Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

I wonder if you will acknowledge Ewert's intention is to discredit evolutionary theory?

You are aware that it's possible for that to be the case, and his studies or ideas to be legitimate, correct?

I wonder if you will acknowledge Ewert's intention is to discredit evolutionary theory?

I wonder if you will acknowledge that this is no different to scientist's usual attempts to prove evolutionary theory rather than just seeing what possibilities the results open up and giving due credence to all reasonable models.

You are aware that it's possible for that to be the case, and his studies or ideas to be legitimate, correct?

Of course, however, like all creationists/IDists that is never their intent. When so many members are searching for spirituality or consciousness to play the dominate role would another purely mechanistic explanation be satisfying?

It is far more productive than supposing consciousness, God, or some supernatural cause.

I have evidence that I exhibit consciousness.  However, I think that the whole popular "consciousness thing" is distracting from researching the real functionality in the mental work done by living things.  The research should be aimed at how understanding changes real world possibilities for productive behavior.  I assert that understanding meaning (as mental work output) can be measured in terms of mutual information being generated and can connect logically to observed adaptive behavior.

What do you think is produced by the research you cited, other than an implication?

".....this objection (to Ewert's study) is that ...the scientific community already knows that life is not well explained by a tree, and ....the leading evolutionary explanation is really a reticulated tree or an undirected graph and therefore it is no wonder the dependency graph model beats a “strawman” model. 

I am of the position that the leading evolutionary models of the last 10 years refutes RM + NS rather completely (sorry Steve).  In the general public it may still have sway - but as far as The Third Way author's publications it is already replaced by new peer-reviewed evidence.  I offered an article that draws a very similar conclusion to Ewerts, that the tree model is a poor representation of natural events.  We are on the same side that the old paradigm has failed.

The difference is that the Cell Review paper is far more peer-reviewed and has a much "wider reach" than a computer simulation at a single location.  The perspective on the tree model is generally the same.  The Cell paper is offering at lot more of how it works.  Here is the list of authors who represent many fields of research:

Did Our Species Evolve in Subdivided Populations across Africa, and Why Does It Matter?

• Eleanor M.L. Scerri
  
  
• Mark G. Thomas
  
• Andrea Manica
  
• Philipp Gunz
  
• Jay T. Stock
  
• Chris Stringer
  
• Matt Grove
  
• Huw S. Groucutt
  
• Axel Timmermann
  
• G. Philip Rightmire
  
• Francesco d’Errico
  
• Christian A. Tryon
  
• Nick A. Drake
  
• Alison S. Brooks
  
• Robin W. Dennell
  
• Richard Durbin
  
• Brenna M. Henn
  
• Julia Lee-Thorp
  
• Peter deMenocal
  
• Michael D. Petraglia
  
• Jessica C. Thompson
  
• Aylwyn Scally
  
• Lounès Chikhi 

I have evidence that I exhibit consciousness.  However, I think that the whole popular "consciousness thing" is distracting from researching the real functionality in the mental work done by living things.  The research should be aimed at how understanding changes real world possibilities for productive behavior.  I assert that understanding meaning (as mental work output) can be measured in terms of mutual information being generated and can connect logically to observed adaptive behavior.

What do you think is produced by the research you cited, other than an implication?

That life arose by entirely mechanistic means. 

I agree involving a supervening element is a distraction but a preferred distraction by some. Such an element cannot answer how or why life arose.

I doubt the old paradigm has failed. That it may not completely explain all the ways  species can arise is akin to saying Newtonian physics is a failure because it does not include QM.

That life arose by entirely mechanistic means.

You must know that machine learning - is really the information processing electronics.  Before 1950's - machines did not learn create codes on their own.  From the article you referenced:

 "You can think of these 20 synthetases and 20 tRNAs collectively as a molecular computer that evolution has designed to make gene-to-protein translation happen," Carter said.

Do you agree that the paper is about information science findings that directly relate to Shannon' coding theorem?  The term codon comes from the word code.  To be mechanistic you have to believe that the information processing is deterministic like physical systems.  Is this how you see it?  Although DNA provides instructions, you think that it really contains no meaning.

Of course, however, like all creationists/IDists that is never their intent. When so many members are searching for spirituality or consciousness to play the dominate role would another purely mechanistic explanation be satisfying?

My point is that their intent really doesn't matter. The evidentiary and logical soundness of their ideas or studies do. Are Ewert's arguments strong, do they make sense, are they fair based on the evidence, etc? Those are the things that matter.

Brian just made an excellent point. There are clearly materialistic scientists who thrive on the idea that they could crush religion or the spiritual, that the random, unguided, mechanistic evolutionary picture is the right one. They are driven by that. Would you discredit them because they are trying to prove their own point of view rather than following the evidence or checking their own biases? Certainly not, because you agree with their worldview. You only call out people like Ewert because you are repulsed by the notion that there is something more than random, purposelessness behind life and this universe.

You must know that machine learning - is really the information processing electronics.  Before 1950's - machines did not learn create codes on their own.  From the article you referenced:

Do you agree that the paper is about information science findings that directly relate to Shannon' coding theorem?  The term codon comes from the word code.  To be mechanistic you have to believe that the information processing is deterministic like physical systems.  Is this how you see it?  Although DNA provides instructions, you think that it really contains no meaning.

At this time I haven't heard of Shannon coding theorem. 
Mechanistic too means by entirely physical processes (without the need to insert unprovable metaphysical, supernatural... causes), for example QM is mechanistic yet not deterministic as far as we can tell yet does not require an appeal to metaphysical explanation.
You're implying DNA has metaphysical meaning. Because it is involved with life why should it have meaning? Can you argue how?