear on the questions, and perhaps even find that our way of looking at things is backwards and much of what we think we know is wrong because everyone is looking for random chance in a world full of design. How many lives would be saved if we cracked the universal genetic code down to the programming level? ALS? Alzheimers? Diabetes?

Why are lab mice and pigs useful for finding medications for humans? Maybe if those guys would stop playing make believe and trying to figure out which mousepigasaur screwed a chimpazee to make humans they would start seeing what is right in front of their face.

--
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 2

by dhw, Tuesday, July 10, 2018, 10:56 (157 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: DHW, you are playing fast and loose with language. The Theory of Evolution is dependent upon random mutations. Period. It is entirely based on chance. A chance that has been proven impossible mathematically according to all we know (which admittedly isn't much).

Tony, you are closing your eyes to the fact that there are evolutionists who believe that God designed the whole process, and they reject random mutations in favour of design. David is one of them. Period.

TONY: If something is not random chance, it is designed. Any answer to the Theory of Evolution is going to be rooted in Intelligent Design. Something is either random, or its not. We have all agreed, repeatedly, that random chance is out of the question. That leaves design.

Precisely the argument of our dear friend David, a theistic evolutionist, and I wish he would say so himself.

TONY: It has never been observed, to my knowledge, that a species suddenly acquired brand new genetic functionality that it didn't have before.

Yes, innovation is the problem.

TONY: I know they can be manipulated into that, but that is design. I know that they can re-purpose existing functionality to adapt to their environments. But new functionality being inserted into the genome during its own life has not, that I am aware of, been observed. And that is the observation that must be made before I consider the idea of an inventive intelligence at the cellular level, because that is what must be done in order to pass that information to the next generation.

All agreed. I keep saying it myself: we know organisms can adapt, but we do not know if the mechanism for adaptation can extend so far as to innovation. That is why it is a hypothesis.

TONY: I've considered your hypothesis multiple times, but that is the sticking point for me. At least one organism needs to cross the threshhold of adding a working function to their genome during the lifespan of a single celled organism.

And why do you think your God is incapable of doing just that? Or incapable of installing a mechanism that would enable cells to do just that?

Tony: Again, this hypothesis does not question the nature of the designer. But if there are questions about things that we see,like the Cambrian Explosion, it gives a new perspective, a new way of looking at the data. A good way to bring science to bear on the questions, and perhaps even find that our way of looking at things is backwards and much of what we think we know is wrong because everyone is looking for random chance in a world full of design. How many lives would be saved if we cracked the universal genetic code down to the programming level? ALS? Alzheimers? Diabetes?

All fine, except that back you go to random chance. The history of life as we know it shows a vast bush of organisms that have come and gone. As far as we know, humans are a late development. As far as we know, bacteria have been here since the year dot. So why do you think your God could not have designed a mechanism for life to produce a vast bush of organisms that have come and gone, starting with bacteria and (possibly) culminating in us humans? If we accept your belief in God, the alternative here is not chance versus design. It is between evolution designed by God and….what designed by God? You still haven’t told us!

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Wednesday, July 11, 2018, 03:15 (156 days ago) @ dhw
edited by Balance_Maintained, Wednesday, July 11, 2018, 03:22

DHW All fine, except that back you go to random chance. The history of life as we know it shows a vast bush of organisms that have come and gone. As far as we know, humans are a late development. As far as we know, bacteria have been here since the year dot. So why do you think your God could not have designed a mechanism for life to produce a vast bush of organisms that have come and gone, starting with bacteria and (possibly) culminating in us humans? If we accept your belief in God, the alternative here is not chance versus design. It is between evolution designed by God and….what designed by God? You still haven’t told us!

The vast bush of life.... It's an illusion. It is a fairy tale. Cladistics is subjective, based on which features are considered most relevant. Genetic research has it clouded beyond recognition because it defies their expectations. Proof positive that their theory is broken. That is why they are constantly needing to reshuffle the Bush! The do it because their predictions failed. Repeatedly.

My hypothesis rejects the vast bush of life in favor of programmed limitations on the amount of divergence from the mean, and no viable species level divergences.

Yes, random chance plays a role. A species variant may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and died out. It happens. The environment changes beyond their limited ability to adapt to and they die out. It happens.

Sure, some variation within a species happens. Bigger heads, smaller feet, more hair, less hair, thicker bones, thinner bones, etc. But Within preprogrammed limits. A bird has always been a bird and will always be a bird. Not a cat or a dinosaur or a potato. It is based on Intelligent Design. My hypothesis does not need to resort to the tangled bush theory. The prototypes were designed and deployed and have continuously varied within predefined limits. The similarities in genetics between different species is entirely due to the fact that they are written in the same genetic programming language.

--
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 2

by dhw, Wednesday, July 11, 2018, 12:11 (156 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

dhw: All fine, except that back you go to random chance. The history of life as we know it shows a vast bush of organisms that have come and gone. As far as we know, humans are a late development. As far as we know, bacteria have been here since the year dot. So why do you think your God could not have designed a mechanism for life to produce a vast bush of organisms that have come and gone, starting with bacteria and (possibly) culminating in us humans? If we accept your belief in God, the alternative here is not chance versus design. It is between evolution designed by God and….what designed by God? You still haven’t told us!

TONY: The vast bush of life.... It's an illusion. It is a fairy tale. Cladistics is subjective, based on which features are considered most relevant. Genetic research has it clouded beyond recognition because it defies their expectations. Proof positive that their theory is broken. That is why they are constantly needing to reshuffle the Bush! The do it because their predictions failed. Repeatedly.

Darwin also recognized the enormous difficulty of defining species, but how does that invalidate the theory that all organisms descended from other organisms, apart from the “few forms or one” into which life was “originally breathed by the Creator”? (Origin of Species)?

TONY: My hypothesis rejects the vast bush of life in favor of programmed limitations on the amount of divergence from the mean, and no viable species level divergences.

By “vast bush” I simply mean the huge variety of organisms that have been and gone. I don’t know how many constituted species and how many constituted variants, but my question was why you don’t think your God could have designed a mechanism that resulted in all of them evolving from the few forms or one?

TONY: Yes, random chance plays a role. A species variant may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and died out. It happens. The environment changes beyond their limited ability to adapt to and they die out. It happens.

It has apparently happened on a colossal scale, but we are not talking about random chance here anyway. We are talking about evolution designed by your God.

TONY: Sure, some variation within a species happens. Bigger heads, smaller feet, more hair, less hair, thicker bones, thinner bones, etc. But Within preprogrammed limits. A bird has always been a bird and will always be a bird. Not a cat or a dinosaur or a potato. It is based on Intelligent Design.

Fine. And why do you think it is impossible for your God to have intelligently designed a mechanism whereby organisms evolved into different organisms? Not just variations but species, all descended from a few forms or one? I know of one theistic evolutionist who believes his God preprogrammed or dabbled all these developments.

TONY: My hypothesis does not need to resort to the tangled bush theory. The prototypes were designed and deployed and have continuously varied within predefined limits. The similarities in genetics between different species is entirely due to the fact that they are written in the same genetic programming language.

Forget the tangled bush, as my own reference was simply to the vast variety of organisms. That does not involve any theory as to HOW the variety came into existence. The similarities can be regarded as evidence that all life descended from the same source. Why is it not conceivable that your God designed the whole evolutionary mechanism for speciation and variation to develop out of the same genetic programming language he invented right at the beginning of life?

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Wednesday, July 11, 2018, 12:37 (156 days ago) @ dhw

I've already explained why, but you didnt like the answers. God likely could do whatever he wanted, but are talking about what he Did do, not could do. Show me evidence.

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 11, 2018, 18:53 (156 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: I've already explained why, but you didnt like the answers. God likely could do whatever he wanted, but are talking about what he Did do, not could do. Show me evidence.

I don't think dhw has ever realized the degree of complexity that is required by the homeostasis that life is required to create. It demands a designing engineer.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by dhw, Thursday, July 12, 2018, 13:08 (155 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

(Tony, please repeat the comment you are responding to. I had to hunt for it! And there may even be a reader or two out there who would appreciate the context.)

dhw: Why is it not conceivable that your God designed the whole evolutionary mechanism for speciation and variation to develop out of the same genetic programming language he invented right at the beginning of life?

TONY: I've already explained why, but you didnt like the answers. God likely could do whatever he wanted, but are talking about what he Did do, not could do. Show me evidence.

Please humour me and summarize in a single sentence why it is not possible.
All of us can show some evidence for our hypotheses, but none of us can provide conclusive evidence even that your God exists, let alone that he did it this way and not that way.

DAVID: I don't think dhw has ever realized the degree of complexity that is required by the homeostasis that life is required to create. It demands a designing engineer.

A totally unworthy and unnecessary comment since I have repeated ad nauseam that the case for design is a major reason for my agnosticism. I have also repeated ad nauseam why I have equal difficulty accepting the concept of a sourceless, unknown, eternal consciousness etc. Please stop erecting straw men.:-(

DAVID: Fits my point that all the needed information for life from bacteria to humans was present from the beginning.
TONY: I think it is premature to make that assumption. As a designer, that strikes me as intuitively wrong. You don't design the end and work your way back, usually, especially with more complex systems.

DAVID: If God can see the future, my thought is not unreasonable.
TONY: But what does the evidence say? The evidence is that we have these events like the Cambrian explosion. A whole slew of new life forms emerging fully formed with no intermediates. If we were to contrast Cambrian lifeforms versus early life forms, would they have more or less information and complexity?

Tony has asked David the same question as my own: why can’t a new organ/organism contain and pass on information that did not exist before? And I have repeatedly asked for a definition of “information” – request repeatedly ignored. The only answer we get is: “I believe all the necessary info for life and evolution was present from the beginning. The loss of information from mutations means everything needed was present at the first cell.” But David, you also believe your God dabbled. Is it not possible that he added “information” to whatever he dabbled with? If only you would define "information", your argument might become clearer.

DAVID: My approach: [Evolution] Guided by God with all the information/instructions provided at the beginning of life fits Tony and not the theory of random mutations driving anything.

All of us agree that random mutations are out. But Tony rejects evolution and common descent. As you are our resident theistic evolutionist, won't you please explain why you reject Tony's arguments against the form of evolution you believe in?

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 12, 2018, 15:31 (155 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Fits my point that all the needed information for life from bacteria to humans was present from the beginning.
TONY: I think it is premature to make that assumption. As a designer, that strikes me as intuitively wrong. You don't design the end and work your way back, usually, especially with more complex systems.

DAVID: If God can see the future, my thought is not unreasonable.
TONY: But what does the evidence say? The evidence is that we have these events like the Cambrian explosion. A whole slew of new life forms emerging fully formed with no intermediates. If we were to contrast Cambrian lifeforms versus early life forms, would they have more or less information and complexity?

dhw: Tony has asked David the same question as my own: why can’t a new organ/organism contain and pass on information that did not exist before? And I have repeatedly asked for a definition of “information” – request repeatedly ignored. The only answer we get is: “I believe all the necessary info for life and evolution was present from the beginning. The loss of information from mutations means everything needed was present at the first cell.” But David, you also believe your God dabbled. Is it not possible that he added “information” to whatever he dabbled with? If only you would define "information", your argument might become clearer.

I can only tell you that information is the instructions for life to be formed and continue.


DAVID: My approach: [Evolution] Guided by God with all the information/instructions provided at the beginning of life fits Tony and not the theory of random mutations driving anything.

dhw: All of us agree that random mutations are out. But Tony rejects evolution and common descent. As you are our resident theistic evolutionist, won't you please explain why you reject Tony's arguments against the form of evolution you believe in?

I know Tony has a different view of evolution, but I agree with him that DNA is a designed code. I think Tony prefers dabbling as a definite event. I only consider it as possible.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, July 12, 2018, 19:58 (155 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: Why is it not conceivable that your God designed the whole evolutionary mechanism for speciation and variation to develop out of the same genetic programming language he invented right at the beginning of life?

TONY: I've already explained why, but you didnt like the answers. God likely could do whatever he wanted, but are talking about what he Did do, not could do. Show me evidence.

DHW Please humour me and summarize in a single sentence why it is not possible.

My hypothesis Does allow for variation, but not speciation as we currently view it. The primary reason is this: my hypothesis predicts that Genetic information will be function specific and limited in variation by requirements of the complexity involved. There is no known method to add the information needed to make diverge into a new species, and the information does not, to our knowledge, exist in prior species. We have no evidence of inventive functionality at the cellular level. New functionality appears fully formed. The problem is that my hypothesis would turn cladistics on its head. We are speaking about concepts that have not been reworked under the new hypothesis. Without speciation, the vast bush of life would look far different.

DHW All of us can show some evidence for our hypotheses, but none of us can provide conclusive evidence even that your God exists, let alone that he did it this way and not that way.

That is why I have repeatedly asked that we keep God out of the scientific part of this conversation. It isn't a hypothesis about God, but rather about genetic information.

DHW Tony has asked David the same question as my own: why can’t a new organ/organism contain and pass on information that did not exist before? And I have repeatedly asked for a definition of “information” – request repeatedly ignored. The only answer we get is: “I believe all the necessary info for life and evolution was present from the beginning. The loss of information from mutations means everything needed was present at the first cell.” But David, you also believe your God dabbled. Is it not possible that he added “information” to whatever he dabbled with? If only you would define "information", your argument might become clearer.

Actually, David and I both agree, I think, that an organism cannot pass on information it doesn't already contain. That concept is pretty fundamental to modern biology. Also, I did give a very clear and detailed accounting of information in another post on this thread.

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 12, 2018, 21:19 (155 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW Tony has asked David the same question as my own: why can’t a new organ/organism contain and pass on information that did not exist before? And I have repeatedly asked for a definition of “information” – request repeatedly ignored. The only answer we get is: “I believe all the necessary info for life and evolution was present from the beginning. The loss of information from mutations means everything needed was present at the first cell.” But David, you also believe your God dabbled. Is it not possible that he added “information” to whatever he dabbled with? If only you would define "information", your argument might become clearer.


Tony: Actually, David and I both agree, I think, that an organism cannot pass on information it doesn't already contain. That concept is pretty fundamental to modern biology. Also, I did give a very clear and detailed accounting of information in another post on this thread.

I fully agree.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by dhw, Friday, July 13, 2018, 11:10 (154 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

dhw: If only you would define "information", your argument might become clearer.

DAVID: I can only tell you that information is the instructions for life to be formed and continue.

Why can’t information also mean instructions for new organs to be invented? You even believe that your God instructed the weaverbird in the art of knot tying. Why does this not count as new “information”, since the nest is unique? And a never-before-existing brain would surely require a million times more new information, or “instructions for new organs to be formed and continue”.

dhw: Tony rejects evolution and common descent. As you are our resident theistic evolutionist, won't you please explain why you reject Tony's arguments against the form of evolution you believe in?

DAVID: I know Tony has a different view of evolution, but I agree with him that DNA is a designed code. I think Tony prefers dabbling as a definite event. I only consider it as possible.

Of course you agree with “design”. Your only alternative to dabbling is that your God provided the first cells with programmes for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. Tony has not spelt out his alternative theory, but it would seem to be God’s separate creation of the species. (He’ll correct me if I’m wrong.) Do you accept this as a reasonable alternative to common descent?

dhw: Why is it not conceivable that your God designed the whole evolutionary mechanism for speciation and variation to develop out of the same genetic programming language he invented right at the beginning of life?

TONY: My hypothesis Does allow for variation, but not speciation as we currently view it. The primary reason is this: my hypothesis predicts that Genetic information will be function specific and limited in variation by requirements of the complexity involved. There is no known method to add the information needed to make diverge into a new species, and the information does not, to our knowledge, exist in prior species. We have no evidence of inventive functionality at the cellular level. New functionality appears fully formed. […] Without speciation, the vast bush of life would look far different.

Of course the bush would look different without speciation, and NOBODY knows the cause of speciation (i.e. “the method to add the information needed to make new species”). Does your prediction that genetic information will be “function specific” mean you predict that innovation will prove to be impossible, and therefore only your God can produce new species? You needn’t be shy with us. It’s better to say what you mean. You are right that there is no evidence that cells can invent something new – that is why it’s a hypothesis. On the other hand, why is your prediction any more valid than my hypothesis or David’s (that his God planned and directed evolution)?

dhw: All of us can show some evidence for our hypotheses, but none of us can provide conclusive evidence even that your God exists, let alone that he did it this way and not that way.

TONY: That is why I have repeatedly asked that we keep God out of the scientific part of this conversation. It isn't a hypothesis about God, but rather about genetic information.

So your hypothesis is that there cannot be a mechanism for innovation, and therefore evolution could not have happened, and therefore….?

TONY: Actually, David and I both agree, I think, that an organism cannot pass on information it doesn't already contain.

Of course you can’t pass on something you don’t have. That is why David insists that all the information must have been present from the very beginning – a premise you thought was “premature” and which struck you as “intuitively wrong”. But you are not willing to contemplate the possibility that an organism can ACQUIRE new information and then pass it on. David is and isn’t, because apart from preprogramming he also allows for dabbling, and yet apparently he rejects the idea that a divine dabble might require the introduction of new information. (See above)

TONY: I have no doubt that information is lost through mutations, but losing information does not account for new, fully formed features or species.

It does if you believe that God put all the information into the first cells, and so speciation is the result of discarding every other programme but one. That is David’s preprogramming hypothesis. Perhaps you share my “intuitive” scepticism.

TONY: Why would ANY designer reinvent the code every time they needed to do something similar?

A very good argument for common descent. Why would your God need to create each species separately (or do you have a different hypothesis?) if he has already devised a code that would lead to speciation?

DAVID: Their discovery actively disproves evolution by common descent, and instead of accepting that they invent more fairy tales to explain why the evidence does not fit their theory.

How do jumping genes disprove common descent? The genes move from existing organs to existing organs!

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

Precisely. David and I agree for once!

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Friday, July 13, 2018, 14:05 (154 days ago) @ dhw
edited by Balance_Maintained, Friday, July 13, 2018, 14:21

dhw: If only you would define "information", your argument might become clearer.

DAVID: I can only tell you that information is the instructions for life to be formed and continue.

DHW Why can’t information also mean instructions for new organs to be invented?

Because it does not fit the observed data. There is a difinitive increase in information and complexity. If the information already existed, it would be expressed in the current cell, not the subsequent generation.


dhw: Tony rejects evolution and common descent. As you are our resident theistic evolutionist, won't you please explain why you reject Tony's arguments against the form of evolution you believe in?

DAVID: I know Tony has a different view of evolution, but I agree with him that DNA is a designed code. I think Tony prefers dabbling as a definite event. I only consider it as possible.

DHW Tony has not spelt out his alternative theory, but it would seem to be God’s separate creation of the species. (He’ll correct me if I’m wrong.) Do you accept this as a reasonable alternative to common descent?


I have, in a two part set of facts and falsifiable predictions. Please stop saying that I have not laid out my hypothesis. What you seem to want is a story, but story time is not science.


dhw: Why is it not conceivable that your God designed the whole evolutionary mechanism for speciation and variation to develop out of the same genetic programming language he invented right at the beginning of life?

TONY: My hypothesis Does allow for variation, but not speciation as we currently view it. The primary reason is this: my hypothesis predicts that Genetic information will be function specific and limited in variation by requirements of the complexity involved. There is no known method to add the information needed to make diverge into a new species, and the information does not, to our knowledge, exist in prior species. We have no evidence of inventive functionality at the cellular level. New functionality appears fully formed. […] Without speciation, the vast bush of life would look far different.

dhw Does your prediction that genetic information will be “function specific” mean you predict that innovation will prove to be impossible, and therefore only your God can produce new species?

Adaptation within limits will be possible, but not crossing species boundaries. That said, I do not think the species boundaries will be how we see them today.

DHWYou needn’t be shy with us. It’s better to say what you mean. You are right that there is no evidence that cells can invent something new – that is why it’s a hypothesis. On the other hand, why is your prediction any more valid than my hypothesis or David’s (that his God planned and directed evolution)?

Because there are observations that support mine. We have never observed speciation. That is a pretty glaring defect for any form of evolution that allows for it.


dhw: All of us can show some evidence for our hypotheses, but none of us can provide conclusive evidence even that your God exists, let alone that he did it this way and not that way.

TONY: That is why I have repeatedly asked that we keep God out of the scientific part of this conversation. It isn't a hypothesis about God, but rather about genetic information.

DHW So your hypothesis is that there cannot be a mechanism for innovation, and therefore evolution could not have happened, and therefore….?

My hypothesis is, for the nth time, that DNA is a designed language for programming biological functionality. I make no guess as to the designer or their motives because that is NOT science.


TONY: Actually, David and I both agree, I think, that an organism cannot pass on information it doesn't already contain

DHW... you are not willing to contemplate the possibility that an organism can ACQUIRE new information and then pass it on.

There are four possibilities: invention, acquisition, preprogrammimg, and dabbling(as you call it).

We have no evidence at all of invention. Saying that it happened because there is new information is not logically sound.

David has provided us with numerous cellular mechanics that should prevent genetic acquisition, which is the logical fallacy I was pointing about horizontal gene transfer.

We have no evidence for speciation, nor do we observe early life containing all the genetic information for more complex life, thus denying full pre-programmed evolution.

That leaves dabbling, which fits the evidence of the Cambrian explosion and similar events.


Could a designer have done it otherwise? Certainly. I just want to see the evidence for it laid out in a logical, falsifiable manner before I jump on board.

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Friday, July 13, 2018, 19:21 (154 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: Actually, David and I both agree, I think, that an organism cannot pass on information it doesn't already contain

DHW... you are not willing to contemplate the possibility that an organism can ACQUIRE new information and then pass it on.


Tony: There are four possibilities: invention, acquisition, preprogrammimg, and dabbling(as you call it).

We have no evidence at all of invention. Saying that it happened because there is new information is not logically sound.

David has provided us with numerous cellular mechanics that should prevent genetic acquisition, which is the logical fallacy I was pointing about horizontal gene transfer.

We have no evidence for speciation, nor do we observe early life containing all the genetic information for more complex life, thus denying full pre-programmed evolution.

That leaves dabbling, which fits the evidence of the Cambrian explosion and similar events.


Could a designer have done it otherwise? Certainly. I just want to see the evidence for it laid out in a logical, falsifiable manner before I jump on board.

I've made the point that a simple early form like amoeba contains many more bases in their DNA than humans, and those bases can be rearranged into the human form over time that evolution takes place under God's guidance. I think the info is all there from the beginning.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Saturday, July 14, 2018, 02:00 (153 days ago) @ David Turell


Tony: Could a designer have done it otherwise? Certainly. I just want to see the evidence for it laid out in a logical, falsifiable manner before I jump on board.


David: I've made the point that a simple early form like amoeba contains many more bases in their DNA than humans, and those bases can be rearranged into the human form over time that evolution takes place under God's guidance. I think the info is all there from the beginning.

It has nothing to do with the number of bases. Not really. Rearranging those bases into new forms requires either new information, or a data storage section that contains All the necessary construction AND the necessary triggers for when and under what circumstances to make which changes.

So, produce evidence of either of those, both of which can be discovered with science, and I would gladly accept this form of evolution. It would likely fit nicely with my own hypothesis regarding the nature of DNA and information within the Genome.

However, absent evidence of either of those things, I must assume them to be, at worst, untrue, and at best undiscovered.

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 14, 2018, 04:38 (153 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


Tony: Could a designer have done it otherwise? Certainly. I just want to see the evidence for it laid out in a logical, falsifiable manner before I jump on board.


David: I've made the point that a simple early form like amoeba contains many more bases in their DNA than humans, and those bases can be rearranged into the human form over time that evolution takes place under God's guidance. I think the info is all there from the beginning.


Tony: It has nothing to do with the number of bases. Not really. Rearranging those bases into new forms requires either new information, or a data storage section that contains All the necessary construction AND the necessary triggers for when and under what circumstances to make which changes.

So, produce evidence of either of those, both of which can be discovered with science, and I would gladly accept this form of evolution. It would likely fit nicely with my own hypothesis regarding the nature of DNA and information within the Genome.

However, absent evidence of either of those things, I must assume them to be, at worst, untrue, and at best undiscovered.

how do you know the necessary information is not implicit in the bases if rearranged?

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Saturday, July 14, 2018, 05:45 (153 days ago) @ David Turell


Tony: Could a designer have done it otherwise? Certainly. I just want to see the evidence for it laid out in a logical, falsifiable manner before I jump on board.


David: I've made the point that a simple early form like amoeba contains many more bases in their DNA than humans, and those bases can be rearranged into the human form over time that evolution takes place under God's guidance. I think the info is all there from the beginning.


Tony: It has nothing to do with the number of bases. Not really. Rearranging those bases into new forms requires either new information, or a data storage section that contains All the necessary construction AND the necessary triggers for when and under what circumstances to make which changes.

So, produce evidence of either of those, both of which can be discovered with science, and I would gladly accept this form of evolution. It would likely fit nicely with my own hypothesis regarding the nature of DNA and information within the Genome.

However, absent evidence of either of those things, I must assume them to be, at worst, untrue, and at best undiscovered.


how do you know the necessary information is not implicit in the bases if rearranged?

You may be familiar with Binary, 0 & 1. Or even Ternary - 1, 0, 1.

But Quaternary coding is far more complex. Our genetic language is a chemical quatarnery system that also has spatial requirements.

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 14, 2018, 15:25 (153 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


Tony: It has nothing to do with the number of bases. Not really. Rearranging those bases into new forms requires either new information, or a data storage section that contains All the necessary construction AND the necessary triggers for when and under what circumstances to make which changes.

So, produce evidence of either of those, both of which can be discovered with science, and I would gladly accept this form of evolution. It would likely fit nicely with my own hypothesis regarding the nature of DNA and information within the Genome.

However, absent evidence of either of those things, I must assume them to be, at worst, untrue, and at best undiscovered.


David: how do you know the necessary information is not implicit in the bases if rearranged?


Tony: You may be familiar with Binary, 0 & 1. Or even Ternary - 1, 0, 1.

But Quaternary coding is far more complex. Our genetic language is a chemical quatarnery system that also has spatial requirements.

I wish I understood programming. But perhaps your "data storage section' exists. Knowing that rearrangement of parts of a gene results in a specific function or functions implies there is information and controls we still don't understand.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, July 15, 2018, 14:21 (152 days ago) @ David Turell


Tony: It has nothing to do with the number of bases. Not really. Rearranging those bases into new forms requires either new information, or a data storage section that contains All the necessary construction AND the necessary triggers for when and under what circumstances to make which changes.

So, produce evidence of either of those, both of which can be discovered with science, and I would gladly accept this form of evolution. It would likely fit nicely with my own hypothesis regarding the nature of DNA and information within the Genome.

However, absent evidence of either of those things, I must assume them to be, at worst, untrue, and at best undiscovered.


David: how do you know the necessary information is not implicit in the bases if rearranged?


Tony: You may be familiar with Binary, 0 & 1. Or even Ternary - 1, 0, 1.

But Quaternary coding is far more complex. Our genetic language is a chemical quatarnery system that also has spatial requirements.


DAVID I wish I understood programming. But perhaps your "data storage section' exists. Knowing that rearrangement of parts of a gene results in a specific function or functions implies there is information and controls we still don't understand.

It is certainly possible, I just think it unlikely. It would leave a lot of room for messed up genetics that we have not observed. Where is the lama with a giraffe neck?

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 15, 2018, 17:30 (152 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


Tony: But Quaternary coding is far more complex. Our genetic language is a chemical quatarnery system that also has spatial requirements.


DAVID I wish I understood programming. But perhaps your "data storage section' exists. Knowing that rearrangement of parts of a gene results in a specific function or functions implies there is information and controls we still don't understand.


It is certainly possible, I just think it unlikely. It would leave a lot of room for messed up genetics that we have not observed. Where is the lama with a giraffe neck?

But I'll go back to your prototype idea. Lamas and camels are related. Giraffes are in a different line from the beginning. Our understanding of the genome is very limited. What we know from gene deletion is what it controls, not how. That is what I refer to.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, July 15, 2018, 20:58 (152 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID I wish I understood programming. But perhaps your "data storage section' exists. Knowing that rearrangement of parts of a gene results in a specific function or functions implies there is information and controls we still don't understand.


Tony: It is certainly possible, I just think it unlikely. It would leave a lot of room for messed up genetics that we have not observed. Where is the lama with a giraffe neck?


David: But I'll go back to your prototype idea. Lamas and camels are related. Giraffes are in a different line from the beginning. Our understanding of the genome is very limited. What we know from gene deletion is what it controls, not how. That is what I refer to.

I see no issue with a proto-camel/llama that varied some over time to become variations of Camels and Llamas

--
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 2

by dhw, Saturday, July 14, 2018, 11:43 (153 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

dhw: If only you would define "information", your argument might become clearer.

DAVID: I can only tell you that information is the instructions for life to be formed and continue.

dhw: Why can’t information also mean instructions for new organs to be invented? You even believe that your God instructed the weaverbird in the art of knot tying. [...] And a never-before-existing brain would surely require a million times more new information, or “instructions for new organs to be formed and continue”.

TONY: Because it does not fit the observed data. There is a difinitive increase in information and complexity. If the information already existed, it would be expressed in the current cell, not the subsequent generation.

We are having a tricky three-way conversation here. I am challenging David’s belief that all the information existed at the beginning (every innovation was preprogrammed) and therefore no new information is possible. You actually seem to be supporting my challenge. David’s reply is:

DAVID: New organs can be formed be rearranging DNA and deleting DNA, noting added to the information hidden there waiting to come out.

So if your God dabbles (as opposed to preprogrammes) something completely new, like the knotty nest or the first brain, he does not provide any new “information”?

dhw: Tony has not spelt out his alternative theory…

TONY: I have, in a two part set of facts and falsifiable predictions. Please stop saying that I have not laid out my hypothesis. What you seem to want is a story, but story time is not science.

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. But see below, re “design”.

dhw: Does your prediction that genetic information will be “function specific” mean you predict that innovation will prove to be impossible, and therefore only your God can produce new species?
TONY: Adaptation within limits will be possible, but not crossing species boundaries.

You predict that innovation leading to speciation will prove to be impossible by natural means. I might predict that science will discover natural means of innovation (e.g. cellular intelligence), or David might predict the discovery of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every innovation (info present from the beginning). Why is your prediction more “falsifiable” and more scientific than these?

TONY: Because there are observations that support mine. We have never observed speciation. That is a pretty glaring defect for any form of evolution that allows for it.

It is because we have never observed speciation that we have different hypotheses. Nobody has ever observed a God designing the universe, life, and species...that is a pretty glaring defect for any hypothesis.

dhw: So your hypothesis is that there cannot be a mechanism for innovation, and therefore evolution could not have happened, and therefore….?

TONY: My hypothesis is, for the nth time, that DNA is a designed language for programming biological functionality. I make no guess as to the designer or their motives because that is NOT science.

Agreed. “Biological functionality” is so complex that I for one cannot believe in chance as its inventor. That does not provide an alternative to evolution, since many evolutionists believe that evolution is the product of design.

DHW... you are not willing to contemplate the possibility that an organism can ACQUIRE new information and then pass it on.

TONY: There are four possibilities: invention, acquisition, preprogrammimg, and dabbling(as you call it).
We have no evidence at all of invention. Saying that it happened because there is new information is not logically sound.

Something must have caused the innovations which led to new organs and organisms. If you mean there is no evidence that the cell communities did it themselves, I agree. There is no evidence for any of your four possibilities.

TONY: David has provided us with numerous cellular mechanics that should prevent genetic acquisition, which is the logical fallacy I was pointing about horizontal gene transfer.

Maybe genetic acquisition IS possible. See quotes from the article David posted.

TONY: We have no evidence for speciation, nor do we observe early life containing all the genetic information for more complex life, thus denying full pre-programmed evolution.

I don’t understand your first comment. No matter how you define “species”, the evidence for speciation is that species exist. We have no evidence for how it happened. I share your scepticism re fully preprogrammed evolution.

TONY: That leaves dabbling, which fits the evidence of the Cambrian explosion and similar events.

So is "dabbling" your alternative? Unfortunately, nobody has ever observed your hypothetical God dabbling – a “glaring defect”. David’s preprogramming hypothesis and my intelligent cell hypothesis also fit the Cambrian explosion and other events.

TONY: Could a designer have done it otherwise? Certainly. I just want to see the evidence for it laid out in a logical, falsifiable manner before I jump on board.

Welcome to the land of the agnostic, which also extends as far as to the existence of a designer.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 14, 2018, 18:44 (153 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: We are having a tricky three-way conversation here. I am challenging David’s belief that all the information existed at the beginning (every innovation was preprogrammed) and therefore no new information is possible. You actually seem to be supporting my challenge. David’s reply is:

DAVID: New organs can be formed be rearranging DNA and deleting DNA, nothing added to the information hidden there waiting to come out.

dhw: So if your God dabbles (as opposed to preprogrammes) something completely new, like the knotty nest or the first brain, he does not provide any new “information”?

I saying He may not. Tony thinks He may.

TONY: We have no evidence for speciation, nor do we observe early life containing all the genetic information for more complex life, thus denying full pre-programmed evolution.

dhw: I don’t understand your first comment. No matter how you define “species”, the evidence for speciation is that species exist. We have no evidence for how it happened. I share your scepticism re fully preprogrammed evolution.

TONY: That leaves dabbling, which fits the evidence of the Cambrian explosion and similar events.

dhw: So is "dabbling" your alternative? Unfortunately, nobody has ever observed your hypothetical God dabbling – a “glaring defect”. David’s preprogramming hypothesis and my intelligent cell hypothesis also fit the Cambrian explosion and other events.

The Cambrian was an enormous dabble. Was a huge 'Britannica' of genetic information added then? It is well beyond intelligent cell committees abilities.


TONY: Could a designer have done it otherwise? Certainly. I just want to see the evidence for it laid out in a logical, falsifiable manner before I jump on board.

dhw: Welcome to the land of the agnostic, which also extends as far as to the existence of a designer.

Tony is trying in a scientific way to find God's methods. So am I.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by dhw, Sunday, July 15, 2018, 13:00 (152 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So if your God dabbles (as opposed to preprogrammes) something completely new, like the knotty nest or the first brain, he does not provide any new “information”?

DAVID: I saying He may not. Tony thinks He may.

So we can now abandon the dogmatic view that all the information was present at the beginning. It may have been. It may not have been. Thank you for the clarification.

TONY: That leaves dabbling, which fits the evidence of the Cambrian explosion and similar events.

dhw: So is "dabbling" your alternative? Unfortunately, nobody has ever observed your hypothetical God dabbling – a “glaring defect”. David’s preprogramming hypothesis and my intelligent cell hypothesis also fit the Cambrian explosion and other events.

DAVID: The Cambrian was an enormous dabble. Was a huge 'Britannica' of genetic information added then? It is well beyond intelligent cell committees abilities.

That is your assumption. The hypothesis still fits in with the Cambrian.

TONY: Could a designer have done it otherwise? Certainly. I just want to see the evidence for it laid out in a logical, falsifiable manner before I jump on board.

dhw: Welcome to the land of the agnostic, which also extends as far as to the existence of a designer.

DAVID: Tony is trying in a scientific way to find God's methods. So am I.

And we all want to see the evidence for the different hypotheses laid out in a logical, falsifiable manner before we jump on board. Except that both of you have already jumped on board.

dhw: Evolution is the very opposite of separate creation, and that is what caused all the furore at the time of Darwin’s book. Either you believe in evolution or you believe in separate creation!

DAVID: I believe God guided an evolutionary process. I've never changed, and it is a third way not in your comment.

Then let us narrow the field: common descent is the opposite of separate creation. When your God dabbled, do you believe he dabbled with existing life forms or that he created them from scratch?

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 15, 2018, 15:21 (152 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So if your God dabbles (as opposed to preprogrammes) something completely new, like the knotty nest or the first brain, he does not provide any new “information”?

DAVID: I saying He may not. Tony thinks He may.

dhw: So we can now abandon the dogmatic view that all the information was present at the beginning. It may have been. It may not have been. Thank you for the clarification.

I've always assumed the origin of life (which you refuse to add to the process of evolution) had to provide massive information to cover both form/structure and process/life homeostasis to the original life forms. Dabbling was a minor set of additional instructions primarily of form, not function, except the Cambrian where major functional processes had to be added. I've had a re-think: there were two major inputs of information at origin of life and at the Cambrian.

DAVID: I believe God guided an evolutionary process. I've never changed, and it is a third way not in your comment.

dhw: Then let us narrow the field: common descent is the opposite of separate creation. When your God dabbled, do you believe he dabbled with existing life forms or that he created them from scratch?

I believe God designed the Cambrian Explosion. Is that scratchiness enough?

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by dhw, Monday, July 16, 2018, 12:12 (151 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So we can now abandon the dogmatic view that all the information was present at the beginning. It may have been. It may not have been. Thank you for the clarification.

DAVID: I've always assumed the origin of life (which you refuse to add to the process of evolution) had to provide massive information to cover both form/structure and process/life homeostasis to the original life forms.

Of course I refuse to add origin of life to evolution. So did Darwin. The origin does not make the slightest difference to the theory of common descent, and no matter what explanation you come up with for speciation, you can ALWAYS incorporate your God as the initiator of the process – even if you believe in random mutations! But I accept totally that the first life forms must have contained masses of information. According to your original hypothesis, they contained ALL the information, although you have now changed your tune, since you appear to
recognize that dabbling must add some.

DAVID: Dabbling was a minor set of additional instructions primarily of form, not function, except the Cambrian where major functional processes had to be added. I've had a re-think: there were two major inputs of information at origin of life and at the Cambrian.

“Additional instructions” sounds like additional information to me, even if it's “minor”. But going back to the first cells, I would suggest that computer programmes installed in the very first cells for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the long history of life add an unnecessary amount of information needed for evolution. It would suffice if the first cells contained a mechanism that would enable all subsequent life forms to devise their own innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders.

DAVID: I believe God guided an evolutionary process. I've never changed, and it is a third way not in your comment.

dhw: Then let us narrow the field: common descent is the opposite of separate creation. When your God dabbled, do you believe he dabbled with existing life forms or that he created them from scratch?

DAVID: I believe God designed the Cambrian Explosion. Is that scratchiness enough?

So you believe in common descent except for the Cambrian Explosion, and then it was separate creation. I don’t have a problem with that, as the theistic version of my own hypothesis allows for dabbling. The atheistic version leaves the whole of evolution, including the Cambrian, to the intelligence of the cells. My reason for asking was to ascertain to what extent you agreed with Tony’s rejection of common descent, which of course is the bedrock of the theory of evolution.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by David Turell @, Monday, July 16, 2018, 17:49 (151 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've always assumed the origin of life (which you refuse to add to the process of evolution) had to provide massive information to cover both form/structure and process/life homeostasis to the original life forms.

dhw: Of course I refuse to add origin of life to evolution. So did Darwin. The origin does not make the slightest difference to the theory of common descent,

Of course the specific act of life's origin is not at issue when evolution is discussed as a process. But every evolutionary process has a beginning, and all I'm pointing out is that the origin contained/provided information which influences how evolution works.


DAVID: Dabbling was a minor set of additional instructions primarily of form, not function, except the Cambrian where major functional processes had to be added. I've had a re-think: there were two major inputs of information at origin of life and at the Cambrian.

dhw: “Additional instructions” sounds like additional information to me, even if it's “minor”. But going back to the first cells, I would suggest that computer programmes installed in the very first cells for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the long history of life add an unnecessary amount of information needed for evolution. It would suffice if the first cells contained a mechanism that would enable all subsequent life forms to devise their own innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders.

Such a mechanism would add the same 'unnecessary amount of information' you complain about.


DAVID: I believe God guided an evolutionary process. I've never changed, and it is a third way not in your comment.

dhw: Then let us narrow the field: common descent is the opposite of separate creation. When your God dabbled, do you believe he dabbled with existing life forms or that he created them from scratch?

DAVID: I believe God designed the Cambrian Explosion. Is that scratchiness enough?

dhw: So you believe in common descent except for the Cambrian Explosion, and then it was separate creation. I don’t have a problem with that, as the theistic version of my own hypothesis allows for dabbling. The atheistic version leaves the whole of evolution, including the Cambrian, to the intelligence of the cells. My reason for asking was to ascertain to what extent you agreed with Tony’s rejection of common descent, which of course is the bedrock of the theory of evolution.

No, I still think common descent is the proper theory, with God dabbling at points like the Cambrian Explosion.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by dhw, Tuesday, July 17, 2018, 12:04 (150 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've always assumed the origin of life (which you refuse to add to the process of evolution) had to provide massive information to cover both form/structure and process/life homeostasis to the original life forms.

dhw: Of course I refuse to add origin of life to evolution. So did Darwin. The origin does not make the slightest difference to the theory of common descent,

DAVID: Of course the specific act of life's origin is not at issue when evolution is discussed as a process. But every evolutionary process has a beginning, and all I'm pointing out is that the origin contained/provided information which influences how evolution works.

There is no disagreement between us on this. The disagreement concerns the nature of the information. You say it comprised programmes for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. I suggested the following:
dhw: It would suffice if the first cells contained a mechanism that would enable all subsequent life forms to devise their own innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders.

DAVID: Such a mechanism would add the same 'unnecessary amount of information' you complain about.

The ability to invent seems to me to demand considerably less information than an individual programme for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life.

dhw: So you believe in common descent except for the Cambrian Explosion, and then it was separate creation. I don’t have a problem with that, as the theistic version of my own hypothesis allows for dabbling. The atheistic version leaves the whole of evolution, including the Cambrian, to the intelligence of the cells. My reason for asking was to ascertain to what extent you agreed with Tony’s rejection of common descent, which of course is the bedrock of the theory of evolution.

DAVID: No, I still think common descent is the proper theory, with God dabbling at points like the Cambrian Explosion.

Thank you. I do wish Tony would acknowledge your (and my) view of designed evolution as a possible alternative to random evolution, instead of insisting that anyone who believes in evolution must believe in chance.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 17, 2018, 17:54 (150 days ago) @ dhw

dhw:There is no disagreement between us on this. The disagreement concerns the nature of the information. You say it comprised programmes for every undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. I suggested the following:
dhw: It would suffice if the first cells contained a mechanism that would enable all subsequent life forms to devise their own innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders.

DAVID: Such a mechanism would add the same 'unnecessary amount of information' you complain about.

dhw: The ability to invent seems to me to demand considerably less information than an individual programme for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life.

The ability to invent requires the mental ability of foresight. What is desired as a function needed and how to design for it. That is why a brainless inventive mechanism needs guidelines and lots of instructions.


dhw: So you believe in common descent except for the Cambrian Explosion, and then it was separate creation. I don’t have a problem with that, as the theistic version of my own hypothesis allows for dabbling. The atheistic version leaves the whole of evolution, including the Cambrian, to the intelligence of the cells. My reason for asking was to ascertain to what extent you agreed with Tony’s rejection of common descent, which of course is the bedrock of the theory of evolution.

DAVID: No, I still think common descent is the proper theory, with God dabbling at points like the Cambrian Explosion.

Tony: Thank you. I do wish Tony would acknowledge your (and my) view of designed evolution as a possible alternative to random evolution, instead of insisting that anyone who believes in evolution must believe in chance.

Speaking for Tony, there are only chance or design as possibilities, and for Darwinists only chance exists.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, July 15, 2018, 03:39 (152 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: So if your God dabbles (as opposed to preprogrammes) something completely new, like the knotty nest or the first brain, he does not provide any new “information”?

If a designer dabbled, then yes, information it being added.

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.

Conclusion: DNA is a DESIGNED LANGUAGE. This is antithetical to Naturalistic Evolution which emphasizes RANDOM CHANCE over DESIGN. Like Darwin, I recognize that it is impossible for science to study God directly, so I tried to leave him out of it As soon as I put the word God in this hypothesis, it is no longer a scientific hypothesis.

Did God do it, I believe so. However, my hypothesis can be proven regardless of whether the designer was God. It is possible to recognize design. We do it all the time. When we start from the position of "This was designed", we ask different questions and examine the data under a different set of lenses. So, as much as I know it will be difficult, is it possible for you to talk about the science without talking about the religion?

DHW: You predict that innovation leading to speciation will prove to be impossible by natural means.

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.

DHW: I might predict that science will discover natural means of innovation (e.g. cellular intelligence).

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.

DHW David might predict the discovery of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every innovation (info present from the beginning).

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.

DHW: Why is your prediction more “falsifiable” and more scientific than these?

Because mine CAN be falsified conclusively, neither of the other two statements can. The latter two statements are like the missing transition fossils for evolution.

TONY: Because there are observations that support mine. We have never observed speciation. That is a pretty glaring defect for any form of evolution that allows for it.

DHW: It is because we have never observed speciation that we have different hypotheses. Nobody has ever observed a God designing the universe, life, and species...that is a pretty glaring defect for any hypothesis.

Of course, which is why you will not find God in my hypothesis. I do not speculate on the nature of the Designer, only that the language of genetics is designed. We can detect design, an inference made by analyzing secondary data like specified complexity, just as we studied gravitation waves for years without being able to detect them directly by predictable effects.


dhw: So your hypothesis is that there cannot be a mechanism for innovation, and therefore evolution could not have happened, and therefore….?

There could have been a mechanism for innovation. I've only said there needs to be some evidence for it. For that matter, we COULD have popped into existence yesterday and everything we think we remember is a lie, a product of highly confused cellular information. But, again, there is no evidence to support such a claim.


TONY: My hypothesis is, for the nth time, that DNA is a designed language for programming biological functionality. ...

DHW: ... many evolutionists believe that evolution is the product of design.

The Theory of Evolution, the formal theory, is based on random mutation.


DHW... you are not willing to contemplate the possibility that an organism can ACQUIRE new information and then pass it on.

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.

TONY: David has provided us with numerous cellular mechanics that should prevent genetic acquisition, which is the logical fallacy I was pointing about horizontal gene transfer.

DHW Maybe genetic acquisition IS possible. See quotes from the article David posted.

David posted two articles back to back:

The first proposed, because we see this gene in many species, it MUST have jumped between them. There was no observation of the jump, but the gene MUST have jumped because they found it where they didn't expect it. Damn mosquitos. The second was about a function that prevents changes to the genome.

DHW: No matter how you define “species”, the evidence for speciation is that species exist. We have no evidence for how it happened. I share your scepticism re fully preprogrammed evolution.

So, can we infer from this statement that because we have multiple types of stars, these stars must have somehow merged and divided to create the new varieties? No, of course not! The evidence states that there are species. This statement is true. That is all. The EVIDENCE does NOT tell us that species separated. It does not even imply that species separated. THis is a big deal, in a way, so I will post it to its own thread.

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Friday, July 13, 2018, 18:55 (154 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If only you would define "information", your argument might become clearer.

DAVID: I can only tell you that information is the instructions for life to be formed and continue.

dhw: Why can’t information also mean instructions for new organs to be invented? You even believe that your God instructed the weaverbird in the art of knot tying. Why does this not count as new “information”, since the nest is unique? And a never-before-existing brain would surely require a million times more new information, or “instructions for new organs to be formed and continue”.

New organs can be formed be rearranging DNA and deleting DNA, noting added to the information hidden there waiting to come out.

DAVID: I know Tony has a different view of evolution, but I agree with him that DNA is a designed code. I think Tony prefers dabbling as a definite event. I only consider it as possible.

dhw: Of course you agree with “design”. Your only alternative to dabbling is that your God provided the first cells with programmes for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder.

Dabbling can be DNA rearrangement as above.

. dhw:Tony has not spelt out his alternative theory, but it would seem to be God’s separate creation of the species. (He’ll correct me if I’m wrong.) Do you accept this as a reasonable alternative to common descent?

Yes. I believe in theistic evolution

TONY: Actually, David and I both agree, I think, that an organism cannot pass on information it doesn't already contain.

dhw: Of course you can’t pass on something you don’t have. That is why David insists that all the information must have been present from the very beginning – a premise you thought was “premature” and which struck you as “intuitively wrong”. But you are not willing to contemplate the possibility that an organism can ACQUIRE new information and then pass it on. David is and isn’t, because apart from preprogramming he also allows for dabbling, and yet apparently he rejects the idea that a divine dabble might require the introduction of new information. (See above)

Yes explained above.

TONY: Why would ANY designer reinvent the code every time they needed to do something similar?

dhw: A very good argument for common descent. Why would your God need to create each species separately (or do you have a different hypothesis?) if he has already devised a code that would lead to speciation?

It is simpler to have all the information present from the beginning


DAVID: Their discovery actively disproves evolution by common descent, and instead of accepting that they invent more fairy tales to explain why the evidence does not fit their theory.

This is a quote from Tony I believe


dhw: How do jumping genes disprove common descent? The genes move from existing organs to existing organs!

Ask Tony. See my entry on LGT today.


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

dhw: Precisely. David and I agree for once!

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

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by dhw, Saturday, July 14, 2018, 11:48 (153 days ago) @ David Turell

I shall only respond to those comments not dealt with in my first post on this thread.

dhw: Tony has not spelt out his alternative theory, but it would seem to be God’s separate creation of the species. (He’ll correct me if I’m wrong.) Do you accept this as a reasonable alternative to common descent?

DAVID: Yes. I believe in theistic evolution.

Evolution is the very opposite of separate creation, and that is what caused all the furore at the time of Darwin’s book. Either you believe in evolution or you believe in separate creation!

TONY: Why would ANY designer reinvent the code every time they needed to do something similar?

dhw: A very good argument for common descent. Why would your God need to create each species separately (or do you have a different hypothesis?) if he has already devised a code that would lead to speciation?

DAVID: It is simpler to have all the information present from the beginning.

Tony hasn’t answered my question. I don’t find it “simpler” to have a complete programme for every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder installed in the very first cells, to be passed down through ever changing environments and through billions of generations and organisms, each one having to delete every programme except its own. But it would certainly be simpler to devise a code enabling organisms to work out their own way to cope with or exploit their environment.

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

dhw: Precisely. David and I agree for once!

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

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

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 14, 2018, 18:47 (153 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Tony has not spelt out his alternative theory, but it would seem to be God’s separate creation of the species. (He’ll correct me if I’m wrong.) Do you accept this as a reasonable alternative to common descent?


DAVID: Yes. I believe in theistic evolution.

dhw: Evolution is the very opposite of separate creation, and that is what caused all the furore at the time of Darwin’s book. Either you believe in evolution or you believe in separate creation!

I believe God guided an evolutionary process. I've never changed, and it is a third way not in your comment,


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

dhw: Precisely. David and I agree for once!

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

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

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

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, July 15, 2018, 04:43 (152 days ago) @ David Turell

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

dhw: Precisely. David and I agree for once!

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

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


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

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

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 15, 2018, 15:01 (152 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

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

dhw: Precisely. David and I agree for once!

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

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


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


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

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

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, July 15, 2018, 15:13 (152 days ago) @ David Turell

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

dhw: Precisely. David and I agree for once!

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 15, 2018, 17:35 (152 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

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

dhw: Precisely. David and I agree for once!

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, July 15, 2018, 20:59 (152 days ago) @ David Turell

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

dhw: Precisely. David and I agree for once!

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by David Turell @, Monday, July 16, 2018, 15:20 (151 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

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

dhw: Precisely. David and I agree for once!

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

Fair enough.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, July 15, 2018, 04:49 (152 days ago) @ dhw

I shall only respond to those comments not dealt with in my first post on this thread.

dhw: Tony has not spelt out his alternative theory, but it would seem to be God’s separate creation of the species. (He’ll correct me if I’m wrong.) Do you accept this as a reasonable alternative to common descent?

DAVID: Yes. I believe in theistic evolution.

Evolution is the very opposite of separate creation, and that is what caused all the furore at the time of Darwin’s book. Either you believe in evolution or you believe in separate creation!

TONY: Why would ANY designer reinvent the code every time they needed to do something similar?

dhw: A very good argument for common descent. Why would your God need to create each species separately (or do you have a different hypothesis?) if he has already devised a code that would lead to speciation?

DAVID: It is simpler to have all the information present from the beginning.

DHW:Tony hasn’t answered my question. I don’t find it “simpler” to have a complete programme for every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder installed in the very first cells, to be passed down through ever changing environments and through billions of generations and organisms, each one having to delete every programme except its own. But it would certainly be simpler to devise a code enabling organisms to work out their own way to cope with or exploit their environment.

Would it be easier to engineer a truck and then figure out what parts on the truck can be swapped out safely, or to engineer a piece of metal that could transform into whatever it needed to be to form every possible vehicle ever made? Personally, I think our categorization of species is likely to be 90 kinds of wrong, which is why we keep seeing things that don't line up in cladistics. The problem is that the criteria used to sort critters into species is subjective, based on the biases of what the researcher thinks is important. I am almost certain there is a more objective method, and that once found, it will eliminate most of this pointless arguing over common descent and speciation.

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 11, 2018, 18:05 (156 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: The vast bush of life.... It's an illusion. It is a fairy tale. Cladistics is subjective, based on which features are considered most relevant. Genetic research has it clouded beyond recognition because it defies their expectations. Proof positive that their theory is broken. That is why they are constantly needing to reshuffle the Bush! The do it because their predictions failed. Repeatedly.

I think it looks like as bush, but you are right, the genetics don't follow the common descent theories based on external physical appearance


Tony: My hypothesis rejects the vast bush of life in favor of programmed limitations on the amount of divergence from the mean, and no viable species level divergences.

Yes, random chance plays a role. A species variant may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and died out. It happens. The environment changes beyond their limited ability to adapt to and they die out. It happens.

Pure Raup. Extinctions are accidents.


Tony: Sure, some variation within a species happens. Bigger heads, smaller feet, more hair, less hair, thicker bones, thinner bones, etc. But Within preprogrammed limits. A bird has always been a bird and will always be a bird. Not a cat or a dinosaur or a potato. It is based on Intelligent Design. My hypothesis does not need to resort to the tangled bush theory. The prototypes were designed and deployed and have continuously varied within predefined limits. The similarities in genetics between different species is entirely due to the fact that they are written in the same genetic programming language.

And carry the same basic information. Fits my point that all the needed information for life from bacteria to humans was present from he beginning.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Wednesday, July 11, 2018, 21:10 (156 days ago) @ David Turell

Tony: Sure, some variation within a species happens. Bigger heads, smaller feet, more hair, less hair, thicker bones, thinner bones, etc. But Within preprogrammed limits. A bird has always been a bird and will always be a bird. Not a cat or a dinosaur or a potato. It is based on Intelligent Design. My hypothesis does not need to resort to the tangled bush theory. The prototypes were designed and deployed and have continuously varied within predefined limits. The similarities in genetics between different species is entirely due to the fact that they are written in the same genetic programming language.


David: And carry the same basic information. Fits my point that all the needed information for life from bacteria to humans was present from he beginning.

I think it is premature to make that assumption. As a designer, that strikes me as intuitively wrong. You don't design the end and work your way back, usually, especially with more complex systems.

I personally expect that we will find that each phase of life on Earth had a purpose in preparing the earth for life as we know it. Sort of building the foundations, as it were. I think we see life springing up periodically and fully formed as the Earth itself was terraformed from its cooling molten state into the lush planet we know. by the life inhabiting it.

Earth is the alpha test, I think... Perhaps, the prototype. I suspect that is why we will find no life anywhere else in the universe. Now, you may or may not disagree with humans being a favored creation, but there can be no denying that by virtue of our reason alone, even if nothing else is considered, our capabilities far outstrip those of animals.

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 11, 2018, 21:53 (155 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: Sure, some variation within a species happens. Bigger heads, smaller feet, more hair, less hair, thicker bones, thinner bones, etc. But Within preprogrammed limits. A bird has always been a bird and will always be a bird. Not a cat or a dinosaur or a potato. It is based on Intelligent Design. My hypothesis does not need to resort to the tangled bush theory. The prototypes were designed and deployed and have continuously varied within predefined limits. The similarities in genetics between different species is entirely due to the fact that they are written in the same genetic programming language.


David: And carry the same basic information. Fits my point that all the needed information for life from bacteria to humans was present from the beginning.


Tony: I think it is premature to make that assumption. As a designer, that strikes me as intuitively wrong. You don't design the end and work your way back, usually, especially with more complex systems.

I personally expect that we will find that each phase of life on Earth had a purpose in preparing the earth for life as we know it. Sort of building the foundations, as it were. I think we see life springing up periodically and fully formed as the Earth itself was terraformed from its cooling molten state into the lush planet we know. by the life inhabiting it.

Earth is the alpha test, I think... Perhaps, the prototype. I suspect that is why we will find no life anywhere else in the universe. Now, you may or may not disagree with humans being a favored creation, but there can be no denying that by virtue of our reason alone, even if nothing else is considered, our capabilities far outstrip those of animals.

If God can see the future, my thought is not unreasonable.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, July 12, 2018, 01:42 (155 days ago) @ David Turell

Tony: Sure, some variation within a species happens. Bigger heads, smaller feet, more hair, less hair, thicker bones, thinner bones, etc. But Within preprogrammed limits. A bird has always been a bird and will always be a bird. Not a cat or a dinosaur or a potato. It is based on Intelligent Design. My hypothesis does not need to resort to the tangled bush theory. The prototypes were designed and deployed and have continuously varied within predefined limits. The similarities in genetics between different species is entirely due to the fact that they are written in the same genetic programming language.


David: And carry the same basic information. Fits my point that all the needed >>>information for life from bacteria to humans was present from the beginning.

If God can see the future, my thought is not unreasonable.

But what does the evidence say? The evidence is that we have these events like the Cambrian explosion. A whole slew of new life forms emerging fully formed with no intermediates. If we were to contrast Cambrian lifeforms versus early life forms, would they have more or less information and complexity? If more, then that information had to be added. Only if the answer is less can your point be considered. It's testable

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 12, 2018, 15:22 (155 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: Sure, some variation within a species happens. Bigger heads, smaller feet, more hair, less hair, thicker bones, thinner bones, etc. But Within preprogrammed limits. A bird has always been a bird and will always be a bird. Not a cat or a dinosaur or a potato. It is based on Intelligent Design. My hypothesis does not need to resort to the tangled bush theory. The prototypes were designed and deployed and have continuously varied within predefined limits. The similarities in genetics between different species is entirely due to the fact that they are written in the same genetic programming language.


David: And carry the same basic information. Fits my point that all the needed >>>information for life from bacteria to humans was present from the beginning.

If God can see the future, my thought is not unreasonable.


David: But what does the evidence say? The evidence is that we have these events like the Cambrian explosion. A whole slew of new life forms emerging fully formed with no intermediates. If we were to contrast Cambrian lifeforms versus early life forms, would they have more or less information and complexity? If more, then that information had to be added. Only if the answer is less can your point be considered. It's testable

The loss of information is found in recent research. We cannot find DNA from the Cambrian to look at.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, July 12, 2018, 20:00 (155 days ago) @ David Turell

I have no doubt that information is lost through mutations, but losing information does not account for new, fully formed features or species

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 12, 2018, 21:22 (155 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: I have no doubt that information is lost through mutations, but losing information does not account for new, fully formed features or species

Agreed. The bit by bit approach doesn't solve the problem on speciation, and the gaps in the fossil record refute it.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 10, 2018, 15:55 (157 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: DHW, you are playing fast and loose with language. The Theory of Evolution is dependent upon random mutations. Period. It is entirely based on chance. A chance that has been proven impossible mathematically according to all we know (which admittedly isn't much).

If something is not random chance, it is designed. Any answer to the Theory of Evolution is going to be rooted in Intelligent Design. Something is either random, or its not. We have all agreed, repeatedly, that random chance is out of the question. That leaves design.

You have been using the word evolution in the less technical sense of to change and, possibly grow over time. I have not stated that things do not change over time. My hypothesis even accounts for genetic heredity and conservation of information over generations.

It has never been observed, to my knowledge, that a species suddenly acquired brand new genetic functionality that it didn't have before. I know they can be manipulated into that, but that is design. I know that they can re-purpose existing functionality to adapt to their environments. But new functionality being inserted into the genome during its own life has not, that I am aware of, been observed. And that is the observation that must be made before I consider the idea of an inventive intelligence at the cellular level, because that is what must be done in order to pass that information to the next generation. I've considered your hypothesis multiple times, but that is the sticking point for me. At least one organism needs to cross the threshhold of adding a working function to their genome during the lifespan of a single celled organism.


Again, this hypothesis does not question the nature of the designer. But if there are questions about things that we see,like the Cambrian Explosion, it gives a new perspective, a new way of looking at the data. A good way to bring science to bear on the questions, and perhaps even find that our way of looking at things is backwards and much of what we think we know is wrong because everyone is looking for random chance in a world full of design. How many lives would be saved if we cracked the universal genetic code down to the programming level? ALS? Alzheimers? Diabetes?

Why are lab mice and pigs useful for finding medications for humans? Maybe if those guys would stop playing make believe and trying to figure out which mousepigasaur screwed a chimpazee to make humans they would start seeing what is right in front of their face.

Brilliant exposition.

An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Wednesday, July 11, 2018, 03:34 (156 days ago) @ David Turell

Thank you.

--
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 2

by David Turell @, Monday, July 09, 2018, 14:59 (158 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


Tony: On Information

What David and I are referring to as 'information' is more than just random gibberish. It is:

Data that is (1) accurate and timely, (2) specific and organized for a purpose, (3) >presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) can lead to an >increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/information.html

Specificity, Purpose, Context, Meaning, Relevance, Decrease in Uncertainty.

You could write AGCT infinitely in a random string and eventually come out with every gene every discovered....but most of what you get is garbage. However, we know that strands of DNA are not random. They are specific. They code specific proteins in specific ways, in order to fill a biological purpose, in the context of the species and environment in which they exist. They have meaning to the cellular machinery, in that they convey instructions on how to perform tasks that are relevant to the functions of living.

By definition, DNA is information. The one thing not covered so far is how complex that information is. If DNA were the result of random mutations, where is all the the noise (random non-sense) in the signal (DNA information strand)? Not only is there virtually no signal noise in any known genome, the information stored shows a high degree of complexity.

Biological complexity refers to a measure of the intricateness,
or complication, of a biological organism that is
directly related to that organism’s ability to successfully
function in a complex environment. Because organismal
complexity is difficult to define, several different measures
of complexity are often used as proxies for biological complexity,
such as structural, functional, or sequence complexity.
While the complexity of single proteins can be
estimated using tools from information theory, a whole
organism’s biological complexity is reflected in its set of
expressed proteins and its interactions, whereas the complexity
of an ecosystem is summarized by the network of
interacting species and their interaction with the environment.

You could say that the number of proteins that a genome can code for is the sum of its complexity, but obviously, the organisms overall environment, the interactions within it, and the ability to detect and respond to changes within the environment increases the complexity greatly. Evolution can not explain the specificity, the complexity, nor the utter lack of signal noise in something generated from supposedly random mutations.

My hypothesis differs because it starts by positing: The information contained within any genome is, and must be, too complex, too specific, and too ubiquitous to be produced by random chance and natural selection. DNA is a designed language that transcends species, environments, and phenotype, universally found in every living creature. Each gene is programmed in this language for a purpose, behaving as a Function (an algorithm that takes an input and returns an output). It is a language written in chemistry. Physically, it is subject to the laws of chemistry, and by extension the laws of physics. Informationally, it follows what few laws we understand from Information Theory.

A wonderful summary of of the meaning of 'information' without getting into the density of information theory.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum