Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

The need to want a future state and before a developing a design to actualize the goal.

Once there is a biological target state, such as eating, breathing, drinking, reproduction and social goals -- designed bio-plans follow.  The source of the will to live is outside of the sciences of materials science, physics, and information sciences, imho.

However, once the drive to live is working on the environment, organization of bio-functions will begin.  Coupled with the idea that information processing on real-world probabilities, life can take a billion years to manifest from probability observing materials and energy states - to enforcing its will in the physical.

In this way a process designer can generate a coded single cell organism and grow its mental evolution toward survival and experience.

I'm not sure whether this bears any relationship with your "will to live" but I'm assuming that's the same as the survival instinct which is undeniable. My problem with the strictly materialist/naturalist acceptance of this instinct is that I don't understand how they explain how such an instinct is passed from generation to generation.

I've made the point before in numerous posts but I keep coming back to it - the survival instinct (or any instinct) is a behavioural pattern. I just don't see how behaviour can be transferred via proteins because, from my understanding, behaviour is a function of mind. A will to live is a desire, a feeling, a wish, a feeling of need. How does that develop in an embryo?

I'm not sure whether this bears any relationship with your "will to live" but I'm assuming that's the same as the survival instinct which is undeniable. My problem with the strictly materialist/naturalist acceptance of this instinct is that I don't understand how they explain how such an instinct is passed from generation to generation.

I've made the point before in numerous posts but I keep coming back to it - the survival instinct (or any instinct) is a behavioural pattern. I just don't see how behaviour can be transferred via proteins because, from my understanding, behaviour is a function of mind. A will to live is a desire, a feeling, a wish, a feeling of need. How does that develop in an embryo?

The theory I am promoting handles this as an obvious conclusion.  Behavioral patterns come from "catalytic" information objects.  They are structured information that generate physical patterns in ecological environments. 

In their formation, these conceptual objects are both in the inner information processing structures of a living being, AND as well, in the informational environment.  They transmit the active information processing of ancestors.  Emotions, feelings, wants and decisions are all REAL structures developed by evolution in the past.  They influence detection of beneficial future states.  Messaging molecules (RNA/DNA/Ribosomes/Proteins) are not random configurations, but have their structures and related functions generated by unconscious and conscious information processing.  They are manifestation of actual probabilities for solving problems.

D. Dennett - whose conclusions I strongly reject - turns to the same "objects" I do - to address the question.  Recently he has acknowledged affordances  as critical.  In the past he has endorsed memes.  Both of these are pragmatic examples of the influence of actualized information objects.  They have the explanatory focus to address the problem, hence Dennett's need to promote them.  All the while denying the science that supports their actual state of activity.

Please consider my quotation of Darwin's version of how they work. (Post 1290)

I'm not sure whether this bears any relationship with your "will to live" but I'm assuming that's the same as the survival instinct which is undeniable. My problem with the strictly materialist/naturalist acceptance of this instinct is that I don't understand how they explain how such an instinct is passed from generation to generation.

I've made the point before in numerous posts but I keep coming back to it - the survival instinct (or any instinct) is a behavioural pattern. I just don't see how behaviour can be transferred via proteins because, from my understanding, behaviour is a function of mind. A will to live is a desire, a feeling, a wish, a feeling of need. How does that develop in an embryo?

Also, what we simplistically refer to as the survival instinct is actually a whole range of very complex behaviours, many of which require equally complex complementary physical mechanisms in order to function.  Sexual intercourse is one such - the compulsion to find a partner of the opposite gender and to do the things we do has to be coupled with the right complementary body parts and all the right chemicals and intricate bodily mechanisms.  If evolution were a chance process, all life would have come to an end at the amoeba stage, if it even got that far.

Concerning the recent paper "Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems" in The Journal of Theoretical Biology, it looks like the Darwinists quickly got to this journal about daring to publish a paper on Intelligent Design. Many scientists called for retraction. The journal refused, and instead published a disclaimer (top right) and rebuttal (bottom right) of the Twitter page. This is the right action. Rebut, don’t retract. On Twitter at https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1...3145149442 .

As was commented on the twitter page, “Unsurprisingly the (very brief) “rebuttal” is nothing more than a “not so”!”. Apparently we’re supposed to take this to heart on simple authority and humble faith in Darwinism.

While the article is old I thought this was a good critique of materialistic Darwinism's attempts to explain form:

Can the New Science of Evo–Devo Explain the Form of Organisms?

Stephen Talbott

If we are trying to explain form as the result of something other than form — as the result of supposedly formless mechanisms and simple rules — then to say that a pattern of tool kit gene expression prefigures the future pattern of segments, organs, appendages, or color designs doesn’t do the job. We are still explaining pattern by pattern, and therefore are only relocating the form we need to explain. How did the prefiguring pattern arise? And if a still earlier complex pattern of gene expression prefigures that one, how did the earlier pattern arise? And if the entire sequence is rooted in asymmetries of molecular distribution in an egg cell — that is, in the internal form of the cell — well, it seems we never do get the kind of mechanical explanation of form we were looking for. Maybe we were looking for the wrong sort of explanation.

Nothing much changes when we consider the almost unfathomably intricate pattern of the DNA network “programming” to which Carroll appeals. While switches are one thing, perhaps comforting in their mechanical familiarity, the pattern informing the entire network of switches — the almost inconceivably intricate pattern corresponding to and shaping the eventual manifest form of the organism — is quite another. The governing image or idea at work in this organized throwing of switches — the idea that will eventually manifest itself in the visible form of the organism — may be subtle and difficult to trace, but this only makes its reality as pattern and its effective governance all the more impressive.

Our own experience in creating such program logic is unambiguous. You and I could write a computer program to produce the form, say, of Da Vinci’s “Last Supper,” but in doing so we would be starting with the form of the painting, imposing it upon the computer’s logic with concerted, form-conscious effort. Do we ever see a production of form in a living organism where the developing form does not already inform the manifestation at every stage? Can we even conceive what it might mean to explain the arising of form through an appeal to something inherently formless? And if not, can we safely take it for granted that the artistic language we use for the elucidation of form — the language developed by those who have worked most intimately with form — is irrelevant to the neglected science of form?

Confusion about the nature of scientific explanation accounts for a great deal of the misdirection in contemporary disputes about evolution. One way to get at this misdirection is to recall a private remark by Darwin, who could at times be touchingly hon-est about his personal doubts and feelings. It happened that during the last year of Darwin’s life the Duke of Argyll mentioned to him “the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature” revealed in Darwin’s own published works, such as his treatises on the fertilization of orchids and on earthworms. As the Duke later described the ensuing exchange, “I said it was impossible to look at these [contrivances] without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Dar-win’s answer. He looked at me very hard and said, ‘Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,’ and he shook his head vaguely, adding, ‘it seems to go away’.” (Francis Darwin 1902, p. 64)

It’s not the sort of personal openness you’re likely to hear today from battle-tested Darwinian apologists and intelligent design advocates!

It's a bit odd that Talbott continually speaks of respect for Laws of Nature in this essay, given his own IMO very important critique of this being sufficient -> Do Physical Laws Make Things Happen?

While the article is old I thought this was a good critique of materialistic Darwinism's attempts to explain form:

Can the New Science of Evo–Devo Explain the Form of Organisms?

Stephen Talbott

It's a bit odd that Talbott continually speaks of respect for Laws of Nature in this essay, given his own IMO very important critique of this being sufficient -> Do Physical Laws Make Things Happen?

A more clarified version of Talbott's ideas:

Why We Cannot Explain the Form of Organisms

...If the effort to explain form is misdirected, does this mean that the idea of explanatory causes has no place in our understanding of biological form? Not at all. Maybe we will be reminded here of the fact that formal causes have long been recognized as essential for our understanding, going back to Aristotle. Perhaps the apprehension of principles of form yields understanding precisely because they themselves are principles of causation, although in a crucial sense differing from our usual understanding of causes.

So now we must look at the relation between form, thought, and causation in biology. But first we need one chapter illustrating in a concrete manner how the qualitative grasp of form can play a fuller role in the science of biology than is yet recognized.

A more clarified version of Talbott's ideas:

Why We Cannot Explain the Form of Organisms

It seems to me that Talbott is carefully dancing around but not daring to touch the central mystery of form - that it is the product of some unknown conscious intelligence. He doesn't dare to actually name it because in the Darwinian ideology this is intensely taboo and never to be mentioned. His remark that there is a relationship between form, thought and causation in biology hints at this mystery, since thought is a basic property of a conscious entity. Be careful - you might get burned (by the scientism thought police).

It seems to me that Talbott is carefully dancing around but not daring to touch the central mystery of form - that it is the product of some unknown conscious intelligence. He doesn't dare to actually name it because in the Darwinian ideology this is intensely taboo and never to be mentioned. His remark that there is a relationship between form, thought and causation in biology hints at this mystery, since thought is a basic property of a conscious entity. Be careful - you might get burned (by the scientism thought police).

Yeah it is a bit odd, though Talbott hasn't been shy criticizing materialism/physicalism in his writings.

Yet he seems to think IDers are also wrong...but if formal causes also bring about the aesthetics that would suggest the beauty in evolution was meant for someone somewhere. Perhaps he thinks there's some primitive mentality that pushed evolution toward some greater awakening of Mind? So the Ur-Consciousness descends into matter and uses evolution to re-emerge?

Considering the hostility here by some parties toward the Discovery Institute due to its Christian background, I thought it would be instructive to look at a very recent breakthrough in professional publication of an ID-friendly paper in a leading evolutionary biology journal. The authors follow a line of thinking very much based on concepts espoused by the DI, that are firmly founded on good science.

The paper is: "Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems", https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...9320302071 .

Highlights:

- Statistical methods are appropriate for modelling fine-tuning.
- Fine-tuning is detected in functional proteins, cellular networks etc.
- Constants and initial conditions of nature are deliberately tuned.
- Statistical analysis of fine-tuning model some of the categories of design.
- Fine-tuning and design deserve attention in the scientific community.

This is a major peer-reviewed article on fine-tuning in biology that favorably discusses intelligent design. The Journal of Theoretical Biology is a top peer-reviewed science journal.

The article explicitly cites work by Discovery Institute Fellows such as Stephen Meyer, Günter Bechly, Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe, and Robert J. Marks. The article is co-authored by Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjer. Hössjer is a professor of mathematical statistics at Stockholm University who is favorable to intelligent design.

Sure enough, after Darwinists discovered the article, they succeeded in obtaining a “disclaimer” from the journal’s editors, who proclaimed their bias against ID.

But the disclaimer actually made publication of the article all the more significant. It meant that the article survived peer-review and was accepted for publication despite the open hostility of the journal’s top editors.

A short and remarkably inadequate rebuttal was published in Journal of Theoretical Biology (JTB), of the paper by Hossjer and Thorvaldsen that is described above. An excellent rebuttal of this rebuttal has been written and published in Uncommon Descent (at https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-...jer-paper/ ). The excuse-for-a-rebuttal itself is also at this link:

Karsten Pultz writes from Denmark to respond:

The recent rebuttal of Hössjer and Thorvaldsen’s paper in JTB promotes the view that since we have a pool of variation and the mechanism of natural selection, we don’t need to infer that the fine tuning in biological systems came about through intelligent agency.

This is nothing but a “natural selection-of-the-gaps argument”, – we don’t know how fine tuning arose, therefore natural selection (must have done) it.

If the authors of this extremely short rebuttal applied the same rigorous mathematical methods to their view as Thorvaldsen and Hössjer did to theirs, we would all realize which explanation is best supported by the evidence. Choosing an inference to the best explanation can only be done if both sides of this issue are treated the same way.

The problem with the rebuttal is this. The pool of variation which natural selection can act upon is very small. First the overall mutation rate is extremely low; that’s why species are stable. Second, the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, leaving natural selection with not a pool, but a tiny puddle of beneficial variations. Third, recent research done by Michael Behe reveals that those variations are caused by loss of information (broken or damaged genes) and are therefore not adding new functions to an organism, hence not on their way to building complex fine tuned functional systems.

As long as the opponents of ID do not demonstrate, using math, that random mutation and natural selection provide the required probabilistic resources for the fine tuning of biological systems, they have not given us a science-based rebuttal. What they offer is just a “because we say so” rebuttal.

..........................................................................

Regarding JTB’s disclaimer, the call for retraction by Retraction Watch, and the above mentioned rebuttal, it is worth mentioning that three great mathematicians Newton, Maxwell and Planck all adhered to the view that the universe and life were products of intelligent design. I think we can rule out the possibility that there would have been calls for their works to be retracted.

It should also be considered that in his book Der Teil und das Ganze, Werner Heisenberg expresses his own and also Niels Bohrs’ doubt that random mutations could have produced any of the complex biological systems. Heisenberg wrote: "Thus it is still difficult to believe that complex organs like the eye could arise gradually solely through random changes." Bohr adds that while natural selection obviously occurs it is the idea that new species come about by random changes, which is very hard to imagine, even if this is the only way science can explain it.

Taking into account these five giants’ views on intelligent design and evolution, it seems to me that it is not the claims of Hössjer and Thorvaldsen which require extraordinary evidence, it’s the neoDarwinian claims that are extraordinary. Let us therefore see a real rebuttal where the neoDarwinian claims are backed up by the extraordinary (mathematical) evidence scientists like Heisenberg, Bohr— and by the way also von Neumann— would very much have liked to see.

The inadequate and extremely short rebuttal referred to above:

"We write to rebut the conclusions of a recently published paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology (Thorvaldsen and Hössjer, 2020). The central claim of this paper is that because biological systems are complex then they must be fine-tuned. This inference is flawed and is not supported by the evidence.
..........................................
...........................................
.... irreducible complexity ignores the idea that evolution and natural selection act on a pool of variation: any number of individuals within the pool will not pass on their genes because their specific complement of protein complexes and cellular networks do not accomplish the necessary functions for life to continue. Hence, neither fine-tuning nor intelligent design is required when sample spaces are viewed through the lens of evolutionary dynamics.
.............................................
....These ideas have been repeatedly debunked in the past. In the words of Carl Sagan: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, a threshold that is not met in this paper. Large sample spaces do not imply biological systems are ‘fine-tuned’"

...........................................

This is mainly argument by simple assertion with no substantiation by data, evidence, seemingly assuming that the reader will accept the authors' authority as a substitute.