Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

I'd be curious to know though how these extra-DNA structures are passed on from generation to generation (other than morphogenetic fields, since those have their own explanation).

That's one of the problems.

The actual huge amount of data must be encoded somewhere.  Extra-DNA structures seem to be heavily involved. J. Scott Turner has speculated that intra-and distributed cellular intelligence may be a function of the cell's membranes, microtubule organizing centers and cytoskeletons. Others have speculated that maybe these structures encode much of the huge data base required to build the body. There are Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields. But these ideas have a lot of problems. We just don't know.

One big problem, I think, is with instinctual knowledge - let's say a fear of snakes. The problem is that conventional neuroscience tells us that groups of neurons develop concepts - such a snakes, chairs, cars, etc in a statistical fashion after processing many situations containing these items. The problem is that this would mean that no two person's symbols would be the same in internal structure. How then can any instinct that refers to such symbols be represented?

Humans are less driven by instinct, except perhaps as regards courtship and sex. Here sexual ideas seem woven into the rest of our lives in complex ways. You can't separate a part of cognition that might come pre-formed, from the rest of our cognition.

This is one reason I support far more radical alternatives - more like Rupert Sheldrake's morphic fields.

David

Do you understand the term straw man? 

And I very much doubt that you have a clue about evolutionary theory. You are so clearly out of your depth that you need to resort to creationist jibes.

I said before your argument at it's heart is a theistic argument . Citing as nbtruthman did Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute whom believe In Special Creation indicates that. Dressing it up to sound sciency as Behe and DI do does not change fundamental. Here's something nbtruthman wrote.

I think that one thing has been left out of this reasoning. The fact of what appears to be the indelible stamp of some sort of creative superintelligence in the nature of reality as we know it. Perhaps human intuition should be sneered at from the philosophical standpoint, but there is a clear intuition of this. The reality that exists (that could just as easily have been absolutely nothing) could just as easily have been completely chaotic and perhaps even irrational, rather than exhibiting the overwhelmingly intricate and organized complexity that we observe. The only source we know of through observation of even very small examples of such complex specified information is intelligent human ingenuity.

I said before your argument at it's heart is a theistic argument . Citing as nbtruthman did Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute whom believe In Special Creation indicates that. Dressing it up to sound sciency as Behe and DI do does not change fundamental. Here's something nbtruthman wrote.

Angry attacks on the Discovery Institute and Michael Behe won't accomplish anything but reduce your credibility even more (as if that were possible).  In another post you even quoted some site (probably Wiki) to attack one of the ID theorists as a Jewish Creationist, as usual regardless of the merits of his position and not even bothering to engage the arguments (probably because you can't).  

You seem to have arrogantly appointed yourself the fanatical guardian of methodological materialist purity for this forum, ignoring the fact that this forum was created in part to debate that very issue of the evident presence of some form of intelligence or teleology in the universe. You seem to think you have been appointed to root out any form of teleological thinking. I've already explained my basic position in another thread (http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-348.html). That I as a moderately spiritual but not religious person feel that there is evidently some form of superintelligence in the universe but refuse to ascribe scriptural or other meaning and purpose to it, especially with the issue of suffering, and fully accept the great age of the Earth and the fact of an ages-long process of evolution certainly doesn't make me a Biblical (or any other sort) of Creationist. 

This position has already repeatedly been expressed. 

"Is intelligent design based on the Bible?
The answer is No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization. In the Greco-Roman tradition, Platoand Cicero both espoused early versions of intelligent design. In the history of science, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, including Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, meanwhile, the idea that design can be discerned in nature can be found not only in the Bible but among Jewish philosophers such as Philo and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. In recent decades, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world."

"Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
The answer is No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? It is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case." 

"Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.” If one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species.” (2000 NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges."  


But you don't care. You persist in using a fallacious straw man argument (attempting to refute an argument that was not presented by that opponent). You absolutely exemplify this. Here's the definition:  "Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument—usually something extreme or easy to argue against—that they know their opponent doesn't support. You put forth a straw man because you know it will be easy for you to knock down or discredit. It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position" Actually, you have thoroughly discredited yourself.

Angry attacks on the Discovery Institute and Michael Behe won't accomplish anything but reduce your credibility even more (as if that were possible).  In another post you even quoted some site (probably Wiki) to attack one of the ID theorists as a Jewish Creationist, as usual regardless of the merits of his position and not even bothering to engage the arguments (probably because you can't).  

You seem to have arrogantly appointed yourself the fanatical guardian of methodological materialist purity for this forum, ignoring the fact that this forum was created in part to debate that very issue of the evident presence of some form of intelligence or teleology in the universe. You seem to think you have been appointed to root out any form of teleological thinking. I've already explained my basic position in another thread (http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-348.html). That I as a moderately spiritual but not religious person feel that there is evidently some form of superintelligence in the universe but refuse to ascribe scriptural or other meaning and purpose to it, especially with the issue of suffering, and fully accept the great age of the Earth and the fact of an ages-long process of evolution certainly doesn't make me a Biblical (or any other sort) of Creationist. 

This position has already repeatedly been expressed. 

"Is intelligent design based on the Bible?
The answer is No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization. In the Greco-Roman tradition, Platoand Cicero both espoused early versions of intelligent design. In the history of science, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, including Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, meanwhile, the idea that design can be discerned in nature can be found not only in the Bible but among Jewish philosophers such as Philo and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. In recent decades, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world."

"Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
The answer is No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? It is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case." 

"Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.” If one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species.” (2000 NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges."  


But you don't care. You persist in using a fallacious straw man argument (attempting to refute an argument that was not presented by that opponent). You absolutely exemplify this. Here's the definition:  "Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument—usually something extreme or easy to argue against—that they know their opponent doesn't support. You put forth a straw man because you know it will be easy for you to knock down or discredit. It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position" Actually, you have thoroughly discredited yourself.

I extend my apologies for grossly mischaracterizing your position.

One big problem, I think, is with instinctual knowledge - let's say a fear of snakes. The problem is that conventional neuroscience tells us that groups of neurons develop concepts - such a snakes, chairs, cars, etc in a statistical fashion after processing many situations containing these items. The problem is that this would mean that no two person's symbols would be the same in internal structure. How then can any instinct that refers to such symbols be represented?

Humans are less driven by instinct, except perhaps as regards courtship and sex. Here sexual ideas seem woven into the rest of our lives in complex ways. You can't separate a part of cognition that might come pre-formed, from the rest of our cognition.

This is one reason I support far more radical alternatives - more like Rupert Sheldrake's morphic fields.

David

Yes. I think the problem is also that the neo-Darwinian evolution of the instinct would seem to require that just the right random mutations occur to the DNA encoding of the neural net. These random mutations would need to just happen to encode the particular fear-induced changes to the neural net structure. The physical changes to the neural net induced by the particular fear are probably very complicated, and the overall structure of the neural net even more complicated by many orders of magnitude. The brain is by far the most complex organ in the body. So it's the probabilistic problem again, the combinatorial explosion problem. The likelihood of this happening seems to approach zero because of the vastly greater probability of random changes being some other changes to the vastly complex detailed brain structure. It's not just any possible automatic instinctual drive, it's this particular one, because this one is important for survival.

One way around this seems to be to hypothesize what it looks like actually happened: somehow, generation after generation certain fear-induced neural net modifications are also somehow structurally the same in the different individuals, and gradually induce corresponding DNA changes to the developmental pathways for the structure of the brain, through some Lamarckian process. But this doesn't seem very satisfactory. I agree that some radical new theory is needed for this, perhaps something along the lines of Sheldrake's ideas, where such acquired characteristics perhaps are transmitted from individuals of the species to some sort of "morphic field".

Yes. I think the problem is also that the neo-Darwinian evolution of the instinct would seem to require that just the right random mutations occur to the DNA encoding of the neural net. These random mutations would need to just happen to encode the particular fear-induced changes to the neural net structure. The physical changes to the neural net induced by the particular fear are probably very complicated, and the overall structure of the neural net even more complicated by many orders of magnitude. The brain is by far the most complex organ in the body. So it's the probabilistic problem again, the combinatorial explosion problem. The likelihood of this happening seems to approach zero because of the vastly greater probability of random changes being some other changes to the vastly complex detailed brain structure. It's not just any possible automatic instinctual drive, it's this particular one, because this one is important for survival.

One way around this seems to be to hypothesize what it looks like actually happened: somehow, generation after generation certain fear-induced neural net modifications are also somehow structurally the same in the different individuals, and gradually induce corresponding DNA changes to the developmental pathways for the structure of the brain, through some Lamarckian process. But this doesn't seem very satisfactory. I agree that some radical new theory is needed for this, perhaps something along the lines of Sheldrake's ideas, where such acquired characteristics perhaps are transmitted from individuals of the species to some sort of "morphic field".

My suspicion is that neural nets probably process data at the pre-conscious level - particularly image processing. Beyond that, I rather suspect the brain is acting as a receiver-transmitter and the mind is not generated by the brain - just coupled to it.

The problem is, that to discuss totally materialist concepts, such as Darwin's theory, one has to re-introduce other materialist ideas that one has ceased to believe in! After all, if we really can perform the OBE portion of an NDE, recognising what is going on in great detail without using the brain, then all that processing is performed presumably by purely mental processing - not by neural nets.

David

A new article has come out about J. Scott Turner's Purpose and Desire: What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It. This article is quite fascinating in parts and well deserves some extensive quotes. 

"Turner sees cognition as an essential feature of life, and it leads to intentionality. He does not define these concepts in the sense of thinking about what one wishes to do on holiday. Instead, he describes cognition as forming a mental image of the outside world and intentionality as the resulting actions." 

"Cognition involves forming a coherent mental image of the “real” world, and the coherence of that mental image depends upon a homeostatic brain. Intentionality is the obverse of this: intentionality is the reshaping of the real world to conform to a cognitive mental image. This also depends upon a homeostatic brain. In short, all homeostasis involves a kind of wanting, an actual desire to attain a particular state, and the ability to create that state."

(from the book, p. 70)

"Examples of this process abound in biology. For instance, certain species of ants actually herd aphids and mealybugs. The ants milk the bugs by stroking them with their antenna, causing the bugs to secrete a sweat substance that is a rich source of food. The ants continuously move their insect stock to new pastures and protect them from prey, so their food source remains constantly available. Even more striking, they can sense the approach of a storm before it arrives, and they respond by corralling their livestock under leaves for their protection. After the storm, they return the herd to the original location.

In contrast, other ant species create stunningly complex underground structures with separate chambers for farming fungus and collecting waste. Their cities also use distinct ventilation shafts to allow fresh air to enter and carbon dioxide to exit. The air flow is driven by differences in temperature between the waste chambers and farming chambers. The colony constantly adjusts the underground environment to ensure the proper temperature, humidity, and oxygen levels are maintained. The ants also use antibiotics to “weed” their fungal farms. A farming ant species creates a completely different image of a desired world from that of a herding species, and uses a drastically different strategy to bring its picture into being."


"The origin of a new cognitive image does not lend itself to undirected evolutionary explanations. The proposed common ancestor for the different fungus farming and aphid herding ant species would likely have lived a simpler existence with a dramatically different image of a desired world. Perhaps it inhabited a single tunnel, and workers foraged for food in the surrounding vicinity. Evolving a complex change of behavior would require multiple new neural connections in the brain, and each would require multiple new chemical signals — or new receptors — to guide axons to new target neurons during development. The launching of new signals or construction of new receptors would require the alteration of multiple regulatory regions of multiple genes, amounting to numerous coordinated mutations. The chances of so many undirected mutations being obtained in the time allotted by the fossil record seem remote.

Additionally, individual behavioral changes toward a new cognitive mapping, in isolation, would conflict with the current cognitive mapping, since the corresponding goals would be different. For instance, ants suddenly developing the drive to follow random insects would become distracted from constructing a tunnel. As an analogy, imagine construction workers mixing up a few pages of the blueprints for a skyscraper with that of a shopping mall. The construction crew would constantly work in conflict, never effectively achieving either goal. In the same manner, the ants’ initial behavioral changes toward a new mental image would work against the original goals and be quickly selected out of the population.

For evolution to move forward, a new world image would have to come into being first, and then multiple coordinated behavioral changes would need to take place at once. In the case of aphid herding, the ants would immediately require the ability to identify the correct species to domesticate, the drive to constantly remain close to the herd, and the ability to identify and drink the secreted liquid. The herding would require recognizing when the herd’s food was diminishing, identifying new locations with more food, and obtaining the skill to direct the herd to the new pasture. Even more challenging, protecting the herd from storms would require learning to predict the weather, identify a safe shelter, move the herd to the shelter, and recognize when conditions were safe to return to the grazing pasture. 

The implausibility of complex behavioral changes originating solely through natural selection acting on mutations has been recognized by leading evolutionary theorists."


Comment: The sophistication of the designing intelligence required in examples like this seems to more closely resemble the complex step by step reasoning process of a conscious mind of some sort that also incorporates some sort of imagination, than it does the unconscious cognition of an extended network of cells and animal individuals of a species. There seem to be explanatory holes, like indentifying the actual mechanization of this high level cognition in the cell and networked among individuals of a species, its means of mapping a mental image back into the required genetic changes, and its means of physically translating the results into actual physical genetic changes. 

But this is still an attractive concept, because it seems to explain so much of the actual observed results of evolution in deep time.

I said before your argument at it's heart is a theistic argument . Citing as nbtruthman did Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute whom believe In Special Creation indicates that. Dressing it up to sound sciency as Behe and DI do does not change fundamental. Here's something nbtruthman wrote.

How do you distinguish between something dressed up to sound sciency, and the real thing?

The only possible answer I can think of is to examine the arguments themselves!

David

Angry attacks on the Discovery Institute and Michael Behe won't accomplish anything but reduce your credibility even more (as if that were possible).  

On the other hand, aligning yourself completely with the Discovery institute also does not help ones credibility too much either.

What are you suggesting? We ignore the DI's anti-scientific, theistic, political, goals? Their feeble attempts to mimic peer review?
Their deliberate, and repeated, misunderstanding, and misrepresenting, of what evolution by NS actually means? 

Do we believe what they say without any doubt? Is there any shred of scientific evidence for what they say?
How do we know there something beyond their pointing at a gap in the knowledge and simply stating "that'st design"?
 

From their founding document, the one that laid out their "wedge strategy":

Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
  
  
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
  

(bolding of these last words mine)
I can sympathize with your wish not to be called a creationist, but then why only quote from  discovery sources, an obvious creationist organization?
That does not help your point at all.

And if you want to know whether intelligent design is creationism, please do not go to another DI source, that sounds like Philip Morris saying smoking is good for you.

from another DI page, the source of your copy and paste:

"Is intelligent design based on the Bible?
The answer is No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization. In the Greco-Roman tradition, Platoand Cicero both espoused early versions of intelligent design. In the history of science, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, including Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, meanwhile, the idea that design can be discerned in nature can be found not only in the Bible but among Jewish philosophers such as Philo and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. In recent decades, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world."

"Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
The answer is No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? It is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case." 

"Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.” If one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species.” (2000 NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges."  

But you don't care. You persist in using a fallacious straw man argument (attempting to refute an argument that was not presented by that opponent). You absolutely exemplify this. Here's the definition:  "Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument—usually something extreme or easy to argue against—that they know their opponent doesn't support. You put forth a straw man because you know it will be easy for you to knock down or discredit. It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position" Actually, you have thoroughly discredited yourself.

Are you not putting up a bit of a straw man up yourself?

Whenever someone uses the term "creationist", the ID believer immediately goes to indignation about  being called a bible thumping, young earth, creationist.
I can not speak for Steve, but that is not what i mean when i say that the DI is a creationist organization.
I simply mean that they think the universe is created, which is undeniably what they think. 

Calling it "intelligent design" does not make any difference.
Saying species are created by God, or intelligently designed by a some Generic Omnipotent Designer, is functionally exactly the same.
Hastily retreating into indignation, is ignoring the real problem of ID/creationism, namely that it is based on a completely illogical premise.
It is based on the faith based believe for a supernatural cause, no matter how you name it, and therefore simply not science.

A very interesting documentary on the DI style ID/creationism is this NOVA film about the Dover trial: