Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Darwin wrote before random mutation was proposed.  ????   Have you read any of the articles I posted in this long thread that offer peer-reviewed evidence as to the actual causal pathways for bio-coding to drive life?  I would be willing to discuss anyone of them with you. 

I take the word selection to mean: outcome, as a behavioral outcome or as electrochemical outcomes.  Are you using the term, as a shorten version of NS (natural selection)?  Or do you have a special meaning?

Yes, Darwin wrote before DNA was discovered, and that is my point. DNA is far too complicated to be evolvable by RM+NS. However rather than considering Darwin's theory to be disproved by the discovery of DNA, evolved (pun intended) into the Neo-Darwinian theory.

Yes, I take 'selection' to mean NS.

Yes, Darwin wrote before DNA was discovered, and that is my point. DNA is far too complicated to be evolvable by RM+NS. However rather than considering Darwin's theory to be disproved by the discovery of DNA, evolved (pun intended) into the Neo-Darwinian theory.

Yes, I take 'selection' to mean NS.

It is insightful that you think that our meme of DNA has evolved.  I could go into the history and really it was the concept of "the gene" that Weismann and others used to take-over Darwin's legacy.   Darwin and his close associate, G. Romanes, supported the mental evolution of living things.  They are proven right in the modern day and Weismann's made-up "barrier" is done.

My whole position is based on their being two or more levels of activity that science can measure.  Physical events track along with informational events.  The idea random physical events, can be organized by unintelligent nature, fit a narrative.  The actual physical biology, the field of Physiology, had found that the information is giving structure to biological function.  Denis Noble is the best known in this critical field of biology.

Richard Dawkins, who just had his 1996 award taken back, has been abused by D. Nobel and L. Margulis in public settings.  In terms of hard science he has no weight in today's biology!  OMG, it has almost been 10 years since Margulis wiped him out in a debate.  

http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/margulis...ns-debate/

 Lynn Margulis was the Eastman Visiting Professor and Fellow of Balliol, 2008-9. Sadly, she died on 22 November 2011. Therefore this debate can never be repeated, and the VOX recording of it is precious for that reason alone. But it is also precious because it reflects the current turmoil in the world of evolutionary biology. In fact, all the major assumptions of neo-Darwinism have been challenged. Jim Shapiro’s book Evolution, a view from the 21st century shows that mutations have been far from random, that sharing and exchange of DNA is ubiquitous and favours Barbara McClintock’s view that the ‘genome is an organ of the cell’ (McClintock won a Nobel prize for discovering ‘jumping genes’). Meanwhile, the great originator of socio-biology, E.O.Wilson has done a highly controversial volte-face in switching from the idea that all altruism originates from selfish genes flourishing through kin-selection to the idea that co-operation is also essential and that selection can occur at higher levels than the gene. The debate is therefore a great contribution to a much wider movement of opinion in biological science. - D. Noble  (bolding mine)

who just had his 1996 award taken back

I no fan of Dawkins nor have I looked deeply into his award being revoked, but the one article I read doesn't make me feel good about the revocation:

https://www.newsweek.com/richard-dawkins...ts-1585078

The pendulum needs to swing back from canceling ANYONE to something that is more discerning and rigorous.  (Indeed, if the article captures the essence of the issue with Dawkins; which it may not.)

I no fan of Dawkins nor have I looked deeply into his award being revoked, but the one article I read doesn't make me feel good about the revocation:

https://www.newsweek.com/richard-dawkins...ts-1585078

The pendulum needs to swing back from canceling ANYONE to something that is more discerning and rigorous.  (Indeed, if the article captures the essence of the issue with Dawkins; which it may not.)

It was a humanist award and has no place with somebody who abuses his scientific credentials to dogmatically strike at other peoples beliefs.  I'm glad they took it back.

It was a humanist award and has no place with somebody who abuses his scientific credentials to dogmatically strike at other peoples beliefs.  I'm glad they took it back.

Colour me shocked.

I no fan of Dawkins nor have I looked deeply into his award being revoked, but the one article I read doesn't make me feel good about the revocation:

https://www.newsweek.com/richard-dawkins...ts-1585078

The pendulum needs to swing back from canceling ANYONE to something that is more discerning and rigorous.  (Indeed, if the article captures the essence of the issue with Dawkins; which it may not.)

I have no dog in the fight and don't want to "cancel" Dawkins (whatever that means).  Dawkins should not be attacked personally.  I do want to respond that the Selfish Gene - is not science, but is a cultural narrative.  (and that its author is a selfish xxxx is in the background)  I think he has had other issues with organizations who had supported him, when he was popular.

If his field is narrative, he is a very successful communicator.  But, if you think Dawkins has produced received scientific theory, he is not seen that way now.

Non-physical is not the same as imaginary.

My question to you, is where exactly does the information contained in the DNA for a gene actually come from originally? If you prefer to leave the origin of life as unknown, then think about any gene that we posess and that an amoeba (say) does not - where did the information for that arise?

I mean if you think of it in terms of computers, a computer would do nothing without some information (software) to kick it off (the operating system), and we know where that comes from - programmers - but where did the information to construct any of the thousands of proteins (never mind other information) come from?

David

Ok on the first comment, I agree; as quantum physics and Shannon information are both based on real-world probabilities - not only on actualized matter/energy.  You can imagine these probabilities, you can calculate them (much more profitable) or you organize them with mind causing evolution of individuals, species and ecosystems.

Where does the info come from?  I would be able to speak to generalities.  But the question is loaded, as it doesn't come from a "where" with physical coordinates.  The where is: non-physical past - is physical - will be physical.

Think the Donavon song, "first there a mountain, then there is no mountain and then there is"  

 The lyrics refer to a Buddhist saying originally formulated by Qingyuan Weixin, later translated by D.T. Suzuki in his Essays in Zen Buddhism, one of the first books to popularize Buddhism in Europe

It is insightful that you think that our meme of DNA has evolved. 

I am unaware of saying that, and I don't really know what it means!

I could go into the history and really it was the concept of "the gene" that Weismann and others used to take-over Darwin's legacy.   Darwin and his close associate, G. Romanes, supported the mental evolution of living things.  They are proven right in the modern day and Weismann's made-up "barrier" is done.

To me, that statement is extremely obscure. I am not sure whether by "mental evolution of living things" you mean the evolution of the brain, or whether you are talking about the idea that living beings evolved under inteligent control - essentially the idea of ID.

My whole position is based on their being two or more levels of activity that science can measure.  Physical events track along with informational events. 

I don't know what an 'informational event' actually is. I can imagine an event in which information is destroyed, and I can imagine an event in which new information is added by an intelligent entity of some sort. Are there other sorts of informational events?

I watched the first section by Stephen Bell of the symposium you linked to (I'll watch the rest later), and I came away from that with some interesting ideas (maybe I should listen again). Clearly the archaea shared some mechanisms with the prokaryotes (think bacteria) and some with the eucaryotes (think us!). Clearly this situation was somewhat confused, and a virus was postulated at the point when the prokaryotes separated. However, none of that detail explains where the information in the relevant genomes came from. Viruses can transfer information from one organism to another but that is not the same as creating that information in the first place. This is relevant to first life considerations, and to evolution, because when organisms evolve they may require new proteins to perform new functions.

The idea random physical events, can be organized by unintelligent nature, fit a narrative.  The actual physical biology, the field of Physiology, had found that the information is giving structure to biological function.  Denis Noble is the best known in this critical field of biology.

Can you explain what exactly this means - maybe with an example?

To me, that statement is extremely obscure. I am not sure whether by "mental evolution of living things" you mean the evolution of the brain, or whether you are talking about the idea that living beings evolved under intelligent control - essentially the idea of ID.

I don't know what an 'informational event' actually is. I can imagine an event in which information is destroyed, and I can imagine an event in which new information is added by an intelligent entity of some sort. Are there other sorts of informational events?

Thanks for asking the questions.  The creation of an information object would be an event.  Just like the creation of a physical object would be an event.  Information objects, specify, structure and regulate relations.  In science the most common is an algorithm.  Algorithms can be further crafted and combined to be programs, usable as computer instructions.

The idea is that biological beings don't come from collected changes (mutations) in the physical -- living things generate information objects that specify, structure and regulate relations.  The are created from experience and from copying their immediate external environments internally.  The information comes from bio-detection and intent.

Third, it is suggested that an ontology of structural objects for OSR can reasonably be developed in terms of informational objects, and that Object Oriented Programming provides a flexible and powerful methodology with which to clarify and make precise the concept of “informational object”. The outcome is informational realism, the view that the world is the totality of informational objects dynamically interacting with each other. - Luciano Floridi

The idea is that biological beings don't come from collected changes (mutations) in the physical -- living things generate information objects that specify, structure and regulate relations.  The are created from experience and from copying their immediate external environments internally.  The information comes from bio-detection and intent.

But how could that create the very detailed information to generate almost any protein? A string of 200 amino acids (say) needs 600 nucleotide bases to encode it (plus stop codes etc).

I mean saying living beings create information (which I think is what you are saying) means that they know an awful lot of biochemistry and how proteins fold etc. Maybe that is saying that every living thing has a toehold in the non-physical realm - which I would probably agree with - but I think you are arguing the point that RM+NS can be replaced by something purely physical. In that case, I'd say a unicellular organism can't possibly know what sequence of DNA bases it needs to create!