Are there any facts contrary to T.O.E?

[stevevw]

Before Darwinism it wasd natural to think of evolution in teleological terms. In fact this still continued for some time after Darwin. Lamarckism implies teleology and it was the main opposing theory to Darwinism and is making a comeback due to recent evidence. The EES proposes that organisms are central and direct they own evolution in various ways in a more constructive view rather than a programmed one with Darwinism.

The motivation for rejecting teleology was often about ridding science of any implications of agency within evolution. So it wasn't exactly a scientific basis but rather an ideological one.

There was ongoing debate and eventually Mayr came up with the idea of teleonomy rather than teleology. That is creatures work to programs rather than any intentional purpose. But Mary and others were still worried that teleonomy would also be equated in teleological terms. That programs were designed for a purpose.

But around about the same time Evolution theory was being developed and the idea that change and behaviour in living creatures was due to random genetics and natural selection made clear that life was not the result oif any purpose, any divine purpose or had goals.

This is most apparent with Dawkins claim that evolution has the appearence of design and purpose but its a blind process as in the Blind Watchmaker without any foresight..

I think this is the crux of the matter across all areas of science that the subject and observer is excluded as a fundemental force. Intentions, free will and goal directed purpose at least as a fundemental factor in how creatures can change and influence nature is reduced and even excluded from the equation.

But as we have seen there seems to be a bottleneck of anomelies that these theories cannot explain without including some purpose and intentions. I don't think evolution can move forward without some form of teleogy. And that is the paradigm shift needed just as big if not bigger than the one in physics where we moved from the classical machine concept of reality to the mindlike concept.

Evolutionary Teleonomy as a Unifying Principle for the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321339258_Evolutionary_Teleonomy_as_a_Unifying_Principle_for_the_Extended_Evolutionary_Synthesis

 

[Hans Blaster]

Before Darwinism it wasd natural to think of evolution in teleological terms. In fact this still continued for some time after Darwin. Lamarckism implies teleology and it was the main opposing theory to Darwinism and is making a comeback due to recent evidence. The EES proposes that organisms are central and direct they own evolution in various ways in a more constructive view rather than a programmed one with Darwinism.

Making a comeback where? ID journals and authors?

The motivation for rejecting teleology was often about ridding science of any implications of agency within evolution. So it wasn't exactly a scientific basis but rather an ideological one.

There was ongoing debate and eventually Mayr came up with the idea of teleonomy rather than teleology. That is creatures work to programs rather than any intentional purpose. But Mary and others were still worried that teleonomy would also be equated in teleological terms. That programs were designed for a purpose.

But around about the same time Evolution theory was being developed and the idea that change and behaviour in living creatures was due to random genetics and natural selection made clear that life was not the result oif any purpose, any divine purpose or had goals.

This is most apparent with Dawkins claim that evolution has the appearence of design and purpose but its a blind process as in the Blind Watchmaker without any foresight..

I think this is the crux of the matter across all areas of science that the subject and observer is excluded as a fundemental force. Intentions, free will and goal directed purpose at least as a fundemental factor in how creatures can change and influence nature is reduced and even excluded from the equation.

But as we have seen there seems to be a bottleneck of anomelies that these theories cannot explain without including some purpose and intentions. I don't think evolution can move forward without some form of teleogy. And that is the paradigm shift needed just as big if not bigger than the one in physics where we moved from the classical machine concept of reality to the mindlike concept.

Like this one...

Evolutionary Teleonomy as a Unifying Principle for the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321339258_Evolutionary_Teleonomy_as_a_Unifying_Principle_for_the_Extended_Evolutionary_Synthesis

And ID author at and ID "institute" publishing in an ID "journal".

 

[Astrophile]

According to evolution, we are Sol dust.

And that is a fact contrary to evolution.

Please stop confusing astronomy or planetary science (the formation of the Earth) with biology (the origin of life). The Earth and the other planets were formed from the same collapsing interstellar cloud as the Sun, but it is not accurate to say that the Earth was formed from solar dust. In any case, the formation of the Earth from a disc surrounding the proto-Sun is not related to evolution, nor is it a fact contrary to evolution.

The origin of life on Earth, about 700 million years after the Earth's formation, is a completely different subject, unrelated to how the Earth was formed.

 

[Astrophile]

Evolutionist tell us the Big Bang brought life, through meteors with water that eventually helped create life from nothing?

The Big Bang is astronomy or cosmology and has nothing to do with evolution or the origin of life. Please stop confusing the different branches of science.

 

[Larniavc]

I believe there is a God component to evolution and many of you don't but there is no use for me to argue it.

You haven’t argued it; you’ve asserted it absent of evidence.

 

[Larniavc]

We have no example of single cell life developing into complex life.

Yeas we have. Colonial organisms. Exactly what is level level of education in biology?

 

[Laodicean60]

I thought I could smell the "AI". That's OK, I don't need the source.

I don't think it is false information and the sources are posted.

 

[Laodicean60]

Yeas we have. Colonial organisms.

Do you have a source?

 

[stevevw]

Making a comeback where? ID journals and authors?

I have linked a few examples. Like I said generally the EES supports the idea that creatures ability to direct their own evolution towards beneficial and adaptive changes through choices and that evolution is not blind or random but geared towards certain outcomes over others which are well suited for adaptations and survival. Niche Construction, developmental plasticity and Inheritence beyond genes are examples.

But some are even directly supporting a form of Lamrackism.

The received wisdom is that parental experiences can’t affect the characters of their offspring. Except they do. The way that genes are expressed to produce an organism’s phenotype – the actual characteristics it ends up with – is affected by chemicals that attach to them. Everything from diet to air pollution to parental behaviour can influence the addition or removal of these chemical marks, which switches genes on or off. Usually these so-called ‘epigenetic’ attachments are removed during the production of sperm and eggs cells, but it turns out that some escape the resetting process and are passed on to the next generation, along with the genes.

Science in flux: is a revolution brewing in evolutionary theory? | Aeon Essays

Is evolutionary science due for a major overhaul – or is talk of ‘revolution’ misguided?

aeon.co

Like this one...

And ID author at and ID "institute" publishing in an ID "journal".

Ah the good old ad hominem logical fallacy again.

 

[BCP1928]

Before Darwinism it was natural to think of evolution in teleological terms. In fact this still continued for some time after Darwin. Lamarckism implies teleology and it was the main opposing theory to Darwinism and is making a comeback due to recent evidence. The EES proposes that organisms are central and direct they own evolution in various ways in a more constructive view rather than a programmed one with Darwinism.

The motivation for rejecting teleology was often about ridding science of any implications of agency within evolution. So it wasn't exactly a scientific basis but rather an ideological one.

This is the Big Lie of creationism, the lie on which it is based, first enunciated by Henry Morris, the founder of modern creationism:

"The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God,"

It turns out to be a problem only for those creationists who tell it, one of those self-fulfilling prophecies. Traditional Christians have a fuller understanding of teleology and don't have that problem with it.

 

[BCP1928]

I have linked a few examples. Like I said generally the EES supports the idea that creatures ability to direct their own evolution towards beneficial and adaptive changes through choices and that evolution is not blind or random but geared towards certain outcomes over others which are well suited for adaptations and survival. Niche Construction, developmental plasticity and Inheritence beyond genes are examples.

But some are even directly supporting a form of Lamrackism.

The received wisdom is that parental experiences can’t affect the characters of their offspring. Except they do. The way that genes are expressed to produce an organism’s phenotype – the actual characteristics it ends up with – is affected by chemicals that attach to them. Everything from diet to air pollution to parental behaviour can influence the addition or removal of these chemical marks, which switches genes on or off. Usually these so-called ‘epigenetic’ attachments are removed during the production of sperm and eggs cells, but it turns out that some escape the resetting process and are passed on to the next generation, along with the genes.

Science in flux: is a revolution brewing in evolutionary theory? | Aeon Essays

Is evolutionary science due for a major overhaul – or is talk of ‘revolution’ misguided?

aeon.co

Ah the good old ad hominem logical fallacy again.

No, ID has long been debunked. I think you know that too and only post their stuff because your share their political ideology.

 

[Laodicean60]

I have linked a few examples. Like I said generally the EES supports the idea that creatures ability to direct their own evolution towards beneficial and adaptive changes through choices and that evolution is not blind or random but geared towards certain outcomes over others which are well suited for adaptations and survival. Niche Construction, developmental plasticity and Inheritence beyond genes are examples.

This is why I'll hide and watch as long as science evolves and we have more information, I'll just hide and watch.

"from the human brain to the peacock’s tail – are fully and satisfactorily explained by natural selection (and subsequent inheritance). Yet as novel ideas flood in from genomics, epigenetics, and developmental biology, most evolutionists agree that their field is in flux. Much of the data implies that evolution is more complex than we once assumed."

 

[BCP1928]

This is why I'll hide and watch as long as science evolves and we have more information, I'll just hide and watch.

"from the human brain to the peacock’s tail – are fully and satisfactorily explained by natural selection (and subsequent inheritance). Yet as novel ideas flood in from genomics, epigenetics, and developmental biology, most evolutionists agree that their field is in flux. Much of the data implies that evolution is more complex than we once assumed."

Yes that is undoubtedly true--except for the "fully and satisfactorily explained" part. That is just a creationist misrepresentation of science. The reality is "the best explanation available given the evidence in hand." But nobody has any doubt that evolution is more complicated than we once assumed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please stop confusing astronomy or planetary science (the formation of the Earth) with biology (the origin of life).

Biologists are using the wrong ingredients.

 

[Laodicean60]

"fully and satisfactorily explained" part

Which are? Give me a couple so I can read about it.

 

[Larniavc]

Do you have a source?

Colonial organisms - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

 

[BCP1928]

Which are? Give me a couple so I can read about it.

Couple of what? Instances where creationists have misrepresented science by attributing a claim of certainty to it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Biologists are using the wrong ingredients.

They use the ingredients they have at hand. You can't expect people to make a three layered, chocolate fudge cake when all they have at hand is just flour, eggs, milk and sugar and you refuse to give them the chocolate and the fudge.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is why I'll hide and watch as long as science evolves and we have more information, I'll just hide and watch.

"from the human brain to the peacock’s tail – are fully and satisfactorily explained by natural selection (and subsequent inheritance). Yet as novel ideas flood in from genomics, epigenetics, and developmental biology, most evolutionists agree that their field is in flux. Much of the data implies that evolution is more complex than we once assumed."

You know, it is only forum etiquette and rules that when you quote from a source, you provide the source itself.

 

[Laodicean60]

Colonial organisms - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

I read that this had to do with algae experiments, or any other complex life form example of animals. Once these single cells colonized and started making complex life what caused the diversification of all living things on earth?