Some random discussion on evolution...

[SLP]

- the only way it works is as part of the design- random selections applied and constrained to a pre-defined range of viable options

I love it when in their desperation, they co-opt evolution and just spin yarns.

e.g. paint color, upholstry, extra trim

or

eye color, hair length, ability to roll tongue... very important!


= adaptation as a very useful design feature, not a design mechanism, =completely different process.
and one does not extrapolate smoothly into the other

You mean like it would if it were designed by humans?

It is so cool how you seem to think that evolutionary changes all fall onto a single organism or something.

true, but 'distinct breeding populations' is a far wider definition- I recently read about a new species of Finch being declared as evidence of 'speciation in action' purely on the basis that none of the rest of the species seemed to want to mate with it... by which definition I spent several years in college as an entirely distinct species of human.

Super clever - totally applicable, too...

As Raup said- if we define evolution merely as change, it has certainly changed over time, how is another question.

Let me ask you this:

If we dig down and look back at the record- and we see shared traits, common features, some vestigial features, dead ends, even some regressions, but a general trend towards more sophisticated diversification over time- what does that suggest to you about the nature of the evolutionary process?

It selects for the better adapted.

Weird that the Ultimate Designer couldn't get it right at the outset.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So do I, but I still think ID is nothing but a hoax. In general, the assertion that a "designer' (or God, which is a more honest way of putting it) exists is an unfalsifiable proposition with which evolution is entirely consistent. Those who want to make it a falsifiable proposition and set it as an alternative to evolution are without exception politically motivated. Most frequently, in my experience, it is done as an attempt to turn the defense of a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of Genesis into a cosmic struggle between theism and atheism. That is certainly the case with the Discovery Institute and its followers.

There's a lot of accusations there against skeptics of Darwinism- or evolution with 'no God involved' who according to the latest Gallup poll account for most of the population of the US,

so let me tell you just what I think of Darwinists like you!!!

I think you are overwhelmingly intelligent, thoughtful, well meaning people who are first and foremost curious about the world around you and want to know the truth, for better or worse, whatever the implications.

At least I'd like to think I was while I was one for several decades.

Accusations aside, i certainly think this is a question which today can be approached more objectively than ever before, because the most objective measure of anything is math, and we have a lot more of that now than in Darwin's day.

I think Darwinian evolution was a perfectly reasonable guess in the Victorian age model of reality, and remained so for a good century or more, but I honestly don't think it will survive the information age- the implications of this are a secondary question- I became skeptical of Darwinian evolution long before becoming skeptical of atheism in general.

 

[Speedwell]

There's a lot of accusations there against skeptics of Darwinism- or evolution with 'no God involved' who according to the latest Gallup poll account for most of the population of the US,

so let me tell you just what I think of Darwinists like you!!!

I think you are overwhelmingly intelligent, thoughtful, well meaning people who are first and foremost curious about the world around you and want to know the truth, for better or worse, whatever the implications.

At least I'd like to think I was while I was one for several decades.

Accusations aside, i certainly think this is a question which today can be approached more objectively than ever before, because the most objective measure of anything is math, and we have a lot more of that now than in Darwin's day.

I think Darwinian evolution was a perfectly reasonable guess in the Victorian age model of reality, and remained so for a good century or more, but I honestly don't think it will survive the information age- the implications of this are a secondary question- I became skeptical of Darwinian evolution before becoming skeptical of atheism in general.

Which is rather a moot point, being as no one here supports "Darwinsm" either. Your attempts to identify "Darwinsm" (or modern evolutionary theory) with atheism are noted and despised.

 

[46AND2]

There's a lot of accusations there against skeptics of Darwinism- or evolution with 'no God involved' who according to the latest Gallup poll account for most of the population of the US,

so let me tell you just what I think of Darwinists like you!!!

I think you are overwhelmingly intelligent, thoughtful, well meaning people who are first and foremost curious about the world around you and want to know the truth, for better or worse, whatever the implications.

At least I'd like to think I was while I was one for several decades.

Accusations aside, i certainly think this is a question which today can be approached more objectively than ever before, because the most objective measure of anything is math, and we have a lot more of that now than in Darwin's day.

I think Darwinian evolution was a perfectly reasonable guess in the Victorian age model of reality, and remained so for a good century or more, but I honestly don't think it will survive the information age- the implications of this are a secondary question- I became skeptical of Darwinian evolution before becoming skeptical of atheism in general.

Your use of the term "Darwinism" has been corrected at least a half dozen times. The fact that you continue to use it--despite being prompted that nobody here accepts, specifically, "Darwinian evolution"--can only be seen as goading, which is against the rules.

 

[SLP]

There's a lot of accusations there against skeptics of Darwinism- or evolution with 'no God involved' ...
so let me tell you just what I think of Darwinists like you!!!
... in Darwin's day.
...
I think Darwinian evolution...Darwinian evolution before becoming skeptical of atheism in general.

I don't think Darwinian evolution will survive past the 1930s....

"In the United States, creationists often use the term "Darwinism" as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as scientific materialism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a shorthand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, with evolution by natural selection."

Had this one pegged 60 posts ago....

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It means you've outed yourself. No further honest discussion is possible.

Well I'm sorry to see you go, I think you had some interesting substantive points earlier on. I'm always interested in discussing those, the personal stuff not so much.. nothing personal!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Your use of the term "Darwinism" has been corrected at least a half dozen times. The fact that you continue to use it--despite being prompted that nobody here accepts, specifically, "Darwinian evolution"--can only be seen as goading, which is against the rules.

Biology - Wikipedia

Wikipedia
Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

correct me if I'm wrong- i think most adherents agree with this? But yes, the modern synthesis after Darwin adds other elements- e.g. that variation is ultimately caused by random mutation of genes, and yes- I debate that also- but it's still generally considered part of Darwinian evolution by most, even if not part of the original theory

So the term for most simply differentiates Darwinian evolution from other theories. Many here often simply use the term 'evolution' which if defined as 'change over time', can apply to the automobile or any product line- and so is obviously a little ambiguous re. the debate between intelligent and naturalistic drivers of change

So once again for the record, it is only for clarification, nothing derogatory intended. I am repeatedly called a creationist in error, but I am happy to correct that if it implies something other than what I'm actually arguing

 

[Speedwell]

correct me if I'm wrong- i think most adherents agree with this? But yes, the modern synthesis after Darwin adds other elements- e.g. that variation is ultimately caused by random mutation of genes, and yes- I debate that also- but it's still generally considered part of Darwinian evolution by most, even if not part of the original theory

So the term for most simply differentiates Darwinian evolution from other theories.

If you expand the term "Darwinism" to mean the current consensus in evolutionary biology, there are no other theories.

 

[46AND2]

Biology - Wikipedia

Wikipedia
Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

correct me if I'm wrong- i think most adherents agree with this? But yes, the modern synthesis after Darwin adds other elements- e.g. that variation is ultimately caused by random mutation of genes, and yes- I debate that also- but it's still generally considered part of Darwinian evolution by most, even if not part of the original theory

So the term for most simply differentiates Darwinian evolution from other theories. Many here often simply use the term 'evolution' which if defined as 'change over time', can apply to the automobile or any product line- and so is obviously a little ambiguous re. the debate between intelligent and naturalistic drivers of change

So once again for the record, it is only for clarification, nothing derogatory intended. I am repeatedly called a creationist in error, but I am happy to correct that if it implies something other than what I'm actually arguing

Just use common ancestry.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you expand the term "Darwinism" to mean the current consensus in evolutionary biology, there are no other theories.

And not so long ago, people said the same about Newtonian physics- which was so 'immutable' (according to many in academia) that there was no other accepted theory, and so labeling the current one as 'Newtonian' was a redundant pejorative- it should simply be called 'physics' from now on....

So by that rule, if nobody was ever allowed to challenge Newtonian physics, science could never have progressed- many did try to impose that rule and so progress was not easy:

As Max Planck said:"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

As I've said repeatedly, I've nothing personal against Darwin, or Darwinists or Darwinian theory, I just think it is incorrect and doomed to failure, as most people do, just as most people never did believe in Newtonian physics as a comprehensive explanation for physical reality.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Just use common ancestry.

Well that makes the point, I'm not disputing common ancestry- though it is disputable even in secular circles,- and neither do proponents of intelligent design as a rule- (I'm not strictly that either), I'm just disputing the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution as first proposed by Charles D.- or more efficiently put as 'Darwinism' Which relies on the mechanism of natural section of variation caused by random mutation.

and we were actually getting into some substance there for a while before it got derailed by semantics for some reason..

 

[pitabread]

If we dig down and look back at the record- and we see shared traits, common features, some vestigial features, dead ends, even some regressions, but a general trend towards more sophisticated diversification over time- what does that suggest to you about the nature of the evolutionary process?

As evolution is a recursive process capable of producing complex outputs, I would say that this is an indication that the process has been occurring over time.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

As evolution is a recursive process capable of producing complex outputs, I would say that this is an indication that the process has been occurring over time.

okay that sounds fair to me, so what in that pattern, in itself, says anything about the process being driven by spontaneous, non-intelligent mechanisms like 'the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution as first proposed by Charles D' ?

 

[pitabread]

okay that sounds fair to me, so what in that pattern, in itself, says anything about the process being driven by spontaneous, non-intelligent mechanisms like 'the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution as first proposed by Charles D' ?

Insofar as things I would expect if the pattern wasn't a result of natural evolution, there are two things:

1) Genetic discontinuity between extant organisms.
2) Blatant chimeric organisms.

As an example of the latter, I present glow-in-the-dark rabbits: Scientists breed glow-in-the-dark rabbits

These are the sorts of things that a designer can do, yet naturally is suspiciously absent* of these sorts of things.

(* And while horizontal gene transfer is a thing, there are known mechanisms by which it occurs and can be identified as opposed to deliberate designers creating bizarre hybrid animals that completely defy explanation.)

I should also note that while the absence of these things doesn't necessarily preclude a designer (since in principle a designer could mimic output that would otherwise occur via evolution) the absence doesn't rule in a designer in my view.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Insofar as things I would expect if the pattern wasn't a result of natural evolution, there are two things:

1) Genetic discontinuity between extant organisms.

like orphan genes?-

2) Blatant chimeric organisms.

Like a Duck Billed Platypus?

I realize we are getting into subjective terms, but just trying to narrow in on what you are thinking of..

As an example of the latter, I present glow-in-the-dark rabbits: Scientists breed glow-in-the-dark rabbits

These are the sorts of things that a designer can do, yet naturally is suspiciously absent* of these sorts of things.

wow, that is very cool, and thanks for the link!

My thoughts: I have a lot of rabbits living around my house
I also have a lot of coyotes which I heard howling just last night- very active this time of year, when they are getting pretty cold and hungry, and I make sure not to let my dog wander around in the dark too far..

Let's just say, do you think it is possible, that maybe God thought through the 'glow in the dark rabbit' idea a little futher?

(* And while horizontal gene transfer is a thing, there are known mechanisms by which it occurs and can be identified as opposed to deliberate designers creating bizarre hybrid animals that completely defy explanation.)

I should also note that while the absence of these things doesn't necessarily preclude a designer (since in principle a designer could mimic output that would otherwise occur via evolution) the absence doesn't rule in a designer in my view.

No I agree, there is no 'slam dunk' here either way- although I think we can sometimes tend to come across a little more emphatic than we mean to? My point was just that- I don't think the pattern in the fossil record itself speaks very loudly about naturalistic processes- I think it would perhaps be generous to call it a wash in this regard..?

 

[Speedwell]

And not so long ago, people said the same about Newtonian physics- which was so 'immutable' (according to many in academia) that there was no other accepted theory, and so labeling the current one as 'Newtonian' was a redundant pejorative- it should simply be called 'physics' from now on....

So by that rule, if nobody was ever allowed to challenge Newtonian physics, science could never have progressed- many did try to impose that rule and so progress was not easy:

As Max Planck said:"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

As I've said repeatedly, I've nothing personal against Darwin, or Darwinists or Darwinian theory, I just think it is incorrect and doomed to failure, as most people do, just as most people never did believe in Newtonian physics as a comprehensive explanation for physical reality.

So where s your theory? If you falsify the theory of evolution, all you have is a falsified theory. You can't just say, the theory of evolution is wrong therefore design. In Science, a theory is a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation. ID has never done anything accept to attempt to falsify the theory of evolution. It has not supplied an explanation of its own.

 

[pitabread]

like orphan genes?-

I would suggest more blatant discontinuities (e.g. entire species that don't fit anywhere in the evolutionary tree of life). This could even include organisms with entirely novel nucleotides. Which is also something scientists have managed to do: Scientists Have Created Synthetic DNA with 4 Extra Letters

Like a Duck Billed Platypus?

The duck-billed platypus isn't a chimeric organism. It actually fits as an extant species with characteristics owing to the earlier synapsid origins of mammals.

I'd be thinking more along the lines of something like whales with fish parts or bats with bird wings. Things where examples of features from various extant species a combined in a mish-mash of genetic design.

Let's just say, do you think it is possible, that maybe God thought through the 'glow in the dark rabbit' idea a little futher?

That would only be an issue if God also gave coyotes UV vision.

It would definitely make for a more interesting predator-prey dynamic though...

No I agree, there is no 'slam dunk' here either way- although I think we can sometimes tend to come across a little more emphatic than we mean to? My point was just that- I don't think the pattern in the fossil record itself speaks very loudly about naturalistic processes- I think it would perhaps be generous to call it a wash in this regard..?

Scientifically, it's not a contest. On the one hand, you have a time-tested comprehensive scientific theory of evolution complete with real-world applications derived from it (including based on evolutionary ancestral relationships; e.g. phylogenetics).

On the other hand, you have claims of design that don't really have anything cohesive to support those claims much less anything even approaching a testable scientific hypothesis. The majority of what I've seen from those claiming to argue for design (including professional ID advocates like Behe, Meyer, etc) are in fact arguments against evolution with the assumption of design as the null hypothesis. Unfortunately design is not the null hypothesis of evolution.

If people want to argue for design, IMHO, they should start by trying to determine mechanisms/processes by which design could have occurred and then work from there.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So where s your theory? If you falsify the theory of evolution, all you have is a falsified theory. You can't just say, the theory of evolution is wrong therefore design. In Science, a theory is a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation. .

The idea that a handful of immutable laws + lots of time and space = an comprehensive explanation for all physical reality was an extremely compelling theory- it could be demonstrated on a small scale, and simply extrapolated by the theory to a large scale.

The belief that this was not enough, that deeper, mysterious, unpredictable, invisible guiding forces were working behind the scenes, was pretty much the realm of the ignorant masses with overt theistic implications, right?

So the principle is the same- I agree with the original premise in the Victorian age that led to Darwinian theory- that we might expect life to develop by the same general mechanisms as did physics and chemistry before it, only now that means something else, rather than a simple algorithm and lots of random interaction- it means a lot of very specific information, values, constants- pre-detemining how, when , where development occurs.

As with QM- and the Big Bang, nobody had to fall on their knees and accept the theistic implications they previously complained of- but they did need to recognize a lot of pre-existing finely tuned information is necessary - it can't all be written on the fly- put it all down to the multiverse if you prefer.

ID has never done anything accept to attempt to falsify the theory of evolution. It has not supplied an explanation of its own

A long time ago I'd agree- it was something of a negative argument- an argument from 'incredulity' just as skeptics of QM had- they were right, but couldn't prove it- but not for long

And now in the information age; ID can similarly make an argument in the affirmative: we DO know how information systems can be created- even hierarchical digital information systems as seen in DNA.- that is confirmed through repeated experiment and observation. We just don't know how they can be created by spontaneous processes- and demonstrating specific objective hurdles to that- not just incredulity.

sorry for long post, hard to condense!

 

[Speedwell]

And now in the information age; ID can similarly make an argument in the affirmative: we DO know how information systems can be created- even hierarchical digital information systems as seen in DNA.- that is confirmed through repeated experiment and observation. We just don't know how they can be created by spontaneous processes- and demonstrating specific objective hurdles to that- not just incredulity.

sorry for long post, hard to condense!

So how does the information get into the DNA? The theory of evolution has an explanation for it even if you think it is inadequate. You've got nothing.

 

[pitabread]

We just don't know how they can be created by spontaneous processes- and demonstrating specific objective hurdles to that- not just incredulity.

Insofar as information contained in DNA, evolution is the process by which the production of novel information occurs. The "information" in question is simply an emergent property thereof.