(2019-07-18, 11:27 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]According to Wikipedia, James Tour is a Jew, so if people are attacking him for being a Christian they are definitely off-target!
Sorry, yes I do remember reading that. The point is similar though - the ad-homs are directed at his religious faith.
A new penetrating and lucid analysis of the Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design battle.
The author, Robert Shedinger, is a professor of religion at Luther College, Iowa. Although his area of professional expertise is as an expert on religion and a Biblical scholar, he also has a good grasp of the basics of biological science and accepts the manifold evidence of the reality of some sort of evolutionary process over billions of years.
He looked into the ID controversy and was surprised to discover that “this (ID) literature was far more scientifically substantive than the usual caricature, and this drove me to immerse myself in the scientific literature of (Darwinian) evolutionary biology to see if it was as convincing as usually portrayed.”
The new book is The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms: Darwinian Biology’s Grand Narrative of Triumph and the Subversion of Religion. Paraphrasing the rough descriptive summary: Is Darwinian evolution really the most successful scientific theory ever proposed—or even the best idea anyone has ever had, as Daniel Dennett once put it? This new book gives a comprehensive critical reading of the literature of evolutionary biology from Darwin to Dobzhansky to Dawkins. Shedinger shows that the popular Darwinian account of evolution is a fatally flawed attempt at a grand narrative that greatly overstates its empirical validity as the almost religiously held modern evolutionary theory. He shows that the mechanisms driving the evolutionary process truly remain a mystery more than one hundred fifty years after Origin of Species.
Q & A from the book:
Quote:"What is the grand narrative of Darwinian triumph?
This refers to how Darwin’s theory of natural selection has been passed from one generation of scientists to another as the most successful scientific theory of all time despite serious questions about its empirical foundation. This narrative acts to ensure the scientific status of biology as a purely materialist discipline, but actually undermines a serious attempt to grapple with the origin and diversity of life.
How does this grand narrative subvert religion?
By claiming that the diversity of life can be fully explained in purely material terms–as the result of natural selection acting on the inherent variability of organisms–this narrative renders religious ideas about a creator God or gods or some creative intelligence at work in the world of no explanatory value. Religious scholars and thinkers are thus reduced to accommodating their religious reflections to this scientific truth in ways that evacuates religious ideas of their meaning.
What aspects of modern evolutionary theory remain a mystery?
There are currently no good scientific explanations for how life emerged from inanimate matter or how mind emerges from the material brain. Likewise for the origin of the genetic code and the grammaticality of DNA. How and why did multi-cellular organisms evolve since single-celled bacteria dominate the planet and seem far better adapted to the conditions of life? How did the various animal body plans come into existence so suddenly in the Cambrian period 520 million years ago with no new body plans having evolved since? Why do so few fossil species show any evolutionary development over their life histories? This is just a sample of the many mysteries.
How do you feel about movements like creationism and intelligent design?
As a trained biblical scholar I cannot read the book of Genesis literally or historically. The 4.5 billion year age of the Earth is well established scientifically, and the fossil record as well as the biogeographical distribution of species around the world is strong support for an evolutionary process. So I cannot accept strict creationist ideas. I am, however, open to the intelligent design idea that life’s history cannot be explained without recourse to some type of intelligent agent. I do not identify this agent with the biblical God as some intelligent design advocates do, but I am sympathetic to the criticisms of Darwinism coming from the intelligent design movement and the principle that life cannot be explained apart from intelligence."
(2019-07-30, 06:52 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]A new penetrating and lucid analysis of the Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design battle.
I fear the author seems only as qualified as a layperson so I don't see this work making much headway between the two sides you mention here.
Reading the Q&A I believe the author has left out some possibilities regarding the question of materialism's relation to evolution. Starting with the first quote:
Quote:This refers to how Darwin’s theory of natural selection has been passed from one generation of scientists to another as the most successful scientific theory of all time despite serious questions about its empirical foundation. This narrative acts to ensure the scientific status of biology as a purely materialist discipline, but actually undermines a serious attempt to grapple with the origin and diversity of life.
I am not sure the scientific community as a whole thinks of evolution as the most successful theory - I've heard it said by a few scientists that QM holds that award. Additionally, I also think he's wrong to say the narrative makes biology a materialist discipline as Raymond Tallis is an immaterialist who rejects ID & more poignantly the engine of evolution plays a large part in Donald Hoffman's Idealist conception of reality.
And that's merely two examples.
Then there's the next bit:
Quote:By claiming that the diversity of life can be fully explained in purely material terms–as the result of natural selection acting on the inherent variability of organisms–this narrative renders religious ideas about a creator God or gods or some creative intelligence at work in the world of no explanatory value. Religious scholars and thinkers are thus reduced to accommodating their religious reflections to this scientific truth in ways that evacuates religious ideas of their meaning.
Going back to those Feser articles on ID (
reposting here for convenience) I think trying to squeeze God into the IDer's probabilistic argument seems like something of a disservice. The God who is the Ground of Being surely isn't the God who piddles around with DNA?
Even in cases of showing the guidance of an intelligence toward a final form or some more direct intercession that would be "punctuated evolution", as Max_B pointed out you would still have the deathly struggles of an incredible number of entities. This dovetails into a general problem of Evil that I don't think Feser's Scholastic view really gives answer to either but that's a convo for another thread...
Moving on:
Quote:There are currently no good scientific explanations for how life emerged from inanimate matter or how mind emerges from the material brain.
Agreed, but this isn't a issue with evolutionary theory itself AFAICTell? There are Idealists and Panpsychists who reject ID.
Those criticisms aside I may end up reading the book for a survey of issues that IDers find relevant. I am curious about this bit:
Quote:I do not identify this agent with the biblical God as some intelligent design advocates do, but I am sympathetic to the criticisms of Darwinism coming from the intelligent design movement and the principle that life cannot be explained apart from intelligence."
Is this meant to be a personal sense that the agent of ID isn't the God of the Bible, or a more strict position that it is erroneous to associate whatever the agent(s) of ID might be with the God of the Bible?
Neo-Darwinist evolutionary biology theory and many leading Darwinists (such as Larry Moran and Dan Graur) clearly predict and insist that due to genetic load factors, the math of population genetics, upwards of 90% of our DNA must be "junk".
On the Darwinian prediction of mostly "junk" DNA, from Revisiting the genetic load argument with Dan Graur (in Larry Moran's blog at
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/07/re...-with.html ):
Quote:"I’ve discussed genetic load several times on this blog (e.g. Genetic Load, Neutral Theory, and Junk DNA) but a recent paper by Dan Graur provides a good opportunity to explain it once more. The basic idea of Genetic Load is that a population can only tolerate a finite number of deleterious mutations before going extinct. The theory is sound but many of the variables are not known with precision.,,,
Let’s look at the first line in this table. The deleterious mutation rate is calculated using the lowest possible mutation rate and the smallest percentage of deleterious mutations (4%). Under these conditions, the human population could survive with a fertility value of 1.8 as long as less than 25% of the genome is functional (i.e. 75% junk) (red circle). That’s the UPPER LIMIT on the functional fraction of the human genome.
But that limit is quite unreasonable. It’s more reasonable to assume about 100 new mutations per generation with about 10% deleterious. Using these assumptions, only 10% of the genome could be functional with a fertility value of 1.8 (green circle).
Whatever the exact percentage of junk DNA it’s clear that the available data and population genetics point to a genome that’s mostly junk DNA."
Graur is so convinced that most of our DNA is junk that he is willing to throw out the whole of the ENCODE human genome project results, because these results conflict with this expectation.
There is in fact an awful lot of non-protein-coding DNA, assumed to be "junk" by the Darwinist faithful. Yet more and more research is revealing that, as ID theory predicts, most of this noncoding DNA does have important functions.
Yet another major prediction of Darwinian theory that has been falsified. Like the suddenness and lack of gradualism and many species with the origin of the animal phyla in the Cambrian Explosion. Of course the Darwinist faithful (for whom the theory is their religion) refuse to do anything but continue to insist that since evolution is true Darwinism must absolutely be true and is unfalsifiable - they have the blind faith that either the new research is invalid or that the explanations are somehow within the theory. In the minds of Darwinists, Darwinism is simply never allowed to be falsified by empirical observation. Needless to say, this not science.
On some of the new research:
Our Cells Are Filled With ‘Junk DNA’ — Here’s Why We Need It, at
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2...Vb6l-hKiUn :
Quote:"Other research advances in the last decade also suggest “junk DNA” might just be misunderstood genetic material. Scientists have now linked various non-coding sequences to various biological processes and even human diseases. For instance, researchers believe these sequences are behind the development of the uterus and also of our opposable thumbs. A study published in Annals of Oncology last year showed that a non-coding DNA segment acts like a volume knob for gene expression, ultimately influencing the development of breast and prostate cancer. And a study in Nature Genetics this year found mutations outside of gene-coding regions can cause autism.
Exploring the role of non-coding sequences is now an area of intense research. Increasing evidence suggests these noncoding sequences might help cancer defeat treatment, and experts now see them as promising tools for cancer diagnosis."
(2019-08-08, 01:45 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]Article by Bernardo Kastrup
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2019/08/...tions.html
I just saw this article referred to on the Anomalist website and thought it was quite interesting:
"today the idea of random mutations has become so intertwined with that of evolution by natural selection that, remarkably, the overwhelming empirical evidence for the latter is implicitly misconstrued to be evidence for the former."
Kastrup's point is that there isn't - and in the nature of things can't really be - sufficient empirical evidence that mutations are random. He doesn't assert that they aren't random, and can understand people thinking it's reasonable to assume that they are random. But he points out that it's important in science to distinguish subjective views from objective facts.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/andreaskay...346553825/
Another miracle of mimicry - the snake-mimic caterpillar, Hemeroplanes triptolemus, Sphingidae from the Amazon rainforest near Puyo, Ecuador. When disturbed this larva of a sphinx moth expands and exposes the underside of the first body segments, mimicking a snake head with black eyes and even white light reflections from the tops of the eyes. Sometimes it also lunges and strikes like a snake to deter predators such as lizards or birds.
How exactly would that evolve? It somehow evolved by trial and error? So that caterpillar tried hard, and by trial and error evolved the same colors … same head shape … same skin texture … to mimic a snake. There are like millions of possible colors, countless number of possible shapes and skin textures. What is even more difficult, the evolved colors have to match between the particular body and the head part. In other words, you need to have the right colors on the right places – by trial and error.
So, who believes in miracles ? A romantic or an evolutionary biologist?
(2019-07-13, 11:39 PM)Ika Musume Wrote: [ -> ]I absolutely admire Dr. James Tour! What I find hilarious about this video and others pertaining to him is that the arguments in the comments try their best to refute him, but they can not do it. They instead argue that he is a second-rate scientist who doesn’t know chemistry, despite the fact the he is one of the most referenced scientists in the world pertaining to his field. He is not second-rate, he knows his stuff.
A key screenshot from this, James Tour's 1-hour lecture on the mystery of the origin of life and on OoL research (good quality video at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU7Lww-sBPg):
Quote:"Almost ever chemical synthesis experiment in Origin of Life (OoL) research can be summed up by a protocol analogous to this:
- Purchase some chemicals, generally in high purity, from a chemical company.
- Mix those chemicals together in water in high concentrations or in a specific order under some set of carefully devised conditions in a modern laboratory.
- Obtain a mixture of compounds that have a resemblance to one or more of the basic four classes of chemicals needed for life: carbohydrates, nucleic acids, amino acids or lipids.
- Publish a paper making bold assertions about OOL from these functonless crude mixtures of stereochemically scrambled intermediates, much like Miller did in 1952."
A new, brilliant and expert take-down of modern neo-Darwinism has just come out.
Well-known Yale professor, leading intellectual and computer scientist David Gelernter recently rejected Darwinian evolution in his celebrated essay,
‘Giving Up Darwin,’ in the Claremont Review of Books. This very well thought-out essay has been widely quoted by the media, as well as ID and other websites. At Quillette, noted battler for scientism and fanatical Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne waded in, giving the usual sort of contemptuous Darwinian
response. That should have been the end of Gelernter’s credibility.
But now, paleontologist Gunter Bechly, Brian Miller, and David Berlinski have claimed and used their right of reply, in a brilliant rejoinder that utterly eviscerates, slices and dices, Coyne. It deserves to be further promulgated and widely read. Highly recommended. People like Coyne are used to having their sweeping assertions accepted, not wittily dissected using a rhetorical rapier. This essay is at
https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-o...rry-coyne/ .
An excerpt:
Quote:"David Gelernter accepted the conclusion that there were no putative ancestors of the Cambrian phyla in the preceding Ediacaran strata. He is in good company. So do most paleontologists who specialize in this field. This conclusion is not controversial, and it is obviously at odds with Darwin’s theory. Coyne is unpersuaded, maintaining that, yes, we have found Ediacaran “animals that appear to be arthropods, muscle-clad cnidarians (the group that includes modern jellyfish and anemones), echinoderms, mollusks, and probable sponges.”
This is pure fantasy. Coyne is unacquainted with the facts. There are no Ediacaran arthropods. There are no Ediacaran echinoderms either. Akarua adami, it is true, was initially attributed to the echinoderms. But apart from pentaradial symmetry, Akarua adami lack all of the synapomorphic characteristics of the echinoderms. The Cambrian fossil record contains stem echinoderms in helicoplacoids and homalozoans (carpoids) after all; and we know from reconstructed phylogenetic trees that pentaradial symmetry does not belong to their ground plan. The mollusks to which Coyne confidently appeals as friends of the family? They belong to the Ediacaran fossil genus Kimberella. First described as a jellyfish, Kimberella was later indeed sometimes associated with early mollusks. This attribution remained controversial: several characteristics contradicted it. A comprehensive paper recently reviewed the “problem of Kimberella” and concluded that “the possibility that Kimberella is coelenterate grade should therefore not be excluded.” Although likely a metazoan, they went on to write, “its placement remains problematic; it may be on the bilaterian stem group rather than within the stem group of any particular phylum.”
Another:
Quote:"The whales? And in twelve million years? Not likely. The available window of time for the transition from the terrestrial pakicetids to fully marine basilosaurids (Pelagiceti) is only 4.5 million years. This corresponds to the lifespan of a single larger mammal species, as Donald Prothero correctly notes. Prothero is Coyne’s ideological ally. They should be better friends. Short time spans give rise to a generic waiting time problem—a much-discussed issue in mainstream population genetics. It is easy to see why. The time required for even a single pair of coordinated mutations to originate and spread in a population is, at least, an order of magnitude longer than the window of time established by the fossil record. Either the fossil record must go, or the waiting time must go, but they cannot go on together. The whales are the least of it. The emergence of a single pair of coordinated mutations in the human lineage required a waiting time of 216 million years. The separation of the chimpanzee and human lineages took place only six or seven million years ago. These figures are clearly in conflict. This is the standard view, the one held by mainstream evolutionary biologists."
.............................................
"If random mutations cannot explain genetic novelty and complexity, just what can it explain? Not much.
If not old-fashioned Darwinism, then, perhaps, new-fashioned Darwinism—the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, or the Third Way of Evolution? Anything is better than nothing, but Coyne, at least, is on record as a supporter of neo-Darwinism. He is skeptical of the need for an Extended Synthesis and so remains committed to the view that nothing is better than anything.
For a very good reason. No part of the Extended Synthesis—niche construction, phenotypic plasticity, evolvability, epigenetics, hybridogenesis, natural genetic engineering—addresses the explanatory deficits of neo-Darwinism. In accommodating phenotypic plasticity or evolvability, it is neo-Darwinism that presumptively did the original construction work. These views thus embody the better aspects of nothing and anything."