Blinded by Science

Discovery Institute ^ | 6/2/03 | Wesley J. Smith

[Doctor Stochastic]

You're beginning to get the point. Some breed more than others and do so for many reasons. Ex-post applies after breeding. Offspring differ from their parents.

[Doctor Stochastic]

"Truth and value" are your terms, not terms of evolutionary theory. Survival (long enough to have offspring) is all that counts; this may or may not be of "value" to you. Evolutionary theory isn't about "value" but about change. Of course, you are entitled to measure your worth by fecundity but it's not required by biology.

[Phaedrus]

I am really, really tired of the contentless "mutation" mantra and the anti-science "chance" mantra and the semantic slight-of-hand by which passive nature somehow makes purposeful selections. It is doubletalk. It is gibberish.

[man of Yosemite]

What rubbish to say we have no free will. That's what too much thinking does for you. It makes you an idiot. (not meaning you BB)

[Doctor Stochastic]

Evolutionary theory doesn't claim any such selections are purposeful.

[Phaedrus]

Evolutionary theory doesn't claim any such selections are purposeful.

"Selection" means purposeful.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Your use of the term "selection" may mean "purposeful", but its use in evolutionary theory doesn't. A reading of some biology texts can help you avoid such misunderstandings in the future.

[Phaedrus]

Words mean things, Doctor.

[unspun]

Look at that mutant;
how does nature choose it?

Get your monkeys from nuthin',
and your chicks from the sea....

[Doctor Stochastic]

Yes, and you are misusing the word "selection." I have explained how the word is used in evolutionary theory. If you continue to misuse the term "selection" your actions move from the ignorant to the malicious. It's your choice. Incorrectly stating what a theory says does not lend credence to your arguments.

[unspun]

Doc, talk to us about theories of how no mind developed a process that has lead to mind.

Better yet, demonstrate it in a scientific test (or even develop a thorough, working computational model).

But of course such things as theories and models and even scientific tests are created by minds.

There are clues there.... ;-)

[MHGinTN]

Evolutionary theory doesn't claim any such selections are purposeful. In the pharmaceutical industry, bacterial resistance to anti-biotics is of great concern. It has been assumed for most of the struggle's history that resistance occurred because a few bacteria will accidentally have a genetic predisposition to form some metabolic means that counters the anti-biotic that may be killing the majority of the species infesting a host. Now, the scientists aren't so certain. There may be more than chance at work, and if there is, the $64,000 question is, if the bacteria change some metabolic process in order to counter an assault by chemicals, how is that passed to successive generations? It is well known that bacteria will pass genetic data back and forth when a stress on their existence is encountered, often resulting in resistence to a chemical assault. Is there 'purpose', as in survival instinct, at work? How is this passed to successive generations as a means to enhance survival, or is the passing of traits purely a chance event at the microbial level?

[unspun]

(And in the nihil-nature-nihil conjecture why should anything at all, including microbes, fungi, plants, let alone animals show any kind of "will to live?" How can will be explained in a will-les model?)

[unspun]

Oh well, on to subjects about things that make some sense.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your informative post! You've summarized what would be necessary and what may have been possible.

You do not consider the information theoretic machinery to be the hard part - and that may be so, but until Von Neumann's challenge there was only a quest for a plausible description, not an explanation

For instance, function and complexity viewed separately and added together do not equal "functional complexity" when theorizing how things came to be. Other examples, from your post:

Now, the entire molecular world is a state machine, but either doesn't contain sufficiently coherent context or does not have a usable control function that executes at sufficient speed.

Kolmogorov complexity of the state machine confers a survival advantage, and the original organisms would have a very tiny one indeed, not good for long term survival.

[Alamo-Girl]

Excellent post as always! Thanks for the heads up!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the heads up to your post!

I wonder how close Ridley's arguments are to the eugenics justifications of the first half of 1900's.

[unspun]

I wonder how close Ridley's arguments are to the eugenics justifications of the first half of 1900's.

Good point.

If someone believes in G.O.D. "enthusiastically,"
why should he just remain "willing" to settle for it stochastically.

That may rhyme but it's about precious little rythm or reason.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post! Well said! Hugs!!!

[Phaedrus]

True science requires no semantic gyrations to justify its claims.