Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Fervent]

DI and its people seem to have a lot of trouble understanding what is and is not science. (And no, I don't mean because of their ID pseudoscience.) Their core element is a center for "science and culture", which are very different things.

Fair enough, and I agree. While I don't share your disdain for them exactly, I do admit that I usually roll my eyes when topics of their books in conversations with friends of mine arise even without knowing they are DI books. And had I seen the one I am currently reading was DI before I received it in the mail I likely would have passed on it, and I groaned when I saw the imprint on the publishing page. So I do get your aversion. The line between science and other disciplines can blur on some issues, but the ones DI typically presses are quite clear.

 

[AV1611VET]

DI and its people seem to have a lot of trouble understanding what is and is not science. (And no, I don't mean because of their ID pseudoscience.) Their core element is a center for "science and culture", which are very different things.

From AI Overview:

The Discovery Institute, known for its promotion of intelligent design, has a significant number of scientists affiliated with its Center for Science and Culture.

According to their website, the Center for Science and Culture has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts. Many of these individuals also hold positions at universities and colleges.

If this is true, then please explain your post.

I looked up the first person AI Overview mentioned -- Douglas Axe -- and his scientific credentials are impressive.

Is someone jealous? or is the scientific community handing out PHD's like water?

 

[AV1611VET]

While I don't share your disdain for them exactly, I do admit that I usually roll my eyes when topics of their books in conversations with friends of mine arise even without knowing they are DI books.

When I see remarks like this -- and how scientists eat their own -- I get a good insight as to how Frances Kelsey must have been talked about among her peers.

 

[The Barbarian]

The title also speaks of an "immaterial genome" which is a contradiction in terms. As best I can tell their argument is built around a poor understanding of developmental biology and bad math arguments.

Echoes of vitalism, a belief that starts from the premise that living organisms are basically different from non-living entities because they contain some immaterial element or are governed by different principles than other things.

Johannes Reinke, a German botanist, sought to replace Darwinism with a sort of scientific vitalism. He conducted some experiments testing his notion of this immaterial stuff, but they failed to meet his predictions.

Reinke was no mere crackpot; he was a competent botanist, with a number of key discoveries to his name. But his life's work was a failed attempt to build a science of vitalism.

 

[The Barbarian]

According to their website, the Center for Science and Culture has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts. Many of these individuals also hold positions at universities and colleges.

One of their scientists, biochemist Michael Behe, testified under oath that intelligent design is science in the same sense that astrology is science. Another of them, Jonathan Wells, asserted that the Rev. Myung Son Moon was the superior of Jesus. Another of them, biochemist Michael Denton, says that biological evolution is a fact, and contradicts creationism.

You sure you want to back these guys?

 

[Fervent]

Echoes of vitalism, a belief that starts from the premise that "living organisms are basically different from non-living entities because they contain some immaterial element or are governed by different principles than other things.

Johannes Reinke, a German botanist, sought to replace Darwinism with a sort of scientific vitalism. He conducted some experiments testing his notion of this immaterial stuff, but they failed to meet his predictions.

Reinke was no mere crackpot; he was a competent botanist, with a number of key discoveries to his name. But his life's work was a failed attempt to build a science of vitalism.

I forget exactly where I read it, but somewhere in my readings was a discussion of what separates modern substance dualists from previous proponents of immaterial forces such as the vital force and the main takeaway was that most who hold to beliefs about immaterial substances hold that it is the fact that prior proponents went in on a presumed scientific character that was their error given the limitations of science to what can be measured/detected in a material sense.

 

[Fervent]

When I see remarks like this -- and how scientists eat their own -- I get a good insight as to how Frances Kelsey must have been talked about among her peers.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that anyone is engaging in an act that can be described as "eat their own", as my attitude is a matter of exasperation at what appears to be a desperation for legitimizing faith-based beliefs by adulterating the procedures of science and misrepresenting or misconstruing the state of the evidence. Alternatively, playing into the hands of atheists by accepting faulty premises like "the God hypothesis" as if God's existence were subject to human theories.

 

[AV1611VET]

You sure you want to back these guys?

If they have PHDs, then how did they get them?

Are they recognized as scientists, or aren't they?

 

[Bradskii]

Echoes of vitalism, a belief that starts from the premise that living organisms are basically different from non-living entities because they contain some immaterial element or are governed by different principles than other things.

Depending on where you look, there are umpteen conditions necessary for something to be called 'alive'. Reproduction, homeostasis, growth etc. It's not a black and white situation. One may as well ask what vital ingredient there is for a house to become a home.

 

[The Barbarian]

If they have PHDs, then how did they get them?

Are you under the impression that earning a doctorate means one can't wrong? Or are you supposing that astrology is a science? Or are you agreeing with Dr. Denton that biological evolution and common descent is a reality? Or do you agree with Jonathan Wells about Rev. Moon and Jesus? Which of these?

Are they recognized as scientists, or aren't they?

I suppose you know Isaac Newton is recognized as a scientist. He also had some odd religious ideas like the guys above. For example, Newton denied the divinity of Jesus, arguing that the NT had been later altered to make it appear so.

 

[The Barbarian]

One may as well ask what vital ingredient there is for a house to become a home.

Apparently, a heap o' loving.

 

[The Barbarian]

I forget exactly where I read it, but somewhere in my readings was a discussion of what separates modern substance dualists from previous proponents of immaterial forces such as the vital force and the main takeaway was that most who hold to beliefs about immaterial substances hold that it is the fact that prior proponents went in on a presumed scientific character that was their error given the limitations of science to what can be measured/detected in a material sense.

Yes. I, for example, accept the reality of a soul, but recognize that no physical means could demonstrate it.

 

[Fervent]

Yes. I, for example, accept the reality of a soul, but recognize that no physical means could demonstrate it.

Yes, and that's about the size of most substance dualist's attitudes towards the idea of an immaterial mind. Though their typical argument is that the belief is properly basic because its substrate is direct experience rather than propositional logic or some other fundamental fact.

But of course, none of that is scientific per se and it would be a fool's errand to try to make it as much. But the fact that epiphenominalism is currently taken seriously as a potential means of explaining phenomenal consciousness...or rather explaining it away...speaks volumes of the kinds of irrational thinking that persists in academic circles.

 

[The Barbarian]

Depending on where you look, there are umpteen conditions necessary for something to be called 'alive'. Reproduction, homeostasis, growth etc. It's not a black and white situation. One may as well ask what vital ingredient there is for a house to become a home.

Yeah, there's a great deal of question about viruses, which I personally don't see as alive, but with some reservations about certain viruses which are sort of in-between:
Scientists have long argued that viruses are nonliving, that they are bits of DNA and RNA shed from other cells. Indeed, based on everything else we know about what it takes to qualify as life, a virus doesn’t seem to fit the bill. There are many life processes, such as the ability to metabolize, that viruses do not do. Viruses seem to carry out only one life process, reproduction, but even then, individual viruses don’t carry translational machinery, namely, the proteins needed to read their DNA and RNA and build new viruses. They invade a cell and hijack its genetic tools to do it for them.

But within the last decade, developments in virology have started to reveal more and more that viruses might in fact be alive. One was the discovery of mimiviruses, giant viruses with large genomic libraries that are even bigger than some bacteria. To put this in perspective, some viruses, like the Ebola virus, have as few as seven genes. Some of these giants have genes for the proteins that are required for translation—those readers of DNA and RNA that in turn build new viruses. This throws the lack of translational machinery argument for classifying them as nonliving on its head....
And now for the numbers. Caetano-Anolles and Nasir analyzed the protein folds of 5,080 organisms—3,460 viruses and 1,620 cells from other organisms representing every branch of the tree of life. What they found was huge: 442 protein folds were shared between cells and viruses along with 66 folds that were unique to viruses. What this indicates then, is a branching of some kind.

It suggests that viruses were not simply shed genetic material of cells, but shared unique properties with cells (and thus were living) and eventually evolved as separate entities. “We are now able to build truly universal trees of life,” says Caetano-Anolles, “that describe the origin and diversification of organisms and viruses.”

Are viruses alive? New evidence says yes – Global Health Press

id-ea.org

I'm keeping an open mind, but this evidence does tilt things toward viruses being living entities.

 

[The Barbarian]

But of course, none of that is scientific per se and it would be a fool's errand to try to make it as much. But the fact that epiphenominalism is currently taken seriously as a potential means of explaining phenomenal consciousness...or rather explaining it away...speaks volumes of the kinds of irrational thinking that persists in academic circles.

It seems clear to me that the mind is not merely an epiphenomenon of the brain, but that might be one of the things it is. It's a mystery as to how soul and body are connected, and reviewing lots of philosophic and religious discussion, it seems like it will remain a mystery. Of course, you could just cut the knot and deny it exists. As if that solved anything.

 

[Fervent]

It seems clear to me that the mind is not merely an epiphenomenon of the brain, but that might be one of the things it is. It's a mystery as to how soul and body are connected, and reviewing lots of philosophic and religious discussion, it seems like it will remain a mystery. Of course, you could just cut the knot and deny it exists. As if that solved anything.

While I suppose there is a hypothetical possibility that it is an epiphenomenon of the brain, I don't believe such a belief is sustainable unless we pretend that "objective" evidence is more secure than our subjective experience allows for. In fact, it seems to me that causal efficiency of the mental is a requirement for anything passing for reasonable/rational belief, so there is no basis to make an inference that epiphenomenalism is true...because inferences require mental effectiveness rather than just being apparitional properties that are in fact fully explicable in terms of physical properties. It's a self-refuting belief, becuase if epiphenomenalism is true then any justification of the belief that it is true is illusory.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Recognising design is not the same thing as showing design. If you want to claim that life was designed, then you need to show that it was. Same with talking about complexity. We know that buildings, paintings and computer progams were designed because we have evidence of those things being designed, and in many cases, step by step evidence of them being built. We have none of that as evidence whatsoever for anything found in nature. None.

And you clearly don't appreciate science if you basically say that evolution is 'just a theory' when in science, a theory is a way to explain facts and evidence found. It is the highest thing that science can achieve for an idea, such as germ theory, nuclear theory, the theory of gravity and, surprise here, the theory of evolution.

All your commentary shows is a dogmatic incredulity on your part. Nothing more, nothing less.

From non-scientific point of view 1Tonne makes more sense than your scientific explanation. In the real world a "theory" is a good possible explanation as to how something works it's not the only explanation. In your scientific world, a "theory" is the law of the land util proven wrong. This is why we average people have a mistrust in your scientific explanations. You spit on alternate theories and ideas that have just as sensible explanation as the scientific one. Remember, it's a big boat, let's try to get along with each other.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From non-scientific point of view 1Tonne makes more sense than your scientific explanation. In the real world a "theory" is a good possible explanation as to how something works it's not the only explanation. In your scientific world, a "theory" is the law of the land util proven wrong. This is why we average people have a mistrust in your scientific explanations. You spit on alternate theories and ideas that have just as sensible explanation as the scientific one. Remember, it's a big boat, let's try to get along with each other.

So your entire problem is that alternative ideas, that do not have the same evidence and support as actual scientific theories do, aren't given the same credence and air time as actual theories. Am I wrong in that assessment or not?

 

[Hvizsgyak]

So your entire problem is that alternative ideas, that do not have the same evidence and support as actual scientific theories do, aren't given the same credence and air time as actual theories. Am I wrong in that assessment or not?

Yes. With as little evidence that science bases its theories on, alternative theories shouldn't be shut down so easily. Remember Clovis first theory.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes. With as little evidence that science bases its theories on, alternative theories shouldn't be shut down so easily. Remember Clovis first theory.

But your alternative theories very often, and if not significantly more so, have less evidence than you claim scientists have? And, believe it or not, but the 'Clovis first' idea was soon shown to be incorrect and rejected as more evidence was uncovered to show that humans lived in the Americas way before the Clovis culture.

Your entire premise and claims are flawed.