Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Ascribing what is possible through "natural lawlike tendencies" and what isn't, based on one's incredulity may be problematic.

It's not based on "incredulity", it's based on simple logic and expert opinion, unless you want to disagree with Michael Polanyi and Herbert Yockey, for instance. Please cite some other biologists with a different view. I don't think that on this issue the science is any different now than when Polanyi was writing.

The snowflake is an exquisite example of the superficial appearance of apparent design in nature as exemplified by crystalography. I have explained how the design of living organisms is of an entirely different kind and order, embodying large amounts of complex specified information, which crystals do not. This truly does make living organisms of a fundamentally different nature than naturally ordered structures like crystals. 

There is a natural lawlike tendency of simple H2O molecules to form certain interesting shapes (snowflakes). But there is no tendency for simple organic molecules to form themselves into the precise and vastly complicated sequences needed to form the long-chain information-bearing molecules found in living systems. That is because the properties of the "finished product" are not programmed in any way into the physics or chemical properties of the components of the system.  For instance, what if you saw a doily crocheted into the pattern of a snowflake? There is no natural, spontaneous tendency for the components of that system (wool or cotton fibers) to assume that shape. The pattern has to have been imposed by external design information. If you disagree, please explain how.

Regardless of Yockey's disavowal of any tendency toward ID, I'll stick with the quote - it represents his expert opinion on the matter.

It is possible for atoms to self assemble to become a doily. I bet your saying wtf right now. You see there are  estimated 10^78-10^82 atoms in the observable universe and there are a limited number of combinations those atoms can arrange themselves. Given enough time ( the universe is expected to have an extremely long lifetime), every combination those atoms can make will be made. So a doily will naturally spontaneously appear.

With regards to what we're discussing here in this thread, is the science right now substantially different than it was then? Trying to dismiss a scientist's opinion because it was from 40 years ago when no major shift has occurred in those 40 years is disingenuous.

I'm not. What I'm saying is make sure his expertise hasn't been superseded. Having done a small bit of reading about him it's unclear if he ever provided data to support his contentions. And it's unknown to me if there is independent data that corroborates his hypothesis. You see it's not mendacious to question the relevance of a long dead scientist's thoughts.

You apparently haven't even read my posts. My answer is that it is different, in fundamental ways, and I explained how.

I have but its been days, weeks. Provide some links to them for me to reread please.

There ain't nothing wrong about questioning a scientist's expertise. It's done all the time. You might want to listen to the vid I posted earlier today with Michelle Thaller giving a talk on what it's like being a scientist.

I know what it's like since I worked in research for an extended period of time and come from a science background. Challenging an opinion and dismissing it because of when it was given are two distinct things. You didn't challenge his expertise, you hand waved his opinion because of when it was given

I know what it's like since I worked in research for an extended period of time and come from a science background. Challenging an opinion and dismissing it because of when it was given are two distinct things. You didn't challenge his expertise, you hand waved his opinion because of when it was given

Handwaving is so easy I think I'll handwave you away.

How in the hell did you misunderstand me? And I'm saying no such thing.
Since you seem to be greatly confused here's a link defining various uses.

I wrote: When making assumptions about observed phenomena it is best to assume as little as possible that explains.

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...occam.html

I think you aren’t really understanding the contradiction that you’re building. You’re saying two things.

One, that parsimony is a tool that humans should use in understanding nature.
Two, that nature isn’t necessarily parsimonious.

I will keep pointing out to you that this is a contradiction that limits the use of parsimony in evaluating nature. You also made the statements that scientists assume nature is comprehensible ( which not all scientists do think, btw ), while not explaining why this assumption is correct nor why humans would even evolutionarily be predispositioned to comprehend nature.

The snowflake is an exquisite example of the superficial appearance of apparent design in nature as exemplified by crystalography. I have explained how the design of living organisms is of an entirely different kind and order, embodying large amounts of complex specified information, which crystals do not. This truly does make living organisms of a fundamentally different nature than naturally ordered structures like crystals. 

There is a natural lawlike tendency of simple H2O molecules to form certain interesting shapes (snowflakes). But there is no tendency for simple organic molecules to form themselves into the precise and vastly complicated sequences needed to form the long-chain information-bearing molecules found in living systems. That is because the properties of the "finished product" are not programmed in any way into the physics or chemical properties of the components of the system.  For instance, what if you saw a doily crocheted into the pattern of a snowflake? There is no natural, spontaneous tendency for the components of that system (wool or cotton fibers) to assume that shape. The pattern has to have been imposed by external design information. If you disagree, please explain how.

That was a very well-written post.

I think that CSI is not as precise a term, as W. Dembski would like.  He works very hard to put a benchmark on it, but I don't think it qualifies as a measurable that rests clearly and cleanly on a process model.  It is more an "after-the-fact" evaluation.

The design process, in my humble thinking, does rest on a fundamental.  The connection between design and specification I think are clear.  Let's tease this apart and explore, as design in evolution is a key assertion.  Here is a good start:

 DESIGN: (noun) a specification of an object, manifested by some agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to some constraints.

https://www.fastcodesign.com/1672937/is-...-of-design

Key for my worldview is the requirement "satisfying a set of requirements", which connects the design process to an existing environment and to a target state.  This puts designing in the context of cybernetics and in the location of a real-world environmental ecology.

That was a very well-written post.

I think that CSI is not as precise a term, as W. Dembski would like.  He works very hard to put a benchmark on it, but I don't think it qualifies as a measurable that rests clearly and cleanly on a process model.  It is more an "after-the-fact" evaluation.

The design process, in my humble thinking, does rest on a fundamental.  The connection between design and specification I think are clear.  Let's tease this apart and explore, as design in evolution is a key assertion.  Here is a good start:
https://www.fastcodesign.com/1672937/is-...-of-design

Key for my worldview is the requirement "satisfying a set of requirements", which connects the design process to an existing environment and to a target state.  This puts designing in the context of cybernetics and in the location of a real-world environmental ecology.

Maybe a little modification:

DESIGN: (noun) A systematic arrangement of elements or important parts specified or planned by some agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to some constraints.

The word is usually used in the form of an adjective, in the evolution debate context. I'll take a stab at it:

DESIGNED: (adjective) Specified or planned by some agent, with elements or important parts systematically arranged, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to some constraints.

Uneasy bedfellows.

https://newrepublic.com/article/144641/t...ated-think

“Philip Glass on his hunts. He is furious with the bureaucrats who claim it is “a privilege, not a right” to bring back these animals as trophies to the US. He believes that God gave man dominion over the animals. He also says that “Anybody who believes in evolution is a complete fool.” 

Glass provides the most horror in this documentary. We see him shoot and kill an elephant, shooting it while it’s running away. The animal makes an extraordinary noise as it lies in the ground, like a growl mixed with a howl that turns into mewling. We see its eye so close up that its eyelashes are visible. The hunter and his guides wash the blood from its flank with water so that it will look better in the trophy photograph. Then we see the dead elephant from an aerial shot, lying flush against the ground with one leg crooked as if it is still running.

The elephant death is extraordinary footage, but Glass’s climactic kill is an adult male lion. Glass weeps over its body. He pets its corpse like it is alive. He marvels at its paws and claws, proclaiming it “absolutely magnificent” through tears. “This is my trophy and there’s not any bureaucrat that can take it away from me,” Glass says, fluffing up the lion’s mane like a hairdresser. He cries and speaks about his dead father, who would be proud of him in this moment.”