Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Indeed. And we don't even need evidence that such a thing will work. From Marvin Minsky:

"The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment."

Yikes!!!!!!i

First let me say that M. Minsky is an expert in his abstract field and has a firm grasp of the math computation of population genetics in ways that I will not understand.

However, since the quote specifically puts the context as abstraction, pragmatic abstract factors are ignored in his thesis.  Traits are variables in the abstract context of computation.  Minsky's logic is sound except for the not stating his implicit assumption that the traits act independently in terms of fitness output.  In real life this is rarely the case!    Traits are not isolated factors in the abstract but are outcomes from genetic instructions.  Therefore in gene expression and regulation -- traits will have multiple outcomes.

Traits often conflict and don't pair well-together.  NS can provide improving traits.  NS can provide traits that conflict as they develop and its all about trade-offs.

So often, a single genetic mutation has a positive and minus fitness expression in different systemic function.  Minsky's idea is generally significant, but in practice is foolishness.  Hence, the recent correction coming from Physiologists (discover how biological systems work) vs population genetics (how traits may work in the abstract).

Courtesy of the Daily Grail, here's an article at Aeon by Kevin Laland of the University of St Andrews, asking whether evolutionary science is due for a major overhaul:
https://aeon.co/essays/science-in-flux-i...ary-theory

After reading this article I posted a poll:
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-po...-evolution

However, since the quote specifically puts the context as abstraction, pragmatic abstract factors are ignored in his thesis.  Traits are variables in the abstract context of computation.  Minsky's logic is sound except for the not stating his implicit assumption that the traits act independently in terms of fitness output.  In real life this is rarely the case!    Traits are not isolated factors in the abstract but are outcomes from genetic instructions.  Therefore in gene expression and regulation -- traits will have multiple outcomes.

    Traits often conflict and don't pair well-together.  NS can provide improving traits.  NS can provide traits that conflict as they develop and its all about trade-offs.

    So often, a single genetic mutation has a positive and minus fitness expression in different systemic function.  Minsky's idea is generally significant, but in practice is foolishness.  Hence, the recent correction coming from Physiologists (discover how biological systems work) vs population genetics (how traits may work in the abstract).

What is this recent correction you mention?

You are certainly correct that traits are not independent and can have multiple outcomes for the organism. Are you saying it's possible that a combination of traits with lower reproduction rates will prevail over another combination with higher rates, when both combinations produce viable organisms? Note that we are talking about traits (groups of phenotypes), not genes (genotypes).

Edited to add: I suppose it is possible that a gene becomes fixed by chance and that gene contributes to a combination of traits that doesn't produce the highest reproduction rate, but high enough. Note that Minsky said "tend . . . higher," not highest. But anyway, please reply.


~~ Paul

The article in the OP was interesting despite somewhat racist views.

It was stated multiple times here, but evolution as a viewpoint often seems to come with several subpackages of information. But somehow, if anyone disagrees with any of the main viewpoints, its as if you disagree with the whole package.

At some level, again, as was discussed here, it often seems to come back to the clan mentality. If you aren't in favor of the total package deal of evolution, you must belong to the other team. Namely, the creationist team, with all of its associated baggage. Likely, one would find similar reaction if someone criticised creationism on their grounds (the other person belongs to the 'evolution' tribe.)

Shouldn't it be a good thing to find current scientific theories lacking? isn't that what good science is about? Not trying to sell stories, but about an iterative process? Finding cracks in the current theories should be encouraged, as they can indicate the best places to look for advancement. But if any contrary theories are snuffed out with such vigor (especially by those in charge of funding), how can they grow and compete? Yeah sure, many of them are 'wrong', but so are the 'accepted' ones to such degree. It's a matter of which imperfection best represents the underlying reality.

The article in the OP was interesting despite somewhat racist views.

It was stated multiple times here, but evolution as a viewpoint often seems to come with several subpackages of information. But somehow, if anyone disagrees with any of the main viewpoints, its as if you disagree with the whole package.

At some level, again, as was discussed here, it often seems to come back to the clan mentality. If you aren't in favor of the total package deal of evolution, you must belong to the other team. Namely, the creationist team, with all of its associated baggage. Likely, one would find similar reaction if someone criticised creationism on their grounds (the other person belongs to the 'evolution' tribe.)

Shouldn't it be a good thing to find current scientific theories lacking? isn't that what good science is about? Not trying to sell stories, but about an iterative process? Finding cracks in the current theories should be encouraged, as they can indicate the best places to look for advancement. But if any contrary theories are snuffed out with such vigor (especially by those in charge of funding), how can they grow and compete? Yeah sure, many of them are 'wrong', but so are the 'accepted' ones to such degree. It's a matter of which imperfection best represents the underlying reality.

Testing theories is one of the things science does. However, what Karmarling, nbtruthman, and David want to do is undermine completely this theory and replace it with something ideologically agreeable.

P.S. Darkcheese, one of my favorite cheeses is Unikasse (sp?). It's a cheddar with salt bits in it from the fermentation process.

Testing theories is one of the things science does.

I agree completely in principle, semi-agree in practice (science doesn't do anything by itself, people adhere to the scientific method to investigate phenomena/processes. But since people are involved, that brings in other factors (funding, becoming a pariah, etc.). )

However, what Karmarling, nbtruthman, and David want to do is undermine completely this theory and replace it with something ideologically agreeable.

What specific theory are they undermining? And what do they want to replace it with? It seems the conversation is a little more granular, but perhaps I am trying to mine too much meaning from the thread?


P.S. Darkcheese, one of my favorite cheeses is Unikasse (sp?). It's a cheddar with salt bits in it from the fermentation process.

Will have to look that up.

At some level, again, as was discussed here, it often seems to come back to the clan mentality. If you aren't in favor of the total package deal of evolution, you must belong to the other team. Namely, the creationist team, with all of its associated baggage. Likely, one would find similar reaction if someone criticised creationism on their grounds (the other person belongs to the 'evolution' tribe.)

Shouldn't it be a good thing to find current scientific theories lacking? isn't that what good science is about? Not trying to sell stories, but about an iterative process? Finding cracks in the current theories should be encouraged, as they can indicate the best places to look for advancement. But if any contrary theories are snuffed out with such vigor (especially by those in charge of funding), how can they grow and compete? Yeah sure, many of them are 'wrong', but so are the 'accepted' ones to such degree. It's a matter of which imperfection best represents the underlying reality.

It's great to find current theories lacking and replace them with fruitful new theories. I don't think the ID community has done this.

~~ Paul

It's great to find current theories lacking and replace them with fruitful new theories. I don't think the ID community has done this.

~~ Paul

The first part (theories lacking), is a matter of perspective. If someone has a materialistic bend, then they can explain away the gaps in current knowledge by using certain hypotheses. Other beliefs could open other boxes. Perhaps some of these ideas work better than others. But only some are academically palatable. 

As far as alternative fruitful theories go, yeah, the ID community probably doesn't have a bulletproof logic, otherwise, we could all follow a flowchart to the 'better' belief. (or whatever the most popular belief is). Certainly, the mainstream process of evolution is 'good enough', in that it has a decent amount of evidence for certain components. Thus, filling in the other gaps with conventional wisdom works-ish. But the amount of brainpower, funding, dedicated to a materialistic bent, vs any others is lopsided, to say the least. Probably better than some scenarios, worse than others. Not sure how I'd practically change it.

As far as alternative fruitful theories go, yeah, the ID community probably doesn't have a bulletproof logic, otherwise, we could all follow a flowchart to the 'better' belief. (or whatever the most popular belief is). Certainly, the mainstream process of evolution is 'good enough', in that it has a decent amount of evidence for certain components. Thus, filling in the other gaps with conventional wisdom works-ish. But the amount of brainpower, funding, dedicated to a materialistic bent, vs any others is lopsided, to say the least. Probably better than some scenarios, worse than others. Not sure how I'd practically change it.

I'm not sure how to change it, either. If not many people are interested in a supposedly fruitful new theory, then it's tough to get funding. The problem with ID is that it's purely based on probability ideas that have pretty much been trounced. There is no "intelligent designer" there.

Even its fundamental concepts, such as irreducible complexity and CSI, have been stomped pretty hard. It's tough even to get a consensus on the definition of IC. The CSI people agree that a CSI calculation has to include the calculation of the probability that the mechanism came about by evolution. That calculation is impossible to make.

What's funny is that the various complexifications and additions to "Neo-Darwinism" are used as examples of why the theory is broken, rather than being applauded as examples of the flexibility of science. "You're just patching a broken theory. If only you would include a designer, then poof! all the problems would disappear."

~~ Paul

Testing theories is one of the things science does. 

I agree completely in principle, semi-agree in practice (science doesn't do anything by itself, people adhere to the scientific method to investigate phenomena/processes. But since people are involved, that brings in other factors (funding, becoming a pariah, etc.). )

However, what Karmarling, nbtruthman, and David want to do is undermine completely this theory and replace it with something 
What specific theory are they undermining? And what do they want to replace it with? It seems the conversation is a little more granular, but perhaps I am trying to mine too much meaning from the thread?


P.S. Darkcheese, one of my favorite cheeses is Unikasse (sp?). It's a cheddar with salt bits in it from the fermentation process.

Will have to look that up.

Keep this in mind
Wherever scientists look in their experimentations even when something happens absolutely not predicted by theory things ultimately resolve to natural explanations.

Undermining TOE of course. Take a look at this Skeptiko thread to see where David's and nbtruthman's go regarding TOE.
David: The more I think about it, the evolution by natural selection theory became invalid as soon as the DNA code was discovered.

Here's the link. http:// http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/th...logy.4020/