Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Of course I am, because that is how mind and design are defined.  

This kinda like arguing with a flat-earther.  You are just sure that you will fall off the edge, if information processing by the mind, is real.  And project that on the rest of the world, that they should not "go there".

Darwin believed in Mental Evolution (He wrote an introduction to a book of that name authored by his student G. Romanes.)

I don't pretend to understand all of your arguments but I think there is some confusion over what we all mean by mind. For me, mind or intelligence is fundamental but that is not to say that it can be described in identical terms in all circumstances. For example, mind at work in a worm is probably not at all like mind at work in a human. Similarly, mind at work in a human cell is not like the workings of the human mind.

It is unfortunate that the term Intelligent Design is associated with religion and the notion of the mind of God/Yahweh. That leads religious people and the atheists that oppose them to think of an anthropomorphic designer. Speaking for myself, I have quite a different concept of mind as it applies to living systems. I think of them as being self-aware to some extent and able to act upon information from the environment which, in turn, enables them to select according to what they have learned from that information. I'd go further to say that information exists in a field, access to which is shared so that systems of like nature can share that information and act accordingly. This all presupposes a purpose so I think that evolution is purposeful.

Obviously, this is a personal view and finding support for it is difficult. I came across this paper which seems to suggest something similar.

http://www.nbi.dk/~emmeche/coPubl/91.JHCE/codedual.html

For a system to be living, it must create itself, i.e. it must contain the distinctions necessary for its own identification as a system. Self-reference is the fundament on which life evolves, the most basal requirement. (This does not pertain to non-living systems: There is no reason for the hydrological cycle to know itself. Thus, rivers run downstream due to gravity, water evaporates due to the solar heat, nowhere does the system depend on self-recognition).

Another way to express this whole matter is to say that differences are not intelligible in the absence of a purpose. If nothing matters matter is everything.

And also this:

http://blogs.springer.com/lst/biosemioti...se-nature/

Signs carry meaning. And life carries certain mind-like properties that enable meaningful interpretation of perceived signs. This outlook contrasts with the traditional dualistic approach in science that distinguishes sharply between mind and matter. Biosemiotics explores the gradual emergence of various qualities, including broad phenomena such as life and mind.

The mind-like properties found elsewhere in nature can be very different from the human mind. Biosemiotics does not promote anthropomorphism – attribution of human traits to non-humans. Instead, it acknowledges the diversity of semiosis across and within the various levels of biological organization, from the cell via individuals to ecosystems.

This is a thread about Darwin and a modern view of evolution.  Darwin believed in the evolution of mental capabilities.  If you don't want to know what Darwin actually wrote as his theory of evolution -OK - but I don't have to accept that people "know" all about evolution - but reject the works of Charles D.  You can tell me what you think the ToE is  - and what Darwin meant - but I willing to do the work to post what Darwin and others actually wrote.

Are you saying that Darwin believed that the brain evolved along with everything else? Why would this be controversial?

Darwin wrote extensively on instinct and saw it as heritable.  You can think to your self " instincts must be a chemical in the brain" - but science looks at them as information.

Again, why is this controversial?

I understand that it is a true paradigm shift to reject a worldview, which was the framework for thinking about evolution.  But the direct line of scientific thought - from Darwin and Romanes - to today's study of biosemiosis sees evolution as being greatly influenced by focused mental work on ambient information from the environment.

I have absolutely no idea which worldview you think I would need to reject and which I would need to accept.

~~ Paul

Fine, so there is no design in evolution.

Of course our minds process information. You would help your case a whole lot more if you would stop insulting people and make a succinct claim. You use terms in fuzzy ways that make it difficult to understand your point. If you continue to insist the problem is that I'm stupid, then why would I care to engage you?

What the hell is mental evolution?

Edited to add: Oh, this book:

https://smile.amazon.com/Mental-Evolutio...+evolution

~~ Paul

Paul here is a downloadable comprehensive examination of Darwin's idea of mental development.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1412189?seq...b_contents

Their is no awareness in chemicals.  It is not a property of materials.  Awareness of signals with a motive to decode them is mental work.

You seem to be using equivocation here. What you are calling "awareness" in many cases represents a biochemical reaction where a molecule binds to a membrane receptor. How is that "mental"?

The organism now has mutual information in common with the environment, such as the approach of another organism.  This situation is expressed as the organism knows the presence of the other organism.  If the organism knows whether the approach is friend or foe - then the organism is said to understand.

Aren't you just attaching anthropomorphic labels to processes which are biochemical in nature? How is the attachment of a molecule to a receptor "knowing" or "understanding" given that the exchange of information is mindless?

Linda

So a MAL would consciously concentrate useful molecules? Is that what you are saying?

Primarily what I am saying here is that the theory of evolution by natural selection and also the theory of life evolving from non-life are really broken. Sometimes you simply have to get broken ideas out of science to let something better evolve.

David

Primarily what I am saying here is that the theory of evolution by natural selection and also the theory of life evolving from non-life are really broken. Sometimes you simply have to get broken ideas out of science to let something better evolve.

David

Ya gotta do more than that. Care to propose a better idea for the former and latter?

Ya gotta do more than that. Care to propose a better idea for the former and latter?

This is where you are wrong - an invalid theory should be struck out in science, even if there is no alternative available.

Think of science as a large heap of unexplained phenomena. Over time people manage to explain some of these phenomena and transfer them to a new pile for explained phenomena. If one of those explanations turns out to be invalid, it is very definitely valuable to return the phenomenon to the unexplained pile - so that others can have a go at solving it.

By analogy, if you are doing a jigsaw, and you find you have placed a piece wrongly, it is wise to take it out - leaving it in place can only seed confusion.

Obviously (I think) any new explanation for the origin of life and its evolution will be very disruptive to science (something that even scientists claim to relish), and I would say that none of us here are totally clear about what that will be. I find the negative fact that evolution and the vague idea of life emerging from pools of chemicals does not cut it, interesting enough for now. Remember, that as I have explained repeatedly, I am not like a religious believer, who must believe a whole package of ideas at all costs. A partial understanding which has a low probability of being wrong, is far preferable.

David

David

This is where you are wrong - an invalid theory should be struck out in science, even if there is no alternative available.

I agree. However, your "evidence" for evolution being invalid is a vague feeling that it will not eventually be able to explain everything. Since there is no proof in science, you do not have proof of your vague feeling.

So what you need is another theory that better explains the evidence. In other words, to reject the Theory of Evolution you need a better theory of evolution. You don't have one, because "it happened by immaterial magic" is not a scientific theory.

A partial understanding which has a low probability of being wrong, is far preferable.

I await the probability calculations.

~~ Paul

I agree. However, your "evidence" for evolution being invalid is a vague feeling that it will not eventually be able to explain everything. Since there is no proof in science, you do not have proof of your vague feeling.

Well perhaps a little bit of the evidence lies in the fact that you had to backtrack quite a lot as we discussed pre-evolution above. For example I had to remind you that you can't use the term evolution when talking about any pre-biotic chemical that isn't self replicating. James Tour's account should really make you think a bit - and he, like Rupert Sheldrake reports that privately many other scientists he has spoken to agree with what he has to say.

Pre-biotic chemistry probably looked like the bottom of a flask that has been used to perform an organic chemical reaction. You could probably take a planet that has only got to the tar stage, and spray it with DNA or RNA that coded for the molecules of life, and nothing would happen, they would all get degraded without triggering life!

So what you need is another theory that better explains the evidence. In other words, to reject the Theory of Evolution you need a better theory of evolution. You don't have one, because "it happened by immaterial magic" is not a scientific theory.

I await the probability calculations.

As you know there are far too many unknowns for such a calculation to be feasible, but the problem is that your 'side' doesn't do any calculations either - you just glibly assume evolution by NS must be true! Worse - you teach kids that evolution has been 'scientifically proved' and try to exclude alternative ideas.

David

Well perhaps a little bit of the evidence lies in the fact that you had to backtrack quite a lot as we discussed pre-evolution above. For example I had to remind you that you can't use the term evolution when talking about any pre-biotic chemical that isn't self replicating. James Tour's account should really make you think a bit - and he, like Rupert Sheldrake reports that privately many other scientists he has spoken to agree with what he has to say.

I never claimed to have the solution to the origin of life. I agree that, strictly speaking, the term evolution applies to self-replicating organisms. However, life may have started with self-assembling organisms that were then selected by environmental factors. It's not strictly evolution, but it is a possible beginning.

Again, though, this is not proof that an immaterial intelligence is required.

Pre-biotic chemistry probably looked like the bottom of a flask that has been used to perform an organic chemical reaction. You could probably take a planet that has only got to the tar stage, and spray it with DNA or RNA that coded for the molecules of life, and nothing would happen, they would all get degraded without triggering life!

I do not know.

As you know there are far too many unknowns for such a calculation to be feasible, but the problem is that your 'side' doesn't do any calculations either - you just glibly assume evolution by NS must be true! Worse - you teach kids that evolution has been 'scientifically proved' and try to exclude alternative ideas.

Here is an evolution simulation that I wrote that precisely does do calculations:

https://schneider.ncifcrf.gov/paper/ev/evj/

There is a whole field of computational biology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_biology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computatio...Department

There is no proof in science. The Theory of Evolution has as much evidence for it as, say, the Theory of Gravity. If you want to argue about the origin of life, be my guest. But dissing evolution because it's "just like ID" is absurd. And, again, if you have nothing to replace it with, it'll be difficult to interest biologists.

~~ Paul