An Unfortunate Relapse; More Dissent from Darwin

busterdog · #1 7th March 2008, 06:08 PM

"Oh, Robert, Benson, I feel the power of evil coursing through my veins, filling every corner of my being with the desire to do wrong. I feel so bad, Benson."

"Good, good."

"Yes, it is good, for this is the worst kind of badness that I'm feeling."

"Kill me, master. Kill me."

"Not now, Benson. We have work to do. No lesser work than the overthrowing of Creation itself. We will remake man in our image, not his. We will turn mountains into sea, and the skies into rivers, the fjords into deserts, and the deserts into flatland. . ."

". . .into icebergs, and the icebergs into fire, and the fire into a mighty, rushing wind which will cover the face of the earth and wipe clean the scourge of woolly thinking once and for all."

"We can make beans into peas."

"Oh, Benson, dear Benson, you are so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence."

"Oh, you say such nice things, master."

"Yes, I know. I'm sorry. Now, Benson, I shall have to turn you into a dog for a while."

"Thank you, master."

"Stay, Benson. Guard the map."

"Robert, we must plan a new world together. This time we'll start it properly. Tell me about computers."

"A computer is an automatic, electronic apparatus for making calculations. . .or coherent operations that are expressed in numerical or logical terms."

"And fast breeder reactors?"

"Ah! Fast breeder reactors use a fast fission process for the generation of fission isotopes."

"Be quiet, Benson. Show me more, Benson. Show me, show me, subscriber trunk dialing. I must know everything."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
This is the worst kind of badness I am feeling.

It has lead me to post .....

Woodstock of Science Set to Dethrone Darwin's Theory of Evolution

At Scoop freelance reporter Suzan Mazur pulls back the veil on one of science's dirty little secrets — Darwinism is dead as a theory of evolution. This won't be surprising to the early adopters here at ENV, but it will come as a surprise to many in the media who have lazily just regurgitated the tired old refrain of the NCSE that Darwinian evolution is the be-all and end-all of modern biology.
Mazur reports on an upcoming conference at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria which she thinks will be the Woodstock of evolution.
What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature – let's call them "the Altenberg 16" – who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It's pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accommodate "other" new phenomena.
Say what? Sixteen scientists who recognize that the theory of evolution, which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. (Suzan, shhhh, don't tell anyone, there's hundreds more over here.) Mazur seems a bit surprised to find out something that intelligent design advocates have known for years. It is not safe to doubt Darwin.
A wave of scientists now questions natural selection's relevance, though few will publicly admit it. And with such a fundamental struggle underway, the hurling of slurs such as "looney Marxist hangover", "philosopher" (a scientist who can't get grants anymore), "crackpot", is hardly surprising.
The meeting seems largely to have come about because of Jerry Fodor's article Why Pigs Don't Have Wings. In an act of near-heresy, Fodor wrote:
In fact, an appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists are coming to think that the theory of natural selection can no longer be taken for granted. This is, so far, mostly straws in the wind; but it’s not out of the question that a scientific revolution – no less than a major revision of evolutionary theory – is in the offing. Unlike the story about our minds being anachronistic adaptations, this new twist doesn’t seem to have been widely noticed outside professional circles. The ironic upshot is that at a time when the theory of natural selection has become an article of pop culture, it is faced with what may be the most serious challenge it has had so far. Darwinists have been known to say that adaptationism is the best idea that anybody has ever had. It would be a good joke if the best idea that anybody has ever had turned out not to be true.
You can imagine what Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and the rest of the Darwinian politburo thought about that. Mazur reports:
When I called Fodor to discuss his article, he joked that he was now in the Witness Protection Program because he'd been so besieged following the LRB piece. ... Fodor also told me that "you can't put this stuff in the press because it's an attack on the theory of natural selection" and besides "99.99% of the population have no idea what the theory of natural selection is".
Eminent biologist Stanley Salthe read Fodor's piece and was inspired to start an e-mail debate among a number of leading biologists, which looks to have led to this Altenberg meeting. Interestingly, Salthe, long having been a Darwin dissenter, is pretty straightforward in what he thinks about it all:
"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."
Someone had better call the NCSE and give them a heads up. What's that? Mazur already has? How'd that work out for her?
Curiously, when I called Kevin Padian, president of NCSE's board of directors and a witness at the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial on Intelligent Design, to ask him about the evolution debate among scientists – he said, "On some things there is not a debate." He then hung up.
Many different points of view are to be represented at the meeting from Stanley Pivar's geometric approach, to Fodor's endogenous variables, to Stuart Kauffman's ideas on self-organization. Yet one entire field is not represented – intelligent design. It would seem that such a meeting would benefit from including Stephen Meyer or Michael Behe in its discussion as ID researchers, even if only to argue against their ideas. Regardless, there is a debate (whether the NCSE will admit it or not) and a paradigm shift is on the way.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03...porter_su.html

That part about the witness protection program was really funny.

busterdog · #2 7th March 2008, 06:21 PM

I briefly digress:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnE2nw2mi7E

"...43 species of parrots, nipples for men ...."

Tooooo funny.

vossler · #3 7th March 2008, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by busterdog

"...43 species of parrots, nipples for men ...."

Tooooo funny.

Now that was funny...thanks!

gluadys · #4 7th March 2008, 10:35 PM

Yes, its funny.

But what is it all about?

but it’s not out of the question that a scientific revolution – no less than a major revision of evolutionary theory – is in the offing.

Revision. Just like neo-Darwinism was a revision.

Not a renunciation. Not a dismantling. And no, not a relapse either. Definitely not a retreat.

A revision. Maybe a major revision. Could be quite interesting. But haven't we all been expecting a revision sooner or later?

juvenissun · #5 8th March 2008, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by gluadys

Yes, its funny.

But what is it all about?

Revision. Just like neo-Darwinism was a revision.

Not a renunciation. Not a dismantling. And no, not a relapse either. Definitely not a retreat.

A revision. Maybe a major revision. Could be quite interesting. But haven't we all been expecting a revision sooner or later?

When the Red Army was defeated in WWII, they did not call a retreat as retreat, but as a "transit marching". Of course, everyone knew what that was.

gluadys · #6 8th March 2008, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

When the Red Army was defeated in WWII, they did not call a retreat as retreat, but as a "transit marching". Of course, everyone knew what that was.

Yes, they were putting their best face on a defeat.

But revision of a theory is very seldom a renunciation of a theory. Usually it incorporates what is best in the current theory and builds on it. A move forward in understanding, not a regression to a former position.

Darwin moved us forward from a failed Lamarkism. Mendel moved us forward from an incomplete Darwinism. What we may be seeing now is another move forward that encompasses but goes beyond natural selection as a mechanism of evolution. IOW a clarification of how factors other than natural selection play a part in evolution, maybe even a more important part than natural selection.

What we will not see is a rejection of evolution, since that has been established as given.

busterdog · #7 8th March 2008, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

When the Red Army was defeated in WWII, they did not call a retreat as retreat, but as a "transit marching". Of course, everyone knew what that was.

See, this is what I mean.

Now you are being evil.

Indulging in the worst kind of badness.

I am trying to find a handle on this notion that we are getting into. Now, it started as a brutish and sadistic impulse to inflame my evolutionist friends. I had been so good of late. (Hopefully they realize I am messing with them in good fun.)

But, how exactly do you "retreat" from, or, excuse me, revise the notion of "natural selection." Being random is like being pregnant. You are either pregnant or not. Now, one can theorize that natural selection works together with some type of cosmic predilection of naturally occurring foo foo dust to reorganize patterns of adenine, quanine, etc. But, once you do that, what have you done?

On one hand, within the "kind", we do see a form of natural selection that affects microevolution. But, in terms of things like the "Origin of Species" (that does have a certain ring to it), how exactly does this work? My evolutionist friends refuse to put abiogenesis and origin of species into the same paragraph, but regardless of the distinct mechanics of either, there is a similar mathematical and probabilty question posed in each mechanism. For example, Mr. Mark Kennedy, where did that human brain come from? And with such vast mathematical voids of understanding, how is this theory to be completed?

But Kauffman also describes genes as "utterly dead". However, he says there are some genes that turn the rest of the genes and one another on and off. Certain chemical reactions happen. Enzymes are produced, etc. And that while we only have 25,000 to 30,000 genes, there are many combinations of activity.
Here's what he told me over the phone:
"Well there's 25,000 genes, so each could be on or off. So there's 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times. Well that's 2 to the 25,000th. Right? Which is something like 10 to the 7,000th. Okay? There's only 10 to the 80th particles in the whole universe. Are you stunned?"

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm

I think the answer is to ASS*U*ME we understand a relationship, possibly even a ratio, of randomness to mediating mechanism. That is crazy talk.

Actually, feeling particularly evil today, let me go farther. It is not just that we will assume a ratio of randomness to cogent moderating forces (that would be darn near int*&&$@*^t [that is the swear word, intellingent]), but we give randomness every benefit of the doubt as a predominating factor. In short, you take enormously complicated interactions creating species, only partially understood, and assume the missing pieces to represent godlessness as a determined bias in your model.

Lets check my theory against politics. What happened with ID? Brilliant people made this hyothesis with biblical assistance. The reaction was not "Yes, there is a form of intelligence quite evident in uncannily efficient moderating forces within nature." Rather, the reaction was that ID was anathema to any reasonable form of scholarship or educational setting. In short, "we can't discuss it" was the answer. Does that suggest a bias? Sure it does.

What this notion of nonrandom selection process should do is put a good deal of mystery back on the table for discussion. And the funny thing is that my very predictable evolutionist friends are about to say, yes, that is so, but we have to assume that all these mysteries and blanks spaces in the theory are going to resolve in favor of eons of cogent, partially random processes that are superior to theological explanations.

I am in favor of just talking about intelligent design as what it is. Uncanny lack of randomness. It evokes great doubt about whether the bloody sacred cow is really pregnant ("random") at all. In science, doubt is just doubt. I can handle that. But, I get to have my say that where there is doubt, God just might be the best answer there is. Just might, is what I say with my little poindexter mortar board on. When I worship, I know better. But, in talking science, I would hope my evolutionist friends would give me the great benefit of the doubt.

So, Gluadys, yes, I understand that there is an appearance of randomness and that one can account for some modern evolutionary processes as such. I understand what it means to talk about such appearances. There is an intelligent use of the term. We can speak that way with the understanding that lurking in the background is the following God:

Psa 18:11 He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him [were] dark waters [and] thick clouds of the skies.

Mat 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

We have no idea how God moderates the flight or fall of sparrows, so some notion of randomness has a place in our discourse, ie, it says something about our cluelessness.

But, Darwin depends upon randomness for the integrity of his theory. Demonstrated intelligence in the forces of nature are a cancer in that concept that is metastisizing. The notion that there is a cogent boundary between a random process and an intelligent process is a major, major assumption. It assumes one can be half pregnant. The notion that Darwinism is likely survive at all is largely based on a irrational fondness and bias.

Juvy is right, this sounds like a retreat with a better label.

busterdog · #8 8th March 2008, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by gluadys

Yes, its funny.

In all the history of creative arts, has there ever been a better satire of the enemy? I just marvel at how brilliant the writing and the acting are. Outstanding. Written by Michael Palin, educated as Brasenose College, Oxford and Terry Gilliam (Occidental College?). Great theology.

Anyone who didn't get it, following the link in the OP to the first video. It wouldn't paste directly.

busterdog · #9 8th March 2008, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by gluadys

Yes, they were putting their best face on a defeat.

But revision of a theory is very seldom a renunciation of a theory. Usually it incorporates what is best in the current theory and builds on it. A move forward in understanding, not a regression to a former position.

Darwin moved us forward from a failed Lamarkism. Mendel moved us forward from an incomplete Darwinism. What we may be seeing now is another move forward that encompasses but goes beyond natural selection as a mechanism of evolution. IOW a clarification of how factors other than natural selection play a part in evolution, maybe even a more important part than natural selection.

What we will not see is a rejection of evolution, since that has been established as given.

A sensible view.

Depending on where we imagine the "gold" or the essence of the Darwinian theory to be, we might be lead to draw different conclusions about how damaging these ideas really are to Darwinism.

If you draw a very tight focus on natural selection and randomness, as I have done, it would suggest that theory is about to topple.

The notion that creationism would ascend to the throne in naturalism, however, is more than a little optimistic. So, I know better.

But, in what now seems to be a vast frontier area between randomness and something non-random, I see a vast grey area. Like other areas of science, all bets are off, it seems to me.

I hope that the evolutionists resist the natural human urge to protect Darwin from being humbled. Lots of endowed chairs owe their existence to that debauched theory.

One issue we are left with is time. Young v. old earth is not an issue resolved here. These "new" nonrandom processes will be fit into a preconceived timeline based upon the standard dating mechanisms. No one need get too exorcised about the inevitable there.

But, the very idea that a nonrandom process can be traced out and understood, what does that mean? Must that mean that all aspects of the nonrandom cause can be understood? And if not, why must that necessarily fit any particular timeline at all? I am interested to know what the notion of understanding of such things is supposed to imply? A continuing march away from creationism? Or more doubt about whether God is still the best explanation as the more exquisite and detailed aspects of nonrandom processes become increasing abstruse?

Lets draw an analogy. Remember the Nobel prize winning theorist who recently came to the conclusion that there must be a God? Maybe someone can find the story. What really struck me about the story was hearing him to this conclusion, and just hanging there with the question, "And there is a God, so then ...... what?" The guy has this epiphany about God and it has all the relevance of realizing that there two new kinds of marshmallows in your Lucky Charms cereal. Not exactly Nobel Prize caliber material to my way of thinking. What about that vast grey area now in play, namely, if there is a god, he can fry my sorry butt right now, or heal me, or transport me to Venus, or solve world hunger, or torture my enemies (or me) mercilessly for a million years ..... or what? Why didn't everything change at this moment? Think carefully about what the man had instead. Endless bias from experience about how things might be, but there was just a presumptive godly smiley face drawn in crayon over the top of a tableau he had already completed. It is more wooly and vague than his prior way of thinking, but is hardly much different in any practical way.

Same thing here. If you open the door to inherent nonrandom processes, what the bloody Jehosaphat is on the other side of that door? Do you even dare to start excluding possibilities to simply fit your experience? How does that make any sense?

Looking deeper at this upcoming gathering:

Natural selection was only part of Darwin's Origin of Species thinking. Yet through the years most biologists outside of evolutionary biology have mistakenly believed that evolution is natural selection.
A wave of scientists now questions natural selection's relevance, though few will publicly admit it. And with such a fundamental struggle underway, the hurling of slurs such as "looney Marxist hangover", "philosopher" (a scientist who can't get grants anymore), "crackpot", is hardly surprising.

* * *

But Salthe * * * told me the following:
"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen."
Several months ago, Salthe hosted an intense email debate among leading evolutionary thinkers which I was later let in on. It followed the appearance of an article by Rutgers University philosopher Jerry Fodor in the London Review of Books called "Why Pigs Don't Have Wings".

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00051.htm

The remarkable part about this piece is the lack of content. Why exactly do pigs not have wings? Is there content in that explanation.

Let's go one further. What is the content in randomness as an idea? Randomness is a helpful concept in addressing lack of knowledge and difficulty in understanding. But, is it understanding itself? What do the creationists say? I will say, absolutely. It is rock solid content for the proposition that a sparrow falls from the sky randomly and not because of any kind of god. Otherwise, it hasn't any content, except to exclude a particular reality. It is a shadow cast that offers no illumination of its own.

Starting this article with an evil mindset, I now wish I could use some truly dirty and horrifyingly perverse words in an eptithet for the following:

Nevertheless, these kinds of phenomena are part of what's loosely being called self-organization , in short a spontaneous organization of systems. Snowflakes, a drop of water, a hurricane are all such spontaneously organized examples. These systems grow more complex in form as a result of a process of attraction and repulsion

[From the same article.] Does that really mean anything? It means randomness is in question I suppose. It means there are unknown but nonradom powers and forces in nature. What does that mean? Its freaking Dada. An ink blot test as compared to the Mona Lisa.

What say you Gluadys? I now have understanding. I shall turn your beans into peas!!

sfs · #10 8th March 2008, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by gluadys

Yes, its funny.

But what is it all about?

Revision. Just like neo-Darwinism was a revision.

Not a renunciation. Not a dismantling. And no, not a relapse either. Definitely not a retreat.

A revision. Maybe a major revision. Could be quite interesting. But haven't we all been expecting a revision sooner or later?

Put me down as skeptical.

The news article struck me as very confused. It mixes quite a number of currents of thought and treats them as if they were all part of a single coming anti-Darwinian wave. They're not. For example, epigenetics is interesting, but has nothing obvious to do with self-organization (despite being linked to it in the article), and is unlikely to have a role in long-term evolutionary developments, ostensibly the subject under discussion. Self-organization is also interesting, although so far mostly in a "wouldn't it be nice if someone could think of something that this idea could actually explain" sort of way, but is not in any real conflict with the role of natural selection, as far as I know.

Yes, a narrow, pan-adaptionist population-genetics version of evolution is not going to be enough to explain life -- but that's already conventional wisdom within evolutionary biology. Some of the people involved in this meeting are knowledgeable and are pushing some boundaries in useful ways, but not in ways that will change the basic structure of evolutionary theory. Some of them (Fodor is the obvious candidate) seem mostly to be emitting hot air about things that are better understood by real biologists. And some of the people mentioned in the article are pretty much out in crackpot territory.

I have a general rule: whenever anyone tells me that he or she is introducing a great new idea that is going to induce a "paradigm shift" in the field, whatever field it might be this week . . . I ignore them until they go away. First do some science (or engineering, or what have you) with your great new idea, and then I'll pay attention.