Are there Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution and Proponents of ID

In a way your ideas here seem to echo the question of whether mathematics is discovered or invented. Arguments can be made for both views; this very brief article concludes that it is both - though this isn't a thorough exploration of that topic.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/was...iscovered/

For example crystal structures can be described in terms of mathematics, but that doesn't of itself imply a designer - something like a set of identically-sized balls will tend to arrange themselves into patterns based on hexagons and related 3-D shapes without any intervention.

I'm not sure that's a direct comparison. Things can naturally fall into place and look beautiful enough to have been designed even though they are natural formations although I'm open-minded about "intelligent" self-organisation in non-living materials such as crystals.

But what I mentioned was DNA code. There are some impressive similarities between computer or data transmission codes and DNA codes. Things like start bits, stop bits and error correction are present in both. I fail to see how error correction codes can just "fall into place naturally". 

https://youtu.be/0BbgjqobEic

I would recommend anyone interested perform a search of YouTube for DNA to see not only these codes at work but also the precisely choreographed workflow of the tiny natural nanobots inside every cell. It just beggars belief to claim that such complex and purposeful processes just happen to be that way. Again, this is pre-evolution. This is happening in the most primitive cell long before plants, insects, animals, viruses, etc. made an appearance.

In a way your ideas here seem to echo the question of whether mathematics is discovered or invented. Arguments can be made for both views; this very brief article concludes that it is both - though this isn't a thorough exploration of that topic.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/was...iscovered/

For example crystal structures can be described in terms of mathematics, but that doesn't of itself imply a designer - something like a set of identically-sized balls will tend to arrange themselves into patterns based on hexagons and related 3-D shapes without any intervention.

By the way, I'm not dismissing your observation and I think it is an interesting and important subject for another discussion: i.e. whether the beauty and elegance of mathematics is something that "just is" or whether it was some kind of marker awaiting a consciousness capable of subjective discernment of beauty. In other words, perhaps that beauty and elegance should leave us in no doubt that it is the product of the consciousness we recognise in ourselves but expanded to infinity.

By the way, I'm not dismissing your observation and I think it is an interesting and important subject for another discussion: i.e. whether the beauty and elegance of mathematics is something that "just is" or whether it was some kind of marker awaiting a consciousness capable of subjective discernment of beauty. In other words, perhaps that beauty and elegance should leave us in no doubt that it is the product of the consciousness we recognise in ourselves but expanded to infinity.

No problem, I liked your other post, your reply was valid in pointing out that code is something of a different kind.

Incidentally, some time ago I was reading about data storage - think of how we store digital files on magnetic floppy disks or hard drives or CD/DVD disks or silicon-based such as flash memory. How much of it will survive for say five years or twenty years or a couple of centuries? The article I read (sorry, I don't have a reference) suggested that DNA was one of the most robust forms of storage, being able to preserve data for millions of years.

A novel perspective on the evolution controversy

Kyle Alander

Inteligent Design or an intelligent universe made by God seems so close it is like splitting hairs. Since Kyle is a Christian, he possibly doesn't countenance the idea that a somewhat different sort of God made the universe - such as the non-judgemental entity the many people have encountered while having an NDE or other spiritual experience.

He should give credit to the hard work that scientists at the DI have done to prove that RM+NS is not a valid explanation of evolution as a whole.

David

Inteligent Design or an intelligent universe made by God seems so close it is like splitting hairs. Since Kyle is a Christian, he possibly doesn't countenance the idea that a somewhat different sort of God made the universe - such as the non-judgemental entity the many people have encountered while having an NDE or other spiritual experience.

He should give credit to the hard work that scientists at the DI have done to prove that RM+NS is not a valid explanation of evolution as a whole.

David

If he doesn't think the evidence produced by DI is convincing, why would he give credit?

We could probably just ask him to give his evaluation of DI style ID. I'll try to contact him.

Some years back, I wrote a substantial thread on Skeptiko concerning Behe's argument that RM+NS actually harms the genome at a faster rate than it creates anything:

https://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/b...lved.4317/

One fascinating aspect of this conclusion is that the designer must drop in quite regularly to fix up damage to the genome (I don't think this is related to error correcting codes) created by RM+NS!

https://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/b...lved.4317/

@quirkybrainmeat

I'd like to know what you think about that argument. Ideally why not get Behe's book. Everything from the DI seems to be pretty cheap - presumably because they want to convert more souls.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Darwin-Devolves...B079L6RTNT

David

Some years back, I wrote a substantial thread on Skeptiko concerning Behe's argument that RM+NS actually harms the genome at a faster rate than it creates anything:

https://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/b...lved.4317/

One fascinating aspect of this conclusion is that the designer must drop in quite regularly to fix up damage to the genome (I don't think this is related to error correcting codes) created by RM+NS!

https://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/b...lved.4317/

@quirkybrainmeat

I'd like to know what you think about that argument. Ideally why not get Behe's book. Everything from the DI seems to be pretty cheap - presumably because they want to convert more souls.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Darwin-Devolves...B079L6RTNT

David

I think it is more likely that the automatically genome-degrading results of undirected RM + NS Darwinistic processes pointed out by Behe (which processes are of course always going on in the background) are usually allowed to accumulate and have the expected very deleterious consequences leading to the extinction of the species involved. The result is the observed very limited (in geological or evolutionary time) average lifetimes of species. With mammals the average measured from the fossil record species lifetime is just around 1 million years; with marine arthropods it is 5-10 million years. 

This pattern of automatic turnover of species could possibly be deliberate by the agents behind ID in evolution, in order to promote innovation. However, I think that "devolution" is such an inevitable result of the RM + NS process (that itself is the inevitable result of natural laws and the existence of genetic coding), that the "powers that be" in evolution just let it proceed, then periodically step in and create new species by injecting creative genetic innovations while at the same time restoring enough of the degraded genetic structures to allow further evolutionary experimentation.

This genetic engineering feat would be accomplished using (probably paranormal) methods and mechanisms we could only speculate about - they would be very far in advance of current biotechnology. The extent of our ignorance is indicated by the fact that we don't even know how the genome specifies form and embryological development, or even if this information is actually coded in DNA at all.

However, I think that "devolution" is such an inevitable result of the RM + NS process (that itself is the inevitable result of natural laws and the existence of genetic coding)

At least according to Behe - and I tend to agree - this degradation is caused in a very specific way. It happens precisely because in certain environments - e.g. places where malaria is endemic - damaging or destroying an otherwise useful gene helps an organism survive. If the gene spreads through the population then soon the original form of the gene is no longer available, even when the value of the mutation has gone away.

I'm pretty sure you already get that, but I thought I would clarify that point for others.

BTW, to you know if the loss of the gene for vitamin C happened for a similar reason?

David

At least according to Behe - and I tend to agree - this degradation is caused in a very specific way. It happens precisely because in certain environments - e.g. places where malaria is endemic - damaging or destroying an otherwise useful gene helps an organism survive. If the gene spreads through the population then soon the original form of the gene is no longer available, even when the value of the mutation has gone away.

I'm pretty sure you already get that, but I thought I would clarify that point for others.

BTW, to you know if the loss of the gene for vitamin C happened for a similar reason?

David

Of course I don't know precisely how or why it happened other than to I think plausibly speculate that it was a spontaneous random mutational event that may have not had bad results initially with the pre-hominids it occurred to (because they were living in a forest or jungle environment where there was ample access to fruits and vegetables containing plenty of vitamin C).

This genetic degradation would have at the time effectively been mostly neutral with respect to survivability and reproduction, but with some residual beneficial effects due to freeing up metabolic energy for other body functions. 

Alternately, perhaps the Vitamin C synthesis loss might have been accidentally more strongly linked to some now unknown physiological or neural benefit. Anyway, Behe's beneficial degradative mutation spreading mechanism would have prevailed in the end and the degradative change spread through the population.  

Evidently, later on in evolution, when the human environment changed to leave the jungle and the lack of Vitamin C synthesis became more important physiologically, evidently the agent(s) responsible for creating innovative and creative new biological features and mechanisms for whatever reason didn't see fit to restore this biosynthesis function in the body. Two possible reasons: because advances in medical knowledge of the cause of scurvy, and biochemistry, would come to allow humans to easily correct for this deficiency with consumption of fruits and added supplements, or because later evolutionary and agent-induced changes removed the original conferred advantage. Intervention wasn't necessary.

Of course I don't know precisely how or why it happened other than to I think plausibly speculate that it was a spontaneous random mutational event that may have not had bad results initially with the pre-hominids it occurred to (because they were living in a forest or jungle environment where there was ample access to fruits and vegetables containing plenty of vitamin C).

The trouble is that even the sicle cell anaemia mutation has only spread to a limited degree in Africa and other places - indeed malaria was a problem in the US and (I think) Britain if you go back in history. It would seem you need a fairly powerful advantage from one of these mutations for it to wipe out the original version of gene.

Merely saving some biochemical effort doesn't seem like enough of an explanation - and anyway it might involve less effort to synthesise the molecule - ascorbic acid is an amazingly small molecule - than to seek it out in the environment.

OTH I seem to remember that there is a phenomenon in which if you have two genes A and B lying close together on a chromosome, a valuable mutation in gene A can boost the occurrence of the adjacent gene B. This happens because of the crossover mechanism that mixes the contents of the two chromosomes when gametes are being created.

This genetic degradation would have at the time effectively been mostly neutral with respect to survivability and reproduction, but with some residual beneficial effects due to freeing up metabolic energy for other body functions. So Behe's beneficial degradative mutation spreading mechanism would have prevailed in the end and the degradative change spread through the population.

Evidently, later on in evolution, when the human environment changed to leave the jungle and the lack of Vitamin C synthesis became more important physiologically, evidently the agent(s) responsible for creating innovative and creative new biological features and mechanisms for whatever reason didn't see fit to restore this biosynthesis function in the body. Maybe because advances in medical knowledge of the cause of scurvy, and biochemistry, would come to allow humans to easily correct for this deficiency with consumption of fruits and added supplements. Intervention wasn't necessary.

Whatever, I think Behe's argument is super important - I was stunned when I read about it - and has been ignored (I think) by mainstream science!

David