Why We Are Still Arguing About Darwin

I suspect that deep within Dawkins’ psyche, tuck firmly away so he cannot be conscious of it any longer for fear of the implications to his past, is the desire to make God recognize Dawkins even if it is by decisive refutation of his own mouthings. A bitter, self-absorbed man is resulting from this contradiction within the hidden heart of Dawkins. Darwin rejected God out of despair in the same hidden desire un fulfilled. And it cannot be realized, God will not rebuke a man in order to fulfill a man’s demand to be recognized by his creator. Faith is the opposite of this twisted pride. Ultimately, seeking a means to disprove the designer of it all is an act of obsegious pride. God will not be manipulated.

The order, Cetacea , is probably a reasonable approximation of the "kind" in this case.

So is the order Primate a "kind"?

My point is NOT that taxonomic nomenclature is useless. My point is that it cannot be consulted as supporting evidence for evolutionary theory.

Then you'll be relieved to know that taxonomic nomenclature isn't evidence. It's classification of evidence.

Many proponents of evolution equivilate materialism with science. This conclusion can only be arrived at by philosophic choice. Science does not presuppose this. Faulty logic leads from empiricism to materialism.

Science does what it can, and doesn't do what it can't. Hence, science engages the material, and eschews the supernatural. There's nothing "faulty" about this. It's simply the practical limits of the discipline.

On the contrary, if there is MEANINGFUL order to the natural realm, that in itself implies Design (with a capital D).

Are these designed? How about these? If so, is there anything, in your view, that is not designed?

But the bottom line is that science actively searches for meaning, order and logic in the Universe. The concepts of deity and creator are philosophical presuppositions of true science.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Are you saying that the "true" scientist is the one who is trying to prove the existence of God by way of materialist tests and explanations?

Are you saying that the "true" scientist is the one who "presupposes" the supernatural, but then proceeds to disprove it by materialist tests and explanations?

Are you saying that the "true" scientist is the one who gives up on materialist tests and explanations after a certain point and announces that "God did it"?

Or are you just saying that the "true" scientist is the one who by rote utters "Praise God" (or some such) after each otherwise materialist test or explanation?

(I suppose there is another alternative, but I feel reasonably certain that you're not in fact contending that science has any way to actually test for or measure the supernatural.)

Materialists are tone deaf to the meaning that is readily apparent to most. Why? My opinion and best guess is that it is due to a moral bent - damage from guilt, bitterness, lust, greed, or something of this nature, has damaged their ability to perceive what is in plain sight.

Perhaps you can identify for me which authors of the 86,556 scientific articles available here are the morally depraved, bitter, lustful, and greedy "materialists", and which aren't.

BTW, js has made a claim that is foolish, and not deserving of a response. It is NOT a fact that evolution is an example of learning. It may be a posited for the sake of discussion that there are some aspects of learning that are evolutionary, but it is unhelpful to make such a nonsense assertion that "as a fact evolution is an example of learning". I mean, what the heck does that statement mean?

It means that decisions that enhance survival and reproduction accumulate. It means there is a feedback loop in the system. It means that calculations of the odds of a system springing into existence fully formed are bullshit. Living things are the current state of a system that changes over time. Nothing that is now alive has exactly the same genome as its ancestors.

I kind of like the use of the word 'learned' regarding evolution. In a sense, the higher species thrive in adverse conditions when they learn to exploit the available resources and avoid the deadly. The analogy can even be applied to the quantum scale and up through humans. Choosing unwisely ends the schooling don'tchaknow.

One further thought on the following, however: "... a system springing into existence fully formed are bullshit." Since the bang (the first 'bara') that 'began it all' God has chosen to use that which He has brought forth through emergence, by adding qualities not in evidence prior to His adding them, like life exploding in a lifeless universe, multi-celled organisms exploding in a world quite successful at single celled level (a second 'bara'), and spiritual discernment of ultimate good and evil exploding forth among 'competing primates' (the thrid 'bara' of Genesis). Once a new, really new, aspect is added, emergence allows for wonderful expressions to arise thereby increasing the complexity quilt in preparation for the next 'bara' God will explode on the scene.

Analogies have their limits of application. Learning in animals that have brains is not exactly the same as evolution, nor is it exactly the same as learning systems in computers.

But there is a level at which they are all the same process. Things are tried; some lead to greater success and some to lesser. The better changes accumulate.

No one learns to play a musical instrument without making attempts that sound to outsiders like random noise, or worse. For people who practice, the better attempts accumulate.

The time span under observation makes a difference too ...

Probably, in some areas. I read every word of legal contracts and insist on definitions (sourced) for anything I don’t understand.

Scientific papers get a beady-eyed look also.

And the underlying physical implementation, but systems that engage in trial and error learning are logically equivalent, regardless of how they are implemented.

If Dawkins does a scientific paper, it had better be as error free as any other paper I read.

I leave philosophy to philosopers.

Ideas I prefer to define into levels of solidity: notions, hypotheses etc. Oh, yes, and bull sessions.

Programs that were designed to crunch genetic algorithms were all the rage not so long ago, but As Coyote and others know, they are in no way representative of a natural process. Coyote gave the link to that lecture some months ago, and I gave the link to the scientific rebuttles back then, and will do so again here. Not that it will have any affect, becuase Coyote simply ignores hte facts, and as I said before, continues to post hte link in hte hopes that people will have forgotten about hte rebuttle and be duped into thinking the program shows actual ‘random’ processes that can explain Macroevolution.

Briefly I’ll list hte key scientific rebuttle points here:

Before we get to hte points, let’s describe what Genetic Algorithms (GA’s) do:

“GAs use mathematical constructs that parallel mutations (random changes in the variables/coefficients), natural selection (elimination of variations in a circuit, for example, that do not move toward the objective of a response to a particular frequency), and even some type of ‘recombination’ (as happens in sexual reproduction).”

Now, the rebuttle points pointed out by Dr. Don Batten:

“However, GAs do not mimic or simulate biological evolution because with a GA::

— with a GA: 1: Traits can only be quantitative- in other words, ANY trait produced by mutation can move a system toward a stepwise process. Natural traits are qualititative- they either work or they don’t- there is both no stepwise process, NOR are there ANY evidences that stepwise processes occured or occure now. None- period. Claiming a stepwise process took place in the past is pure religious assumptions.

— with a GA: 2: ONLY single traits are selcted for. In nature, multiple traits are selected for in MICROevoltuion. It then, as mentioned in point one, moves that trait in a neat stepwise process of progression. In Nature, even the simplest cells have hundreds of already established, fully functional, fully codependent and functioning traits working in harmony. Again, there is ZERO scientific evidence showing ANY stepwise trait codependency. None!

— with a GA: 3: “Something ALWAYS survives to carry on the process.” Dr. Don Batten has observed that Genetic Algorithms ALWAYS preserve the ‘evolving’ ‘organism’. In nature, Deleterious mutations often overwhelm and burn out cokmplete lines- not so with the Genetic Algorithm programs., the best are ALYWAYS preserved, ensuring a foolproof progression in the program. This is an INTELLIGENT DESIGN within the programs, which takes the ALREADY ESTABLISHED, fully functional, fully assembled, fully codependent instructions, and being hte Johnny come lately ‘Constructor’, and claiming that they have ‘created purely random neural patterns. This is a false claim and quite frankly is akin to taking someone elses design, and manipulating it AFTER al lthe work has been done and all the codependent instructions have been fully and singularly assembled to work efficiently, and claiming hte design as their own.

— with a GA: 4: Coefficients of 1.0 are given within the systems ensuring that ONLY perfect selection results. As Dr Don points out, Natural coefficients are .01 or less. The Genetic Algorith programs MUST rely on artifically inflated coefficients that work with already established parameters, and designs and informations. Nothing ‘purely random’ about htis process at all!

— with a GA: 5: Artificially High rates of ‘Reproduction” are the result. Bacteria on the whole can only double their numbers per generation. In the Genetic Algorith programs, 100’s or 1000’s of ‘offspring’ occure per generation.

A significant point I want ot make here, is that with both the unrealistically high coefficients used in the programs AND with the ‘perfect selections’ of the program, you create an environment that simply does NOT exist in nature, nor could it! With coeffieceints that high,, you would be innundated with deleterious mutations that would devestate an organism before it could even begin to work in a positive progression toward a higher complexity organism.

— with a GA: 6: Generation times are ignored in the GA systems. As Dr. Don points out generations happen in a millesecond, whereas Bacteria generatiosn take 20 minutes or more.

— with a GA: 7: Mutation rates are artificially high while the ‘Perfect Selection’ ensures that an unrealistically small population thrive in the best possible circumstances. As Dr. Don points out, in nature, would result in non viable offspring.

— with a GA: 8: The genome is artificially small.

—9: In the REAL WORLD, mutations occure ALL throughout, not just on select gene sections as in the GA systems. GA systems ignore this and only concentrate their research on select sections, creating an unrealistic environment for their ‘test subjects’.

—10: Many ALREADY established codependents are fully functioning in REAL WORLD systems. GA proponents make NO attempt to even explain how these codepedents came to be assembled and working in perfect harmony, nor do they even attempt to explain where all the myriad of instructions came from. All GA proponents do is ‘borrow’ all the ALREADY established codependents, and work from an ALREADY established intelligently designed ‘blueprint’.

—11: “Polygeny (where a trait is determined by the combined action of more than one gene) and pleiotropy (where one gene can affect several different traits) are ignored. Furthermore, recessive genes are ignored (recessive genes cannot be selected for unless present as a pair; i.e. homozygous), which multiplies the number of generations needed to get a new trait established in a population.”

—In GA’s: “Multiple coding genes are ignored”. Many genes code for more than one protien. The significance of htis is that the GA’s don’t take into account the fact that a mutation working on a single gene function might disrupt other functions, yet still be ‘profitable’ for the one function when the GA selects for the optimal mutation to affect the neural patterns that the GA designed the program to affect. This is what Dr. Don rightly calls a “Pre-Programmed Goal Sequence”

So what we see with these supposedly ‘Random Genetic Algorithms’ is not TRUE Randomness, but a program directs the ‘Chaos’ of Randomness in an artificial manner to produce a predetermined outcome that simply can not exist in anture. What we ALSO see is the fact that GA’s take ALREADY ESTABLISHED, fully functional systems made up of myriad already established, fully assembled instructions, and working in a VERY narrow set of parameters that absolutely ignore REAL World conditions, and REAL world complexities in order to proiduce some simplistic neural patterns that are meaningless in overall scope of the already established irreducible complexities in intelligently designed systems. These programs take just ONE aspect of a highly complex system, produce a simplistic pattern, and claim that they’ve just created ‘mutation in a bottle’ without any help from an intelligent agent. This is a blatant lie. None of the relevent and critical points mentioned above are EVER mentioned in these type lectures, because hte lecturers know that people might come to understand just how directed their ‘random Genetic Algorithms really are!

The link to the points above: http://www.trueorigin.org/geneticalgorithms1.asp

These points sure don’t sound like your simplistic misrepresentative accusation that Christians can’t explain science so they just say “it’s too complicated so that means God-did-it and that is that” - Care to rebuttle the facts?

Okay I have http://videolectures.net/dsb06_strelioff_hrctb/ as a video. I could not access the paper given your link.

I note that Professor Strelioff admits at the front that the method or technique of observation of the tosses is significant, and even critical to producing his desired outcome -- his demonstration depends on how the observations are made.

Of course! This the of the class of very subtle things that have thrown honest seekers after godlessness. The method of observation is DESIGN.

[[It means that decisions that enhance survival and reproduction accumulate.]]

Decisions? Instructions workign with mutations are a ‘decision’? By whom? A decision is an action by an intellgience- a pure action however, is nothign but a reaction. Are you suggesting that something in Macroevolution ‘learns’ as it goes?

[[It means that calculations of the odds of a system springing into existence fully formed are bullshit.]]

Pretty strong denial concidering that you have absolutely ZERO evidence that anythign evolved in a step-wise fasion. Got any concrete examples to share with everyone that doesn’t invovle complete gaps that need to be filled in with nothign but pure assumptions about unknowns?

Everythign about Macroevolution demands a patch made up of assumptions because htere is a complete lack of scientific evidence to show any sort of a stepwise progression of law violating icnreasing complexities made up of a biolgocially impossible creation of NEW information in trillions of systems in millions of varied species. The WHOLE process of Macroevolution is plagued by MISSING evidence AND statistical impossibilties, yet still, for soem reason, folks hold onto a hope that is so scientifically unreasonable, that it is counted as impossible in not just a few moot points, but in the whole process in significant numbers.

When you can show a process of stepwise progression of NEW information and increasing complexities that create systems that science now knows to be irreducibly complex, then you can claim the creation of fully formed, fully functioning systems was BS.- till then, you’ve got nothign to back you assertion up other than pure opinion based on a system that has to patch up every step of the process with speculations and assumptions because the evidences to support the stepwise process are completely missing

I accept only your definition of (4) Macroscopic randomness: When the cumulative, visible effect of random events is also random

I think that is very good, actually. Still I have problems with your definition of randomness. It is tautological!

You give a definition chaos of which seems to mesh that which the professor is using -- however the word chaos and its meanings have changed post-Mandlebrot etc. The mathematicians who were studying the number sequences theory called attractors where looking for a term to use to describe those sequences of numbers that "orbit" some attractor point, space or manifold. They chose "chaos", a long existing word with a long established meaning.

Step wise evolution has been demonstrated in the laboratory.

What you demand in the way of demonstration is equivalent to demanding we observe a complete orbit of Pluto before declaring that it orbits the sun.

What you demand goes against Newton's principles of natural philosophy, which are pretty much the founding documents for science.

We are to admit no more causes of natural things, than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

All the phenomena and processes required for evolution have been observed both in the wild and in the laboratory. You are asking science to disregard observed principles in favor of what?

I recall reading somewhere that the universe's expansion is quite possibly more like a tent being expanded. Does this sound familiar to you, bb?

I don't think so. It doesn't come to mind. But I can imagine how one might "see" the expansion that way.

James S. Trefil explains the big bang/inflation this way:

The theory of relativity teaches us that there is a delicate interconnection between matter and space. If we think of free space as a kind of grid marked out in the void, then matter has the effect of distorting the grid. In this view, the expansion of matter that we call the Big Bang would carry the grid with it, stretching it out as if it were a rubber sheet. A way of visualizing the expansion as it is seen by a modern cosmologist is to think of blowing up a baloon that has dots scattered over its surface, with each dot representing a galaxy. To someone on one of the dots, it is not so much a question of the balloon expanding through space as it is an expansion of space itself (as represented by the balloon's surface).
There is another important point about the universal expansion that can be understood in terms of the balloon. If you stood on one dot and looked around you, it would appear to you as if you were standing still and every other dot were receding from you. In other words, it would appear to you as if you were the center of the universal expansion, occupying a privileged place in the universe. This would not be true, however, because it is clear that an observer on any other dot would see exactly the same thing. Everyone sees himself as being stationary and everyone else receding, so no observer's view of the universe is any more privileged than that of anyone else.
This is a special case of the prnciple of relaltivity. In its most general form, this principle states that the laws of nature must be such that every observer will find them to be identical — that there is no privileged frame from which to observe the universe. The principle, so compatible with the working of the twentieth-century mind, is built into comtemporary physics from the foundation up. In a sense, it plays a role in modern science similar to the geocentrism of ancient and mediaeval sciences. We built it into our perceptions of the universe because we feel it ought to be true, and, as yet, we have found no experimental evidence to convince us that it is not.

Then he wryly adds, "But then, geocentrism worked beautifully for several millennia, too."

These quotes are from Trefil's excellent, highly readable and lucid book, The Moment of Creation: Big Bang Physics from before the First Millisecond to the Present Universe, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1983, p. p. 12f. Just really great stuff, and highly recommended.

Anyhoot, Trefil's description makes us a part of the expansion (in a certain sense), not as if we were separate as bodies "outside" the expansion that are covered or protected by a big "tent."

Fun stuff to think about!

Thanks so much for writing, metmom!

First of all, I never said Christians can’t explain science. There are several Christians right here on FR that do a fine job of explaining science, including evolution. It is your assumption that when I’m criticizing IDers, I’m criticizing Christians—which is surprising, since I thought we weren’t supposed to see ID as a religion-based concept.

Second, I can easily see flaws in Dr. Batten’s points (or yours—it’s hard to tell where his leave off and yours begin). Like point 3: so what that something always survives? We’re here, aren’t we? Looking around, things clearly survive. This is again the error of assuming we’re going for *these* results, rather than just *some* result.

And so what that the rate of reproduction is accelerated? It’s a MODEL. Showing that the model doesn’t incorporate every possible variable found in nature doesn’t demonstrate that it doesn’t accurately model the narrow question it does address.

[[And so what that the rate of reproduction is accelerated? It’s a MODEL. Showing that the model doesn’t incorporate every possible variable found in nature doesn’t demonstrate that it doesn’t accurately model the narrow question it does address.]]

Waving away tyhe innacuracies and misrepresentative aspects of a program isn’t a valid argument- You’ve obviously missed his entire points altogether either that or it’s stalwart denial- either way, his points are scientifically valid- There’s nothign to argue there

[[Looking around, things clearly survive. This is again the error of assuming we’re going for *these* results, rather than just *some* result.]]

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the point Batten brings to the table- the program is NOT representative AND it relies on intelligence, AND it artificially inflates ideals to an unscientific point in order to come up with moot simplistic patterns, at which point the proff in the video declares unequivicably that nothign is designed intelligently- incredible. Support his flawed model if you like- but the poinjts of refutation stand and show the model to be nothign more than an intelligent caused pattern under artifically unrealistic ideals which don’t exist in nature. I guess any kind of point is valid for Macroevolution no matter how off base it is?

Not being able to completely model a physical process, such as a hurricane or earthquake, does not suggest that fairies are in charge of thes phenomena.

Your argument boils down to saying anything we do not fully understand must have a supernatural explanation.

Thanks.