Total Posts:174|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Non-Darwinian Evolution

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 5:03:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have some concerns with Darwinism, as does many scientists. My core issue is that Darwinism is more of an extinction theory than an evolutionary theory. Natural Selection does not drive evolution, it directs it. There is a big difference between a guiding force and an driving force.

Here are some articles that you may find interesting;
(note: this thread is not about the articles, but about non-Darwinian evolution in general)

Charles Darwin Wrong About 'Tree of Life' Concept, Say Scientists
http://www.newsmax.com...

Non-Darwinian Evolution
http://www.genomics.arizona.edu...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 5:16:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you think that Darwinian evolution or evolution solely by natural selection and random mutation is the dominant paradigm amongst scientists?

Do you think that natural selection needs to create new traits in order to be a key component in driving/guiding evolutionary change?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 6:22:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 5:19:05 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
I made a post in the other thread you may not have seen. Please forward comments to this thread.

Yes I read it. You said it was a misconception that mutations aka new genetic traits precede natural selection. You gave no clarification nor explanation on why it is a misconception.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 6:37:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 6:22:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/23/2013 5:19:05 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
I made a post in the other thread you may not have seen. Please forward comments to this thread.

Yes I read it. You said it was a misconception that mutations aka new genetic traits precede natural selection. You gave no clarification nor explanation on why it is a misconception.
I didn't say that. I said that as far as I knew evolution is normally defined as the genetic shift that occurs in the average genotype of a population as a result of the combined factors of mutation and competition. If this is not what you call evolution, then what would you like to call this process. I just need names for everything so we don't confuse each other. I'm happy to accept your definition of evolution as just the mutation part if you want but I still need to refer to the other process somehow.

Here is my post for reference.

Hi DanT, I haven't spent large amounts of time debating evolution yet, so perhaps I'm not quite so cynical as the others. If you want to discuss, I'll listen and respond appropriately.

At 6/23/2013 4:51:29 PM, DanT wrote:
No its not. Evolution is the mutation of genes. Natural selection occurs post mutation in order to weed out the unfavorable traits (which is extinction not evolution).
I don't believe this is the case. My understanding is that Evolution is the gradual change in genetic code of living organisms due to mutation events and selection pressure. It requires both mutation and competition. Mutation is mutation, natural selection is just another name for competition and Evolution is the result of the combination of these two processes.

DanT said:
Again, I am not basing my views on this paper, I just pointed to this paper as an example. I could find another paper if you prefer.
http://www.newsmax.com......
http://www.genomics.arizona.edu......
the_croftmeister said:
I'd rather not deal with sources at this point as it will just devolve into a 'who's source is more reliable/actually knows what they are talking about' fight. Let's get our definitions straight and our arguments first before we start trying to back them up.

DanT said:
If Natural Selection didn't occur evolution would still take place. This is proof enough that Darwin was wrong. The only thing natural selection does, is eliminate unfavorable mutations. Without natural selection there would be much more diversity.
the_croftmeister said:
How would you go about performing an experiment to demonstrate this? You would have to have room to keep alive every single organisms and some way to ensure they all have exactly the same number of children. Competition creeps in everywhere. If you define evolution as mutation then yes, this is correct. But evolution is not normally defined as mutation but rather as the combination of mutation and competition processes that lead to shift in the genetic makeup of an entire population (to a place that is more effective or more fit).

DanT said:
An example of natural selection, would be breeding dogs. You can weed out the undesirable traits to create a new breed of dog. If you did not do this, the evolution of dog breeds would be much slower, and would produce a wider range of variations. All dog breeding does, is direct evolution, not drive it.
Breeding of dogs would not normally be considered 'natural' selection. It is an artificial form of selection where the fitness function is determined by us (which traits we want to keep) rather than by the environment. I would also note that by your definition of evolution as mutation your statement that evolution would be slower is no longer coherent with your position since the mutation of genes would occur at exactly the same rate (barring the use of radiation to induce mutations or something). You seem to use evolution to refer to both mutation and genetic shift. Please pick one and give the other one another name so we can move forward.

I am willing to concede that 'I' have not seen sufficient evidence to claim that evolution does result in speciation. This however, should not be seen as a reflection on whether it can as this is mostly due to me not caring enough to go read all the relevant research material. Also, plenty of other people that I trust have, and so I am tempted to believe their conclusions. So by all means, clarify your points and set the definitions and we can go from there. If I have made any mistakes in interpreting your comments, please let me know.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 6:51:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 5:17:49 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
Hi DanT, I haven't spent large amounts of time debating evolution yet, so perhaps I'm not quite so cynical as the others. If you want to discuss, I'll listen and respond appropriately.

OK
At 6/23/2013 4:51:29 PM, DanT wrote:
No its not. Evolution is the mutation of genes. Natural selection occurs post mutation in order to weed out the unfavorable traits (which is extinction not evolution).
I don't believe this is the case. My understanding is that Evolution is the gradual change in genetic code of living organisms due to mutation events and selection pressure.
This is a misconception. Evolution is a process. It takes time for one species to evolve into another, but there is evolution that occurs in between that period. You don't need to be a new species to have evolved. Skin tone is the result of evolution. Originally the Homo Genus had white skin and dark hair (like chimps), but developed black skin over time. Those with lighter skin died in climates with more UV exposure, while those with lighter skin thrived in climates with less UV exposure. This dying off was the result of natural selection, but the mutations occurred before the dying off began. People with fairer skin tones, likely migrated north as the ice age began to end. If you think about, you wouldn't stay in a region where you felt uncomfortable (got sun burns). I moved out of Florida due to asthma, and because I didn't like the heat.

It requires both mutation and competition.
Not necessarily. Competition directs evolution, it does not drive it.
Mutation is mutation, natural selection is just another name for competition and Evolution is the result of the combination of these two processes.

No its not.

Again, I am not basing my views on this paper, I just pointed to this paper as an example. I could find another paper if you prefer.
http://www.newsmax.com...
http://www.genomics.arizona.edu...
I'd rather not deal with sources at this point as it will just devolve into a 'who's source is more reliable/actually knows what they are talking about' fight. Let's get our definitions straight and our arguments first before we start trying to back them up.

Evolution

Definition

noun, plural: evolutions

(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.
http://www.biology-online.org...

If Natural Selection didn't occur evolution would still take place. This is proof enough that Darwin was wrong. The only thing natural selection does, is eliminate unfavorable mutations. Without natural selection there would be much more diversity.
How would you go about performing an experiment to demonstrate this?
You could round up a variety of rabbits, let them breed freely, and monitor the results. Than you can have a control with the same composition of rabbits and allow them to breed freely under a stressed environment, where only specific traits are favorable.

I fear my power is going to go out, I'll finish my response later.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 8:09:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would point out that there is always competition even if you provide them with enough food for everyone. They create their own competition just by some of them being more fertile than others.

I was just telling you what my definition was. Now I am asking what you call the 'other' process. What do you call the combined process of mutation and competition? I accept your proposed definition of evolution.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 8:13:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I will point out however, that even if you use that definition. Selection pressures (dying off) still changes the genetic make up of a population. The change is just reductive instead of productive. Are you saying that mutation and competition can't result in evolution?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 8:53:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 5:16:34 PM, Enji wrote:
Do you think that Darwinian evolution or evolution solely by natural selection and random mutation is the dominant paradigm amongst scientists?

Do you think that natural selection needs to create new traits in order to be a key component in driving/guiding evolutionary change?

No one considers natural selection to be a creative force on its own - as you note, natural selection requires new traits to originate and be selected from; natural selection does not create new traits to be selected. In Darwinian evolution, natural selection acts as the driving force of evolutionary change (at a population level), but not as the cause of those changes (which arise at the level of individual organisms via mutation). In other words, the concept of natural selection as a driving force deals with the allele frequency aspect of evolutionary change rather than with the specific traits coded by those genes - which isn't what you seem to think. And you'd be quite accurate in calling natural selection more of a guiding force than a driving force. Natural selection existed in common scientific discourse well before Darwin's work on evolutionary theory, however it was seen as a negative force preventing evolutionary change - and this is why natural selection is often considered to be a creative force driving evolutionary change; Darwin acknowledged that natural selection didn't make anything, however he considered it to be a creative force because it directed the process of evolutionary change in contrast with the existing paradigm where it prevented such change.

And you're not wrong when you say without natural selection, evolution could/would still occur. As is evident by your references, you appear to prefer genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer over the traditionally Darwinian methods. However I think you'll find that what you think you're arguing against isn't actually the accepted understanding of scientists. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis incorporates the aspects Darwinian evolution (including natural selection) along with other mechanisms, population genetics, Mendelian inheritance, and some other stuff. Evolution isn't solely Darwinian any more, and it really hasn't been since the 1950's.

Unless you consider natural selection to be non-existent, your views on evolution are actually much more in cohesion with accepted scientific theory than you think.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 9:30:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 8:13:23 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
I will point out however, that even if you use that definition. Selection pressures (dying off) still changes the genetic make up of a population.
It narrows the genetics of a population, but it has no effect on the individuals within that population. Natural selection just prevents certain genes from being passed on, it does not create new genetic sequences.

The change is just reductive instead of productive. Are you saying that mutation and competition can't result in evolution?

I already said mutations drive evolution while natural selection directs it. Darwinism states that natural selection drives evolution, which is false.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 9:43:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 9:30:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/23/2013 8:13:23 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:

The change is just reductive instead of productive. Are you saying that mutation and competition can't result in evolution?

I already said mutations drive evolution while natural selection directs it. Darwinism states that natural selection drives evolution, which is false.

I think Gould has a good explanation for why Natural Selection is described as a creative, driving force here: [http://www.stephenjaygould.org...].
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 11:34:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 9:30:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/23/2013 8:13:23 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
I will point out however, that even if you use that definition. Selection pressures (dying off) still changes the genetic make up of a population.
It narrows the genetics of a population, but it has no effect on the individuals within that population. Natural selection just prevents certain genes from being passed on, it does not create new genetic sequences.

The change is just reductive instead of productive. Are you saying that mutation and competition can't result in evolution?

I already said mutations drive evolution while natural selection directs it. Darwinism states that natural selection drives evolution, which is false.

Right so you are objecting to a principle of evolution which nobody actually holds. You can call it whatever you want, but natural selection is still a part of the evolutionary process.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 11:53:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 11:50:22 PM, benevolent wrote:
This is a good read. DanT, lol.

Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here, but did you just try to put a Godly tint to evolution?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 7:18:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 5:03:22 PM, DanT wrote:
I have some concerns with Darwinism, as does many scientists. My core issue is that Darwinism is more of an extinction theory than an evolutionary theory. Natural Selection does not drive evolution, it directs it. There is a big difference between a guiding force and an driving force.

Here are some articles that you may find interesting;
(note: this thread is not about the articles, but about non-Darwinian evolution in general)

Charles Darwin Wrong About 'Tree of Life' Concept, Say Scientists
http://www.newsmax.com...


Non-Darwinian Evolution
http://www.genomics.arizona.edu...

This is a nice explanation of what is commonly [mis]named the micro/macro-evolution distinction. That is, selection from an existing pool of information is perfectly sensible, while expecting environmental noise to create actual new information is black magic. So it turns out that information can be shared across species, which is very cool. Too bad the community can't find the integrity to just abandon Darwin altogether so we could make faster progress in learning how the technology of life really works.
This space for rent.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 7:25:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 7:18:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Too bad the community can't find the integrity to just abandon Darwin altogether so we could make faster progress in learning how the technology of life really works.

That's now how science works.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 7:36:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 7:18:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/23/2013 5:03:22 PM, DanT wrote:
I have some concerns with Darwinism, as does many scientists. My core issue is that Darwinism is more of an extinction theory than an evolutionary theory. Natural Selection does not drive evolution, it directs it. There is a big difference between a guiding force and an driving force.

Here are some articles that you may find interesting;
(note: this thread is not about the articles, but about non-Darwinian evolution in general)

Charles Darwin Wrong About 'Tree of Life' Concept, Say Scientists
http://www.newsmax.com...


Non-Darwinian Evolution
http://www.genomics.arizona.edu...

This is a nice explanation of what is commonly [mis]named the micro/macro-evolution distinction. That is, selection from an existing pool of information is perfectly sensible, while expecting environmental noise to create actual new information is black magic. So it turns out that information can be shared across species, which is very cool. Too bad the community can't find the integrity to just abandon Darwin altogether so we could make faster progress in learning how the technology of life really works.

I should clarify: The first article alleges cross-breeding, doesn't claim it's been observed. Another explanation for the data might just be that species were created individually.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 7:45:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 7:25:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2013 7:18:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Too bad the community can't find the integrity to just abandon Darwin altogether so we could make faster progress in learning how the technology of life really works.

That's now how science works.

It's a common human flaw, not just in scientists. "Sunk costs" is what the economists call it, and note how humans will make irrational decisions that try to justify sunk costs instead of cutting losses and moving on.
This space for rent.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:12:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think the consensus is that wholly Darwinian evolution is correct. I think they've added stuff to it since then.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:19:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:12:16 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't think the consensus is that wholly Darwinian evolution is correct. I think they've added stuff to it since then.

Sure, and this sounds all scholarly and stuff. But if I ask what precisely has been added to the two mechanisms of mutation and natural selection, I haven't yet gotten an answer. Genetics is of course a factor, but that, as I say, is the micro/macro distinction - we all agree to the descent-with-modification that genetics produce.
This space for rent.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:28:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:19:55 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:12:16 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't think the consensus is that wholly Darwinian evolution is correct. I think they've added stuff to it since then.

Sure, and this sounds all scholarly and stuff. But if I ask what precisely has been added to the two mechanisms of mutation and natural selection, I haven't yet gotten an answer. Genetics is of course a factor, but that, as I say, is the micro/macro distinction - we all agree to the descent-with-modification that genetics produce.

Well I know very little on the subject, but what do you mean by;

" Genetics is of course a factor, but that, as I say, is the micro/macro distinction - we all agree to the descent-with-modification that genetics produce." ?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:44:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 7:45:44 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2013 7:25:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2013 7:18:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Too bad the community can't find the integrity to just abandon Darwin altogether so we could make faster progress in learning how the technology of life really works.

That's now how science works.

It's a common human flaw, not just in scientists. "Sunk costs" is what the economists call it, and note how humans will make irrational decisions that try to justify sunk costs instead of cutting losses and moving on.

That's not what I'm talking about. It's not about sunk costs. It's about the fact that, you don't abandon some aspect of science until you have something better to replace it with, even if you know the current science to be wrong.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:46:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:28:35 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:19:55 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:12:16 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't think the consensus is that wholly Darwinian evolution is correct. I think they've added stuff to it since then.

Sure, and this sounds all scholarly and stuff. But if I ask what precisely has been added to the two mechanisms of mutation and natural selection, I haven't yet gotten an answer. Genetics is of course a factor, but that, as I say, is the micro/macro distinction - we all agree to the descent-with-modification that genetics produce.

Well I know very little on the subject, but what do you mean by;

" Genetics is of course a factor, but that, as I say, is the micro/macro distinction - we all agree to the descent-with-modification that genetics produce." ?

A distinction made by ID proponents (like me), is that of 'information'. Think of it as the difference between the 1s and 0s in a computer that come just from turning your PC on and the 1s and 0s of a program. The program may do most anything, and of course adapts to varying input, but it is deliberately designed and thus is 'information'. "Specified complexity" is another term that's been coined for this distinction.

So, the DNA can be thought of as information, information which includes the ability to produce statistically bounded variation in offspring. That's genetics. The variation of genetics is bounded, so it's sometimes called 'micro evolution'. You don't look exactly like either of your parents, so there's variation, but you also are clearly human and not a giraffe, so it's bounded variation.

So, the aspect of evolution that is debated is the idea that entirely new information can arise spontaneously. Darwin proposed that small undirected changes can accumulate ad infinitum, and I think he was just wrong. In the context of this thread one might say that natural selection is also an error correcting mechanism - too many mutations, too many deviations from the blueprint, and you get eliminated.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:50:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:44:01 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2013 7:45:44 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2013 7:25:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2013 7:18:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Too bad the community can't find the integrity to just abandon Darwin altogether so we could make faster progress in learning how the technology of life really works.

That's now how science works.

It's a common human flaw, not just in scientists. "Sunk costs" is what the economists call it, and note how humans will make irrational decisions that try to justify sunk costs instead of cutting losses and moving on.

That's not what I'm talking about. It's not about sunk costs. It's about the fact that, you don't abandon some aspect of science until you have something better to replace it with, even if you know the current science to be wrong.

We DO have something better to replace it with. No, in my humble opinion, Darwinism is just flat out irrational. It's a socio/political/religious phenomenon, not a scientific one. There is a weak scientific foundation, of course, but extremely tenuous and outrageously out of sync with the certainty that is claimed.
This space for rent.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:53:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:46:58 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:28:35 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:19:55 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:12:16 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't think the consensus is that wholly Darwinian evolution is correct. I think they've added stuff to it since then.

Sure, and this sounds all scholarly and stuff. But if I ask what precisely has been added to the two mechanisms of mutation and natural selection, I haven't yet gotten an answer. Genetics is of course a factor, but that, as I say, is the micro/macro distinction - we all agree to the descent-with-modification that genetics produce.

Well I know very little on the subject, but what do you mean by;

" Genetics is of course a factor, but that, as I say, is the micro/macro distinction - we all agree to the descent-with-modification that genetics produce." ?

A distinction made by ID proponents (like me), is that of 'information'. Think of it as the difference between the 1s and 0s in a computer that come just from turning your PC on and the 1s and 0s of a program. The program may do most anything, and of course adapts to varying input, but it is deliberately designed and thus is 'information'. "Specified complexity" is another term that's been coined for this distinction.

So, the DNA can be thought of as information, information which includes the ability to produce statistically bounded variation in offspring. That's genetics. The variation of genetics is bounded, so it's sometimes called 'micro evolution'. You don't look exactly like either of your parents, so there's variation, but you also are clearly human and not a giraffe, so it's bounded variation.

So, the aspect of evolution that is debated is the idea that entirely new information can arise spontaneously. Darwin proposed that small undirected changes can accumulate ad infinitum, and I think he was just wrong. In the context of this thread one might say that natural selection is also an error correcting mechanism - too many mutations, too many deviations from the blueprint, and you get eliminated.

You can't claim that certain bacteria gaining ability to digest nylon, an ability it didn't have originally, is not an increase in information because regardless of whether you define information as Dembski's specified information or Shannon information, an increase in information via evolutionary processes has been observed.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:54:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:50:48 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:44:01 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2013 7:45:44 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2013 7:25:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2013 7:18:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Too bad the community can't find the integrity to just abandon Darwin altogether so we could make faster progress in learning how the technology of life really works.

That's now how science works.

It's a common human flaw, not just in scientists. "Sunk costs" is what the economists call it, and note how humans will make irrational decisions that try to justify sunk costs instead of cutting losses and moving on.

That's not what I'm talking about. It's not about sunk costs. It's about the fact that, you don't abandon some aspect of science until you have something better to replace it with, even if you know the current science to be wrong.

We DO have something better to replace it with.

No, we don't. Even your statement "we could make faster progress" implies that.

No, in my humble opinion, Darwinism is just flat out irrational.

That is not a humble opinion to make.

It's a socio/political/religious phenomenon, not a scientific one. There is a weak scientific foundation, of course, but extremely tenuous and outrageously out of sync with the certainty that is claimed.

And Kekul" uncovered the true structure of benzene by daydreaming about a snake eating its own tail. There is no wrong way to come about science. The source is irrelevant, it is whether or not it stands on its own merits. And, yes, I get that you don't believe it stands on its own merits, so no need to roll out that "humble" opinion. You admittedly don't understand the science, so your basis for rejecting the merits of evolution is suspect.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 8:55:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:50:48 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:44:01 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2013 7:45:44 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2013 7:25:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2013 7:18:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Too bad the community can't find the integrity to just abandon Darwin altogether so we could make faster progress in learning how the technology of life really works.

That's now how science works.

It's a common human flaw, not just in scientists. "Sunk costs" is what the economists call it, and note how humans will make irrational decisions that try to justify sunk costs instead of cutting losses and moving on.

That's not what I'm talking about. It's not about sunk costs. It's about the fact that, you don't abandon some aspect of science until you have something better to replace it with, even if you know the current science to be wrong.

We DO have something better to replace it with. No, in my humble opinion, Darwinism is just flat out irrational. It's a socio/political/religious phenomenon, not a scientific one. There is a weak scientific foundation, of course, but extremely tenuous and outrageously out of sync with the certainty that is claimed.

If you really want to claim that Creationist systematics (the only aspect of creation science which as anything close to the appearance of rigour) is better than evolutionary theory, then you might consider reading up on both.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 9:02:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:46:58 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:28:35 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:19:55 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:12:16 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I don't think the consensus is that wholly Darwinian evolution is correct. I think they've added stuff to it since then.

Sure, and this sounds all scholarly and stuff. But if I ask what precisely has been added to the two mechanisms of mutation and natural selection, I haven't yet gotten an answer. Genetics is of course a factor, but that, as I say, is the micro/macro distinction - we all agree to the descent-with-modification that genetics produce.

Well I know very little on the subject, but what do you mean by;

" Genetics is of course a factor, but that, as I say, is the micro/macro distinction - we all agree to the descent-with-modification that genetics produce." ?

A distinction made by ID proponents (like me), is that of 'information'. Think of it as the difference between the 1s and 0s in a computer that come just from turning your PC on and the 1s and 0s of a program. The program may do most anything, and of course adapts to varying input, but it is deliberately designed and thus is 'information'. "Specified complexity" is another term that's been coined for this distinction.

So, the DNA can be thought of as information, information which includes the ability to produce statistically bounded variation in offspring. That's genetics. The variation of genetics is bounded, so it's sometimes called 'micro evolution'. You don't look exactly like either of your parents, so there's variation, but you also are clearly human and not a giraffe, so it's bounded variation.

So, the aspect of evolution that is debated is the idea that entirely new information can arise spontaneously. Darwin proposed that small undirected changes can accumulate ad infinitum, and I think he was just wrong. In the context of this thread one might say that natural selection is also an error correcting mechanism - too many mutations, too many deviations from the blueprint, and you get eliminated.

But what about positive mutations?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 9:44:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 8:54:56 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:50:48 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2013 8:44:01 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2013 7:45:44 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/24/2013 7:25:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/24/2013 7:18:54 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Too bad the community can't find the integrity to just abandon Darwin altogether so we could make faster progress in learning how the technology of life really works.

That's now how science works.

It's a common human flaw, not just in scientists. "Sunk costs" is what the economists call it, and note how humans will make irrational decisions that try to justify sunk costs instead of cutting losses and moving on.

That's not what I'm talking about. It's not about sunk costs. It's about the fact that, you don't abandon some aspect of science until you have something better to replace it with, even if you know the current science to be wrong.

We DO have something better to replace it with.

No, we don't. Even your statement "we could make faster progress" implies that.

So you really want to argue that we should stick with the theory that impedes progress? Why? Why do you want to do that? Just because you don't have the courage to contemplate the existence of God?


And Kekul" uncovered the true structure of benzene by daydreaming about a snake eating its own tail. There is no wrong way to come about science.

Indeed. So why is ID so verboten?

The source is irrelevant, it is whether or not it stands on its own merits. And, yes, I get that you don't believe it stands on its own merits, so no need to roll out that "humble" opinion.

dude, don't blame your insecurities on me. I am extremely humble, considering how brilliant I am.
This space for rent.