Re-Theory of Evolution

This is not a controversy between evolution and creationism. If evolution is defined as “change over time” I haven’t heard many people dispute that. The “theories of evolution” concern the mechanisms by which change came about, and they can be divided into two categories, materialist theories and theories that include mechanisms of purposeful intent.I think the following is an accurate statement of the materialist position:

quote:

---

“all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; . the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for living systems.”

---

Non-materialistic theories all contain some form of intelligent purposeful organization. My own view is that the ability to make intelligent, purposeful responses is an observable trait of all living systems. Even single cells are capable of some limited creative response to environmental stimuli. Such responses are heritable, epigenetically, as traits develop, and only become encoded into the genome if persistent over generations.If the organizing intelligence of nature is internal, a natural force, life is still intelligently designed. Random mutation and natural selection may be the only known materialistic explanation, but where does it say everyone must be a materialist. Furthermore, theism is not the only alternative to materialism. Acknowledgement of the reality of volition and freewill are the main points of non-materialism.http://30145.myauthorsite.com/ (questions about materialism)

---

No webpage found at provided URL: http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

quote:

---

However, be careful with this, because phenotypic changes don't usually happen without genotypic changes happening first.

---

I don't believe this has been established. No one knows which happens first.Edited to add: I don't know whether or not IDist want me on their side. I do know I don't want to be on the side of the NeoDarwinists.Edited by bertvan, : No reason given.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

True, modern neoDarwinism assumes that change originates as accidents in the genome, that such accidents cause phenotypic change. A non-materialistic view would be that change originates in phenotypes. Then individual organisms may upgrade their genomes to reflect such change if persistent over multiple generations. Certainly no one has ever observed a complex biological function or organ originating as a series of genomic accidents. On the other hand, individual, living organisms can be readily observed achieving modest but purposeful adaptations in response to environmental challenges. Such adaptations are not immediately reflected in genomes - so far as we know. The one gene equals one trait concept is being abandoned, and it would be difficult to demonstrate which scenario actually takes place with our present understanding of the relation between genes and physical traits. However parallel evolution would seem to support the idea that similar organisms find similar solutions to similar environmental challenges. Not accidentally, but as an accumulation of purposeful responses.
I personally accept the scenario that appears most reasonable, in spite of what the establishment tells me I am supposed to believe.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: http://30145.myauthorsite.com/