A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

[HapticSimian]

Firstly, how is it not random chance?

This is basic stuff, mate. If you honestly have to ask this question you really aren't in a position to discuss the topic.

The variances from one generation to the next might be random in principle - at least in the sense we're discussing - but there is nothing random about natural selection. A creature lives or dies, reproduces or doesn't, depending on whether the traits it has inherited sees it better or worse equipped to deal with its environment.

Secondly, this analogy has been shown to be erroneous ages ago.

I know, which is why I've reworked it to be less so...

So we replace typewriters with a pre-programmed PC.

Who does the programming?
Where does that information arise from?

You see your problem here, you're substituting one "mechanism" for a clearly intelligently designed one.

I'm not substituting a damn thing; I'm adding something the original analogy omitted. That the algorithm I've added is pre-programmed is moot; it serves merely to illustrate the function of natural selection. If you have hereditary variance and environmentally controlled survival rates - which I sincerely hope we can agree on - evolution will simply be the inevitable result. At its most basic, it really is as simple as that.

Evolution's mechanism has one major flaw - it has no reverse gear - the rugged landscape it must travel will always find it stuck at the top of dead end hills unable to descend. There is no intelligent selection, what survives is selected, what dies is discarded.

It has no gears, no goals and no direction. It flails about aimlessly, with the environment dictating which of its products survive, and which don't.

You are full of yourself aren't you. Seriously though man, give it a rest. Dissent from Darwin's Church grows more and more each day, the days of shouting down opposing voices are over. Address the issues or let it go, insults indicate nothing more but intolerance of opinion, or ignorance of the topic at hand, both a waste of time for all parties concerned.

I'll draw your attention once more to the fact that I've given you verifiable substantiation for just about every point I've raised in this discussion. Your flippant disregard for the evidence you've been presented does not change this. And yes, once again, I am intolerant of demonstrable bull****. Deal with it; better yet, stop spewing it.

 

[empirex]

Explain this, please:

It makes perfect sense to me, and I've yet to encounter an argument that exposes a flaw in the reasoning... If there's a 'vast difference' between micro and macro evolution, I'll be glad to hear about it. I'm not sure why you are now talking about 'macro-mutation' either...

***

I would also like to point out that I have not at all made the claim I am speaking with any authority - I am not educated, trained or officially involved in any science oriented field, I'm just another dude, sitting at my PC, reading books, watching documentaries and lecturers, and trying to make sense of the world.

Firstly, did you even read the article.

Secondly, if you did -- it surrounds macro-mutation, not just micro-evolution which is what you are referring to -- seriously did you read the article it even references macro-evolution!!!!!

Seriously -- I mean I have linked to an article that makes direct reference to macro-evolution (macro-mutation) in action yet you still claim there is no difference between the two.... you see and hear what you want.

Thirdly and referencing your jpeg -- that's such a shallow analogy of just what is occurring. According to that scenario, yes, it makes perfect sense, unfortunately when you look closer it doesn't even come close to representing the real-world of the cell.

And importantly it also fails to address the problem of species -- where does one end and another begin -- how is that transition breached.

I wasn't going to, but I'm just posting your angry bile for posterity:

Seriously buddy???

This is what I'm talking about -- I was responding to your angry bile below

Micro and macro evolution are exactly the same thing, the results of which are perceived over differing lengths of time...

Is your ignorance really that profound? Your incessant obnoxious yammering, so full of all the right buzz-words almost had me convinced you had a clue (albeit an extremely misguided one), but really now...

You expect me to roll over and play nice while you chuck out the play-school insults. Play nice and I'll play along.

 

[HapticSimian]

Firstly, did you even read the article.

Secondly, if you did -- it surrounds macro-mutation, not just micro-evolution which is what you are referring to -- seriously did you read the article it even references macro-evolution!!!!!

Seriously -- I mean I have linked to an article that makes direct reference to macro-evolution (macro-mutation) in action yet you still claim there is no difference between the two.... you see and hear what you want.

Please distinguish between micro- and macro-evolution. Also, weren't you just arguing that macro-evolution has never been observed? Yes, yes you were...

Even Dawkins admits that we haven't witnessed macro-evolution in action. That is a fact.

Thirdly and referencing your jpeg -- that's such a shallow analogy of just what is occurring. According to that scenario, yes, it makes perfect sense, unfortunately when you look closer it doesn't even come close to representing the real-world of the cell.

Please explain how the real-world of the cell differs fundamentally from the point illustrated.

And importantly it also fails to address the problem of species -- where does one end and another begin -- how is that transition breached.

What would prohibit the rather arbitrarily defined borders between species from being breached?

 

[empirex]

This is basic stuff, mate. If you honestly have to ask this question you really aren't in a position to discuss the topic.

The variances from one generation to the next might be random in principle - at least in the sense we're discussing - but there is nothing random about natural selection. A creature lives or dies, reproduces or doesn't, depending on whether the traits it has inherited sees it better or worse equipped to deal with its environment.

Can you seriously not see that what you have just described is random.

"Might be random in principle" - what other kind is there.

If it's not random then "the environment" must have some level of intelligence to "select".

Do you understand what I'm, saying -- you're suggesting that random selection is not random because based on the random mutations copy/write errors within DNA (and so are transferred onto their offspring) an organism either inherits (random) traits favourable to it's environment or not. That my friend is random.

Selection is an afterthought, an observation after the fact. A consequence of it's environment. Selection is nothing more than random interaction with it's environment.

I know, which is why I've reworked it to be less so...

I'm not substituting a damn thing; I'm adding something the original analogy omitted. That the algorithm I've added is pre-programmed is moot; it serves merely to illustrate the function of natural selection.

Madness. Pre-programmed represents front-loading, there is no front-loading in evolution. There cannot be.
You cannot use pre-programmed hardware / software as an analogy. It's flawed at the very basic level.

If you have hereditary variance and environmentally controlled survival rates - which I sincerely hope we can agree on

Sure.

evolution will simply be the inevitable result. At its most basic, it really is as simple as that.

No, not in the slightest. Hereditary variance falls under micro-evolution.

It has no gears, no goals and no direction. It flails about aimlessly, with the environment dictating which of its products survive, and which don't.

Wait, what? Earlier you said that "but there is nothing random about natural selection".

So the environment is not random; it selects based on what?

There is no selection per se, there is interaction - selection is the observed result.

I'll draw your attention once more to the fact that I've given you verifiable substantiation for just about every point I've raised in this discussion. Your flippant disregard for the evidence you've been presented does not change this. And yes, once again, I am intolerant of demonstrable bull****. Deal with it; better yet, stop spewing it.

Bollocks, your evidence is nothing of the sort, your appeals to authority are worthless, and many of your long-debunked facts belong in the trash can.

LOL Intolerance; yeah how's that worked throughout history for us hey But you're 100% sure of your facts, so the ends justify the means right? Bull$hit. Take your sanctimonious mighty self and jump off a cliff. Your ideology stinks to high heaven.

You wanna debate, awesome, been a while since I sunk my teeth into this stuff but step down from your pedestal your majesty and go hell for leather at the issues not the man.

 

[empirex]

Please distinguish between micro- and macro-evolution. Also, weren't you just arguing that macro-evolution has never been observed? Yes, yes you were...

That'll take a whole lot more time that I have right now.

This very article has been raised on this very forum before, and just like now we are reaching the very same conclusions, not sure who I debated with last time though....

So let's be clear. The article references macro-evolution (note that it distinguishes between micro- and macro-) which earlier was argued there is no difference) which is in fact macro-mutation. Macro-evolution that we are referring to it is on a whole other level, but again the key here is that they are now referring to micro- and macro-evolution.

Please explain how the real-world of the cell differs fundamentally from the point illustrated.

Again, much more time than I have right now, but I have alluded many times to how it differs in previous posts.

What would prohibit the rather arbitrarily defined borders between species from being breached?

Do some research surrounding the 'Species Problem'.

 

[HapticSimian]

Can you seriously not see that what you have just described is random.

"Might be random in principle" - what other kind is there.

If it's not random then "the environment" must have some level of intelligence to "select".

Do you understand what I'm, saying -- you're suggesting that random selection is not random because based on the random mutations copy/write errors within DNA (and so are transferred onto their offspring) an organism either inherits (random) traits favourable to it's environment or not. That my friend is random.

Selection is an afterthought, an observation after the fact. A consequence of it's environment. Selection is nothing more than random interaction with it's environment.

*sigh*

There are random mutations, and there is non-random selection - the two go hand-in-hand. Remember that evolution works at the level of populations, not at that of the individual. Looking at populations, inherited traits will either help or hinder an individual within a population's prospects of survival and procreation, dependent on its environment (or be inert, but that's irrelevant to the discussion). If an advantage is gained those traits will propagate and accumulate within the population.

That is non-random. A small organism will stand a better chance of surviving if it inherits a colour scheme better camouflaging it; a predator will stand a better chance of surviving if it inherits slightly longer canines, or slightly stronger jaw muscles.

Madness. Pre-programmed represents front-loading, there is no front-loading in evolution. There cannot be.
You cannot use pre-programmed hardware / software as an analogy. It's flawed at the very basic level.

It is not the composition but the principle being illustrated - there is a non-random element to evolution. There is no reason to dismiss the analogy.

Sure.

Good

No, not in the slightest. Hereditary variance falls under micro-evolution.

Please distinguish the two.

Wait, what? Earlier you said that "but there is nothing random about natural selection".

No, no... I said: "Good thing that 'random chance' isn't the 'evolutionary "mechanism"' then, innit? Add non-random selection into the mix and the picture changes dramatically", implying that your characterisation of the mechanism was incomplete.

So the environment is not random; it selects based on what?

There is no agency behind it; creatures either survive to procreate, or they don't, depending on their suitability to their environment. We've covered this.

There is no selection per se, there is interaction - selection is the observed result.

Of course there is selection - depending on their survival rate variances are either propagated or discarded.

Bollocks, your evidence is nothing of the sort, your appeals to authority are worthless, and many of your long-debunked facts belong in the trash can.

You need to separate scientific consensus from appeals to authority - the former is a simple state of affairs, independently verifiable; the latter is giving credence to something because of who said it.

LOL Intolerance; yeah how's that worked throughout history for us hey But you're 100% sure of your facts, so the ends justify the means right? Bull$hit. Take your sanctimonious mighty self and jump off a cliff. Your ideology stinks to high heaven.

I am 99.9% certain of a number of things, yes. However, I'm not the one exhibiting a total inability to consider views contrary to my own. I've read each of the links you've provided, but found them insubstantial and insincere. Have you bothered with a fraction of what you've been given?

You wanna debate, awesome, been a while since I sunk my teeth into this stuff but step down from your pedestal your majesty and go hell for leather at the issues not the man.

As soon as you present some issues I'll be sure to do so.

 

[CoolBug]

Random mutations!?!

Woah dude, don't let Techne hear you say that.

He will have a convulsive rage.

 

[HapticSimian]

That'll take a whole lot more time that I have right now.

This very article has been raised on this very forum before, and just like now we are reaching the very same conclusions, not sure who I debated with last time though....

So let's be clear. The article references macro-evolution (note that it distinguishes between micro- and macro-) which earlier was argued there is no difference) which is in fact macro-mutation. Macro-evolution that we are referring to it is on a whole other level, but again the key here is that they are now referring to micro- and macro-evolution.

The distinction, if one must be drawn, is one of degree and not of order. If you insist on defining macro-evolution it has been described as 'evolution at or above the species level' (Dobzhansky, Theodosius Grigorievich (1937). Genetics and the origin of species). It remains a distinction without a difference; both simply describe changes in allele frequencies over time.

As for macro-mutation: I do hope you're not trying to extrapolate observations on individual cancer cells to complex organisms...

Again, much more time than I have right now, but I have alluded many times to how it differs in previous posts.

I'm sure you have...

Do some research surrounding the 'Species Problem'.

I'm well aware of the species 'problem' you likely refer to - this'd be the one as understood by Darwin, right? The 'problem' of how new species arose? Of course, now that we have a decent grasp of evolutionary theory and of how speciation occurs (and having observed it to boot), this is no longer an issue.

What is understood today by the phrase 'species problem' is something quite distinct from that. I suggest you do some research on that, and then please come tell me how any of it presents an obstacle to evolution.

 

[HapticSimian]

Random mutations!?!

Woah dude, don't let Techne hear you say that.

He will have a convulsive rage.

I know - I'll try to commit his explanation to memory this time.

To be fair, it's the non-random nature of natural selection that's under discussion, not the Techne-calities of mutations.

 

[copacetic]

You expect me to roll over and play nice while you chuck out the play-school insults. Play nice and I'll play along.

Agh, whatever, I don't give a ****.

Have fun mate.

*edit*

Actually, I do give a ****. What I don't have patience for... is the very attitude that you accuse people like myself for having - That we are driven by some ideological bias that forces us to favour certain perceived 'facts', in the absolute face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I have no ideology, no internal cause that colours my understanding the world and universe I exist within. If I recall correctly, you did mention that you are a Christian, I also recall (I think) your claim that this fact does not influence your perception and subsequent understanding reality. Which is of course, utter nonsense - It strikes me as impossible that such specific assumptions about certain aspects of existence cannot profoundly influence your likelihood of choosing one possible scenario over another.

From my perspective, put very simply; If there was reasonable evidence that a specific god existed and created everything, I'd be happy to recognize that as an aspect of reality - Losing my belief in the opposite is neither here nor there, as an honest look at the evidence (or lack thereof) is all that really matters, and how close it can get me closer to an objective understanding of reality.

On the other hand, a religious person who loses their religion suffers a loss of a far greater magnitude - Their importance in the grand scheme of things, the (assumed) origin of their sense of morality, the ability to have their sins forgiven and their status of themselves as fallen beings elevated to esteemed children of god, their sense of community and all the perks that brings, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

Why do I think this is important? Because I firmly believe that 99% of the opposition to evolution stems from religious people and organizations, no matter how they may attempt to obfuscate this fact, and as a result have a far greater bias to accepting perceptions of reality that affirm their core beliefs.

***

As for your character, well, I had a brief internal debate about maybe scrounging through some of your quotes, and selecting snippets of things you have written that represent what I do honestly perceive as a disingenuous and fairly unpleasant tone of character (please excuse the plain honesty here).

But then, what would the point be? We are both on a public forum, airing our views, and I reckon there is more than enough material we have both contributed, for anyone who is paying attention (**** knows why you would? ) to make a reasonable judgement of our respective characters.

So, yeah, I do care about the issues being discussed, but there comes a point where meaningful conversation is nigh on impossible, stated above is why I feel the stakes are higher for someone in your position to ever even consider the possibility of relinquishing their position.

 

[alloytoo]

Can you seriously not see that what you have just described is random.

"Might be random in principle" - what other kind is there.

If it's not random then "the environment" must have some level of intelligence to "select".

Do you understand what I'm, saying -- you're suggesting that random selection is not random because based on the random mutations copy/write errors within DNA (and so are transferred onto their offspring) an organism either inherits (random) traits favourable to it's environment or not. That my friend is random.

Selection is an afterthought, an observation after the fact. A consequence of it's environment. Selection is nothing more than random interaction with it's environment.

There is no "Random" interaction with the environment, either an organism is suited to the environment or it is not.

Natural Selection is a filter, not a random interaction, not some agency making divine intervention.

 

[Techne]

empirex and co. I would like to understand the motivation behind arguing against common descent and other aspects of evolutionary theory.

I think we can at least agree on the following aspects, hopefully:
1) If common descent and other aspects of evolutionary theory are true then:
A) It does not imply that evolution is purposeless or random or orderless.
B) It does not imply God does not exist, in fact the ToE has nothing to do with this.
C) It does not imply that creation (including special creation) is false. Again, the ToE has nothing to do with this. The same applies to other concepts such as the soul, religion, morality etc.

Unfortunately many people make the exact opposite claims. They somehow think evolution negates creation or purpose. Some may even think it means less evidence for the existence of God. These are philosophical claims, not empirical claims. Btw, people claiming that there is no evidence for the existence of God most likely don't have a definition of God that any believer would accept anyway so they are attacking a straw man. In some cases these people don't even have a coherent definition. I don't have to explain the bad reasoning and illogic of such silliness, it is self-evident.

Anyway, I see a big problem appear to be macro-evolution. Any person remotely familiar with evolution is aware that the main difference between micro- and macro-evolution is this:
Any evolutionary change at or above the level of species is labelled as macro-evolution and any evolutionary change below the species level is labelled as micro-evolution.

There is nothing controversial about this and pretty standard stuff.

I think a colour analogy may be helpful here.

Consider the following picture:

For arguments sake assume there are seven different species of color (Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet).
Macro-evolution is whenever an individual of a specific colour (e.g. Violet individual) species gives rise to an individual of another colour species (e.g. Red individual).
Micro-evolution is whenever a reddish Violet individual gives rise to a orangey Violet individual.

Now, Violet individuals can give rise to ever more reddish individuals (micro-evolution) until one day the individual is actually just a violety Red Individual (macro-evolutionary change). This would be an example of how micro-evolution leads to macro-evolutionary change.

NONE of this implies creation of the individuals or species is false, none of this implies that the individuals do not have souls or that God does not exist or that the process is purposeless. In fact this whole process is entirely compatible with a realist position towards these concepts.

So what gives, what is the problem with the ToE. Faults in the ToE are not arguments for creation or design or purpose or God etc. ID is a bad argument for theism, in fact it fails miserably. I would just like to understand your motivation for supporting something like ID and arguing against the ToE.

 

[HapticSimian]

Techne, there's something I'm honestly interested in and, if you've previously posted anything on the matter I'd appreciate you pointing me there. My question is this: You were a vehement proponent of ID in your day... what brought the shift?

 

[Techne]

Techne, there's something I'm honestly interested in and, if you've previously posted anything on the matter I'd appreciate you pointing me there. My question is this: You were a vehement proponent of ID in your day... what brought the shift?

I was, and still am, interested in the concept of "teleology" and humans' various purposeful endeavours e.g. science, sport, religion etc. It appeared, and still does, to be true in a common sense manner and not anti-scientific in any sense. I thought ID was a good way to defend the concept. I don't any more, blame Feser's Last Superstition and Aristotle (the chap who started it all ), Aquinas and co. for that .

 

[cyghost]

empirex and co. I would like to understand the motivation behind arguing against common descent and other aspects of evolutionary theory.

I think we can at least agree on the following aspects, hopefully:
1) If common descent and other aspects of evolutionary theory are true then:
A) It does not imply that evolution is purposeless or random or orderless.
B) It does not imply God does not exist, in fact the ToE has nothing to do with this.
C) It does not imply that creation (including special creation) is false. Again, the ToE has nothing to do with this. The same applies to other concepts such as the soul, religion, morality etc.

There is nothing controversial about this and pretty standard stuff.

I think a colour analogy may be helpful here.

Consider the following picture:

For arguments sake assume there are seven different species of color (Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet).
Macro-evolution is whenever an individual of a specific colour (e.g. Violet individual) species gives rise to an individual of another colour species (e.g. Red individual).
Micro-evolution is whenever a reddish Violet individual gives rise to a orangey Violet individual.

Now, Violet individuals can give rise to ever more reddish individuals (micro-evolution) until one day the individual is actually just a violety Red Individual (macro-evolutionary change). This would be an example of how micro-evolution leads to macro-evolutionary change.

NONE of this implies creation of the individuals or species is false, none of this implies that the individuals do not have souls or that God does not exist or that the process is purposeless. In fact this whole process is entirely compatible with a realist position towards these concepts.

So what gives, what is the problem with the ToE. Faults in the ToE are not arguments for creation or design or purpose or God etc. ID is a bad argument for theism, in fact it fails miserably. I would just like to understand your motivation for supporting something like ID and arguing against the ToE.

I cut out the ignorant philosophical drivel and completely irrelevant nonsense and what remains is a post that deserves to be applauded

so.


*applause*

 

[HapticSimian]

I was, and still am, interested in the concept of "teleology" and human's various purposeful endeavours e.g. science, sport, religion etc. It appeared, and still does, to be true in a common sense manner and not anti-scientific in any sense. I thought ID was a good way to defend the concept. I don't any more, blame Feser's Last Superstition and Aristotle (the chap who started it all ), Aquinas and co. for that .

Thanks.

And thanks to... was it rwenzori or cyghost... I'll forever read Eddie Fizzpop when I see that name.

 

[Techne]

Thanks.

And thanks to... was it rwenzori or cyghost... I'll forever read Eddie Fizzpop when I see that name.

Funny isn't it . If it helps you to take his work seriously or at least apply the Principle of Charity, have fun.

 

[DJ...]

Thanks.

And thanks to... was it rwenzori or cyghost... I'll forever read Eddie Fizzpop when I see that name.

I think that was rwenzori...

 

[CoolBug]

Anyone else waiting for Swa to drop baaams?

Also, very nice post Techne.

The picture reminds me of the question: How can Americans "come" from Europeans if there are still Europeans?! :what::banghead:

 

[RiaX]

I still like to know where micro and macro evolution came from... i think the word evolution is misunderstood by a lot of people