Vox Day's demolition of Darwin's Theory of Evolution

paul becke said:

1. The evidence doesn’t exist.

Click to expand...

Evolution iant the problem, it's actually well established as a phenomenon. The natural history aspect is what's controversal.

2. The historical timelines that purportedly support it are constantly mutating.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean but the timelines are at least consistent, it's somwthing I always found helpfull.

3. The theory is a complete failure as a predictive model.

Click to expand...

Evolution isn't a theory, it's a phenomenon. What you are calling a theory is the Darwinian model of natural history, Darwin believed was spurred vy what he called 'natural selection'. I reman unconvinced.

4. The theory is scientifically and technologically irrelevant. There are no evolutionary engineers.

Click to expand...

How adaptive evolution works is hard to pin down. N o one is seriously questioning that it hapoens.

5. Theoretical epicycles are increasingly required to maintain its viability.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what an epicycle is.
6. The theory is a repeated failure as an explanatory model.

7. There is a very long track record of scientific fraud surrounding it.

Vox Day, “Dark stream: The descent of TENS” at Vox Popoli

Read the whole article at the link below, at Uncommon Descent.

Science fiction writer Vox Day on the “darkstream descent” of Darwin’s theory of evolution

Click to expand...

I'll get back to you on that.

RC Tent said:

Was the universal common ancestry proved? - PubMed - NCBI

Darwinism: Six Scientific Alternatives on JSTOR

Looking for LUCA – the mother of all life

So is the difficulty of proving this, which you refer to as "fact".

Click to expand...

Please note that I referred to common descent as a fact, not universal common descent. Inaccurately characterizing my statements is not a good start. What I said about universal common descent was that it was strongly supported by all available scientific evidence. The first link you provided agrees ("a compelling list of circumstantial evidence", is how it puts it). The second link is about mechanisms of evolution and says nothing at all relevant, while the third assumes universal common descent to be true and is about the difficulty in reconstructing the common ancestor of all life.

You seem to be in over your head here.

"Please note that I referred to common descent as a fact, not universal common descent." -sfs

Hence the following:

"In any case, in the context of the OP, universal common descent isn't really what's relevant -- we make much, much more use of local common descent, e.g. the common ancestry of all primates, or all mammals, or all vertebrates. This doesn't involve the evolution of new body plans, so do you have any quarrel with it?" -sfs


I see this happen all the time with respect to paleontology. We have 600 million years of fossils. But rather than talk about those and how they support common descent, let's talk about the origins of life and the fossil succession as it pertains to pre-cambrian prokaryotes.

Smh.

I'm not a biologist; I am an engineer. I have several difficulties with Darwinian Evolution and evolution itself. There are what, maybe thousands of articles, books, blogs, etc. advocating both evolution and creationism. So, evolutionist purpose that their system is rational and empirical. Creationist also purpose that their system is rational and empirical. The question, to me, is what exactly is each proponents' rational and empirical standards. Let me answer The Barbarian who claims that evolution follows thermodynamics by stating: "Tell us what process, required for evolution, violates any law of thermodynamics. Be sure to show which law and what process it is."

My answer is: every effect, that I know, is less than its cause (2nd law of thermodynamics); how can evolution produce an effect greater than its cause? (I'm talking rationally - mathematically; I'm seeking a mathematical or rational statement that shows what is The Barbarian's reality). Mathematically, how does the "allele frequencies that tend to make a population more fit to its environment" work. Without some standard (in this case rationalism), you're just making some arbitrary statement because The Barbarian cannot guarantee the effect is "more fit." When thermodynamics tells me the effect is less fit than its cause, the burden of proof is upon the advocates of "more fit." Other than 'because it is' how do you know, against the rational reality of thermodynamics, that the effect is "more fit?" (Oh, let me share the 2nd law: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of energy. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state.")

M Walter said:

My answer is: every effect, that I know, is less than its cause (2nd law of thermodynamics);

Click to expand...

That is not a statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. What kind of engineering do you do? That kind of statement wouldn't fly in any engineering field I've heard about.

M Walter said:

Mathematically, how does the "allele frequencies that tend to make a population more fit to its environment" work.

Click to expand...

Alleles that make an organism more likely to survive and reproduce successfully are likely to increase in frequency. The field of population genetics makes that statement in mathematical form. If you want to work through the math, look up Kimura's work from the 60s using diffusion theory.

M Walter said:

Without some standard (in this case rationalism), you're just making some arbitrary statement because The Barbarian cannot guarantee the effect is "more fit."

Click to expand...

"More fit" is defined as "more likely to survive and reproduce successfully".

M Walter said:

When thermodynamics tells me the effect is less fit than its cause,

Click to expand...

You really need to understand thermodynamics before basing arguments on it.

sfs said:

As I already pointed out, your last statement is trivially false, and you have dealt with a clear counterexample by simply restating the false claim. That makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion with you. The development of new antibodies requires generating thousands of bits of meaningful information. You say that can't happen. It does.

Click to expand...

Maybe if I express mathematically? New antibodies <> evolution of a new body plan.

Can you recognize there is a major different between the creation of antibodies and creating a new body type using random mutations (which are almost always deleterious) + natural selection?

I've been saying that the kind of new information needed to produce new novel body plans does not happen in evolution.

What studies? All the evidence I've ever seen says that small proteins can be generated by random mutation in noncoding sequence. Are you aware that when new genes appear in a species, they look exactly like mutated versions of noncoding sequence in closely related species (if they're not the product of gene duplication, transposition, or other known natural processes)? What is your explanation for that fact?

Click to expand...

I don't have a specific study in mind :[

Wait, yes I do - Doug Axe did a 14-year study at Cambridge University and continues to do work with the Intelligent Design group with similar studies showing that evolution does not produce the kind of effect imagined in creating new complex life forms. He wrote a book where you may be familiar titled Undeniable. Also a link regarding some of his work on Evolution News:
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/more_scientists_1/

As to when new genes appearing in a species that look like mutated versions of noncoding sequence in a closely related species, I think you've partially answered the question: "that look like mutated versions" - just because it "looks" like something, was this observed or just proving my point that this is an unobserved assumption? Also, I'm not necessarily opposed to related species having arisen from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, what gets called a "species" varies somewhat significantly and is not always a truly related species. You might say humans and apes are related species, and the Pika, Snowshoe hare and Jackrabbit are related species, but I would only agree on the Hares actually being 'related'.

Right -- it has the information needed to generate random mutations and select among them. Just as any living species has the information needed to generate random mutations and select among them. You have no problem with the first and think the first is impossible, for reasons you haven't given.

Let's try again. Does the DNA for a new antibody contain new information or not? Try just answering that question.

Click to expand...

DNA has the ability to create an antibody, but I wouldn't call this a "random mutation" or creating "new information", but rather a predetermined or 'pre-programmed' response to an external/foreign agent. And.... this would not lead to a new body plan even after trillions or any number of times of occurring. Only the mind of an intelligent being can create new information. Natural processes can only transmit already existent information. This is what the folks with the ID group are demonstrating. I take it you are familiar with their work?

Um, what? That makes no sense. Common descent is accepted as a fact, while the neo-Darwinian synthesis has been rejected in favor of a much more complex understanding of evolution. You can reject a theory without rejecting all of the components of the theory. (The existence of things like koalas and toadstools was also implicit in the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Just because the latter was rejected doesn't mean we think the former don't exist.)

A universal common ancestor (or ancestral pool of interrelated life) is strongly supported by all available scientific evidence, something that is well known among scientists. You really should learn more about biology if you're going to lecture biologists about it.

Click to expand...

Prove that a universal common ancestor IS a fact (not just 'accepted as fact'). The standard by which I'll accept such proof is the scientific method, which I'm sure you are familiar:



Take note, "it involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation."

From what I perceive:
1. There has been ZERO observation of life arising/progressing by way of evolution over said billions of years.
2. There has been NO rigorous skepticism, and when skepticism is presented by scientists or lay people like myself it is dismissed/marginalized.
3. With zero observation and no rigor or application of what I can see as defining the nature of the scientific method, evolution has become is exactly a "distorted assumption."

In any case, in the context of the OP, universal common descent isn't really what's relevant -- we make much, much more use of local common descent, e.g. the common ancestry of all primates, or all mammals, or all vertebrates. This doesn't involve the evolution of new body plans, so do you have any quarrel with it?

Click to expand...

It depends on the extent to which common descent is stretched. If we're talking about all hares having a common ancestor, I have no issue. If it is all canines possibly having a common ancestor, I have no issue. If it is saying fish grew legs, became a tetrapod, became a reptile, became a bird, I have an issue. If it is saying a land mammal about the size of a cat started swimming in the water, lost its legs, grew a dorsal fin, blow hole, blubber, and grew to be the largest creature on earth, I have an issue. If it is saying humans and chimps (or all mammals) had a common ancestor, I have an issue. Todd Wood has done extensive work studying what gets classified as hominids and his research has shown there are significant distinctions between human and non-human and no fossil dug up to date has bridged that gap.

Also, God's word is clear on what He created, in what order, how long it took, and that man was uniquely created--go to a zoo and notice which side of the glass you stand. The support for this model is stronger than what is being imagined to have happened over billions of years for which nobody has any direct (or even indirect) proof. Evolution from a universal common ancestor stands up solely on unqualifiable (cannot be proven) inferences.

NobleMouse said:

Also, God's word is clear on what He created, in what order, how long it took, and that man was uniquely created--go to a zoo and notice which side of the glass you stand. The support for this model is stronger than what is being imagined to have happened over billions of years for which nobody has any direct (or even indirect) proof. Evolution from a universal common ancestor stands up solely on unqualifiable (cannot be proven) inferences.

Click to expand...

I predict that your perfectly satisfactory expression of your opinion here will be deemed unsatisfactory and invalid on account of it's failure to be "scientific".

M Walter said:

I'm not a biologist; I am an engineer. I have several difficulties with Darwinian Evolution and evolution itself.

Click to expand...

List of scientists who think that a fresh look at evolution is needed | The Third Way of Evolution - you are not alone.

Non-Darwinian evolution - RationalWiki - any of these make more sense to you?

RC Tent said:

I predict that your perfectly satisfactory expression of your opinion here will be deemed unsatisfactory and invalid on account of it's failure to be "scientific".

Click to expand...

I agree, but will say my opinion did not write what is written in the Bible and did not say the words that Jesus said - I just believe the words of the Bible to be true and what Jesus has said, to also be true.

M Walter said:

I'm not a biologist; I am an engineer. I have several difficulties with Darwinian Evolution and evolution itself. There are what, maybe thousands of articles, books, blogs, etc. advocating both evolution and creationism. So, evolutionist purpose that their system is rational and empirical. Creationist also purpose that their system is rational and empirical. The question, to me, is what exactly is each proponents' rational and empirical standards. Let me answer The Barbarian who claims that evolution follows thermodynamics by stating: "Tell us what process, required for evolution, violates any law of thermodynamics. Be sure to show which law and what process it is."

My answer is: every effect, that I know, is less than its cause (2nd law of thermodynamics); how can evolution produce an effect greater than its cause? (I'm talking rationally - mathematically; I'm seeking a mathematical or rational statement that shows what is The Barbarian's reality). Mathematically, how does the "allele frequencies that tend to make a population more fit to its environment" work. Without some standard (in this case rationalism), you're just making some arbitrary statement because The Barbarian cannot guarantee the effect is "more fit." When thermodynamics tells me the effect is less fit than its cause, the burden of proof is upon the advocates of "more fit." Other than 'because it is' how do you know, against the rational reality of thermodynamics, that the effect is "more fit?" (Oh, let me share the 2nd law: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of energy. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state.")

Click to expand...

When it comes to thermodynamics, a baby can grow in a mother's womb and then grow to adulthood by acquiring energy from external sources.

The same holds for organisms and their ability to acquire and retain genetic change.

And mutations are observed to occur. There isn't anything about their occurrence which defies thermodynamics. With these mutations, life changes.

NobleMouse said:

I agree, but will say my opinion did not write what is written in the Bible and did not say the words that Jesus said - I just believe the words of the Bible to be true and what Jesus has said, to also be true.

Click to expand...

Quite, and yet so many people reckon that everything religious is "subjective".

From your link:

Abstract
The question of whether or not all life on Earth shares a single common ancestor has been a central problem of evolutionary biology since Darwin. Although the theory of universal common ancestry (UCA) has gathered a compelling list of circumstantial evidence, as given in ref. 2, there has been no attempt to test statistically the UCA hypothesis among the three domains of life (eubacteria, archaebacteria and eukaryotes) by using molecular sequences. Theobald recently challenged this problem with a formal statistical test, and concluded that the UCA hypothesis holds. Although his attempt is the first step towards establishing the UCA theory with a solid statistical basis, we think that the test of Theobald is not sufficient enough to reject the alternative hypothesis of the separate origins of life, despite the Akaike information criterion (AIC) of model selection giving a clear distinction between the competing hypotheses.

Statistically, if it's sufficient at all, it's sufficient. I hope the author's math is better than his grammar.

Darwinism: Six Scientific Alternatives on JSTOR

A Journal of Philosophy seems a poor place to propose anything scientific. As most of the "alternatives" are incorporated into Darwinian theory, it's not surprising that he couldn't get it published in a journal of biology.

There's quite a list of things now integrated into Darwinian theory. Genetics, neutralist evolution, punctuated equilibrium, evolutionary development, epigenetics, and so on.

But so far, none of them have invalidated Darwin's five points. Some of them have refuted some of his other ideas, however.

M Walter said:

I'm not a biologist; I am an engineer. I have several difficulties with Darwinian Evolution and evolution itself. There are what, maybe thousands of articles, books, blogs, etc. advocating both evolution and creationism. So, evolutionist purpose that their system is rational and empirical. Creationist also purpose that their system is rational and empirical. The question, to me, is what exactly is each proponents' rational and empirical standards. Let me answer The Barbarian who claims that evolution follows thermodynamics by stating: "Tell us what process, required for evolution, violates any law of thermodynamics. Be sure to show which law and what process it is."

My answer is: every effect, that I know, is less than its cause (2nd law of thermodynamics);

Click to expand...

But you can't point out even one process, required for evolution that violates any law of thermodynamics. That was my point, which you have helped confirm for me.

how can evolution produce an effect greater than its cause?

Click to expand...

Which process do you suppose produces an effect greater than its cause? Evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time. Show us how that is prohibited by the 2nd law. Show your calculations.

(I'm talking rationally - mathematically; I'm seeking a mathematical or rational statement that shows what is The Barbarian's reality). Mathematically, how does the "allele frequencies that tend to make a population more fit to its environment" work.

Click to expand...

Let's take a look...

Imagine a population with 2 alleles for a specific gene locus, each 0.5 frequency. What is the information for this gene locus? (it's about 0.30)

Now imagine a mutation that increases in the population so that there are 3 alleles, each with a frequency of about 0.333. What is the frequency then? (it's about 0.48)

If the information in the second case is greater than it is in the first case, your argument falls apart. And so it does.

Without some standard (in this case rationalism), you're just making some arbitrary statement because The Barbarian cannot guarantee the effect is "more fit."

Click to expand...

In fact, it only tends to make populations more fit, but that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation. Would you like to learn about it?

When thermodynamics tells me the effect is less fit than its cause

Click to expand...

But, as you learned, it doesn't. Either you've misunderstood thermodynamics, or thermodynamics does not apply to population genetics. If you would like, I'll show you the math.

In this paper, we seek to formulate effective tools for communicating the fallacies contained in the anti-evolution advocates’ argument that speciation by evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics (see, e.g., Morris 1987, 38–64).
Their argument runs like this:

1. 1.Evolutionary theory contends that current species developed from earlier life forms.
2. 2.These earlier life forms were simpler in having fewer capabilities and less complex systems.
3. 3.Therefore, evolutionary theory claims that organisms get better ordered over time.
4. 4.The second law of thermodynamics holds that entropy increases; that is, systems over time become more disordered.
5. 5.Therefore, both evolutionary theory and the second law of thermodynamics cannot both be correct.
6. 6.Physics is a more basic or well-established field than biology.
7. 7.Therefore, we ought to prefer the second law of thermodynamics and reject evolutionary theory.

Among the chief errors of this argument are (a) its understanding of the second law of thermodynamics and the notion of entropy, (b) the scope of the application of the second law of thermodynamics, and (c) failing to understand the way in which the mechanisms underlying genetics are perfectly in line with physical law. What is needed are ways to effectively communicate these flaws to the general public.
...
The second law of thermodynamics does not say that disorder necessarily increases in isolated systems (not adding or subtracting cards) that are not in equilibrium (the cards are being shuffled), rather it says that the likelihood of finding it in its original or any given state tends to approach the likelihood of finding it in any other state. When we understand what the second law of thermodynamics really says, the anti-evolutionists’ misrepresentation of it as requiring increasing disorder is seen as a misunderstanding.
...
The anti-evolutionists’ argument uses the second law of thermodynamics and applies it to the Earth and its natural systems as if the eight-year-old would never be asked to clean his or her room. But this Pippi Longstocking hypothesis is false. The Earth is not a thermally isolated system because it receives constant energy from the Sun. This is the energy fixed by plants using photosynthesis, which is then acquired by herbivores that eat the plants and carnivores that eat the herbivores. It is certainly true that without this constant addition of energy to the Earth’s system, life would be impossible, but fortunately for us, the radiation we receive is like the constant motivation for the youngster to keep his or her room tidy. The second law of thermodynamics simply cannot be used the way the anti-evolutionists try to use it.
...
The second law of thermodynamics clearly does not prohibit the building of complexity from simplicity, hence the existence of complex structures like termite mounds and toaster ovens. The physical world is filled with countless examples of spontaneous order emanating from a less ordered state, such as gases (e.g., water vapor in clouds) condensing into a more ordered liquid state (rain) and liquids freezing into an even more highly ordered solid crystalline state (e.g., ice crystals). Perhaps most dramatic and commonplace biological example of spontaneous order derived from a less ordered state is the development of a single cell, the zygote, into a complex multicellular (billions of cells), adult human possessing dozens of specialized organs, tissue classes, and terminally differentiated cell types. Clearly, snowflake synthesis and embryogenesis do not violate any physical laws, so what’s going on?

In a nutshell, the synthesis of order exacts an energetic price: The cost of converting a relatively disordered water droplet into a more ordered snowflake is the release of heat to the environment, and the cost of embryogenesis is the conversion of ordered nutrients into less ordered waste products and heat. In the end, the processes of snowflake synthesis and embryogenesis always contribute more net entropy to the system as a whole, consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. According to the creationist “kindergartener’s understanding of entropy” (Asimov 1984), neither snowflake synthesis nor animal development could possibly take place, let alone organismal evolution.
Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Effectively Communicating to Non-technicians

There's a lot more. And it's worth reading, if you want to know all the ways the "thermodynamics" argument of the creationists falls apart.

RC Tent said:

Quite, and yet so many people reckon that everything religious is "subjective".

Click to expand...

Given that even Christians can't agree on everything in the Bible, subjectivity is clearly involved.

NobleMouse said:

I agree, but will say my opinion did not write what is written in the Bible and did not say the words that Jesus said - I just believe the words of the Bible to be true and what Jesus has said, to also be true.

Click to expand...

That is, you believe your particular interpretation of scripture is true. So does everyone else. Hence, the disagreement.

NobleMouse said:

Todd Wood has done extensive work studying what gets classified as hominids and his research has shown there are significant distinctions between human and non-human and no fossil dug up to date has bridged that gap.

Click to expand...

Show us where, in the hominid series, that gap might be and what your evidence is for it. As you know, even some YE creationists admit it's evidence for evolution.

The Barbarian said:

Given that even Christians can't agree on everything in the Bible, subjectivity is clearly involved.

Click to expand...

Where ever people are involved subjectivity is - and science is both established by people and conducted by them.

The Barbarian said:

That is, you believe your particular interpretation of scripture is true. So does everyone else. Hence, the disagreement.

Click to expand...

Except that when God's involved more than one understanding can be true, and all imperfect.

The Barbarian said:

There's quite a list of things now integrated into Darwinian theory. Genetics, neutralist evolution, punctuated equilibrium, evolutionary development, epigenetics, and so on.

Click to expand...

This is because all change through time is incorporated into Darwinian theory.