Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

I'm still working on a post that features biomimicry, but meanwhile, there's an interesting article in the New Scientist about how blindness in Mexican cave fishes is due to epigenetic changes and not genetic ones. I thought I'd post this because it's a purported example of how epigenetics can produce changes that persist over more than just a few generations.

Darwinists will hate it and are even as we speak trying to find some underlying genetic reason for the blindness. Note that: Shuker is suspicious of some efforts to promote the idea of an “extended evolutionary synthesis”. He thinks some people are trying sneak religious ideas back into evolutionary theory. They are trying to allow organisms to have agency not controlled by genes...

How dare they! No matter that third way people, generally speaking, are hardly religious. For those interested, here's a piece at EN&V that discusses the NS article.

I'm still working on a post that features biomimicry, but meanwhile, there's an interesting article in the New Scientist about how blindness in Mexican cave fishes is due to epigenetic changes and not genetic ones. I thought I'd post this because it's a purported example of how epigenetics can produce changes that persist over more than just a few generations.

Darwinists will hate it and are even as we speak trying to find some underlying genetic reason for the blindness. Note that: Shuker is suspicious of some efforts to promote the idea of an “extended evolutionary synthesis”. He thinks some people are trying sneak religious ideas back into evolutionary theory. They are trying to allow organisms to have agency not controlled by genes...

How dare they! No matter that third way people, generally speaking, are hardly religious. For those interested, here's a piece at EN&V that discusses the NS article.

It’s a very interesting study and I’m sure is very exciting to anyone working in the field. You have made Shuker’s comments look quite prescient by linking to a shameless propaganda spin piece right at the end of your post.

Is it your contention that god/MAL is actively encouraging the methylation process in this cave fish?

Some things I've noticed. People love science as long as it does not threaten their existential beliefs. TOE does just that. If study of psi had the same depth of knowledge as does evolutionary theory does you'd and a few others would say psi is a bonifide science backed up by a big marching band. Tell me what really chaps your arse about TOE?

TOE absolutely does not do just that, though I know you take great solace in thinking that it does. There are plenty of scientists and other subscribers to Darwinian evolution who are fully secure in their religious beliefs or beliefs in god. 

Here steve, let me lay it out as absolutely clear as possible for you since you can't seem to wrap your head around it: Darwinian evolutionary theory is incredibly speculative (especially see evolutionary psychology, which is based on so little empiricism it's astonishing that it's wormed its way into being considered a legitimate "science" as the "consensus" would describe it), rests on unfounded and unobserved ENORMOUS leaps of faith in attempting to establish how descent has occurred via primarily random mutation and natural selection, and to me, it is outrageous that people who claim to like science and are intellectually honest could attempt to defend it as vigorously as they do without (GASP!) the same exact motives you attempt to criticize at every turn on the opposing front. It is clear, absolutely, impossible to miss clear, that people on the side you defend fear opening up evolutionary theory because they're just terrified of the notion that it is something other than completely blind processes at work. What might be at work, how it might otherwise work, I do not know. However, unlike you, I have a degree in the biological sciences and have actually worked in microbiology labs; Dave and Michael both have degrees and experience in those or related fields as well, as do others who have posted here and everywhere who oppose your version of TOE. In no way is this an appeal to authority, but it is to dismiss some ridiculous notion you have that anyone rebutting your, and the Darwinian version of, TOE, must have purely religious motive or something like that, or are just fanboys/fangirls of science "as long as it does not threaten their existential beliefs." As Laird pointed out, your hilarious ignorance of the existence of such a thing on both sides reflects your shallow and biased thinking. 

As I already said (and I do realize that you need information repeated multiple times to get it through that unreasonably unrelenting view of yours), there are actual problems with Darwinian evolutionary theory that are the foundation on which many of those who want to acknowledge those issues base their arguments, not religion or some fear of TOE challenging their beliefs. Your unwillingness to acknowledge that at this point is simply blatant or intentional ignorance on your part, and a complete disregard for anything resembling a legitimate discussion on the topic.

It’s a very interesting study and I’m sure is very exciting to anyone working in the field. You have made Shuker’s comments look quite prescient by linking to a shameless propaganda spin piece right at the end of your post.

Is it your contention that god/MAL is actively encouraging the methylation process in this cave fish?

I'm not sure you are getting it yet, malf. Nobody here is pushing a religious agenda and your inclusion of MAL in your question does nothing to hide the direction of your probing. You seem determined to out us as the religionists you are obsessed with believing that we are. I said in an earlier post that it is not a case of some god - no matter how you conceive that god - tinkering with the mechanisms and process from the outside. Do you really think we are all sitting at home reading that article and saying to ourselves, "Ah well, it is clear: God decided that a fish in a dark cave doesn't need eyes so I'll just tweak that chemical process a little - job done."?

Or is it more reasonable to consider that the process itself is acting upon information and is part of a larger process which, itself, can make intelligent choices? Not necessarily impeccable choices because the system itself is evolving but informed choices nontheless. And that is all within a somatic system but mind (in my worldview) is omnipresent so there is no somatic boundary so the intelligent process extends to the species and beyond. Something like Sheldrake suggests with morphic resonance.

I'm still working on a post that features biomimicry, but meanwhile, there's an interesting article in the New Scientist about how blindness in Mexican cave fishes is due to epigenetic changes and not genetic ones. I thought I'd post this because it's a purported example of how epigenetics can produce changes that persist over more than just a few generations.

Note that the this is still an open question. But if heritable epigenetic changes are found to occur, cool! We wouldn't want this evolution thing to be too simple.

~~ Paul

I'm not sure you are getting it yet, malf. Nobody here is pushing a religious agenda and your inclusion of MAL in your question does nothing to hide the direction of your probing. You seem determined to out us as the religionists you are obsessed with believing that we are. I said in an earlier post that it is not a case of some god - no matter how you conceive that god - tinkering with the mechanisms and process from the outside. Do you really think we are all sitting at home reading that article and saying to ourselves, "Ah well, it is clear: God decided that a fish in a dark cave doesn't need eyes so I'll just tweak that chemical process a little - job done."?

Or is it more reasonable to consider that the process itself is acting upon information and is part of a larger process which, itself, can make intelligent choices? Not necessarily impeccable choices because the system itself is evolving but informed choices nontheless. And that is all within a somatic system but mind (in my worldview) is omnipresent so there is no somatic boundary so the intelligent process extends to the species and beyond. Something like Sheldrake suggests with morphic resonance.

Can you elaborate on the second paragraph? Because it sounds exactly like what you claim in the first paragraph that no one is saying.

~~ Paul

As I already said (and I do realize that you need information repeated multiple times to get it through that unreasonably unrelenting view of yours), there are actual problems with Darwinian evolutionary theory that are the foundation on which many of those who want to acknowledge those issues base their arguments, not religion or some fear of TOE challenging their beliefs. Your unwillingness to acknowledge that at this point is simply blatant or intentional ignorance on your part, and a complete disregard for anything resembling a legitimate discussion on the topic.

What is an example of a problem with "Darwinian theory" that a non-Darwinian theory is based on?

~~ Paul

Can you elaborate on the second paragraph? Because it sounds exactly like what you claim in the first paragraph that no one is saying.

~~ Paul

I'm trying to get away from the religious concept of an Abrahamic God divinely orchestrating every last detail of creation from some heavenly (i.e. separate) domain. This Darwinist/ID/Creationist topic is too readily split along religious lines and I am convinced that is as much to do with atheists being determined to make it such as it is to do with religious creationists actually believing in the biblical story. I don't believe there are any religious creationists on this forum but there are certainly ideological atheists.

All I'm saying is that intelligence - mind - seems to me to be part of the big picture and it is so at every level. I consider that to be closer to philosophical idealism than religion but some might use the word God to encapsulate that concept of the omnipresent mind. I think that doing so confuses the issue. 

Attempting to look at it from the point of view of an atheist (which I used to be, long ago), I see the imperative being to slam shut any door that might let God (by any concept or definition) back in. So, for an atheists, the primary assumption must exclude anything deemed outside the materialist definition of nature: the so-called supernatural. For an atheist, that assumption becomes an axiom. For the religious, the existence of the God of their religion is taken on faith. For me and others here, no such restrictions apply in either direction.

All I'm saying is that intelligence - mind - seems to me to be part of the big picture and it is so at every level. I consider that to be closer to philosophical idealism than religion but some might use the word God to encapsulate that concept of the omnipresent mind. I think that doing so confuses the issue.

It may indeed confuse the issue, so those making proposals need to be clear. For example, if a person is an idealist but does not believe in any gods, then that person is an atheist, no? But then if there is some sort of idealist meta-mind running the show to some degree, isn't it fair to call that meta-mind god?

Attempting to look at it from the point of view of an atheist (which I used to be, long ago), I see the imperative being to slam shut any door that might let God (by any concept of definition) back in. So, for an atheists, the primary assumption must exclude anything deemed outside the materialist definition of nature: the so-called supernatural. For an atheist, that assumption becomes an axiom. For the religious, the existence of the God of their religion is taken on faith. For me and others here, no such restrictions apply in either direction.

A person could be an atheist but not a materialist, so I think your description is a bit of a caricature. I don't think there is anything outside the physical, but I'm open to evidence. The nonphysical thing that shows up might be god-like or it might not.

~~ Paul

It may indeed confuse the issue, so those making proposals need to be clear. For example, if a person is an idealist but does not believe in any gods, then that person is an atheist, no? But then if there is some sort of idealist meta-mind running the show to some degree, isn't it fair to call that meta-mind god?


A person could be an atheist but not a materialist, so I think your description is a bit of a caricature. I don't think there is anything outside the physical, but I'm open to evidence. The nonphysical thing that shows up might be god-like or it might not.

~~ Paul

Yes, my atheist son challenges me with the same argument, claiming that I'm really an atheist. I guess you both have a point if I am to exclude theism but I believe there is now an accepted, rather than literal, understanding (not caricature) of the term atheist. That is someone who eschews not only God but also what might be considered supernatural, spiritual, immaterial. Also, theism as a concept is far too confined by religion. If it were to open up to include what, in New Age parlance, is termed All That Is, then those who consider themselves "spiritual but not religious" might consider themselves theists. It often comes down to people being unwilling to be pigeon-holed.

As for you being open to evidence - I've been following your conversations for six years and I have yet to see any indication of that. It is noticeable that many so-called skeptics are only skeptical of things that challenge their assumptions. Please let us know if you find anything about darwinism or materialism that you are skeptical about.