Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

The point I'm making is simply this. For the existence of God, as for the existence of psi, the only logically* valid scientific argument against either is that there's no evidence for it and no necessity for it. Once you start to get into discussions about aliens intervening in terrestrial evolution, you've effectively forfeited the scientific argument, and you're reduced to making unevidenced metaphysical assertions (along the lines of ""what it can't be is God, because there can't be any such thing").

Clearly Dawkins should have stuck to the line that there was no evidence for design, and shouldn't have been lured into speculating about extraterrestrials!

(* I'm talking only about logical validity, not about whether the argument is supported by the facts.)

The point I'm making is simply this. For the existence of God, as for the existence of psi, the only logically* valid scientific argument against either is that there's no evidence for it and no necessity for it. Once you start to get into discussions about aliens intervening in terrestrial evolution, you've effectively forfeited the scientific argument, and you're reduced to making unevidenced metaphysical assertions (along the lines of ""what it can't be is God, because there can't be any such thing").

Clearly Dawkins should have stuck to the line that there was no evidence for design, and shouldn't have been lured into speculating about extraterrestrials!

(* I'm talking only about logical validity, not about whether the argument is supported by the facts.)

It's said hind sight is 20/20. A rhetorical question. 
How many times have you read replies only to see how easily it is to twist someone's words?

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're getting at, and I don't know what I said that set you off.

I would have guessed that the "Modern Synthesis", like most fields of study, reflects whatever advances continue to be made in the field of evolutionary studies. But I'm getting the impression that some think it's meant to be static?

Linda

My BS meter has been going off for 20 years on this subject.  

First, the "modern synthesis" is NOT a field of study, but an hypothesis.  A field of study would be all of the data gathered empirically from natural events relating to how heredity works.  Bio-evolution is a field of study.

I am a pragmatic with my science outlook and always expect theories to evolve. 

The fact is the modern synthesis regarding evolutionary theory has as a core tenet - the Weismann Barrier.  I have just cited Dr Spadafora as proving that the barrier is a falsity.  Hence, the theory that is the modern synthesis - is false - as to the outcomes relating to the inheritance of acquired traits.

My guess is you have not come to that obvious conclusion, as I have from reviewing modern research.  Neither has the Wiki article on Weismann.

 The idea of the Weismann barrier is central to the modern synthesis of the early 20th century, though scholars do not express it today in the same terms. In Weismann's opinion the largely random process of mutation, which must occur in the gametes (or stem cells that make them) is the only source of change for natural selection to work on. Weismann became one of the first biologists to deny Lamarckism entirely.[4] Weismann's ideas preceded the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's work, and though Weismann was cagey about accepting Mendelism, younger workers soon made the connection.

Weismann is much admired today. Ernst Mayr judged him to be the most important evolutionary thinker between Darwin and the evolutionary synthesis around 1930–1940, and "one of the great biologists of all time".[5] 

bolding mine

There is a difference between updating solid tenets that produce outcomes that match (are isomorphic) with data  gathered from nature; and those whose central tenets are scrapped.  Somatic cells are chemically separated from germ cells -- but are not separate in the least to transmission of signals.

Please note that C. Darwin's own theory of evolution included mind as an active participant; and that Lamarckian inheritance was likewise an active factor.

In my personal opinion - C. Darwin was a great researcher and sound thinker whose work can be updated to conform with additional data.

In my personal opinion - A. Weismann and believers in the modern neoDarwinian synthesis are putzes as scientific thinkers.  They let a metaphysical bias determine their scientific theory.

My BS meter has been going off for 20 years on this subject.  

First, the "modern synthesis" is NOT a field of study, but an hypothesis.  A field of study would be all of the data gathered empirically from natural events relating to how heredity works.  Bio-evolution is a field of study.

Ah, I see. I was thinking that it referred to the state of the art in the study of bio-evolution, rather than a static idea.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Linda

The observation that "the only source of design we know of is human design" is entirely vapid. A more useful observation is "the only source of human design we know of is humans."

~~ Paul

The observation that "the only source of design we know of is human design" is entirely vapid. A more useful observation is "the only source of human design we know of is humans."

~~ Paul

Something amiss with this post on two counts. First, you need to define design and then produce examples of things which you accept are designed but without any intelligent input (although that intelligence might conceivably be non-human). I would think that "designed" automatically requires a designer. That could be a process rather than a person but somewhere in the process, there must be creative or intelligent input.

Secondly, your "useful observation" makes no sense. If you mean that the only source of things designed by humans is humans then isn't that a tautology? If you mean that the source of human design - as in the design of a human being - is human, then that is surely nonsense.

Something amiss with this post on two counts. First, you need to define design and then produce examples of things which you accept are designed but without any intelligent input (although that intelligence might conceivably be non-human). I would think that "designed" automatically requires a designer. That could be a process rather than a person but somewhere in the process, there must be creative or intelligent input.

Secondly, your "useful observation" makes no sense. If you mean that the only source of things designed by humans is humans then isn't that a tautology? If you mean that the source of human design - as in the design of a human being - is human, then that is surely nonsense.

First, Anybody who uses the word tautology correctly is good with me. 

Functional definitions for processes - like design - come from science.  My favorite design scientist is Buckminster Fuller.  He wrote the book called: Operation Manual for Spaceship Earth.  This classic may be "old" now, but it's still great.  Check out the Design Science website as it may bright a light to this discussion.

https://www.bfi.org/design-science/primer

What do you think of the answer to the Evo-Materialists - as being -- living things designed themselves through adaptation from experience.

What do you think of the answer to the Evo-Materialists - as being -- living things designed themselves through adaptation from experience.

Leaving out, for the moment, any spiritual considerations for the human personality, I think that biology is itself a living display of intelligent processes. From the workings of the cell upwards to the way those cells are organised along with hormones, enzymes, catalysts and electro-chemical signalling: the whole thing is such a sublimely orchestrated symphony. 

Yes, I think that the organism learns and adapts over time and probably uses a natural selection mechanism as part of the evolution process. I also think that communication is ongoing between cells, between organs such as brain and gut and, somehow, between separate organisms, species wide. What the mechanisms are for that communication, I have no idea but I doubt that science will find it unless they open up to psi phenomena.

Leaving out, for the moment, any spiritual considerations for the human personality, I think that biology is itself a living display of intelligent processes. From the workings of the cell upwards to the way those cells are organised along with hormones, enzymes, catalysts and electro-chemical signalling: the whole thing is such a sublimely orchestrated symphony. 

Yes, I think that the organism learns and adapts over time and probably uses a natural selection mechanism as part of the evolution process. I also think that communication is ongoing between cells, between organs such as brain and gut and, somehow, between separate organisms, species wide. What the mechanisms are for that communication, I have no idea but I doubt that science will find it unless they open up to psi phenomena.

Science has.

How bacteria communicate.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-med...l-signals/

How human body cells do it.
http://www.biologyreference.com/Dn-Ep/En...ystem.html