To begin, I realize this is long, and I realize those who read probably can't take it all in at once, but I wanted to get it out there. For those who are interested, as the discussion proceeds, I may reference back to this original post when appropriate.
Those of you who have conversed with me know of my interest in alternative hypotheses to evolution. I realize few (if any) agree with me, but I'm convinced every phenomena has multiple reasonable explanations. Given no scientific theory claims 100% perfection, I also think it can be very difficult to choose the "best" theory. For those theories that have been studied in depth, the weight of the evidence can definitely sway the decision one way or another. The weight of evidence can also become a burden, however, when it is used to refute hypotheses that have not been given adequate consideration.
My expertise is Newtonian mechanics, not evolution, and I have put these beliefs into practice within my own discipline. At one point when I encountered a very difficult engineering problem, I developed an alternative theory of mechanics on the side that solved the problem. I was not successful in publishing my alternative, as the criticism I received multiple times was that it was not parsimonious ... and in the end I had to agree with that assessment. My approach essentially postulated that the mechanics of every system is different and would require a different first principle. Searching for the best first principle for each and every system is a bit daunting, and in the end it's just easier to approximate everything as Newtonian.
I mention that to emphasize my instrumentalist view of science. I have no problem with using evolutionary theory as a model for improving our medical capabilities, etc. I understand it works well. It's the philosophical and theological implications that bug me. Even then, I would never say those who accept evolution can't enter heaven. As such, searching for an alternative hypothesis begs the question: Why bother? Indeed, I think I've reached that point myself, hence this post. The manner in which the scientific endeavor has been framed requires an answer that does not necessitate God. Therefore, for someone to develop a successful alternative theory, the alternative must also be in a form that doesn't necessitate God. Aside from the possible shock value, then, I'm not sure an alternative to evolution would accomplish anything.
Still, in times past, I thought one challenge to creation was reasonable. That challenge was: Yes, the theory of evolution is not 100% perfect, and yes it is possible there are alternatives. But until an alternative presents itself, it simply will not work to focus solely on criticizing evolution. I also understand why biologists do not accept Intelligent Design as a feasible alternative. I still think it's a cool idea, but it has some significant problems that will always prevent its acceptance.
To that end, I thought I would share some of what I have done. I believe I have taken my informal study as far as I can. I did make the attempt to put together a paper for publication, but the feedback I received from various journals was that my attempt was not innovative and significant enough. I find that ironic as that is exactly what I was going for. Given I have no formal training in biology (beyond a few classes in school), I really doubt I would be successful at making some big, splashy claim that my findings completely overturn the entire field of evolution. Rather, I had chosen one simple aspect as a starting point: the self-assembly of nested hierarchies. In fact, I don't think any creationist will ever be successful given the massive scope most attempt. First because it's too much to take on, and second because (as I've long said) I don't think it's the specific mechanisms that are false, but rather the overarching claims extrapolated from those specific mechanisms.
So, yes, I accept populations change over time and I think those changes can be inherited. I accept DNA is the vessel that sustains that information and that mutations in DNA can be transmitted to future generations. I accept natural selection places pressure on those mutations such that some carry on while others die out - and that the mutations are random with respect to selection pressure. I even accept the strong similarities in DNA between humans and other primates and think it is possible they came from the same source.
This is the point where many will respond with: Huh? Then what do you disagree with?
My objection is to universal common descent - the idea that all life descended from a single population of simple organisms. My position would be that life tries to maintain a stable system and change has limits. So, there is a sense in which life fights against selection pressure. Populations try to produce a succeeding generation that is exactly like the previous generation, and change only happens over the objection of older generations. I apologize if that personifies the process too much, but it is the easiest way for me to present my view. The result is I would say the extremes of variety we see in life did not come from a single biogenesis event, but from multiple events. Even within those events I don't think the diversity emerged in series, but in parallel.
So, for example, I'm 99.999% certain dogs evolved from some canid predecessor like a wolf. But I'm only 90% certain that wolves, jackals, coyotes, and foxes all came from the same canid predecessor. I think it is possible that maybe the wolf and the fox emerged from the same "pool" - the same biogenesis event - but formed separate populations from the beginning. Then, I'm only 50% certain all Carnivora came from a common predecessor, and think it just as likely that lions, bears, and wolves are separate lines from the same pool. And on it goes, such that I would think it more likely crocodiles came from a different biogenesis event than wolves.
Why all the similarity then? Physics. The same chemical processes under the same conditions produced the same biological structure, and those same biological structures produce similarity in the emerging life forms. I realize bioligists can synthetically produce other building blocks, but the simple fact is those building blocks were available during biogenesis and they didn't produce life because the conditions weren't right.
That leads to one of the first paradigm shifts I had while thinking about this. The physical processes of the universe are not "inventing" life. Even if evolution is 100% perfect and my alternative is completely wrong, the universe is not inventing life. So, it's not as if fish had to figure out how to make legs and lungs so they could crawl up on the land. It didn't have to happen in that order (if it ever did at all). The DNA sequence that successfully produces legs and lungs was already set at the Big Bang ... and even before. Though I'm sure it's a large number, the number of combinations and permutations of G, C, A, and T that will produce a viable organism was set from the beginning. As such, had the conditions been different, the wolf might have come before the fish. The wolf doesn't need the fish. All it needs is the proper vessel for producing a string of DNA.
I referred to that vessel earlier as a "pool". I don't know exactly how far down the chain one could chase it. The wolf doesn't need the fish, the fish doesn't need the plankton, the plankton doesn't need the algae, etc. But at some point the answer changes to: Yes, it does need that. In my mental model I think of that bottom level pool as viruses and bacteria. Viruses and bacteria are near to being a massive random number generator - trying out all the possible DNA combinations (and able to sustain themselves and reproduce as they do it) until they hit upon a sequence that causes life to emerge. Even so, these pools of viruses and bacteria have biases. The things they try are not actually random - just random wrt natural selection. As such, the sequences they try tend to be very near to the sequences that already exist. Further, the life that emerges first tends to be the winner. It tends to kill (by various means) all its competitors. In other words, a given pool would tend to produce only specific varieties of life.
Alright. So far this has just been a lot of talking. What did I actually do to try out this idea? I used what is called the Abstract Tile Assembly Model (aTAM). Then I built up the idea in 3 broad steps - all of which were verified with mathematical models.
Step 1: aTAM requires defining tile types and assembly rules, and then studying what structures emerge from randomly stirring a set of tiles. In addition, I created a very simple definition of complexity - a definition only meant for the specifics of my tile set. It's not a definition I expect to be adopted by everyone. What I showed was that in order to create successively complex structures, additional rules had to be added. Yet, as more rules were added, the probability of the more complex structures dropped rapidly. For my tile set it took on a nearly asymptotic profile, suggesting their was a limit to what complexity could be achieved.
Step 2: I showed how the limitation in step 1 could be overcome. I developed a definition of an "emergent" property. I combined this with a mathematical model of evolution I had found in the scientific literature, and showed how this evolutionary model combined with emergent properties produced a nested hierarchy of tile structures with higher and higher complexities.
Step 3: I then showed how, by changing the conditions, the highly complex tile structures developed in different ways. Under one set of conditions it was more likely that simple structures would slowly evolve up through the levels of the nested hierarchy one at a time. Simpler structures evolved into more complex structures. However, under a different set of conditions, the highly complex structures emerged directly from the pool of simple structures. The highly complex structures skipped the intervening steps and went straight from simple to the highest level of the nested hierarchy.
I think that shows a lot of potential for my alternative idea, but as I said I don't think I have the ability to develop it any further from just an informal ad-hoc approach. And I've been told what I have so far doesn't meet the standards necessary to publish. So, there it is.
Those of you who have conversed with me know of my interest in alternative hypotheses to evolution. I realize few (if any) agree with me, but I'm convinced every phenomena has multiple reasonable explanations. Given no scientific theory claims 100% perfection, I also think it can be very difficult to choose the "best" theory. For those theories that have been studied in depth, the weight of the evidence can definitely sway the decision one way or another. The weight of evidence can also become a burden, however, when it is used to refute hypotheses that have not been given adequate consideration.
My expertise is Newtonian mechanics, not evolution, and I have put these beliefs into practice within my own discipline. At one point when I encountered a very difficult engineering problem, I developed an alternative theory of mechanics on the side that solved the problem. I was not successful in publishing my alternative, as the criticism I received multiple times was that it was not parsimonious ... and in the end I had to agree with that assessment. My approach essentially postulated that the mechanics of every system is different and would require a different first principle. Searching for the best first principle for each and every system is a bit daunting, and in the end it's just easier to approximate everything as Newtonian.
I mention that to emphasize my instrumentalist view of science. I have no problem with using evolutionary theory as a model for improving our medical capabilities, etc. I understand it works well. It's the philosophical and theological implications that bug me. Even then, I would never say those who accept evolution can't enter heaven. As such, searching for an alternative hypothesis begs the question: Why bother? Indeed, I think I've reached that point myself, hence this post. The manner in which the scientific endeavor has been framed requires an answer that does not necessitate God. Therefore, for someone to develop a successful alternative theory, the alternative must also be in a form that doesn't necessitate God. Aside from the possible shock value, then, I'm not sure an alternative to evolution would accomplish anything.
Still, in times past, I thought one challenge to creation was reasonable. That challenge was: Yes, the theory of evolution is not 100% perfect, and yes it is possible there are alternatives. But until an alternative presents itself, it simply will not work to focus solely on criticizing evolution. I also understand why biologists do not accept Intelligent Design as a feasible alternative. I still think it's a cool idea, but it has some significant problems that will always prevent its acceptance.
To that end, I thought I would share some of what I have done. I believe I have taken my informal study as far as I can. I did make the attempt to put together a paper for publication, but the feedback I received from various journals was that my attempt was not innovative and significant enough. I find that ironic as that is exactly what I was going for. Given I have no formal training in biology (beyond a few classes in school), I really doubt I would be successful at making some big, splashy claim that my findings completely overturn the entire field of evolution. Rather, I had chosen one simple aspect as a starting point: the self-assembly of nested hierarchies. In fact, I don't think any creationist will ever be successful given the massive scope most attempt. First because it's too much to take on, and second because (as I've long said) I don't think it's the specific mechanisms that are false, but rather the overarching claims extrapolated from those specific mechanisms.
So, yes, I accept populations change over time and I think those changes can be inherited. I accept DNA is the vessel that sustains that information and that mutations in DNA can be transmitted to future generations. I accept natural selection places pressure on those mutations such that some carry on while others die out - and that the mutations are random with respect to selection pressure. I even accept the strong similarities in DNA between humans and other primates and think it is possible they came from the same source.
This is the point where many will respond with: Huh? Then what do you disagree with?
My objection is to universal common descent - the idea that all life descended from a single population of simple organisms. My position would be that life tries to maintain a stable system and change has limits. So, there is a sense in which life fights against selection pressure. Populations try to produce a succeeding generation that is exactly like the previous generation, and change only happens over the objection of older generations. I apologize if that personifies the process too much, but it is the easiest way for me to present my view. The result is I would say the extremes of variety we see in life did not come from a single biogenesis event, but from multiple events. Even within those events I don't think the diversity emerged in series, but in parallel.
So, for example, I'm 99.999% certain dogs evolved from some canid predecessor like a wolf. But I'm only 90% certain that wolves, jackals, coyotes, and foxes all came from the same canid predecessor. I think it is possible that maybe the wolf and the fox emerged from the same "pool" - the same biogenesis event - but formed separate populations from the beginning. Then, I'm only 50% certain all Carnivora came from a common predecessor, and think it just as likely that lions, bears, and wolves are separate lines from the same pool. And on it goes, such that I would think it more likely crocodiles came from a different biogenesis event than wolves.
Why all the similarity then? Physics. The same chemical processes under the same conditions produced the same biological structure, and those same biological structures produce similarity in the emerging life forms. I realize bioligists can synthetically produce other building blocks, but the simple fact is those building blocks were available during biogenesis and they didn't produce life because the conditions weren't right.
That leads to one of the first paradigm shifts I had while thinking about this. The physical processes of the universe are not "inventing" life. Even if evolution is 100% perfect and my alternative is completely wrong, the universe is not inventing life. So, it's not as if fish had to figure out how to make legs and lungs so they could crawl up on the land. It didn't have to happen in that order (if it ever did at all). The DNA sequence that successfully produces legs and lungs was already set at the Big Bang ... and even before. Though I'm sure it's a large number, the number of combinations and permutations of G, C, A, and T that will produce a viable organism was set from the beginning. As such, had the conditions been different, the wolf might have come before the fish. The wolf doesn't need the fish. All it needs is the proper vessel for producing a string of DNA.
I referred to that vessel earlier as a "pool". I don't know exactly how far down the chain one could chase it. The wolf doesn't need the fish, the fish doesn't need the plankton, the plankton doesn't need the algae, etc. But at some point the answer changes to: Yes, it does need that. In my mental model I think of that bottom level pool as viruses and bacteria. Viruses and bacteria are near to being a massive random number generator - trying out all the possible DNA combinations (and able to sustain themselves and reproduce as they do it) until they hit upon a sequence that causes life to emerge. Even so, these pools of viruses and bacteria have biases. The things they try are not actually random - just random wrt natural selection. As such, the sequences they try tend to be very near to the sequences that already exist. Further, the life that emerges first tends to be the winner. It tends to kill (by various means) all its competitors. In other words, a given pool would tend to produce only specific varieties of life.
Alright. So far this has just been a lot of talking. What did I actually do to try out this idea? I used what is called the Abstract Tile Assembly Model (aTAM). Then I built up the idea in 3 broad steps - all of which were verified with mathematical models.
Step 1: aTAM requires defining tile types and assembly rules, and then studying what structures emerge from randomly stirring a set of tiles. In addition, I created a very simple definition of complexity - a definition only meant for the specifics of my tile set. It's not a definition I expect to be adopted by everyone. What I showed was that in order to create successively complex structures, additional rules had to be added. Yet, as more rules were added, the probability of the more complex structures dropped rapidly. For my tile set it took on a nearly asymptotic profile, suggesting their was a limit to what complexity could be achieved.
Step 2: I showed how the limitation in step 1 could be overcome. I developed a definition of an "emergent" property. I combined this with a mathematical model of evolution I had found in the scientific literature, and showed how this evolutionary model combined with emergent properties produced a nested hierarchy of tile structures with higher and higher complexities.
Step 3: I then showed how, by changing the conditions, the highly complex tile structures developed in different ways. Under one set of conditions it was more likely that simple structures would slowly evolve up through the levels of the nested hierarchy one at a time. Simpler structures evolved into more complex structures. However, under a different set of conditions, the highly complex structures emerged directly from the pool of simple structures. The highly complex structures skipped the intervening steps and went straight from simple to the highest level of the nested hierarchy.
I think that shows a lot of potential for my alternative idea, but as I said I don't think I have the ability to develop it any further from just an informal ad-hoc approach. And I've been told what I have so far doesn't meet the standards necessary to publish. So, there it is.
Last edited:
