Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

The fundamental problem with evolution by natural selection is that it absolutely has to proceed one small step at a time, and each step has to somehow be beneficial. This may have sounded reasonable in Darwin's day, but it doesn't really stand up now.

1)          Most DNA evolutionary developments require large numbers of DNA-base additions/changes. Sure it is possible for genes to get passed around by horizontal transfer, bu that doesn't explain how they arose in the first place. Also, I would argue that even if a new enzyme (say) were to be created against the odds, it would almost certainly upset the biochemical balance inside the cell and be selected against. Think of a protease - without some sort of a tight control mechanism, it would just wreak havoc.

2)          The same sort of problem appears on the macro scale. For a whale to evolve from a land based mammal, a lot of changes have to take place. These don't seem to appear in the fossil record, and anyway, it is very hard to imagine intermediate creatures that would be viable, let alone superior to their less evolved cousins.

David

I think this statement demonstrates a preconceived idea of what God is.

Well without some kind of preconceived notion of what 'God' is supposed to mean, it isn't really meaningful to use the term!

Indeed, I prefer not to refer to God at all - partly for that reason.

David

OK. I suppose referencing intelligence doesn't require one to specifically point to the intelligence. After all, if what we often talk about is real, there are multiple possibilities... 

I just keep thinking that this design didn't happen all at once but changes seem to have been introduced in occasional chunks, over time. I think of them as "nudges in the right direction". Just my intuition. Haven't read on the subject. It this the way it is purported?

The major thinkers and writers in ID usually stay away from speculating about the nature of this intelligence, but yes, they make the case for macroevolutionary changes having been introduced in chunks or steps so to say, interspersed by long stretches of gradual microevolutionary change by Darwinian mechanisms. The biggest chunk was of course the origin of life itself, before there even was evolution. The next biggest step appears to have been the Cambrian Explosion, the sudden appearance of most of the animal phyla body plans, embodied as complex systems of systems. Then there are the many major intricate irreducibly complex adaptations that occurred rapidly or suddenly at the origin of some of the individual classes, orders and genera. These are things like insect metamorphosis, and the echolocation system and many other major creative new adaptations necessary in other body systems in whales. These major body system modifications in the various animal lines appear to have been introduced in a series of big steps, with of course each step based on the one before it. A very imperfect analogy is that it seems to be like human engineers periodically coming up with new innovations but naturally basing each new model/design on the previous one rather than going back to the beginning and reinventing the whole product.  Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould originated the term "punctuated equilibrium" for this stepwise pattern he observed in evolution. He never came up with an adequate reductionist materialist mechanism for it.

OK. I suppose referencing intelligence doesn't require one to specifically point to the intelligence. After all, if what we often talk about is real, there are multiple possibilities... 

I just keep thinking that this design didn't happen all at once but changes seem to have been introduced in occasional chunks, over time. I think of them as "nudges in the right direction". Just my intuition. Haven't read on the subject. It this the way it is purported?

How about thinking of evolution in a spiritual sense as well as the physical? So whatever intelligence is behind evolution is also learning, adapting and evolving.

The fundamental problem with evolution by natural selection is that it absolutely has to proceed one small step at a time, and each step has to somehow be beneficial. This may have sounded reasonable in Darwin's day, but it doesn't really stand up now.

Why does each small step have to be beneficial? As long as it's not deadly, it might fix in some portion of the population.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpag...ecular-839

~~ Paul

How about thinking of evolution in a spiritual sense as well as the physical? So whatever intelligence is behind evolution is also learning, adapting and evolving.

Why are you compelled it would seem too inject a spiriual sense?

The fundamental problem with evolution by natural selection is that it absolutely has to proceed one small step at a time, and each step has to somehow be beneficial. This may have sounded reasonable in Darwin's day, but it doesn't really stand up now.

1)          Most DNA evolutionary developments require large numbers of DNA-base additions/changes. Sure it is possible for genes to get passed around by horizontal transfer, bu that doesn't explain how they arose in the first place. Also, I would argue that even if a new enzyme (say) were to be created against the odds, it would almost certainly upset the biochemical balance inside the cell and be selected against. Think of a protease - without some sort of a tight control mechanism, it would just wreak havoc.

2)          The same sort of problem appears on the macro scale. For a whale to evolve from a land based mammal, a lot of changes have to take place. These don't seem to appear in the fossil record, and anyway, it is very hard to imagine intermediate creatures that would be viable, let alone superior to their less evolved cousins.

David

Point 2. Should you be so certain?  A failure of your imagination should not a barometer for what is possible or has happened.

Point 1. Not having lived for millions of years David you don't know how many failures may have happened. I would go so far as to say you are talking from a place that blows smoke.

Why are you compelled it would seem too inject a spiriual sense?

Why don't you read the whole thread so that you can see what was being discussed?

Why should I (or anyone) adopt your base assumptions? (And please try to resist repeating your mantra that they are based on fact.)


My response, as if you really care, was for @jkmac who commented upon design appearing to have happened "in chunks". The word spiritual serves to differentiate between purely physical, random and undirected versus something that appears to have been designed. So the spiritual element was already in play throughout the discussion.There are some atheists who have speculated about some form of intelligence being involved in evolution (I already mentioned Nagel) but, for most proponents here, trying to constrain a universal consciousness within materialist metaphysics is unnecessary. Something beyond materialism (i.e. spiritual) seems so much more parsimonious - unless you are compelled to limit your thinking to materialism.

It is possible to believe that all was created by a conscious entity but not know anything about that entity.  The same happens when people say "I don't believe in God because of all the suffering in the world"  We see the error clearly if we substitute another word or name - "I don't believe in the Queen because of all the suffering in the world"  You see the argument pre supposes that if there were a God, he would of necessity have to eliminate suffering but there is no law that says such.  If we take ID, if design is an intelligent thing, explain to me how it could work without a conscious entity involved.  If you find a conscious entity has to be involved, explain why you would balk at calling it "God"

OK, but maybe it is best not to call such a being God. Also, I believe in not making a ton of assumptions before really necessary. Orthodox science made a huge assumption - materialism - and look what a mess it got them into!

David