Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Ophiolite]

It is disappointing, I know, especially when a philosopher like myself might not even have alluded to some specific person in the least, but rather to someone else. But it happens.

Language is a funny thing. It's almost protean.

Some place value in clarity of expression, a stance I would have thought you supported. It seems I was mistaken. And, if memory serves, not for the first time. How disappointing.

 

[SelfSim]

I simply point out that my Views echo much mainstream science.

I was lambasted for saying that there is no valid hypothesus or theory for how the hideously complex minimum cell came to be, and that Darwinian small change does not account for the life forms we see. Science agrees with me. Or rather , I agree with science. Read the book. It documents all the main schools of thought.

You mean like when it comes to validly hypothesising 'the minimum cell', your 'mainstream science' would always start out with the boldly, objective declaration of: 'hideously complex', eh(?) ...

Your amazement is about how going-in assumptions always end up justifying themselves ..

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Some place value in clarity of expression, a stance I would have thought you supported. It seems I was mistaken. And, if memory serves, not for the first time. How disappointing.

I'm sorry I let you down. I'm sure it'll happen again.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Our pastor said Sunday that the book of Ecclesiastes destroys the works of all philosophers who ever lived.

It's possible.

 

[Bradskii]

Most of what is posted here is unscientific wishful thinking..

Your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to debate those people, not simply hand wave them away.

I was lambasted for saying that there is no valid hypothesus or theory for how the hideously complex minimum cell came to be...

This will be the last time I reply to any comment that broaches on abiogenesis. The subject is evolution. Please don't waste your time and more importantly, mine, on the matter.

...and that Darwinian small change does not account for the life forms we see. Science agrees with me. Or rather , I agree with science. Read the book.

I did. As Denton says, the theory states that:

Page 20: '...all evolutionary change — not just at the microevolutionary level — could be accounted for by the cumulative selection of small adaptive changes.'

I've absolutely no problem with that. But he disagrees with it. Because he said earlier:

Page 11: 'I argued (in the original edition) that the taxa are analogous to distinct geometric figures such as triangles or quadrilaterals , which cannot be approached via little successive steps from some other class of geometric figure.'

Which is plainly nonsense.

Let's say that you have a regular dodecagon polygon and it's beneficial for this shape, within its environment,to stay where it is. Unfortunately, it has a tendency to roll, the exterior angle only being 30 degrees. But these shapes breed and what do you know...one offspring only has 11 sides. So the exterior angle is now 32.7 degrees and it doesn't roll as easily. So it survives better than the polygon with 12 sides. The evolutionary process ensures that hendecagons spread through the group.

I won't bother going through any more steps because you can already see where it's going. With each small step, there is an improvement in survivability and there is a gradual change. So by 'little successive steps' we have moved from one 'distinct geometric figure' to 'some other class of geometric figure'. A regular dodecagon to...a triangle.

Denton at no time explains what the mechanism is which stops this 'cumulative selection of small adaptive changes'. If the environment changes, then the organism adapts. Little by little. If the environment changes significantly (as it obviously has) then some organism will either die out and some will continue to adapt. The only way that evolution 'stops' (pauses would be a better term) is when the environment remains static or an organism finds a niche in that environment where further changes are of limited benefit. Sharks and crocodiles come to mind.

By the way, if you put forward any argument by Denton, or one based on his writings, then please quote him. I'd like to see it in context.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Let's say that you have a regular dodecagon polygon and it's beneficial for this shape, within its environment,to stay where it is. Unfortunately, it has a tendency to roll, the exterior angle only being 30 degrees. But these shapes breed and what do you know...one offspring only has 11 sides. So the exterior angle is now 32.7 degrees and it doesn't roll as easily. So it survives better than the polygon with 12 sides. The evolutionary process ensures that hendecagons spread through the group.

Everyone knows the son has 1 *more* side than the father.

 

[NxNW]

Nothing. They work together.

Nothing. They work together.

I don't accept that answer. It's nonsensical.

 

[Larniavc]

Of course we know we're going to "find stuff out." We're afraid of it. That's why we deny the Bible and its promise of punishment for our hedonistic lifestyle.

What if you are afraid of death because you believe it is the end of existence instead of one of the Christian afterlives?

 

[BCP1928]

I don't accept that answer. It's nonsensical.

Sorry. I thought you were asking rhetorical questions and was trying .to help you out with a straight prompt.

 

[BCP1928]

What if you are afraid of death because you believe it is the end of existence instead of one of the Christian afterlives?

Don't know. I suppose you would be accused of denying the Bible because you just hated Christians?

 

[Job 33:6]

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.

For critics, it's been "in crisis" since the 1850s. For everyone else, it's simple and straightforward.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't accept that answer. It's nonsensical.

The "sensibleness" of God working through Evolution sort of depends on what we each expect God to do in tandem with our epistemological inclinations.

Like Eugenie Scott said, it's not a scientific statement to say that "God did it" or that "God didn't do it."

 

[NxNW]

Sorry. I thought you were asking rhetorical questions and was trying .to help you out with a straight prompt.

Thought you were serious, sorry!

 

[NxNW]

The "sensibleness" of God working through Evolution sort of depends on what we each expect God to do in tandem with our epistemological inclinations.

I'd want to know what the supernatural force left off and nature took over.

Like Eugenie Scott said, it's not a scientific statement to say that "God did it" or that "God didn't do it."

Agreed

 

[BCP1928]

I'd want to know what the supernatural force left off and nature took over.

I was serious in a way. I don't believe there is such a thing as "supernatural force" which can act on matter in the same way that natural forces do. There is supernatural causality in constant operation along with natural causality, but supernatural causality is not a substitute or replacement for natural causality. Traditional Christian theologians have had this worked out for centuries.The causes of our existence are either necessary or contingent. Necessary causes are those I expect you would call "supernatural" and contingent causes are the ones that science studies which I suppose you would call "natural" or "material." I recommend Thomas Aquinas for further reading on the subject.

 

[FaithT]

I b

What if you are afraid of death because you believe it is the end of existence instead of one of the Christian afterlives?

I believe death is the beginning of eternity with The Father, but I am still afraid of death.

 

[The Barbarian]

For critics, it's been "in crisis" since the 1850s. For everyone else, it's simple and straightforward.

Not all of them. There are many honest and informed YECs...

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

(my emphasis)

 

[FaithT]

Not all of them. There are many honest and informed YECs...

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

(my emphasis)

I thought that you believed In evolution and an old earth?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I thought that you believed In evolution and an old earth?

Quoting a YEC scientist who actually knows science does not mean that Barbarian has stopped accepting evolution and an old earth.

 

[FaithT]

Quoting a YEC scientist who actually knows science does not mean that Barbarian has stopped accepting evolution and an old earth.

Oh, I missed that he was quoting someone else, I thought those were his words in red. My apologies.