Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Mountainmike]

I’m often accused of contrarian views that run counter to fact or science.
my detractors all seem to assume That Darwinian evolution ( which doesn’t make it as a proper theory anyway) is now established as THE process of evolution , not what it really is - an overeach of conclusions based on too limited a data set, and that functionalist adaptation cannot explain the path to the main classes of life.

My detractors contend that there is a pathway to life via abiogenesis after which Darwinian process arrived at present life by more or less known route, instead of the REALITY as I have often said, that the void between the most complex non living structures we know to the simplest cell we know which is horrendously complex, is a vast unbridgeable chasm , and that there is not even conjecture that fills the gap.

The reality is my detractors seem to get their views from mass media, and they do not study enough , or know enough to notice my views are a mainstream in the minds of many evolutinary biologists. These are not creatonists but scientists who see The same problems I do.

This is a vast subject and far from closed .
It takes an entire book just to describe the different schools of thought attempting To address the serious problems with limitations of darwinian thinking , as other than fine micro adaptation, and why for example neither autocatalytic sets nor RNA world cut it as a solution To the second problem I mention.

I urge all to read a single book.

“ Michael Denton - evolution still a theory in crisis “

The consensus of many evolutionary biologists seems to be that present theories and Darwinian assumptioms and present biological science can never explain life, that the universe must be somehow predisposed to life, because random chemical and biological process can Never account for what we see.

So my views are mainstream science born of study, and much reading unlike the illinformed atheist kneejerk faith in Darwinism , who refuse to study counter arguments. I study both sides of all arguments, but then I am a scientist.

These are not creationists speaking, but evolutionary biologists who see the same problems I do, but articulate them a great deal better. They should , it’s their specialism not mine.

You can either study it or stay illinformed .

Read that one book. Plenty of references
I can refer to other books I have but the essence is there.

My views on NDE which comments on the nature of consciousness , is also a big part of the question of life and is the hardest puzzle of life that chemistry can never solve, because it lies beyond the boundaries of chemistry, are also shaped by good mainstream science. The illinformed here seem to have no concept of how wide and deep that scientific literature is, and how many researchers and medics accept it.

we live in a fast food , quick fix, two minute video explains all world. I don’t.

That isn’t the world of science, which is seeing further by climbing a mountain of knowledge by study.
there is no 2 minute video to why Darwinism doesn’t work.

It takes a book. Read it. It’s a good review of where evolutionary science is at, and the holes it can’t fill.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then it's a good thing that Darwinian evolution isn't the go-to theory of evolution anymore.

Ever hear of the Modern synthesis, mike? Or how about the extended modern synthesis by Pigliucci? Or what about the post-modern evolutionary synthesis by Koonin?

And no, we don't need to read a book published in 1985 and roundly decried by scientists as something that distorts and misrepresents evolution.

 

[Mountainmike]

Then it's a good thing that Darwinian evolution isn't the go-to theory of evolution anymore.

Ever hear of the Modern synthesis, mike? Or how about the extended modern synthesis by Pigliucci? Or what about the post-modern evolutionary synthesis by Koonin?

And no, we don't need to read a book published in 1985 and roundly decried by scientists as something that distorts and misrepresents evolution.

if you could read , you would know I referred to the recent edition covering all major schools of thought Now.

IT is a survey of all Schools of scientific thought at present now

No closer to bridging the voids.

You know nothing about it until you read it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

if you could read , you would know I referred to the recent edition covering all major schools of thought Now.

IT is a survey of all Schools of scientific thought at present now

No closer to bridging the voids.

You know nothing about it until you read it.

I read the review from Biologos, a group I'm more inclined to give any sort of legitimate credence to than someone such as yourself, MR. "Read the books which I will never quote because I don't have a reason to".

Evolution is Still Not a Theory in Crisis, but Neo-Darwinism Might Be​

Bottom line: no, evolution is not a theory in crisis. The nit-picky details are still being contested, as they should be, but the general science is sound and logical.

No-one cares about NDEs, stop bringing them up into every topic you talk about.

 

[Bradskii]

“ Michael Denton - evolution still a theory in crisis “

Maybe you can explain this:

'Of course, all structuralists accepted that organisms exhibited adaptations to serve external environmental conditions. But these were considered to be, as Owen described them, “adaptive masks,” grafted as it were onto underlying ground plans or “primal patterns.” Thus the great diversity of vertebrate limbs—fins for swimming, hands for grasping, wings for flying—are all modifications of the same underlying ground plan or primal pattern, which serves no particular environmental necessity.'

Fins 'serve no particular environmental necessity'? Neither do wings? They come in pretty handy for swimming and flying. And indeed, we have wings that have evolved for use as fins. And fins likewise evolved to wings.

Perhaps you can explain. And in passing, the book mentioned in the OP is published by our old chums The Discovery Institute. And it's author kinda gives the game away when he says this quite early in the piece:

Here we touch on an important point, which needs emphasis : Organisms are complex systems, and their assembly during the course of evolution, by universal assent (e.g ., Darwin, Fisher, Dawkins, Fred Hoyle, Dennett ), could never have occurred by “pure chance.” Some form of direction is essential! (odd that he should mention an astronomer and a philosopher when discussing evolution).

Gee, whatever can he mean by a form of direction. Or should I say, whoever can he mean. I've read a lot of Dawkins, Darwin and Dennett and there is no indication from any of them that a direction is required, or indeed is in any way apparent. Unless you put your theological hat on.

 

[Bradskii]

MR. "Read the books which I will never quote because I don't have a reason to".

I think that might change in this discussion. He's picked one that I have in my library, so he'll have to at some point.

 

[Larniavc]

I’m often accused of contrarian views that run counter to fact or science.
my detractors all seem to assume That Darwinian evolution ( which doesn’t make it as a proper theory anyway) is now established as THE process of evolution , not what it really is - an overeach of conclusions based on too limited a data set, and that functionalist adaptation cannot explain the path to the main classes of life.

My detractors contend that there is a pathway to life via abiogenesis after which Darwinian process arrived at present life by more or less known route, instead of the REALITY as I have often said, that the void between the most complex non living structures we know to the simplest cell we know which is horrendously complex, is a vast unbridgeable chasm , and that there is not even conjecture that fills the gap.

The reality is my detractors seem to get their views from mass media, and they do not study enough , or know enough to notice my views are a mainstream in the minds of many evolutinary biologists. These are not creatonists but scientists who see The same problems I do.

This is a vast subject and far from closed .
It takes an entire book just to describe the different schools of thought attempting To address the serious problems with limitations of darwinian thinking , as other than fine micro adaptation, and why for example neither autocatalytic sets nor RNA world cut it as a solution To the second problem I mention.

I urge all to read a single book.

“ Michael Denton - evolution still a theory in crisis “

The consensus of many evolutionary biologists seems to be that present theories and Darwinian assumptioms and present biological science can never explain life, that the universe must be somehow predisposed to life, because random chemical and biological process can Never account for what we see.

So my views are mainstream science born of study, and much reading unlike the illinformed atheist kneejerk faith in Darwinism , who refuse to study counter arguments. I study both sides of all arguments, but then I am a scientist.

These are not creationists speaking, but evolutionary biologists who see the same problems I do, but articulate them a great deal better. They should , it’s their specialism not mine.

You can either study it or stay illinformed .

Read that one book. Plenty of references
I can refer to other books I have but the essence is there.

My views on NDE which comments on the nature of consciousness , is also a big part of the question of life and is the hardest puzzle of life that chemistry can never solve, because it lies beyond the boundaries of chemistry, are also shaped by good mainstream science. The illinformed here seem to have no concept of how wide and deep that scientific literature is, and how many researchers and medics accept it.

we live in a fast food , quick fix, two minute video explains all world. I don’t.

That isn’t the world of science, which is seeing further by climbing a mountain of knowledge by study.
there is no 2 minute video to why Darwinism doesn’t work.

It takes a book. Read it. It’s a good review of where evolutionary science is at, and the holes it can’t fill.

It’s not in crisis. Evolution definitely happens and TOE is the best explanation for it.

It could very well be wrong but the evidence does not support that.

 

[BCP1928]

I’m often accused of contrarian views that run counter to fact or science.
my detractors all seem to assume That Darwinian evolution ( which doesn’t make it as a proper theory anyway) is now established as THE process of evolution , not what it really is - an overeach of conclusions based on too limited a data set, and that functionalist adaptation cannot explain the path to the main classes of life.

My detractors contend that there is a pathway to life via abiogenesis after which Darwinian process arrived at present life by more or less known route, instead of the REALITY as I have often said, that the void between the most complex non living structures we know to the simplest cell we know which is horrendously complex, is a vast unbridgeable chasm , and that there is not even conjecture that fills the gap.

The reality is my detractors seem to get their views from mass media, and they do not study enough , or know enough to notice my views are a mainstream in the minds of many evolutinary biologists. These are not creatonists but scientists who see The same problems I do.

This is a vast subject and far from closed .
It takes an entire book just to describe the different schools of thought attempting To address the serious problems with limitations of darwinian thinking , as other than fine micro adaptation, and why for example neither autocatalytic sets nor RNA world cut it as a solution To the second problem I mention.

I urge all to read a single book.

“ Michael Denton - evolution still a theory in crisis “

The consensus of many evolutionary biologists seems to be that present theories and Darwinian assumptioms and present biological science can never explain life, that the universe must be somehow predisposed to life, because random chemical and biological process can Never account for what we see.

So my views are mainstream science born of study, and much reading unlike the illinformed atheist kneejerk faith in Darwinism , who refuse to study counter arguments. I study both sides of all arguments, but then I am a scientist.

These are not creationists speaking, but evolutionary biologists who see the same problems I do, but articulate them a great deal better. They should , it’s their specialism not mine.

You can either study it or stay illinformed .

Read that one book. Plenty of references
I can refer to other books I have but the essence is there.

My views on NDE which comments on the nature of consciousness , is also a big part of the question of life and is the hardest puzzle of life that chemistry can never solve, because it lies beyond the boundaries of chemistry, are also shaped by good mainstream science. The illinformed here seem to have no concept of how wide and deep that scientific literature is, and how many researchers and medics accept it.

we live in a fast food , quick fix, two minute video explains all world. I don’t.

That isn’t the world of science, which is seeing further by climbing a mountain of knowledge by study.
there is no 2 minute video to why Darwinism doesn’t work.

It takes a book. Read it. It’s a good review of where evolutionary science is at, and the holes it can’t fill.

You seem to be saying that the theory of evolution must be wrong because it is not complete or perfect, That naturalist abiogenesis must be wrong because it is not fully understood. Never mind, but just this word of advice: anybody who argues against the theory of evolution and starts out by calling it "Darwinism" has a political motive, not a scientific one. Keep you rhand on your wallet and you eyes on the exits at all time.

 

[Larniavc]

And no, we don't need to read a book published in 1985 and roundly decried by scientists as something that distorts and misrepresents evolution.

I happen had read most of it. It’s the standard Creationist fare.

 

[Bradskii]

These are not creationists speaking...

Oops. Nearly missed this one. Denton is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. So not a creationist as such. But a proponent of ID. So let's make sure the cards are on the table. The Institute's publicly stated aim is:

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

So as a Senior Fellow, that is also, rather obviously, Denton's aim. If we were to ask him why he wrote his book, if he was honest then he'd quote those two statements above.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think that might change in this discussion. He's picked one that I have in my library, so he'll have to at some point.

To be fair to him, is this the 2016 reprint of Denton's book, not the 1985 original? I just have to ask.

 

[Bradskii]

To be fair to him, is this the 2016 reprint of Denton's book, not the 1985 original? I just have to ask.

Copyright 2016 by Discovery Institute.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Copyright 2016 by Discovery Institute.

So you're definitely in the best place to talk about it then.
Good show.

 

[Ophiolite]

Here we touch on an important point, which needs emphasis : Organisms are complex systems, and their assembly during the course of evolution, by universal assent (e.g ., Darwin, Fisher, Dawkins, Fred Hoyle, Dennett ), could never have occurred by “pure chance.” Some form of direction is essential! (odd that he should mention an astronomer and a philosopher when discussing evolution).

Gee, whatever can he mean by a form of direction. Or should I say, whoever can he mean. I've read a lot of Dawkins, Darwin and Dennett and there is no indication from any of them that a direction is required, or indeed is in any way apparent. Unless you put your theological hat on

Perhaps this is pedantry on my part, but the implication of your three Ds (to whom we could add Gould and Mayr and Simpson and thousands more), the implication is that a direction is imposed. And that direction is towards a population of organisms having a suite of traits which have a better fit with their environment. It is the imposition of that direction by natural selection that removes a significant proportion of chance from the evolutionary process. That, ultimately, is the key to evolution - a blending of chance, with selection. All that researchers are arguing about now is, how much and what kind of chance, how much and what kinds of selection.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Perhaps you can explain. And in passing, the book mentioned in the OP is published by our old chums The Discovery Institute. And it's author kinda gives the game away when he says this quite early in the piece:

Here we touch on an important point, which needs emphasis : Organisms are complex systems, and their assembly during the course of evolution, by universal assent (e.g ., Darwin, Fisher, Dawkins, Fred Hoyle, Dennett ), could never have occurred by “pure chance.” Some form of direction is essential! (odd that he should mention an astronomer and a philosopher when discussing evolution).

Gee, whatever can he mean by a form of direction. Or should I say, whoever can he mean. I've read a lot of Dawkins, Darwin and Dennett and there is no indication from any of them that a direction is required, or indeed is in any way apparent. Unless you put your theological hat on.

Hoyle is an incredibly odd choice. Not only is he not a biologist of any kind, but the "747 assembled in junkyard by a tornado" is *his* bad analogy, (now known as "Hoyle's fallacy"). This was part of his pushing of the (very bad) huge number "argument" against evolution or natural life. Hoyle famously rejected the "primordial atom" model of the expanding Universe, so much that to mock it he named it "The Big Bang" (a name that stuck to the chagrin of some cosmologists) and proposed a model of continuous creation of new matter instead. (He needed fresh matter, in particular, since his greatest contribution was to the theory of nucleosynthesis from a simple H/He composition characterized in his 1957 paper with Fowler and the Burbidges that lays the basics all out.) He spend the last half of his career trying to "fix" the "big number" problem of the origin of life "problem" with seeding from space through "panspermia".

The most astonishing thing of the quoted sentence from Denton, is that if he'd pulled Hoyle out of the list after "universal assent" (shouldn't that be "descent"?) and instead had Hoyle backing the 'highly unlikely nature of life arising' it would have made the classic creationist argument more effectively.

Oops. Nearly missed this one. Denton is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. So not a creationist as such. But a proponent of ID. So let's make sure the cards are on the table. The Institute's publicly stated aim is:

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

So as a Senior Fellow, that is also, rather obviously, Denton's aim. If we were to ask him why he wrote his book, if he was honest then he'd quote those two statements above.

We should not be distracted by their grift. "ID" *IS* creationism. It's not the same as YEC, but neither is OEC the same as YEC, but it all three are creationism. For years they proclaimed "no, no this isn't about religion", but it always rang hollow (even before they were caught out), but now it is clear. The DI is nothing more than right-wing Christian dominionist organization that uses attacks on science as their vector.

 

[River Jordan]

I’m often accused of contrarian views that run counter to fact or science.
my detractors all seem to assume That Darwinian evolution ( which doesn’t make it as a proper theory anyway) is now established as THE process of evolution , not what it really is - an overeach of conclusions based on too limited a data set, and that functionalist adaptation cannot explain the path to the main classes of life.

My detractors contend that there is a pathway to life via abiogenesis after which Darwinian process arrived at present life by more or less known route, instead of the REALITY as I have often said, that the void between the most complex non living structures we know to the simplest cell we know which is horrendously complex, is a vast unbridgeable chasm , and that there is not even conjecture that fills the gap.

The reality is my detractors seem to get their views from mass media, and they do not study enough , or know enough to notice my views are a mainstream in the minds of many evolutinary biologists. These are not creatonists but scientists who see The same problems I do.

This is a vast subject and far from closed .
It takes an entire book just to describe the different schools of thought attempting To address the serious problems with limitations of darwinian thinking , as other than fine micro adaptation, and why for example neither autocatalytic sets nor RNA world cut it as a solution To the second problem I mention.

I urge all to read a single book.

“ Michael Denton - evolution still a theory in crisis “

The consensus of many evolutionary biologists seems to be that present theories and Darwinian assumptioms and present biological science can never explain life, that the universe must be somehow predisposed to life, because random chemical and biological process can Never account for what we see.

So my views are mainstream science born of study, and much reading unlike the illinformed atheist kneejerk faith in Darwinism , who refuse to study counter arguments. I study both sides of all arguments, but then I am a scientist.

These are not creationists speaking, but evolutionary biologists who see the same problems I do, but articulate them a great deal better. They should , it’s their specialism not mine.

You can either study it or stay illinformed .

Read that one book. Plenty of references
I can refer to other books I have but the essence is there.

My views on NDE which comments on the nature of consciousness , is also a big part of the question of life and is the hardest puzzle of life that chemistry can never solve, because it lies beyond the boundaries of chemistry, are also shaped by good mainstream science. The illinformed here seem to have no concept of how wide and deep that scientific literature is, and how many researchers and medics accept it.

we live in a fast food , quick fix, two minute video explains all world. I don’t.

That isn’t the world of science, which is seeing further by climbing a mountain of knowledge by study.
there is no 2 minute video to why Darwinism doesn’t work.

It takes a book. Read it. It’s a good review of where evolutionary science is at, and the holes it can’t fill.

It looks like you're saying Darwinian evolution (which you never define, which is a problem in itself) is in crisis because it doesn't explain the origin of life.

Is that correct?

 

[Bradskii]

Perhaps this is pedantry on my part, but the implication of your three Ds (to whom we could add Gould and Mayr and Simpson and thousands more), the implication is that a direction is imposed. And that direction is towards a population of organisms having a suite of traits which have a better fit with their environment.

This is just a function of the language. They way we use it implies a direction in evolution as in something to which evolution is directed. It also implies design. But neither is the case.

 

[Bradskii]

We should not be distracted by their grift. "ID" *IS* creationism. It's not the same as YEC, but neither is OEC the same as YEC, but it all three are creationism. For years they proclaimed "no, no this isn't about religion", but it always rang hollow (even before they were caught out), but now it is clear. The DI is nothing more than right-wing Christian dominionist organization that uses attacks on science as their vector.

I completely agree. But I don't want to get dragged off into the weeds debating the differences between a YEC and someone backing ID. If Denton says he believes in ID then that's how I'll treat him.

You'll note this comment from the book:

"And it is this elimination of the need for any alternative or additional directive mechanism guiding the evolutionary process which is , for atheists and materialists like Dawkins and Dennett , its great attraction."

He's not arguing for a form of evolution. He's arguing against 'atheists and materialists' as per the statements of the DI. As if there aren't countless Christian scientists who understand and describe the evolutionary process.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I completely agree. But I don't want to get dragged off into the weeds debating the differences between a YEC and someone backing ID. If Denton says he believes in ID then that's how I'll treat him.

ID is the form of creationism being promoted by Denton. The variety of creationist theology is not important.

You'll note this comment from the book:

"And it is this elimination of the need for any alternative or additional directive mechanism guiding the evolutionary process which is , for atheists and materialists like Dawkins and Dennett , its great attraction."

He's not arguing for a form of evolution. He's arguing against 'atheists and materialists' as per the statements of the DI. As if there aren't countless Christian scientists who understand and describe the evolutionary process.

All of the major creationist orgs would make the same kind of attack against "atheists and materialists" and Christian scientists get caught in the cross-fire every time.

 

[Bradskii]

ID is the form of creationism being promoted by Denton. The variety of creationist theology is not important.

He relies on 'types'. You have your fish, your reptiles, your mammals, your birds etc and never the twain shall meet. The big benefit of Kindle is that you can highlight sections that are of interest. Which I did when I first read it (my wife used to be a librarian in a previous life and she used go ballistic if I so much as turned a corner of a page down, so thanks Kindle - I've got the electronic equivalent of a yellow highlighter). I've got dozens of notes attached to the highlighted sections and I was reading through them last night. Some of the notes are 'That's reasonable' or 'I agree with that'. But most of them are along the lines of 'This is complete ********!'