"Exposing Discovery Institute": video series by "Professor" Dave Farina

OK. I hope I will debunk enough of this to make you wary of any of the professor's other arguments, because my enthusiasm for this project may flag a bit. Also, please note that I was a chemist (long ago) never a biologist.

The professor gives a list of alternatives to Darwin's theory. This is somewhat deceptive, because I don't think any of these contain a mechanism that continuously improves something, in the way that Darwinian selection would appear to do.

Genetic drift is literally just that. Over time gene sequences which are not vital to the survival of an organism will drift. This forms a "molecular clock" which is used to date stuff in the fossil record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock

These changes don't make the organism fitter unless perhaps they use the Darwinian mechanism.

Sexual selection

This is a fun example. Basically males or females develop exaggerated traits which happen to excite the opposite sex. For example male peacocks 'compete' with longer and longer tails because these seem to excite the females. Their elaborate tails obviously do not make these birds more fit in that they must be more vulnerable to predation.

Recombination

I'm not quite sure what this relates to unless it is that hybrids are often more fit than pure-bred animals.

Horizontal gene transfer

I am pretty sure that this refers to a mechanism other than sex that can transfer genes from one organism to another. Typically a virus, which remember reproduces using its host's cellular reproduction mechanism, accidentally gets a host's gene into its offspring particles. When the new virus particles infect another organism, the gene may be passed on. Again, that mechanism does not work to improve either organism, it just shows up from time to time.

Niche construction

I think this refers to the fact that organisms seem to evolve into particular niches, for example (I think) Darwin's finches which evolved slightly to suit the islands on which they found themselves. As I said before, this kind of fine-tuning is consistent with Darwin's theory, but it cannot possibly be generalised.

epigenetics

This is a fascinating molecular mechanism that is believed to control the whole process in which cells diversify into different types inside the body - e.g. skin cells liver cells, nerve cells etc. This happens because molecular tags are added to DNA or the proteins that surround the DNA inside chromosomes and modify the gene's expression - enhancing or suppressing expression. Interestingly, sometimes these tags are added to DNA in the germ line, and get passed to the next generation or even to several generations. For example, a study found that children born to parents who had lived under starvation conditions were better able to resist starvation. The evidence for these effects used to be dismissed because it was inconsistent with biological theory because it involves the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In any case, nothing is passed on in the long term so it isn't really an example of evolution at all.

Although the professor mentions the bacterial flagellum, I don't think he makes it clear that this flagellum doesn't just flap up and down, it rotates at quite high speed to propel the organism. This is a most remarkable mechanism - not least because you might expect it to leak the contents of the cell into the external fluid.

@nbtruthman Please feel free to correct or augment any of the above!

Clearly it would be a long job to debunk even one of these videos, but I hope it illustrates my point - note that I did not select (pun intended) a convenient place to start in this video, I just ploughed in from the beginning.

David

The problem with genetic drift, recombination, horizontal gene transfer and the other alternate ways genetic variations come about cited by Farina is that they all are (like mutations themselves) random with respect to fitness and therefore subject to the same severe limitations in terms of what they can accomplish (in conjunction with natural selection). They are just as totally impotent as mutations in being able to build innovative new irreducibly complex biological systems.  

Random genetic variations plus natural selection can build various types of finch beaks. This is called microevolution. But this is totally incapable of inventing and building the basic design of the beak itself along with all the associated intricately interacting organ systems of the bird - this last is called macroevolution, and is totally out of reach of RM + NS. Sexual selection certainly isn't random and is in the direction of a kind of fitness, but all it can do is what RM + NS is inherently limited to, which is modifying existing biological structures a little. Sexual selection, like random genetic variations, is totally incapable of inventing and building innovative new irreducibly complex living systems. It can make a new variation on the ingenious tail feather design, but it can't invent the basic design of the feather itself along with all the supporting organ systems that have to go with it.

So, by citing the significant number of modes of random genetic variation that have been found by researchers, Farina is not even addressing the severe problem he is confronted with - explaining the sudden origin of complex novel new biological systems, for instance the sudden (in evolutionary terms) appearance of more than twenty new animal body plans and phyla in the Cambrian explosion, with the major body plans like the arthropods and vertebrates having extremely complex intricately interlinked irreducibly complex body subsystems such as skeleton, nervous system, brain, sensory system including eyes, digestive system, musculature, it goes on. 

Niche construction is just another way microevolution takes place and can't in the slightest explain macroevolution. 

Epigenetics is another matter. This has been suggested to be a means of genetic variation that somehow allows living organisms to modify their own genome in order to adapt to changing conditions. It does seem to be limited to a few generations, but it just may in truth be another way beside RM + NS that microevolution takes place. But some biologists who are trying to break with Darwin but still avoid Intelligent Design have suggested that this is one of several ways novel new organ systems and other macroevolutionary developments in evolution happen - not by outside intelligent intervention in evolution, but by some sort of semi-intelligent inner directedness present in all life including single celled organisms. I myself don't find this credible, because inventing irreducibly complex biological machines inherently requires conscious intelligent agent(s) capable of thought and foresight, and it is beyond incredible to suggest that nonhuman animals and plants to say nothing of single celled organisms have such capability.

The problem with genetic drift, recombination, horizontal gene transfer and the other alternate ways genetic variations come about cited by Farina is that they all are (like mutations themselves) random with respect to fitness and therefore subject to the same severe limitations in terms of what they can accomplish (in conjunction with natural selection). They are just as totally impotent as mutations in being able to build innovative new irreducibly complex biological systems.  

Random genetic variations plus natural selection can build various types of finch beaks. This is called microevolution. But this is totally incapable of inventing and building the basic design of the beak itself along with all the associated intricately interacting organ systems of the bird - this last is called macroevolution, and is totally out of reach of RM + NS. Sexual selection certainly isn't random and is in the direction of a kind of fitness, but all it can do is what RM + NS can only do, which is modify existing biological structures a little. Sexual selection, like random genetic variations, is totally incapable of inventing and building innovative new irreducibly complex living systems. It can make a new variation on the ingenious tail feather design, but it can't invent the basic design of the feather itself along with all the supporting organ systems that have to go with it.

So, by citing the significant number of random modes of genetic variation that have been found by researchers, Farina is not even addressing the severe problem he is confronted with - explaining the sudden origin of complex novel new biological systems, for instance the sudden (in evolutionary terms) appearance of more than twenty new animal body plans and phyla in the Cambrian explosion, with the major body plans like the arthropods and vertebrates having extremely complex irreducibly complex body subsystems such as skeleton, nervous system, brain, sensory system including eyes, digestive system, musculature, it goes on. 

Niche construction is just another way microevolution takes place and can't in the slightest explain macroevolution. 

Epigenetics is another matter. Apparently this may be a means of genetic variation that allows living organisms to modify their own genome in order to adapt to changing conditions. It may in truth be another way beside RM + NS that microevolution takes place. But some biologists who are trying to break with Darwin but still avoid Intelligent Design have suggested that this is the way novel new organ systems and other macroevolutionary developments in evolution happen - not by outside intelligent intervention in evolution, but by some sort of semi-intelligent inner directedness present in all life including single celled organisms. I myself don't find this credible, because inventing irreducibly complex biological machines inherently requires conscious intelligent agent(s) capable of thought and foresight, and it is incredible to suggest that nonhuman animals and plants to say nothing of single celled organisms have such capability.

It is frankly a bit amazing and absurd the lengths to which staunch gradualist evolutionists will go to avoid the need for an intelligent designer ~ of any nature. The more I look at them, the more they just appear as Atheists who feel an automatic unease at intelligence and design in life ~ anyone who believes in such ideas must all be secretly closet Christian Creationists. The strawmanning is so tiring to deal with. Frankly, at some point I just gave up debating with them, along with internet Physicalists and Materialists, because it does not matter what you say ~ you always get the same braindead replies that always strawman your position invariably.

Epigenetics is another matter. Apparently this may be a means of genetic variation that allows living organisms to modify their own genome in order to adapt to changing conditions. It may in truth be another way beside RM + NS that microevolution takes place. But some biologists who are trying to break with Darwin but still avoid Intelligent Design have suggested that this is the way novel new organ systems and other macroevolutionary developments in evolution happen - not by outside intelligent intervention in evolution, but by some sort of semi-intelligent inner directedness present in all life including single celled organisms. I myself don't find this credible, because inventing irreducibly complex biological machines inherently requires conscious intelligent agent(s) capable of thought and foresight, and it is incredible to suggest that nonhuman animals and plants to say nothing of single celled organisms have such capability.

Would an instinctual kind of Psi allow for some of this selection, even at the level of lower life forms? For example some kind of precognition about what will ensure survival down the line.

Not even sure one needs Psi, it really seems to depend on if limited capacity for agency, even at the cellular/microbiome level, and whether this can lead to development of certain macro structures.

I feel like variations of these possibilities are things different members have mentioned over the years. I don't know if you can get to macro-structures like the eye this way, but I'm also not fully sold on the idea that we need particular interventions at specific times in the evolutionary history of our planet...

edit:

It is frankly a bit amazing and absurd the lengths to which staunch gradualist evolutionists will go to avoid the need for an intelligent designer ~ of any nature. The more I look at them, the more they just appear as Atheists who feel an automatic unease at intelligence and design in life ~ anyone who believes in such ideas must all be secretly closet Christian Creationists. The strawmanning is so tiring to deal with. Frankly, at some point I just gave up debating with them, along with internet Physicalists and Materialists, because it does not matter what you say ~ you always get the same braindead replies that always strawman your position invariably.

There are Christians who are critical of ID as well though?

There are Christians who are critical of ID as well though?

Doesn't stop the Atheist or Materialist from strawmanning and committing ad hominems. They don't even acknowledge or seem to care that there are Christians critical of ID.

Would an instinctual kind of Psi allow for some of this selection, even at the level of lower life forms? For example some kind of precognition about what will ensure survival down the line.

Not even sure one needs Psi, it really seems to depend on if limited capacity for agency, even at the cellular/microbiome level, and whether this can lead to development of certain macro structures.

I feel like variations of these possibilities are things different members have mentioned over the years. I don't know if you can get to macro-structures like the eye this way, but I'm also not fully sold on the idea that we need particular interventions at specific times in the evolutionary history of our planet...

edit:


There are Christians who are critical of ID as well though?

The idea that lower forms of life, especially single celled organisms, could have some sort of psi capability doesn't seem possible to me, because in our experience psi is invariably associated with our own minds or with discarnate minds. Single celled organisms simply don't have conscious minds.

It seems possible that single celled organisms could have the capacity for some primitive kind of agency, in fact I remember reading about research that has showed seemingly intelligent agency on the part of some single celled animals and primitive slime molds, but not just agency but conscious thoughtful planning capability, imagination, creativity and foresight are also required of whatever agents are responsible for macroevolution. I just don't find it believable that single celled organisms or even most higher level non-human organisms have that capability.

The idea that lower forms of life, especially single celled organisms, could have some sort of psi capability doesn't seem possible to me, because in our experience psi is invariably associated with our own minds or with discarnate minds. Single celled organisms simply don't have conscious minds.

It seems possible that single celled organisms could have the capacity for some primitive kind of agency, in fact I remember reading about research that has showed seemingly intelligent agency on the part of some single celled animals and primitive slime molds, but not just agency but conscious thoughtful planning capability, imagination, creativity and foresight are also required of whatever agents are responsible for macroevolution. I just don't find it believable that single celled organisms or even most higher level non-human organisms have that capability.

Yeah I don't know if, once we reject materialism, we can say that complexity of structure is necessary for any sign of creativity or foresight. There is an aspect of these that seems potentially present in many animals because a variety of animals play.

But I'm not even sure you need Psi, or anything paranormal here. Maybe complex macro-structures simply can't be built from even directed evolution without intervention, if the functionality of intermediate stages is non-viable.

I suspect a thorough examination of this topic involves not just ID advocates versus those who think the standard story of evolution is adequate, but a variety of options "in between" such as Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance or the kind of Platonism Wagner and Levin have proposed...there's also the "Third Way" options...

As such, while I do see Materialist bias in how DI is criticized it isn't clear to me the DI types have the right of it either...

But regarding this question of whether immaterial entity intervention is the best conclusion from examining evidence of evolution...I do wonder if it's worth going through the back & forth here step by step, line by line?

It could certainly be done, but I know I certainly don't care enough about the whole thing to do it. I think I've definitely seen enough to know that the DI has the wrong intentions when they put forward the arguments they do and now it might be better to find some ID advocates outside of the organization. 

But then...is there any? Cause if the large majority of proponents are all held up in this group well THAT'S not good.

It could certainly be done, but I know I certainly don't care enough about the whole thing to do it. I think I've definitely seen enough to know that the DI has the wrong intentions when they put forward the arguments they do and now it might be better to find some ID advocates outside of the organization. 

But then...is there any? Cause if the large majority of proponents are all held up in this group well THAT'S not good.

I'm curious to find out what you have seen that signals that the Discovery Institute "has the wrong intentions", and would like to know what those wrong intentions are. As to the idea that the majority of proponents may be in the Discovery Institute, that may be true but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not ID is the truth of evolution. Most of the articles and books on ID are being written by DI writers and researchers, which is not surprising considering that the public at large is only dimly aware (if at all) of even the existence of the concept of ID and the controversy over it, and most scientists especially in the fields of biology and evolutionary biology are very hostile to Intelligent Design.

I'm curious to find out what you have seen that signals that the Discovery Institute "has the wrong intentions", and would like to know what those wrong intentions are. As to the idea that the majority of proponents may be in the Discovery Institute, that may be true but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not ID is the truth of evolution. Most of the articles and books on ID are being written by DI writers and researchers, which is not surprising considering that the public at large is only dimly aware (if at all) of even the existence of the concept of ID and the controversy over it, and most scientists especially in the fields of biology and evolutionary biology are very hostile to Intelligent Design.

To refer back to my post a little while ago about the DI's leaked Wedge document that highlights their goals and intentions 

5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God

These people aren't pushing ID as a legitimate scientific alternative to traditional and modern forms of evolution for the pure scientific merit. Their goals are reinforcement of traditional conservative Christian values and ID is a tool to be used in that regard. In another one of their documents, their is quite literally a spelling error where instead of "Intelligent Design" they put "Creationism". There has been court cases where they've tried to have ID taught in schools alongside evolutionary theory and they have found in them that the type of ID that the Discovery Institute puts forward is just secularised creationism to get around the separation of church and state. If the Discovery Institute is the group who is doing the most work on ID then it is of no suprise to me that the general scientific community is so hostile to the idea, there is no good faith scientists here only proponents with an agendas who do science on the side. 

It's certainly not a wrong point to make that the truth of ID doesn't depend on the quality of it's proponents. But if the best arguments are being put forward by these people, people with agendas who as per the very first video in the series have been proven to lie in order to manipulate the evidence in their favour, it instantly makes it so anything they say must be taken with the largest grain of salt ever as to whether or not the arguments are sound compared to the alternatives.

To refer back to my post a little while ago about the DI's leaked Wedge document that highlights their goals and intentions 

More importantly... is it even relevant in this day and age? That is, do any of them still adhere to said document? Was it ever official?

Even if so, you cannot just strawman the entirety of the DI's work just because of a document.

Judge them on the articles they put out, not on a single leaked document that you have an oddly strong focus on.