Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

There is a fundamental difference between the approach of the third way and the DI. To call my pointing that out ‘hand-waving’ illustrates nicely why you are providing support to our big game hunter friend above, and creationists everywhere. You’re falling for their PR.

Do you genuinely not see the difference in approach?

Further, to your point about PR, here's a suggestion. Open a Google search and type in "Intellgent Design". See the pages of results and, if they resemble those on my search, you will see that, apart from DI direct links, the rest are split between aggressive atheist inspired Darwinist sites (lots and lots of blogs) and outright religious propaganda sites. I pointed to this very early in this thread and it is such a shame that the debate is so polarised. How can a layman evaluate the evidence with so much ideology clouding the issues?

So, for myself, I have to look at it in context with the rest of my thinking. Basically, my idealism and the idea that mind is fundamental makes it a no-brainer (forgive the pun) to accept that mind, rather than random chance, is behind evolution. Your atheism and, therefore, materialism will lead you to the opposite view. What any of that has to do with right-wing fundamentalism is totally lost on me.

A short comedic interlude.
Lamarck or Darwin.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/neu0ujj53gfq15...k.mp3?dl=0

From a BBC comedy show, with serious comment from "historian in residence Dr Kate Williams".


It does give a flavour of a British perspective on these matters, creationism is mentioned only for comedy effect, the rest of the focus is on which version of evolution is more appropriate - ending with a nod in the direction of Lamarck.

"I'm not going to look into it, because I find science tedious..." - that seems particularly relevant.

Ok. Forget about uneasy bedfellows. Do you see the difference between the third way approach and that of the DI?

Ok. Forget about uneasy bedfellows. Do you see the difference between the third way approach and that of the DI?

Do you mean the DI or do you mean the individuals who do the work? I see politics behind the scenes on all sides but I suspect that those working towards third way alternatives and also some of those working for the DI would rather let their work speak for itself. For example, Denis Noble insists that he is not a supporter of ID yet, it seems, he's done enough to warrant similar attacks from the neo-darwinists.

Famous physiologist embarrasses himself by claiming that the modern theory of evolution is in tatters

Here we go again: someone arguing that DARWIN WAS RONG  (well, he was, on several issues) and also that DARWIN’S INTELLECTUAL DESCENDANTS ARE RONG TOO. But this time it’s not a creationist but a card-carrying biologist, and a famous one, too.

... etc., etc...

[Noble claims] Scientists have not been able to create new species in the lab or greenhouse, and we haven’t seen speciation occurring in nature.  This is what really burns my onions, because Noble is flat wrong here, and the study of speciation is my specialty. I’m not even sure why Noble makes this argument, which resembles a creationist argument.  We haven’t seen new species arise before our eyes, ergo Jesus!

So clearly the difference you talk about is not great enough for Coyne. 

In Noble's own words:

I was one of the few to argue against the reductionist case, and I expected two others to help me. One did, another didn’t, and he came up to me in the coffee break and said, "Denis, I would support you if I didn’t think that that brings God back in."

...

I know the word spirituality produces all kinds of notions of there being strange stuff out here. But you don’t have to suppose that at all. If you are dealing with the relationships and the processes, that’s spiritual only in the sense it’s not material, but that’s what spiritual means. If you go back to it, it comes from spiritus, which is breath and all the rest of it. It’s a natural process.

Besides that, the doily analogy (not being a native English speaker, had to look up that word) illustrates another flaw in the ID logic.
They assume that the doily is the desired result, while there might be millions of other examples of complex things.
Things that would be equally impressive to have emerged from random interactions.
Meaning that the chance of getting to any one of these millions of complexities, is also millions of times greater than the chance of getting to a specific one.  

To step away from the analogy, cdesign proponentsists always come to these impossibly small numbers, if they make calculations for the chances of a specific organism evolving.
But why should we assume this specific organism has to evolve? That is already assuming teleology.
If, on the other hand, we calculate the possibility for any, non specific, similarly complex, organism to evolve, the numbers suddenly become many orders of magnitude larger.

The possibly self-assembled doily idea has to be one of the most ridiculous responses yet. The real-world probability of any doily at all much less one with a complicated symmetrical pattern appearing spontaneously by sheer chance of the random arrangement of molecules is beyond vanishingly low. And we know that the physical laws governing the component parts of the doily (wool or cotton yarn) do not determine the pattern of the doily. So as a practical matter where does the doily with the snowflake pattern come from? The inescapable inference is design. 

This was meant to be an analogy with the independence of the genetic code and the physics and chemical laws governing its component DNA base pairs. I notice you haven't tried to challenge that. 

What you have conveniently forgotten here is that any living organism at all is immeasurably improbable, compared to the vastly greater total number of possible random combinations and permutations of atoms and molecules. There being millions of kinds of living organisms doesn't put a dent in the improbability. This entire class of possible living forms is miniscule, immensely improbable, in the universe of all possible forms. If you disagree with that, please cite the numerous quasi-living and alternate living forms found in the oceans having been randomly assembled there by sheer chance out of organic molecules.

Darwinians love to point out that in their theory evolution has no goal, no vector - all it means is that some, any, new organism develops . It could have been anything. Sure. However, in most actual evolution it hasn't been just any living organism that arises, it has been one modified and adapted in a particular direction, a particular vector that has already been established by the form.  For instance, the whale series. Once that process began, it wasn't just any new forms that arose, it was ones with major biological engineering changes specifically aimed at greater ability to live in the ocean. And there is convergent evolution, adding another kind of vector. Finally, all of this is characterized by sudden appearances, the most prominent being the Cambrian Explosion, where there weren't even any precursors in the fossil record.

Do you mean the DI or do you mean the individuals who do the work? I see politics behind the scenes on all sides but I suspect that those working towards third way alternatives and also some of those working for the DI would rather let their work speak for itself. For example, Denis Noble insists that he is not a supporter of ID yet, it seems, he's done enough to warrant similar attacks from the neo-darwinists.


So clearly the difference you talk about is not great enough for Coyne. 

In Noble's own words:

You’re avoiding the question. We’re talking about an organisation that, before anything else, promotes a solution, ‘Intelligent Design’. That is it’s starting position and is not conducive to open and honest enquiry.

The Third Way may find evidence of ‘intelligence’ (whatever that means) but, from what I can see, they are starting from a more open minded position. They are not starting with a solution.

Do you see the difference?

You’re avoiding the question. We’re talking about an organisation that, before anything else, promotes a solution, ‘Intelligent Design’. That is it’s starting position and is not conducive to open and honest enquiry.

The Third Way may find evidence of ‘intelligence’ (whatever that means) but, from what I can see, they are starting from a more open minded position. They are not starting with a solution.

Do you see the difference?

Yes of course. I've already said so. The DI as an organisation has an objective. A religious one. I don't deny that nor do I feel comfortable with it.  But you still have to confront what their scientists contend. If you don't your argument is still ad hominem. The equivalent would be to dismiss Dawkins because he is an aggressive atheist. I don't feel comfortable with that either but the only thing I, as a layman, can do is hear what each has to say and decide what to take away. Not dismiss either because I don't like their beliefs.

Yes of course. I've already said so. The DI as an organisation has an objective. A religious one. I don't deny that nor do I feel comfortable with it.  But you still have to confront what their scientists contend. If you don't your argument is still ad hominem. The equivalent would be to dismiss Dawkins because he is an aggressive atheist. I don't feel comfortable with that either but the only thing I, as a layman, can do is hear what each has to say and decide what to take away. Not dismiss either because I don't like their beliefs.

They are dismissable for the precise reason that their solution is God did it. They aren't nterested at all in finding out how TOE works. They are interested in getting rid of TOE.

They are dismissable for the precise reason that their solution is God did it. They aren't nterested at all in finding out how TOE works. They are interested in getting rid of TOE.

It has been stated many times by DI and other Darwinism-doubting scientists that ID does not try to specify the designer. But of course you know this and you know that you are erecting another straw man. 

From an article in Evolution News, which is associated with DI (https://evolutionnews.org/2015/06/why_doesnt_inte/):

"There is no “Made by Yahweh” engraved on the side of the bacterial rotary motor — the flagellum. In order to find out what or who its designer is, one must go outside the narrow discipline of biology. Cross-disciplinary dialogue must begin with the fields of philosophy, sociology, history, anthropology, and theology. Design itself, however, is a direct scientific inference; it does not depend on a single religious premise for its conclusions.
(Thomas Woodward, Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design, p. 15 (Baker Books, 2006).)
In other words, the empirical data — such as the information-rich, integrated complexity of the flagellar machine — may indicate that the flagellum arose by intelligent design. But that same empirical data does not inform us whether the intelligence that designed the flagellum was Yahweh, Allah, Buddha, Yoda, or some other source of intelligent agency. There is no known way to use such empirical data to determine the nature or identity of the designer, and since ID is based solely upon empirical data, the scientific theory of ID must remain silent on such questions."

As to DI wanting to eliminate any TOE, that is ridiculous. As has been stated numerous times by numerous DI and other scientists, ID accepts that evolution in deep time has happened. They just have found overwhelming evidence that intelligent or teleological causes must be involved - the current Modern Synthesis neo-Darwinist evolution theory is incapable of explaining the most important characteristics of living organisms, and evolution as observed in the fossil record. They accept that the current TOE has a good model of microevolution, but not of macroevolution. 

This acceptance is expressed in another article in Evolution News (https://evolutionnews.org/2015/07/microevolution/):

"Microevolution (variation) takes place through genetic drift, natural selection, mutations, insertions/deletions, gene transfer, and chromosomal crossover, all of which produce countless observed variations in plant and animal populations throughout history. Examples include variations of the peppered moth, Galapagos finch beaks, new strains of flu viruses, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and variations in stickleback armour. Each year, thousands of papers are published dealing with examples of microevolution/variation."

But of course, in this case also, you probably already know that - you just want to erect another straw man.