Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

The key characteristic of "design" is that it embodies large amounts of complex specified information in the form of complicated intricate mechanisms, often irreducibly complex. 

The complete statement is, "the only source of such designs that we know of through direct observation and experience is conscious intelligent agents."  The first Webster definition of "to know" is "to perceive directly, have direct cognition of". If you know of any other source of design that similarly qualifies as being known through direct observation and experience please describe it. 

Some scientists breaking with neo-Darwinism theorize that a non-conscious but still intentional intelligence distributed among cellular organelles and multicellular organisms is responsible for design, but it is still inserting a teleological cause in evolution. 

The only other suggested source we have is one constituted of extremely improbable gradualistic just-so stories involving unintelligent causes. Asserting that something originated from random variation plus selection does not mean it did. It's an assertion, a facile assumption, that a process well understood to apply to microevolution can explain something like the Cambrian Explosion, or irreducibly complex molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum and ATP Synthase and ribosomes. As has been shown in previous posts, neo-Darwinism doesn't have any theoretical foundation for such stories, in that it has no theory for the generation of true novelty in evolution, and it doesn't explain the major characteristic of the fossil record - the punctuated equilibrium pattern. I have cited several experts in evolutionary biology and paleontology who have admitted this in print and in presentations, that the so-called Modern Synthesis has no theory of the generation of novelty, or explanation for the repeated pattern of "explosions" of novelty in the fossil record. It seems to be a best-kept secret in evolutionary biology. A recent major conference on the subject still didn't come up with much to address the explanatory gap, and mainly issued promissory notes for further research. Of course neo-Darwinist ideologues will never recognize that the reason for such persistent explanatory gaps might be their rigid exclusion of all teleological causes. It's really a matter of religious faith on the part of the Darwinists.

Looks designed.[Image: 26728E5D00000578-2985277-image-a-60_1425891523468.jpg]
Looks designed.[Image: strange_rock_formations_by_kururutherotom-d2y8n9i.jpg]
Looks designed.[Image: w031230a113.jpg]
Looks designed. [Image: HM%20_Libbrecht_21666.jpg]
Each one of the objects has the appearance of being designed. Yet these objects came about by entirely natural means. Do you acknowledge these object got their appearance by natural means?

I think malf was just riffing on "neo-Darwinist". 

Linda

You got me. Maybe neo-creationist would be more appropriate. 

You got me. Maybe neo-creationist would be more appropriate. 

You are so naughty, malf. 

Yes, I know that and in the context of my reply to Karmarling that was to be understood. It is but I'll rephrase it. When making assumptions about observed phenomena it is best to assume as little as possible that explains. How anything works in nature doesn't have to follow simplicity.

Again, I’ll ask you to read this to yourself in the context of this conversation and see if it means what you think you’re trying to get across. What you’re essentially saying is that humanity is incapable of understanding nature based off of the assumption that it is intelligible, when it almost assuredly is not.

It seems to me that much of the disagreements are, if not manufactured, overblown for ‘political’ posturing. If we take it as a given that matter is bizarre and the fact that we are here at all stretches one’s credulity to breaking point, can’t we just agree that the pressure to flourish in an evironment IS the designer? Heck, perhaps the environment is a ’god’? Sure, why not? How Gaian!

The ID crowd pragmatically spawned from the creationism movement and have a more specific god in mind; falling for, then parroting their motivated nonsense comforts, emboldens and empowers some pretty unsavoury dogma.

Looks designed.

Each one of the objects has the appearance of being designed. Yet these objects came about by entirely natural means. Do you acknowledge these object got their appearance by natural means?

This is the typical, fundamental error made by Darwinists. Natural processes create order such as water freezing to form a snowflake, resulting from natural laws of physics and chemistry directing the arrangement of molecules that are highly probable due to those laws. But living organisms are characterized by specified complexity, large amounts of information forming mechanisms and structures that are highly improbable. Certain phenomena can emerge by natural law (like the snowflake). The binding properties of water molecules determine what angles of the crystal are possible, and then the crystal’s random path through the cloud accounts for the unique result: a six-sided pattern that looks like a work of art. But you won’t see snowflakes spell out in the code of DNA the structure and developmental process of a bacterial flagellum — that kind of purposeful communication requires more than natural law and chance. It requires complex specified information. The patterns of living organisms will never emerge without complex specified information encoded by intelligence of some sort.

Specified complexity was first noted in 1973 by origin of life researcher, Leslie Orgel: "Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity." "Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple, well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures which are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity."

Scientist and philosopher Michael Polanyi showed that the sequencing of bases in DNA could no more be reduced to chemistry and physics than could be the arrangement of parts in a computer. Stephen Meyer on this: "Ohm’s law (and, indeed, the laws of physics generally) allows a vast ensemble of possible configurations of the same parts. Given the fundamental physical laws and the same parts, an engineer could build many other machines and structures: different model computers, radios, or quirky pieces of experimental art made from electrical components. The physical and chemical laws that govern the flow of current in electrical machines do not determine how the parts of the machine are arranged and assembled. The flow of electricity obeys the laws of physics, but where the electricity flows in any particular machine depends upon the arrangement of its parts — which, in turn, depends on the design of an electrical engineer working according to engineering principles. And these engineering principles, Polanyi insisted, are distinct from the laws of physics and chemistry that they harness." 

Biologist Herbert Yockey: “Attempts to relate the idea of order...with biological organization or specificity must be regarded as a play on words that cannot stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by (self-organizing) physicochemical factors.” 

Again, I’ll ask you to read this to yourself in the context of this conversation and see if it means what you think you’re trying to get across. What you’re essentially saying is that humanity is incapable of understanding nature based off of the assumption that it is intelligible, when it almost assuredly is not.

How in the hell did you misunderstand me? And I'm saying no such thing.
Since you seem to be greatly confused here's a link defining various uses.

I wrote: When making assumptions about observed phenomena it is best to assume as little as possible that explains.

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...occam.html

This is the typical, fundamental error made by Darwinists. Natural processes create order such as water freezing to form a snowflake, resulting from natural laws of physics and chemistry directing the arrangement of molecules that are highly probable due to those laws. But living organisms are characterized by specified complexity, large amounts of information forming mechanisms and structures that are highly improbable. Certain phenomena can emerge by natural law (like the snowflake). The binding properties of water molecules determine what angles of the crystal are possible, and then the crystal’s random path through the cloud accounts for the unique result: a six-sided pattern that looks like a work of art. But you won’t see snowflakes spell out in the code of DNA the structure and developmental process of a bacterial flagellum — that kind of purposeful communication requires more than natural law and chance. It requires complex specified information. The patterns of living organisms will never emerge without complex specified information encoded by intelligence of some sort.

Specified complexity was first noted in 1973 by origin of life researcher, Leslie Orgel: "Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity." "Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple, well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures which are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity."

Scientist and philosopher Michael Polanyi showed that the sequencing of bases in DNA could no more be reduced to chemistry and physics than could be the arrangement of parts in a computer. Stephen Meyer on this: "Ohm’s law (and, indeed, the laws of physics generally) allows a vast ensemble of possible configurations of the same parts. Given the fundamental physical laws and the same parts, an engineer could build many other machines and structures: different model computers, radios, or quirky pieces of experimental art made from electrical components. The physical and chemical laws that govern the flow of current in electrical machines do not determine how the parts of the machine are arranged and assembled. The flow of electricity obeys the laws of physics, but where the electricity flows in any particular machine depends upon the arrangement of its parts — which, in turn, depends on the design of an electrical engineer working according to engineering principles. And these engineering principles, Polanyi insisted, are distinct from the laws of physics and chemistry that they harness."

Biologist Herbert Yockey: “Attempts to relate the idea of order...with biological organization or specificity must be regarded as a play on words that cannot stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by (self-organizing) physicochemical factors.” 

The two points I'm making with these examples is a.) the appearance of design is inherent throughout the natural world even when there is no design. b.) Why is it argued life must be the exception to the rule?

Polyani died 22 February 1976 perhaps use someone a bit more current.

From a blog his daughter started. Not someone I'd quote if I were you.

This post is written by Cynthia Yockey.

The first thing I want noted about my father is that he is not in any way, shape or form a Creationist. He does not support Intelligent Design. He supports Darwin’s theory of evolution and points out that it is one of the best-supported theories in science.
http://www.hubertpyockey.com/hpyblog/200...#comment-3

The two points I'm making with these examples is a.) the appearance of design is inherent throughout the natural world even when there is no design. b.) Why is it argued life must be the exception to the rule?

Polyani died 22 February 1976 perhaps use someone a bit more current.

M. Polyani died as a brilliant Materials Science researcher and outstanding teacher.  He was a deep-thinker about the subject: Philosophy of Science.

a)There is no design in the natural world?????

All this crazy stuff comes from the idea in ancient times that humanity had a special "magic" that was different in mental skill than that of other living things.  In my humble view, humans possess advance communication tools that fully obey the laws of science.  The natural world is nothing but artifacts of living things designing better lives for themselves.

Human design processes are the same as design processes used by living things and both are perfectly natural.  Humanity has evolved an purposeful information process that is more capable in abstracting and constructing information objects from structured information.

M. Polyani died as a brilliant Materials Science researcher and outstanding teacher.  He was a deep-thinker about the subject: Philosophy of Science.

a)There is no design in the natural world?????

All this crazy stuff comes from the idea in ancient times that humanity had a special "magic" that was different in mental skill than that of other living things.  In my humble view, humans possess advance communication tools that fully obey the laws of science.  The natural world is nothing but artifacts of living things designing better lives for themselves.

Human design processes are the same as design processes used by living things and both are perfectly natural.  Humanity has evolved an purposeful information process that is more capable in abstracting and constructing information objects from structured information.

Being brilliant as I'm sure he was 40 years ago surely doesn't necessarily equate with current science, does it?

As for the rest of what you've written I have no real disagreement.