Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

I’m relatively comfortable with an idealist view of the world*. If ‘all is mind’ that’s fine... but in terms of this argument it doesn’t really add much, unless you are trying to force some ‘extra mind’ into the evolutionary process? Otherwise, what one person calls ‘a property of mind’ can equally called ‘a property of matter’ by another. It resolves nothing really.

(*we will still have to sort out Paul’s trees in his yard though)

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.

Paul beat me to it in post 487. I'll rephrase his question a bit though. What is an example problem with "Darwinian theory" ? And describe a non-Darwinian theory that will explain said problem thoroughly?  This includes Modern Synthesis.

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.

That's mostly because I don't find the evidence compelling. One problem with "idealist evidence outside of the physical" is that it's quite difficult to point to.

I'm mildly skeptical about a physical explanation for consciousness. However, I'm in no hurry and it may take decades or centuries to explain it, whether it's physical or not. Not having an explanation right now is not evidence that there is no physical explanation. As far as logical "proofs" that a physical explanation is impossible, I've not seen one that convinces me.

There is a lot of work to be done in biology, particularly with regard to the origin of life. Again, though, the fact that this is taking a long time does not surprise me.

Also, as always, there is the question of what a nonphysical "thing" would look like? Would there be something special about it that would require us to admit that it is not physical?


~~ Paul

That's mostly because I don't find the evidence compelling. One problem with "idealist evidence outside of the physical" is that it's quite difficult to point to.

I'm mildly skeptical about a physical explanation for consciousness. However, I'm in no hurry and it may take decades or centuries to explain it, whether it's physical or not. Not having an explanation right now is not evidence that there is no physical explanation. As far as logical "proofs" that a physical explanation is impossible, I've not seen one that convinces me.

There is a lot of work to be done in biology, particularly with regard to the origin of life. Again, though, the fact that this is taking a long time does not surprise me.

Also, as always, there is the question of what a nonphysical "thing" would look like? Would there be something special about it that would require us to admit that it is not physical?


~~ Paul

So basically you are saying: give the physicalists more time and they will get to the answers and prove physicalism. Personally I think things like transcendent experiences, NDEs and the whole field of parapsychology should at least give you cause for concern that the physicalists might be wrong after all. It beggars belief for me that you can continue to dismiss all that. I know why my son does - because he doesn't bother to engage with that kind of material but you do and you still remain where you always have been.

As for what a nonphysical thing would look like - all things are essentially non-physical in my worldview. Just manifestations of mind. Something like a very detailed dream or virtual reality of the mind. Of course, that's idealism: everything is mind stuff. There are proponents here who are dualists though and would give both of us a good argument.

I’m relatively comfortable with an idealist view of the world*. If ‘all is mind’ that’s fine... but in terms of this argument it doesn’t really add much, unless you are trying to force some ‘extra mind’ into the evolutionary process? Otherwise, what one person calls ‘a property of mind’ can equally called ‘a property of matter’ by another. It resolves nothing really.

(*we will still have to sort out Paul’s trees in his yard though)

Well, it does allow for the "realm of mind" extending to the non-physical, or spiritual, to give it another name. That, for idealism, isn't a problem but it is for physicalism. So, in order to remain within the bounds of physicalism you really have to dismiss all that evidence we discuss here - whether it be evidence for teleology in biology or the NDEs, etc., I mentioned above. 

I am not a philosopher so can't give you a proper theory of mind. I don't know how it works and I can't stand apart from it as an external observer. I don't know what makes me different to the table I'm sitting at - all I can think of is that there is some creative process at work always and everywhere. This process creates a diversity of forms and environments and the laws which define them. Some of those forms have conscious awareness in varying degrees.

I'm sorry I can't do better but that's more or less where I stand.

So basically you are saying: give the physicalists more time and they will get to the answers and prove physicalism. Personally I think things like transcendent experiences, NDEs and the whole field of parapsychology should at least give you cause for concern that the physicalists might be wrong after all. It beggars belief for me that you can continue to dismiss all that. I know why my son does - because he doesn't bother to engage with that kind of material but you do and you still remain where you always have been.

Yes, I think it is probably all bad science. But there is the possibility that it might not be and I await something fantastic to convince me. Meanwhile, of what advantage is to me to decide that physicalism is dead? Do I suddenly learn something wonderful about the world? Especially when it's possible I just erred in the opposite direction?

As for what a nonphysical thing would look like - all things are essentially non-physical in my worldview. Just manifestations of mind. Something like a very detailed dream or virtual reality of the mind. Of course, that's idealism: everything is mind stuff. There are proponents here who are dualists though and would give both of us a good argument.

And you may be correct. As I've said many times, if we could work out all the details of physicalism and idealism, so that they both explain all our observations, then I'd bet they would be indistinguishable modulo terminology.

The bottom line for me is that there is more work to be done and I probably won't know the answer in my lifetime. If we survive death, then I'll buy you a beer in the next world. If we do not, I won't know.

~~ Paul

I'll look forward to that beer Paul.

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 haven't contended anything. I'm offering the article plus a link to comments on it; it's up to you how those strike you. As for me, I have agreements and disagreements with them. You shouldn't think they reflect my own opinions merely because I linked to them.

At the moment I'm unsure what to think about the possibility that epigenetic changes can play into evolution. But I am amused by the effect the assertion is having. The Shuker quote especially was funny, showing his rigid attachment to the idea that the only allowable agency in evolution is genetics, and his paranoia that any other idea must be religiously motivated. As I pointed out, the third way people, who are open to the possible importance of epigenetics in evolution, aren't religious types.  

I have no idea how MAL might be operating in what appears to us as the "world". A word like "encouraging" is so very anthropomorphic, and also, intrinsically dualistic, implying that there is a separation between MAL and "objects" or "concepts" like "intelligence". MAL, as I conceive of it, is the totality of all, only apparently differentiated into separate entities that we label in all sorts of ways as we try to make sense of the mystery of existence.

I find it interesting that no one is willing to pursue specified complexity as a potential source of evidence. Why is that?

 
The subject of CSI is a can of worms, that has been debated and hashed over on the Internet for at least 10-12 years with hundreds of pages of posts. There are plenty of threads where every conceivable aspect, in particular the math, of CSI has been argued to death. It still boils down to hard-held opinion on both sides. 

A good popularization of Complex Specified Information (CSI) is at https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2013/...omplexity/ (About 16 pages). 

One of the better brief discussions on complex specified information that I have found is here. This is summarized and paraphrased in the following:

There doesn't seem to be a fundamental problem with defining information, and defining complex at least has some criteria. For instance something highly complex is highly improbable (just one of many possibilities). For instance the sequence of cards in a well shuffled deck of cards. This is complex to a degree without having been independently specified. 

But there is a fundamental problem with specification. It is a subjective measure. But it is not hard to understand and intuitively recognize. Let's say you find a 52-card deck perfectly ordered by rank and suit. If the deck was shuffled it could have any of approximately 8 x 10**67 possible arrangements. That's the complexity part. The number of possible arrangement of parts is huge, and is not determined by any physical laws. 

The perfect ordering is a specification. Specification can be defined as an independently given pattern. We recognize function in a machine as a kind of specification. The problem is that although this is real, it is subjective. It is a product of mind. 

Of course materialists don’t believe that any sort of information can exist in the “spiritual” or mind realm separate from matter. That is, materialists always believe that information, whether specified or non-specified, must be encoded on some sort of material medium. 

There may not be any objective formula that distinguishes specification from non-specification. But that does not negate the fact that specification is real and tangible and can be practically employed to discriminate between chance and design as we can see with the ordered deck of cards example. This pattern is specified because it is a pattern that has been identified in advance. If we claim the perfectly ordered deck came about by a random process the process had to have enough time to go through a good portion of all the possible combinations - not likely. To shorten the time the random variation process would have to have had a goal - but this is not allowed. 

Now let's look at an example of specified complexity that exists in all living things. There is an enzyme called a topoisomerase, involved in the replication of DNA. This enzyme is far more complex than a deck of cards. It is a sequence of hundreds of amino acids in a folded chain. Any link in the chain can be any one of 20 different amino acids. The order determines how it will fold and what biological activity it will possess. Does it have specification, does it exhibit function, does it exhibit complex specified information? You must be the judge of that.

According to the faith-based secular religion of neo-Darwinism an unintelligent RM + NS process supposedly created all innovative new biological forms and mechanisms including the topoisomerase enzyme. This process is based on a symbolic code. 

Do we have any examples of complicated mechanical arrangements with function and specification where the origin can actually be determined, whose causal history is known, that are not assembled by an intelligence? The only complicated mechanical  arrangements with function and specification where the origin is causally known ("known" defined as "perceived directly, having direct cognition of"), is where the origin was via intelligent agency. 

First, show how an unintelligent process can create a symbolic code. DNA is a digital symbolic code composed of triplets of base 4 numerals represented by 4 nucleic acids. It even has start/stop symbols like human designed serial codes. The codes go through a lookup table to determine what action to take. This is all very familiar computer technology. Mathematical symbolism is a product of mind and a relatively advanced mind at that.

Then show how the RM + NS process worked to create topoisomerase before there was the DNA replication enzyme. 

Then show in detail with falsifiable models how this process created the various examples of that special class of high-CSI biological mechanisms - irreducibly complex systems.

 
The subject of CSI is a can of worms, that has been debated and hashed over on the Internet for at least 10-12 years with hundreds of pages of posts. There are plenty of threads where every conceivable aspect, in particular the math, of CSI has been argued to death. It still boils down to hard-held opinion on both sides. 

A good popularization of Complex Specified Information (CSI) is at https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2013/...omplexity/ (About 16 pages). 

One of the better brief discussions on complex specified information that I have found is here. This is summarized and paraphrased in the following:

There doesn't seem to be a fundamental problem with defining information, and defining complex at least has some criteria. For instance something highly complex is highly improbable (just one of many possibilities). For instance the sequence of cards in a well shuffled deck of cards. This is complex to a degree without having been independently specified. 

But there is a fundamental problem with specification. It is a subjective measure. But it is not hard to understand and intuitively recognize. Let's say you find a 52-card deck perfectly ordered by rank and suit. If the deck was shuffled it could have any of approximately 8 x 10**67 possible arrangements. That's the complexity part. The number of possible arrangement of parts is huge, and is not determined by any physical laws. 

The perfect ordering is a specification. Specification can be defined as an independently given pattern. We recognize function in a machine as a kind of specification. The problem is that although this is real, it is subjective. It is a product of mind. 

Of course materialists don’t believe that any sort of information can exist in the “spiritual” or mind realm separate from matter. That is, materialists always believe that information, whether specified or non-specified, must be encoded on some sort of material medium. 

There may not be any objective formula that distinguishes specification from non-specification. But that does not negate the fact that specification is real and tangible and can be practically employed to discriminate between chance and design as we can see with the ordered deck of cards example. This pattern is specified because it is a pattern that has been identified in advance. If we claim the perfectly ordered deck came about by a random process the process had to have enough time to go through a good portion of all the possible combinations - not likely. To shorten the time the random variation process would have to have had a goal - but this is not allowed. 

Now let's look at an example of specified complexity that exists in all living things. There is an enzyme called a topoisomerase, involved in the replication of DNA. This enzyme is far more complex than a deck of cards. It is a sequence of hundreds of amino acids in a folded chain. Any link in the chain can be any one of 20 different amino acids. The order determines how it will fold and what biological activity it will possess. Does it have specification, does it exhibit function, does it exhibit complex specified information? You must be the judge of that.

According to the faith-based secular religion of neo-Darwinism an unintelligent RM + NS process supposedly created all innovative new biological forms and mechanisms including the topoisomerase enzyme. This process is based on a symbolic code. 

Do we have any examples of complicated mechanical arrangements with function and specification where the origin can actually be determined, whose causal history is known, that are not assembled by an intelligence? The only complicated mechanical  arrangements with function and specification where the origin is causally known ("known" defined as "perceived directly, having direct cognition of"), is where the origin was via intelligent agency. 

First, show how an unintelligent process can create a symbolic code. DNA is a digital symbolic code composed of triplets of base 4 numerals represented by 4 nucleic acids. It even has start/stop symbols like human designed serial codes. The codes go through a lookup table to determine what action to take. This is all very familiar computer technology. Mathematical symbolism is a product of mind and a relatively advanced mind at that.

Then show how the RM + NS process worked to create topoisomerase before there was the DNA replication enzyme. 

Then show in detail with falsifiable models how this process created the various examples of that special class of high-CSI biological mechanisms - irreducibly complex systems.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/...obability/

Some added depth in the comments too