Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Scientists make just one assumption which is, Nature is comprehensible. DNA didn't just pop whole cloth into existence. This perspective which you despise so much has been awfully  productive. What has immaterialism done?

Why is that assumption made? Why would evolution provide humanity with the ability to comprehend nature?

This link might be interesting to folks following this thread. It takes the form of a debate about Abiogenesis which, according to the Biology Dictionary is:

Abiogenesis theory is the theory that all life started from inorganic molecules, which recombined in different ways due to energy input. These different forms eventually formed a self-replicating molecule, which may have used the other molecules produced by abiogenesis to start creating the basic structures of life, such as the cell.

In simple terms it says that organic life originated in some pre-biotic environment by chemical combinations. Life from non-life. This is the antithesis of any theory suggesting intelligent input.

So the debate is between Pro (abiogenesis) and Con and it serves to inform us of the arguments without losing sight of the science and, more importantly, not degenerating into a science vs religion mud-slinging match (I don't think God or the Bible get a single mention).

The debate can be found here:  http://www.debate.org/debates/Life-Origi...genesis/1/

Why is that assumption made?

The universe is rational. In common parlance dependable. When you take that first step down a flight of stairs there is never apprehension on your part that you'll move in any direction other than down.

Why would evolution provide humanity with the ability to comprehend nature?

Are you sure you've made an accurate supposition?
Problem solving is inherent in many animal species though it is species dependent. Animals with more complex brains such as chimpanzees or humans can solve more complex problems than a mouse can for example. Understanding nature is problem solving.

Occams Razor is only really used in studying nature though, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I’m not really sure your post above is saying what you think you’re saying.

Yes, I know that and in the context of my reply to Karmarling that was to be understood. It is but I'll rephrase it. When making assumptions about observed phenomena it is best to assume as little as possible that explains. How anything works in nature doesn't have to follow simplicity.

Let’s just set aside the finer details of how evolution ‘works’ for a moment...

‘Design’ implies a predetermined end point, starting with a blueprint or plan. Looking at some of the maths that the ID crowd use, this seems to be the assumption: that there was a specific plan to get to this point in history. 

So to the neo-religionists on the forum, is that your position? For without a blueprint, ‘design’ seems the wrong word and ‘intelligence’ is moot.

I don't think the term design has a definition. We can talk about human design. We can talk about natural objects that appear design-like. I might say that the genetic code is somewhat like human design, but that does not mean that I think it was designed.

Or, we could agree that some natural things are designed, but not by a willful process. Instead, the design happens by chance and selection. If you do not like to use the term design for such things, then I would readily agree not to call them designed. I have no stake in calling things designed.

I was going for the tautology, because that is all I think we can do. What we cannot do is observe that something looks like it could have been designed by humans and so therefore must have been designed by some other human-like intelligence. Such a claim ignores the possibility that natural processes can produce objects that look somewhat like they were designed by humans.

The observation "the only source of design we know of is human design" tells us nothing about objects that seem, in some sense, to be designed.

~~ Paul

The key characteristic of "design" is that it embodies large amounts of complex specified information in the form of complicated intricate mechanisms, often irreducibly complex. 

The complete statement is, "the only source of such designs that we know of through direct observation and experience is conscious intelligent agents."  The first Webster definition of "to know" is "to perceive directly, have direct cognition of". If you know of any other source of design that similarly qualifies as being known through direct observation and experience please describe it. 

Some scientists breaking with neo-Darwinism theorize that a non-conscious but still intentional intelligence distributed among cellular organelles and multicellular organisms is responsible for design, but this is still inserting a teleological cause in evolution. 

The only other suggested source we have is one constituted of extremely improbable gradualistic just-so stories involving unintelligent causes. Asserting that something originated from random variation plus selection does not mean it did. It's an assertion, a facile assumption, that a process well understood to apply to microevolution can explain something like the Cambrian Explosion, or irreducibly complex molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum and ATP Synthase and ribosomes. As has been shown in previous posts, neo-Darwinism doesn't have any theoretical foundation for such stories, in that it has no theory for the generation of true novelty in evolution, and it doesn't explain the major characteristic of the fossil record - the punctuated equilibrium pattern. I have cited several experts in evolutionary biology and paleontology who have admitted this in print and in presentations, that the so-called Modern Synthesis has no theory of the generation of novelty, or explanation for the repeated pattern of "explosions" of novelty in the fossil record. It seems to be a best-kept secret in evolutionary biology. A recent major conference on the subject still didn't come up with much to address the explanatory gap, and mainly issued promissory notes for further research. Of course neo-Darwinist ideologues will never recognize that the reason for such persistent explanatory gaps might be their rigid exclusion of all teleological causes. It's really a matter of religious faith on the part of the Darwinists.

Let’s just set aside the finer details of how evolution ‘works’ for a moment...

‘Design’ implies a predetermined end point, starting with a blueprint or plan. Looking at some of the maths that the ID crowd use, this seems to be the assumption: that there was a specific plan to get to this point in history. 

So to the neo-religionists on the forum, is that your position? For without a blueprint, ‘design’ seems the wrong word and ‘intelligence’ is moot.

Firstly, I can't let your invented pejorative pass without comment, malf. "Neo-religionists" - really? What is it about atheists that they lack the imagination to see that, because someone does not share their dogmatic atheism, they must be religious? Do you think I spend all this time explaining why I am not religious yet, secretly, I pore over the bible chanting "praise the Lord"? How many more times or in different ways does it need to be said? Well, for me, I hope this is the last time: I am not religious. Religion requires a belief in its teaching, its concept of God and faith in that God with adherence to the claimed word of God contained in religious texts. None of that applies to me.

That's the bathwater. The baby: the thing of value that should not get thrown out is the idea that reality may be profoundly greater than the limited view of materialism allows. Atheism does not allow its adherents to expand their thinking beyond the mundane. That's why is is dogmatic and ideological. It requires you to reject such concepts as we discuss here out of hand no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary, no matter how convincing that evidence may be. Atheism is closed-minded and intolerant - just like religion. If it were not, it would be called agnosticism.

I'll answer your point about design in the next post although I think nbtruthman has already given a good account.

Firstly, I can't let your invented pejorative pass without comment, malf. "Neo-religionists" - really?  

I think malf was just riffing on "neo-Darwinist". 

Linda

Let’s just set aside the finer details of how evolution ‘works’ for a moment...

‘Design’ implies a predetermined end point, starting with a blueprint or plan. Looking at some of the maths that the ID crowd use, this seems to be the assumption: that there was a specific plan to get to this point in history. 

So to the neo-religionists on the forum, is that your position? For without a blueprint, ‘design’ seems the wrong word and ‘intelligence’ is moot.

Having rejected the term "neo-religionists", I'll say that, for me, design implies a teleological process. That is, things evolve in a direction and do so in an apparently intelligently guided manner. Intelligence seems to be inherent in the process - at every level - not just from the outside as some anthropomorphic designer tinkering with the mechanisms.

I can't say whether the design has an end-point in mind but I doubt it. An end point implies perfection and what I see is diversity: an exploration of novelty. Some seem to be constantly evolving while others seem to be fairly static. There seem to be some life-forms hardly changed over billions of years while others, due to adaption and epigenetics, seem to be changing almost before our eyes.

As one non-religionist to another, does that answer your question about what my position is?

I think malf was just riffing on "neo-Darwinist". 

Linda

I think malf intended the term to be pejorative. Neo-darwinism is a term that, as far as I'm aware, people like Dawkins etc. have applied to themselves and do not consider it pejorative in any way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism