Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

I don't think so. It's more like a hypothesis without a proof. Saying "Gee, I don't think consciousness can be the result of physical processes" is not a proof.

It really is more than that, and your previous comment acknowledged that. There is a big difference between not knowing how something works, and being unable to sketch out how something might work.

I'm not dismissing them. I'm just not convinced. Give me a link to one of these cases where no one was looking for presentiment.

Unfortunately that isn't an easy thing to GOOGLE - probably read it in one of Dean Radin's books. You could try emailing him - I have on one or two occasions.

Why is that prediction exciting? What does it have to do with remote viewing? It sounds more like a silly palm reading or something.

It used the remote viewing setup and the remote viewers didn't know what target had been selected - but the target was "The next President of the USA". I think it was an attempt to broaden the scope of information accessible by remote viewing.

And I'm sure the best results are obtained by letting the remote viewers say anything they want and then having the entire world to search for matches.

Except that that isn't how the process works, and you know it.

Again, why are you implying that all the parapsychologists doing remote viewing experiments are not scientists?

I don't deny that some research is done in these fields, however, Well I would say that understanding the mind-brain connection is worth a much bigger push from conventional science - probably worth far more than the LHC. The problem is most scientists only accept one possible answer, even though it doesn't fit very well!

Please listen to the video of a lecture by James Tour that Michael Larkin put up above. I have listened to that before, but it illustrates the real problem of a Darwinism with wonderful detail - not to be missed.

David

Unfortunately that isn't an easy thing to GOOGLE - probably read it in one of Dean Radin's books. You could try emailing him - I have on one or two occasions.

I think this is the work you were thinking of:
Dick J. Bierman, "Anomalous baseline effects in mainstream emotion research using psychophysiological variables", Journal of Parapsychology 64:239 (2000).
http://futureofmankind.co.uk/meier/gaiaguys/pa2000.pdf

It really is more than that, and your previous comment acknowledged that. There is a big difference between not knowing how something works, and being unable to sketch out how something might work.

There's a difference, but not being able to sketch something out does not lead us immediately to "it must be immaterial."

It used the remote viewing setup and the remote viewers didn't know what target had been selected - but the target was "The next President of the USA". I think it was an attempt to broaden the scope of information accessible by remote viewing.

Except that that isn't how the process works, and you know it.

You don't think "the next President" is a broad subject? Okay, anyway, point me to the remote viewing experiment.

I don't deny that some research is done in these fields, however, Well I would say that understanding the mind-brain connection is worth a much bigger push from conventional science - probably worth far more than the LHC. The problem is most scientists only accept one possible answer, even though it doesn't fit very well!

Well, there is no one who can force scientists to study things they aren't interested in. It has to be the folks who are interested.

Please listen to the video of a lecture by James Tour that Michael Larkin put up above. I have listened to that before, but it illustrates the real problem of a Darwinism with wonderful detail - not to be missed.

Sorry, I've already exceeded my religion threshhold with Tour. If you want to point to one particular incredulity he talks about, we could discuss it. He appears to believe that if scientists haven't figured out how to create thing X, then nature couldn't possibly create it. This implies that absolutely everything we cannot create must have been created in nature by ID or whatever. Including things we couldn't create in the past but now can.


~~ Paul

Why is this argument compelling? It's the usual "How can consciousness possibly be a physical process?" gambit.

Why should I assume that Tour, regardless of his apparent credentials, understands evolution? But I'll spend some time and listen to the video.

Here is Larry Moran's take on him:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-c...stand.html

Interesting page at Tour's site:

https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/t...%E2%80%9D/

He does seem to be reasonably balanced in his view.

"I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not."

https://lambfollower.wordpress.com/gospe...-creation/

~~ Paul

Larry Moran's take? His Sandwalk blog comes up every time I google anything to do with evolution and, from what I can see, it is just another angry rant similar to Coyne's "Why Evolution is True". It is crammed with pejoratives, character assassinations and assertions of faith.

In the one linked he attempts to make the case that Tour is not qualified to question Darwinism. He also points out that, of those who signed the Dissent from Darwin declaration, "very, very few are biologists".

Tour is one of the few genuine scientists who signed the Discovery Institute’s "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" (2001) that stated, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." (There are very,very, few biologists who signed.)

I downloaded the list and am looking at it now - pages and pages of scientists who are PhDs and Professors, many of whom are biologists or in related fields (Bio-engineering, Microbiology, Biophysics, etc.). 

I mean, really, when this subject comes up in public debate we are assured that no reputable scientist doubts evolution (which is a distortion of what they really mean which is neo-darwinism). Very few - if any - ID proponents doubt evolution but they do doubt the neo-darwinist mechanisms. So labelling them as creationists (as Moran, Coyne and others insist on doing) is a blatant attempt to lump ID with Young Earth Creationism (Moran is also fond of the pejorative term, IDiots).

Larry Moran's take? His Sandwalk blog comes up every time I google anything to do with evolution and, from what I can see, it is just another angry rant similar to Coyne's "Why Evolution is True". It is crammed with pejoratives, character assassinations and assertions of faith.

Yes, he tends to go over the top a bit. But he has good insights into why some arguments are incorerct. He blasts other biologists at least as often as IDers.

I downloaded the list and am looking at it now - pages and pages of scientists who are PhDs and Professors, many of whom are biologists or in related fields (Bio-engineering, Microbiology, Biophysics, etc.).

Oh yes, I'm sure there are some biologists on that list. Anyway, "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory" should definitely be encouraged. And that's what evolutionary biologists do every day. (An interesting question: How many of the biologists on that list understand evolution?)

I mean, really, when this subject comes up in public debate we are assured that no reputable scientist doubts evolution (which is a distortion of what they really mean which is neo-darwinism). Very few - if any - ID proponents doubt evolution but they do doubt the neo-darwinist mechanisms. So labelling them as creationists (as Moran, Coyne and others insist on doing) is a blatant attempt to lump ID with Young Earth Creationism (Moran is also fond of the pejorative term, IDiots).

You can't doubt evolution since we see it happen. But why wouldn't we group YECs and IDers together? Both are talking about some form of intelligence intervening in evolution. Granted, some YECs may try to claim that evolution doesn't happen at all. I agree that various kinds of arguments are made by these folks, some more reasonable than others. Lumping everyone into one overarching category is wrong.

~~ Paul

[quote pid='12189' dateline='1512934516']
 Very few - if any - ID proponents doubt evolution but they do doubt the neo-darwinist mechanisms.
[/quote]
Yes - this is a vital point. Simply documenting some biological evolutionary change, does not explain it.

The crucial significance of James Tour's talk is to demonstrate how difficult it is to create the types of molecular machines found in cells - on which life depends. He points out that designing such machines is excruciatingly hard even when you can use backward reasoning - starting from the desire to make a molecular car, and working out a strategy to get there. The point is that blind evolution, and even more so, pre-evolution where there are no genes to carry any successes forward, can't employ reasoning like that - it just has to blunder about!

He also points out that organic chemists generally purify each new product after each step of a synthesis. This is because if you don't do this, you get a test tube full of what is technically known as 'tar' - a hopeless mess of different products often heavily polymerised. Not only do chemists have to purify the product, they also have to check that it is the molecule they expect - otherwise the whole process goes astray - hence the discussion about NMR, etc.

This is a further huge problem for chemistry just done randomly in muddy pools!

David

You can't doubt evolution since we see it happen. But why wouldn't we group YECs and IDers together? Both are talking about some form of intelligence intervening in evolution. Granted, some YECs may try to claim that evolution doesn't happen at all. I agree that various kinds of arguments are made by these folks, some more reasonable than others. Lumping everyone into one overarching category is wrong.

~~ Paul

Again, for the umpteenth time, you don't have to be a biblical literalist to believe that some intelligence (even of some undefined nature) helps guide evolution. YECs are, as far as I'm aware, biblical literalists. They believe in the six day creation story and even refuse to acknowledge the possibility of allegory or metaphor. You don't even need to be a theist. Intelligence or mind might exist without the need for the personal, omniscient god. 

I believe in evolution. In fact I extend evolution to include mind, whether it be individual (as in human consciousness) or universal (as in Mind At Large). MAL is evolving too but I don't understand the how of it. I don't understand, for example, how time plays a part or whether time and space are constructions to allow for a physical universe of the kind we occupy. But that is all metaphysical speculation. Design is apparent in the living world around us - even Dawkins admits that. I take the step further to believe that it is not only apparent, it is actual.

Going back to Tour, I do have difficulty understanding how a man who can be so knowledgeable about his field of science yet somehow adhere to his literalist Christian faith. I guess I have to accept that people see the world in ways that I find strange. It happens right here on this forum. David will write things I can read and agree with wholeheartedly yet, in the next sentence, talk about his support for Donald Trump which flips my impression of David instantly and I want to disagree passionately. All I can suggest is that we assess their words according to the subject under discussion. Does Tour or David make sense if we just read what they say about the subject under discussion? Or are we somehow drawn into the genetic fallacy?

The crucial significance of James Tour's talk is to demonstrate how difficult it is to create the types of molecular machines found in cells - on which life depends. He points out that designing such machines is excruciatingly hard even when you can use backward reasoning - starting from the desire to make a molecular car, and working out a strategy to get there. The point is that blind evolution, and even more so, pre-evolution where there are no genes to carry any successes forward, can't employ reasoning like that - it just has to blunder about!

It's not just blundering. There's selection, too. We use evolutionary algorithms to solve problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

He also points out that organic chemists generally purify each new product after each step of a synthesis. This is because if you don't do this, you get a test tube full of what is technically known as 'tar' - a hopeless mess of different products often heavily polymerised. Not only do chemists have to purify the product, they also have to check that it is the molecule they expect - otherwise the whole process goes astray - hence the discussion about NMR, etc.

This is a further huge problem for chemistry just done randomly in muddy pools!

Please stop saying it's random.

~~ Paul

Again, for the umpteenth time, you don't have to be a biblical literalist to believe that some intelligence (even of some undefined nature) helps guide evolution. YECs are, as far as I'm aware, biblical literalists. They believe in the six day creation story and even refuse to acknowledge the possibility of allegory or metaphor. You don't even need to be a theist. Intelligence or mind might exist without the need for the personal, omniscient god.

Right, which is why the group in which I'm including YECs and IDers is the "evolution requires intelligence" group.

Going back to Tour, I do have difficulty understanding how a man who can be so knowledgeable about his field of science yet somehow adhere to his literalist Christian faith. I guess I have to accept that people see the world in ways that I find strange. It happens right here on this forum. David will write things I can read and agree with wholeheartedly yet, in the next sentence, talk about his support for Donald Trump which flips my impression of David instantly and I want to disagree passionately. All I can suggest is that we assess their words according to the subject under discussion. Does Tour or David make sense if we just read what they say about the subject under discussion? Or are we somehow drawn into the genetic fallacy?

I try to talk to folks about specific topics while ignoring their other "idiosyncracies." I have many friends who like Trump. I don't understand it, but I separate our political arguments from other discussions. Ditto for evolution, climate change, ghosts, and chemtrails. I share a hobby with many of those Trump supporters and I don't want to ruin that because of politics. The same feeling goes for everyone here.

I've known people, including my first wife, who were entirely reasonable one moment and stark raving mad the next.

~~ Paul

There would be some sort of proto-organism. Perhaps a bag of chemicals with a simple membrane. Perhaps a group of tightly bound molecules that were difficult to separate. If these organisms could replicate, then some kind of rudimentary selection would occur. Note that no genes are required in the conventional sense.

But, again, I make no claim to understand how things started. If I did, I'd be a famous biologist.

~~ Paul

I've been thinking about what you said here (because it fits with ideas I've been mulling over for quite a while). At it's base, "selection" is about frequency. That is, some 'thing' increases or decreases in frequency due to some other 'thing' - let's say the environment. Increases could be through fecundity, but also through longevity. That bags of chemicals are sufficiently stable to persist, once formed, would increase their frequency over time. Something interesting could happen when there are many bags of chemicals in an area (perhaps they cluster in a way which further increases their persistence, or produce a mix of chemical products which alter the local environment in a way which is beneficial to the 'sack'). 'Heredity' in these cases is not much more than preservation of the characteristics of a particular bag of chemicals or a local environment. These processes would precede genes, and could also potentially lead to the formation of 'molecules which preserve information about local conditions to aid in duplication and growth', through increases in frequency. 

Linda