Darwinism News

From Wolfgang Pauli, on Darwinism

Spread the love

Further to Salon Mag on Darwin, Nobelist Wolfgang Pauli,

A reader writes to tell us that Wolfgang Pauli distrusted Darwinism, saying

“In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.'” (pp. 27-28)

For the Darwinist (or Christian Darwinist) natural selection is, quite simply, magic. It is not and never could be anything else.

Better yet, in some places, it is court-enforced, to be taught in tax-funded schools.

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

Follow UD News at Twitter!

7 Replies to “From Wolfgang Pauli, on Darwinism

  1. 1
  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Biological Information – Tierra 11-8-2014 by Paul Giem – video

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Biological Information: New Perspectives (reviewed) – video playlist
    of particular interest:
    Biological Information – Overlapping Codes 10-25-2014 by Paul Giem – video

  4. 4
    nightlight says:

    That’s why it is major a mistake by many among ID proponents, including fellows of Discovery Institute, to concede that neo-Darwinism can explain “microevolution” but not “macroevolution”. That concession discredits ID conjecture reducing it to yet another ‘god of gaps’ unscientific speculation and leads to an absurd, capricious “part time deity” (especially promoted by Stephen Meyer), which gets involved into biological evolution every now and then, whenever it feels that “natural laws” are having trouble doing it on their own.

    Neo-Darwinism has not explained either type of evolution, unless as Pauli explains, they can produce proper model of probability space for “random” mutations, which they never did since the problem is too complex.

  5. 5
    Mapou says:

    So, after all is said and done, Darwinism explains absolutely nothing. It’s just the state religion that is forced upon us in our schools which are paid for with our own money. This is not democracy. It’s more like Big Brother indoctrination. It’s an amazing world we live in.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Although, as Pauli points out, Darwinists ‘have an easy game’ because they never really try to give a realistic, rigiorous, account for the probability ‘of just those events which have been important for biological evolution’, ID proponents, on the other hand, have tried to find out exactly what unguided Darwinian processes can, and can’t, do over deep time (In fact Behe’s book is called ‘The Edge Of Evolution’ for precisely that reason). Moreover, ID proponents, although they are doing the work that Darwinists themselves should be doing to find out exactly what unguided Darwinian processes can do over deep time, are many times labeled as unscientific for daring to scientifically question the supposed almighty power of Darwinian evolution to create all life on earth, and for applying mathematical and empirical rigor to Darwinian claims.
    Here are a few notes along that line.

    Time and Information in Evolution – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Ann K. Gauger, Robert J. Marks II, – 2012
    Excerpt Conclusion: Wilf and Ewens present a model of biological evolution that is completely unrealistic. Their model vastly underestimates the number of mutations required to achieve an adaptation at each locus, by compressing to a single-letter change what should be an enormous search through sequence space for functional variants. They also completely ignore the fact that most adaptations are multi-locus features, and neglect to consider variables such as generation time, population size, the time required for fixation of mutations, the confounding effects of epistatic interactions between mutations, and the shape of the fitness landscape [42?44]. Because of these problems, their conclusion that there’s plenty of time for evolution is unwarranted.

    Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle – “Haldane’s Ratchet” – Christopher L. Rupe and John C. Sanford – 2013
    Excerpt: We have therefore independently demonstrated that the findings of Haldane and ReMine are for the most part correct, and that the fundamental evolutionary problem historically known as “Haldane’s Dilemma” is very real.
    Previous analyses have focused exclusively on beneficial mutations. When deleterious mutations were included in our simulations, using a realistic ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutation rate, deleterious fixations vastly outnumbered beneficial fixations. Because of this, the net effect of mutation fixation should clearly create a ratchet-type mechanism which should cause continuous loss of information and decline in the size of the functional genome. We name this phenomenon “Haldane’s Ratchet”.

    “So there we have it. The amount of time currently available for life to evolve is of the order of time N (billions of years), but according to Chaitin’s toy model, Darwinian evolution should take at least time N^2, or quintillions of years. That fact troubles Chaitin, and it should. But at least he has the honesty to admit there is a problem.”
    Dr. VJ Torley

    A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
    Excerpt: The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155).

    Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe
    Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.

    Don’t Mess With ID by Paul Giem (Durrett and Schmidt paper)- video

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Of note although Dr. Behe was vilified by Darwinists for daring to suggest that there could be an ‘Edge’ to evolution, Dr. Behe’s 10^20 number was recently further verified in the lab.

    The Vindication of Michael Behe – podcast/video

    The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway – Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe – April 2011
    Excerpt: We infer from the mutants examined that successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions. But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth.

    When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.

    Is There Enough Time For Humans to have Evolved from Apes? Dr. Ann Gauger Answers – video

    More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said – July 2012
    Excerpt: Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population.
    You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect.
    Facing Facts
    But six million years is the entire time allotted for the transition from our last common ancestor with chimps to us according to the standard evolutionary timescale. Two hundred and sixteen million years takes us back to the Triassic, when the very first mammals appeared. One or two mutations simply aren’t sufficient to produce the necessary changes— sixteen anatomical features—in the time available. At most, a new binding site might affect the regulation of one or two genes.

    Also, the Overlapping Codes video that I listed last night is excellent for realistically modelling Darwinian processes and finding them severely wanting:

    Biological Information – Overlapping Codes 10-25-2014 by Paul Giem – video

Leave a Reply