Is Darwinism an “Empty Theory”?

_{January 16, 2022

Darwinism, Multiverse}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

At Evolution and News, there’s a link to a 2017 article tackling the problems of inflationary theory in the field of cosmology. What I find so interesting is the second to last paragraph in this six page article. Here’s how it reads:

A common misconception is that experiments can be used to falsify a theory. In practice, a failing theory gets increasingly immunized against experiment by attempts to patch it. The theory becomes more highly tuned and arcane to fit new observations until it reaches a state where its explanatory power diminishes to the point that it is no longer pursued. The explanatory power of a theory is measured by the set of possibilities it excludes. More immunization means less exclusion and less power. A theory like the multimess does not exclude anything and, hence, has zero power. Declaring an empty theory as the unquestioned standard view requires some sort of assurance outside of science. Short of a professed oracle, the only alternative is to invoke authorities. History teaches us that this is the wrong road to take.

Is he talking about Darwinism? No, about the “multimess” as he calls it. In the meantime, here we have a high-powered scientist telling us that a theory that lacks “explanatory power” is a theory that “excludes” very little. We have said here for years that Darwinism can accomodate ANYTHING; and, hence, it “explains” NOTHING. It is, to quote the author, an “empty theory” that “invoke[s] authorities” to keep it as the “unquestioned standard view.” Most compelling is his final thought: “History teaches us that this is the wrong road to take.”

How many more “epicycles” have to be trotted out by the scientific monopoly that is evolutionary biology before we get off this ‘wrong road’? We already have had too many.

Comments

ET, kindly turn down rhetorical voltage. It is counter productive to say lying save in rare circumstances of manifestly demonstrated deceit. KFkairosfocus_{January 21, 2022
January
01
Jan
21
21
2022
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

JVL, I am not closely monitoring the thread, for many reasons. I think you are in error but have no reason to hold you willfully, culpably deceitful. KFkairosfocus_{January 21, 2022
January
01
Jan
21
21
2022
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: You call me out for my tone but have nothing to say when ET addresses me: You are lying, so there isn’t any double standard. But you just handwave it away because you are too stupid to understand its implications. You are stupid. Clearly you are just a willfully ignorant troll. What is clear is that you are a bluffing fool and a liar. But JVL is too stupid to understand what a hypothesis is. Far be it for me to tell you how to run this blog but if you're going to condone a double standard at least be honest about it.JVL_{January 21, 2022
January
01
Jan
21
21
2022
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT}

ET and Bornagain77: It's really very simple. As elucidated in the quote you gave from the textbook mutations (mistakes) are not completely random over the whole genome; certain regions have higher mutations rates so the mutation distribution is not flat. HOWEVER, when mutations occur they are not predictably beneficial to the life form. So we say they are random with respect to fitness. The fact that mutations are random with respect to fitness has been demonstrated. And, if they were not, then you should be able to set up an experiment showing that a given condition always leads to a particular mutation but that cannot be demonstrated. You want someone to show that unguided evolution is up to the job. The mutations are unguided as has been demonstrated and established. Before humans were around to use random variations in breeding programs the only selection processes available were natural ones plus some genetic drift and things like sexual selection by the lifeforms themselves. And, yes, sometimes random physical events like floods and volcanic eruptions had an effect as well. There is no evidence of any external guidance for any of these things. If you think any of the work that has led to the conclusion that mutations are random with respect to fitness then please point out what specific mistakes were made in the research. If you can't find any mistakes then the work stands.JVL_{January 21, 2022
January
01
Jan
21
21
2022
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT}

JVL:
I provided multiple references to show that the concept of mutations being random with respect to fitness was a widely held concept.
A blog is not an academic resource.
Quote mining where that particular term is not mentioned verbatim isn’t really and argument is it?
I didn't quote mine anything. And they have NEVER demonstrated that mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes. They just assume it.
Clearly refuted in the references I have already given. In fact the methodology Is laid out.
Wrong.
Clearly I am not lying as anyone who follows through on the links I have given can discover.
Laughable.
Clearly you can see someone who can’t even come to terms with their own worldview. First they say: I’ve told you what would falsify my view and then then say there isn’t any evidence that would falsify my view.
You are stupid. Anyone can falsify the claim that Stonehenge was intelligently designed by demonstrating nature is up to the task. However, there isn't any evidence to support that claim.
And, if you asked them, they could not tell you what evidence would falsify their view.
We have said EXACTLY what would falsify ID. Clearly you are just a willfully ignorant troll.
It is clear that mainstream biology has addressed all of ET>‘s issues. Not in his favour.
What is clear is that you are a bluffing fool and a liar. The ID hypothesis: 1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. But JVL is too stupid to understand what a hypothesis is. And he will NEVER present one for blind and mindless processes so we can compare.ET_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

ET clearly defined what mutations are generally held to be, i.e. unintended random errors and mistakes, etc.., and JVL responds with, basically, "No, No, No, mutations are not unintended random errors and mistakes they are really only "random with respect to fitness"? So let me get this straight, is JVL really trying to deny that mutations are unintended random errors and mistakes, etc..? Is he really trying to claim they are really 'intended' errors and mistakes, etc..? :) Oh, what a tangled web we weave,,,,, But anyways, regardless of whatever hole JVL is trying to dig for himself with the term random mutations, JVL saying that mutations are only held to be "random with respect to fitness" still does not make JVL's statement any more scientific than it was when Darwinists first, across the board, said that mutations were random, period.
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher Excerpt: “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.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) - per semantic scholar
The reason why saying that random mutations are only held to be 'random with respect to fitness' does not make JVL's statement any more scientific than it was when Darwinists just said that mutations are random period, is that, like random mutations, Darwinists can't seem to come to a rigid, i.e. 'scientific', universally agreed upon, definition of what the term 'fitness' actually means,
Evolutionary Fitness Is Not Measurable - November 20, 2021 The central concept of natural selection cannot be measured. This means it has no scientific value. Excerpt:,, to measure something, it needs units. How is fitness to be measured? What are the units? Physicists have degrees Kelvin, ergs and Joules of energy and Faradays of electricity, but do 100 Spencers on a Haeckl-o-meter equal 10 Darwins of fitness? ,,, The term “fitness” becomes nebulous when you try to pin it down. Five evolutionists attempted to nail this jello to the wall, and wrote up their results in a preprint on bioRxiv by Alif et al. that asked, “What is the best fitness measure in wild populations?” (One might wonder why this question is being asked 162 years after Darwin presented his theory to the world.) ,,, The authors admit that their results do not necessarily apply to all living things. (they state), "A universal definition of fitness in mathematical terms that applies to all population structures and dynamics is however not agreed on." Remember that this statement comes over 162 years after evolutionists began talking about fitness. If you cannot define something, how can you measure it? And if you can’t measure it, is it really scientific?,,, https://crev.info/2021/11/evolutionary-fitness-is-not-measurable/
As Professor of Zoology John O. Reiss himself honestly admitted, “The rigor of this approach, however, is lessened because there is as yet no universally agreed upon measure of fitness; fitness is either defined metaphorically, or defined only relative to the particular model or system used. It is fair to say that due to this lack, there is still no real agreement on what exactly the process of natural selection is. This is clearly a problem.”
Where is the purposelessness of evolution? – 23 March 2012, Excerpt: The only way variation is seen as random is that it is random in respect to the effect variation has on fitness. The major problem with this is that the precise meaning of fitness has not been settled. There is still a major debate about what exactly fitness is supposed to mean (see this post for more on this issue). John O. Reiss notes also make the following interesting remark: “The rigor of this approach, however, is lessened because there is as yet no universally agreed upon measure of fitness; fitness is either defined metaphorically, or defined only relative to the particular model or system used. It is fair to say that due to this lack, there is still no real agreement on what exactly the process of natural selection is. This is clearly a problem.” Without a proper definition of fitness, we can’t really say what natural selection is in the first place. Also, without a proper definition of fitness we can’t really make any sense of how variation can be random relative to fitness in the first place.,,, https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Where-is-the-purposelessness-of-evolution-20120322
Moreover, the more precise one tries to be in defining exactly ‘fitness’ is, then the more one finds that that more rigid definition of ‘fitness’ falsifies Darwinian evolution instead of validating it. For instance, when realistic rates of detrimental to beneficial mutations are taken into account, then, as John Sanford and company have now shown, it mathematically falsifies “Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase”,
The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations – June 2018 Excerpt: Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part I: Fisher’s Impact – Bill Basener and John Sanford – February 15, 2018 Excerpt: While Fisher’s Theorem is mathematically correct, his Corollary is false. The simple logical fallacy is that Fisher stated that mutations could effectively be treated as not impacting fitness, while it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, providing a downward pressure on fitness. Our model and our correction of Fisher’s theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations), take into account the tension between the upward force of selection with the downward force of mutations.,,, Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics). Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality. Therefore, we have reformulated Fisher’s model and have corrected his errors, thereby have established a new theorem that better describes biological reality, and allows for the specification of those key variables that will determine whether fitness will increase or decrease. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/defending-the-validity-and-significance-of-the-new-theorem-fundamental-theorem-of-natural-selection-with-mutations-part-i-fishers-impact/
Moreover, if ‘fitness’ really were the way in which all life on earth originated and diversified, then, as Donald Hoffman has now proven, (via population genetics), “an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.”
The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/
This finding that ‘fitness’ undermines our ability to have reliable observations, and as far as empirical science itself is concerned, is catastrophic for the claim, from Darwinists, that Darwin’s theory qualifies as a 'scientific' theory. Specifically, since reliable observation is a necessary cornerstone on of the scientific method itself, then a worldview that undermines our ability to have reliable observations about reality cannot possibly be based upon the scientific method, (and thus directly undermines the claim that Darwin's theory is a 'scientific' theory.)
Steps of the Scientific Method Observation/Research Hypothesis Prediction Experimentation Conclusion http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html
Moreover, completely contrary to what is, via the mathematics of population genetics, predicted by Darwin's theory, it turns out that accurate perception, (i.e. conscious observation), far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, and therefore far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics predicted for Darwin's theory For instance In the following ‘Delayed Choice’ experiment, it was found that “At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
Apparently empirical science itself could care less if Darwinian atheists are forced to believe, because of "fitness' and the mathematics of population genetics, that ALL of their observations of reality are illusory! Of supplemental note: It is also very interesting to note that Hoffman’s work on ‘fitness’ meshes extremely well with what several Darwinists themselves have already honestly admitted about the inadequacy of ‘fitness’ to ever account for ‘truth’, i.e. “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.”
Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself – Nancy Pearcey – March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html
Verse:
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

ET: Total nonsense as they didn’t demonstrate any such thing. All they did was show the variation already existed. Meaning it wasn’t in response to THEIR stimulus. UC Berkeley doesn’t support your claim. Also, I provided a university textbook on evolution to support my claim. JVL ignored it. I also provided Mayr, one of the architects of the modern synthesis. JVL ignored that, also. I provided multiple references to show that the concept of mutations being random with respect to fitness was a widely held concept. Quote mining where that particular term is not mentioned verbatim isn't really and argument is it? And they have NEVER demonstrated that mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes. They just assume it. Clearly refuted in the references I have already given. In fact the methodology Is laid out. You are lying, so there isn’t any double standard. Clearly I am not lying as anyone who follows through on the links I have given can discover. I just told you! What is your malfunction? But that is MOOT as there isn’t any evidence that any amount of differential accumulations of mutations can produce the diversity of life. And given what we know about genetics it appears to be impossible. But you are ignorant of genetics and biology so you are just a gullible fool. Clearly you can see someone who can't even come to terms with their own worldview. First they say: I've told you what would falsify my view and then then say there isn't any evidence that would falsify my view. And, if you asked them, they could not tell you what evidence would falsify their view. Arguing with people who cannot conceive of being wrong is pointless. It is clear that mainstream biology has addressed all of ET>'s issues. Not in his favour. But yet it seems that there are a lot of people who still want to flog the dead horse and pretend the issue is not settled. I do admire the notion of being confident and sure. I do admit the idea of fighting for your cause even when the deck is stacked against you. I get all of that. But those feel-good idea don't carry the field. They don't bring home the gold. Not in my opinion anyway. As someone who is sympathetic to the ID hypothesis I am trying to understand what the ID hypothesis is and where it could go. I get a lot of grief from its supporter because I ask questions and suggest they might have got somethings wrong.JVL_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

ET AGAIN- “Evolution” third edition, Futuyma, 2013- a university textbook:
Mutations occur at random... bla bla...
I can't blame Futuyma. He has no choice but to lie because he has already chosen his team(this is his fault) and will tell you everything that suits his team and not necessarily the truth. This is the story of this world: be aware which team you chose because after that you will not be free to impovise .Lieutenant Commander Data_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

AGAIN- “Evolution” third edition, Futuyma, 2013- a university textbook:
Mutations occur at random. It is extremely important to understand what this statement does and does not mean. It does not mean that all conceivable mutations are equally likely to occur, because, as we have noted, the developmental foundations for some imaginable transformations do not exist. It does not mean that all loci, or regions within a locus, are equally mutable, for geneticists have described differences in mutation rates, at both the phenotypic and molecular levels, among and within a loci. It does not mean that environmental factors cannot influence mutation rates: radiation and chemical mutagens do so.
That is how mainstream biology uses the term. Mostly, though, they just use the words “errors and mistakes” that occur during copying and transcribing: Universally high transcript error rates in bacteriaET_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Ever since Luria and Delbruck, the notion that mutation is random with respect to fitness has been foundational to modern biology.
Total nonsense as they didn't demonstrate any such thing. All they did was show the variation already existed. Meaning it wasn't in response to THEIR stimulus. UC Berkeley doesn't support your claim. Also, I provided a university textbook on evolution to support my claim. JVL ignored it. I also provided Mayr, one of the architects of the modern synthesis. JVL ignored that, also. And they have NEVER demonstrated that mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes. They just assume it.
Also incorrect as documented in some of the resources I have linked to above.
Unfortunately, your resources didn't do that.
Gee Kairosfocus, are you going to suggest ET dial back his language and responses or are you going to uphold a double standard?
You are lying, so there isn't any double standard.
Natural selection is not random. Any kind of selection is not random. Mutations are random with respect to fitness so where is the designer?
Learn how to read. I said blind and mindless, not random. Grow up. And NS is a process of elimination. It doesn't select. Mayr explains the difference in "What Evolution Is".
But you cannot say what would change your mind.
I just told you! What is your malfunction? But that is MOOT as there isn’t any evidence that any amount of differential accumulations of mutations can produce the diversity of life. And given what we know about genetics it appears to be impossible. But you are ignorant of genetics and biology so you are just a gullible fool.
I am much more aware of what biologists are actually saying. You seem to be just making unverifiable claims.
Nice non-sequitur. It is also a lie.
Gotta love it. An ID proponent falls back on the bacterial flagellum again. Has ID actually processed in the last decade?
Unguided evolution hasn't progressed in over 160 years. And the bacterial flagellum still works to refute unguided evolution. Thank you for proving that. And the peer-reviewed paper “Waiting for TWO Mutations”, more than proves that unguided evolution doesn’t have a chance of producing life’s diversity. But you just handwave it away because you are too stupid to understand its implications. That is all evos do. Wave away everything that proves their claims are nothing but BS.
Your interpretation of that paper has been debunked, easily.
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You are a LIAR. It is pathological. Seek help.ET_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

not my site, but also a high risk environment, a few days past someone tried to lock me out of the site.kairosfocus_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: PS, it is clear to me that we are falling afoul of algorithms targetting suspect patterns. Well then it's up to your site admin to check the settings of WordFence. Perhaps you should ask about that?JVL_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

ET: Except biologists don’t say that mutations are random with respect to fitness. From: https://crossfitolac.com/fitness/question-briefly-explain-what-is-meant-when-we-say-that-mutations-occur-randomly-with-respect-to-fitness.html
Ever since Luria and Delbruck, the notion that mutation is random with respect to fitness has been foundational to modern biology.
From: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/dna-and-mutations/mutations-are-random/
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not “try” to supply what the organism “needs.” Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
AND
In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg performed an experiment that helped show that many mutations are random, not directed.
From: https://lisbdnet.com/how-did-we-determine-that-mutations-are-random/
For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
From: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305805921_Is_Mutation_Random_or_Targeted_No_Evidence_for_Hypermutability_in_Snail_Toxin_Genes
Ever since Luria and Delbruck, the notion that mutation is random with respect to fitness has been foundational to modern biology.
AND
Second, I show that there is no evidence for any of these three patterns in comparisons of closely related conotoxin sequences, suggesting that the reported findings are due to breakdown of statistical methods at high levels of sequence divergence. The current findings suggest that mutation and codon bias in conotoxin genes may not be atypical, and that random mutation and selection can explain the evolution of even these exceptional loci.
These I found with a very simple search. It's clear that the notion of mutations being random with respect to fitness has been a solid concept in biology since before ET was born. AND, it's clear, that research into these issues continues. And they have NEVER demonstrated that mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes. They just assume it. Also incorrect as documented in some of the resources I have linked to above. Liar. Show that blind and mindless processes produced life. Gee Kairosfocus, are you going to suggest ET dial back his language and responses or are you going to uphold a double standard? Natural selection is not random. Any kind of selection is not random. Mutations are random with respect to fitness so where is the designer? That is up to YOU and YOURS, duh. But you cannot say what would change your mind. I think you can't say because there is nothing that would change your mind. That means your own, personal view is unfalsifiable. Which means it's not science. But that is MOOT as there isn’t any evidence that any amount of differential accumulations of mutations can produce the diversity of life. And given what we know about genetics it appears to be impossible. But you are ignorant of genetics and biology so you are just a gullible fool. I am much more aware of what biologists are actually saying. You seem to be just making unverifiable claims. Look, coward, I dare you to say how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes produced any bacterial flagellum. If you can’t then shut up. Gotta love it. An ID proponent falls back on the bacterial flagellum again. Has ID actually processed in the last decade? And the peer-reviewed paper “Waiting for TWO Mutations”, more than proves that unguided evolution doesn’t have a chance of producing life’s diversity. But you just handwave it away because you are too stupid to understand its implications. That is all evos do. Wave away everything that proves their claims are nothing but BS. hahahahahahahah Your interpretation of that paper has been debunked, easily. Try again.JVL_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

And the peer-reviewed paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations", more than proves that unguided evolution doesn't have a chance of producing life's diversity. But you just handwave it away because you are too stupid to understand its implications. That is all evos do. Wave away everything that proves their claims are nothing but BS.ET_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Aside from the use of profanity which I think is against the site’s guidelines you do realise that what you request is impossible based on your criteria?
No, it isn't.
You look at the same data that most biologists say shows that mutations are random with respect to fitness and say that matches what you’d expect to see if the processes were guided.
Except biologists don't say that mutations are random with respect to fitness. And they have NEVER demonstrated that mutations are accidents, errors and mistakes. They just assume it.
So, there is no way to convince you that the mutations are unguided.
Liar. Show that blind and mindless processes produced life.
Additionally, you have never been able to state a condition or test that would have to be met to show that mutations are unguided.
That is up to YOU and YOURS, duh. But that is MOOT as there isn't any evidence that any amount of differential accumulations of mutations can produce the diversity of life. And given what we know about genetics it appears to be impossible. But you are ignorant of genetics and biology so you are just a gullible fool. Look, coward, I dare you to say how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes produced any bacterial flagellum. If you can't then shut up.ET_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Dogdoc:
If you could describe one single observation that would disconfirm ID, you would. But you haven’t, because you can’t.
I have. Your willful ignorance doesn't refute that fact. 1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. As anyone can see. by demonstrating that naturalistic mechanisms are capable, ID is falsified. My bet is Dogdoc is too stupid to understand that. Thank you for fulfilling my prediction.ET_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

DD,
65: Again you haven’t described one single observation that would disconfirm ID. You would if you could, but you haven’t, because you can’t. A theory that can explain anything explains nothing.
At this point you confirm that you have willfully, deceitfully set up and knocked over a strawman. And, that on repeated correction, you simply double down. I note briefly for record, onlookers can scroll up for details, that the design inference is to a causal process not to a designing agent. As noted, there is a huge gap between the two starting with the point made by the Stoics 2000 years ago and more. Second, the design inference across [blind chance and/or mechanical necessity] vs [techne aka art or intelligently directed configuration] is an abductive inference on tested, empirically reliable signs. Abductive inferences to the best current explanation are inherently defeasible [= defeat-able], were there evidence that the signs are unreliable or ambiguous etc to emerge. Where, the FSCO/I complexity threshold, 500 - 1,000 bits sets up a specific way to defeat the design inference: identify a case of observed origin of FSCO/I beyond that threshold by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. It is manifest that your resort to sophistry is an evasion of the fact that on trillions of observed cases, the inference has been found highly reliable. Indeed, I have noted above how Wikipedia reports without acknowledgement of significance, how random text generation cases are x10^100 low on implied config space to be searched. As for the debate you evidently would want to have on how a trickster intelligent creator can mimic chance etc, that is irrelevant to the actual design inference. As has been shown. KFkairosfocus_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

JVL >>The problem is, again, you are arguing that the genomes of highly complex life forms could not have arisen via purely random processes and no one is saying they did.>> Not at all, what part of "blind chance and/or [blind] mechanical necessity" is it so hard to figure out? Not, AND; not X-OR, Inc-OR, vel not aut, in legalese and/or. Notice, Monod's Chance AND Necessity. Notice Plato's trichotomy, with ART contrasted with accident and necessity. You will readily see on inspection that I have never argued chance alone, though I have pointed out that in the natural selection bit there is far more chance involved than some proponents have acknowledged. On the warm pond etc of OoL, until you get to kinematic self replicator tied to "metabolic" entity capable of providing parts from available raw materials, no go. For Oo body plans, you need to provide the novel functional systems or they will be weeded out as failing of function and likely reducing what was there. Where the search for functions challenge comes from the genome scale, observed at 100+ million bases, we can crudely calculate 10 mn. First challenge, get TO a viable life form in a pond or the like, where self replication according to a built in tape requires associated machinery as does metabolism or its analogue. And yes my thinking is on von Neumann kinematic self replicators. So, you have barked up the wrong tree at outset. >>you are assuming that there is no unguided evolutionary process which could explain how a common ancestor led to much different living species such as human beings and wombats. >> I have made no such ASSUMPTION, the above gives the search challenge and as Newton's rules highlight, absent observed capable cause of FSCO/I that is non-intelligent . . . and chance and/or necessity capture the umbrella of possibilities . . . then you have empty speculation dressed in a lab coat not empirically anchored explanatory inference. Inference to best of competing explanations is not mere assumption. For OOL and OOBP, blind chance and/or necessity based proposals lack factual, observed adequacy. Perhaps, I need to point to the logic of abduction, a species of inductive reasoning in the modern broader sense. SEP:
In the philosophical literature, the term “abduction” is used in two related but different senses. In both senses, the term refers to some form of explanatory reasoning. However, in the historically first sense, it refers to the place of explanatory reasoning in generating hypotheses, while in the sense in which it is used most frequently in the modern literature it refers to the place of explanatory reasoning in justifying hypotheses. In the latter sense, abduction is also often called “Inference to the Best Explanation” . . . . Most philosophers agree that abduction (in the sense of Inference to the Best Explanation) is a type of inference that is frequently employed, in some form or other, both in everyday and in scientific reasoning. [--> and as ever, there are debates]
Wiki, a bit muddled in current form
Abductive reasoning (also called abduction,[1] abductive inference,[1] or retroduction[2]) is a form of logical inference formulated and advanced by American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce beginning in the last third of the 19th century. It starts with an observation or set of observations and then seeks the simplest and most likely conclusion from the observations. This process, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it. Abductive conclusions are thus qualified as having a remnant of uncertainty or doubt, which is expressed in retreat terms such as "best available" or "most likely". One can understand abductive reasoning as inference to the best explanation,[3] although not all usages of the terms abduction and inference to the best explanation are exactly equivalent.
>>Since you assume there is no such process you then feel justified in claiming there are islands of function in the genomic landscape. >> As for islands of function, I am again not assuming but observing. Notice the text of this or your comment, made up from strings of glyphs tracing presumably to ASCII coded binary strings and a context of interpretation. You will see many -- 128 -- distinct elements, each with due orientation etc, chained in accordance with many rules to form meaningful text. Where, mechanical necessity typically gives low contingency on similar conditions eg asasasasa and chance predictably gives meaningless gibberish with long strings thryjryhdfefgerghgerhryjty due to overwhelming statistical weight in the configuration space of strings of length n. Where n becomes large, 72 - 143 characters for 7 bit naked ASCII code without checksum bits etc. As AutoCAD etc exist, discussion on strings is WLOG. The point is, most scattered or lumped arrangements of a significant number of parts will be non functional for much the same reason. It is information rich clusters of configurations that give function; try shaking up parts of an ABU 6500 C in a bait bucket as long as you please the predictable result of energy on an open system without correct assembly process is non function. . For life that starts with deep isolation of functional protein folds in aa sequence space, and goes up from there. >>The very least you could do, as a gesture of good will, is to address the actual unguided theory of evolution instead of your version>> False projection. Is it now the resort, to twist us into strawman caricatures? If so, that is a telling implicit concession of defeat on merits. Any responsible frame for tree of life evolution starts with OOL, which remains an unsolved mystery locked in a chance and necessity scenario by ideological imposition. Monod's 1970s declaration is still very real, as is what Crick said and Lewontin. Rootless tree. As for the onward, the summary I have given is: chance variation + differential reproductive success --> descent with [unlimited] modification DWUM + ecosystem niches across time --> body plan level biodiversity BPLB + further time --> tree of life. That is fair summary from Darwin and Wallace forward, not a caricature. Indeed, where do you think "descent with modification" comes from? And, I use differential reproductive success to sum up preservation of the favoured races in the struggle for existence, as that is far clearer than "natural selection". And there is room in there for drifting etc etc. The point I make is DRS obviously SUBTRACTS information by reproductive failure. So, the information source is the chance variation, which is allegedly filtered incrementally across the continent of successful forms to branch out with unlimited variation. But there is no empirically warranted adequate information source for required FSCO/I. Yes, there is what is called microevolution which it seems can reasonably go up to what is called the family, I think about red deer and American elk in New Zealand, which promptly interbred whatever the taxonomy suggested otherwise. Here, exotic European Collared doves seem to have happily interbred with our Zenaida doves over the past 20 years. But there is a serious issue with origin of body plans, starting with the root of the tree of life and going through. KF PS, it is clear to me that we are falling afoul of algorithms targetting suspect patterns.kairosfocus_{January 20, 2022
January
01
Jan
20
20
2022
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

Dogdoc:
So here again, there is absolutely no possible observation that is excluded by ID – per the reasoning in PaV’s OP here, ID is empty of explanatory power.
This is perhaps "missing the forest for the trees." The notion of intelligent design entails that "junk-DNA" would be absolutely minimal; Darwinism/neo-Darwinism/ModernSynthesis favors the accumulation of "junk-DNA." Who turned out to be right? Does this count for nothing?PaV_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

Far be it from me to defend ID as a valid scientific theory
You are playing games. I didn’t ask you to defend it. I asked anyone to describe the so called theory. Since you do not understand ID, you should not be commenting on it. ID is a set of conclusions about the most likely origin of a small number of physical observations. In reaching these conclusions, ID has essentially eliminated the four forces of physics as a possible explanation. I repeat ID is not a theory jerry_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

DogDoc@21:
[ . . . ]my point was just that there is nothing in ID Theory that excludes the possibility of code with junk in it.
But ID theory would say that ANY such possibility would be minimal, to almost non-existent. The most pointed-to instance of "junk-DNA" are LINEs, and recently a function was found for them--if memory serves me (please correct me if I'm remembering wrongly).
(Also, it isn’t just sloppiness that produces dead code – as I mentioned, non-functional code is often placed in a program as a “stub”, in anticipation of future functionality. And a super-intelligent programmer might indeed be planning for future function that we can’t even comprehend now!)
Well, transposons fit the bill: they are considered to be junk-DNA and are basically LINEs, yet they have recently been found to, as I said above, have function, even critical function. Darwinism is of almost no help whatsoever in the quest for knowledge.PaV_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Nonlin,
Actually you can’t. Unsupported disagreements are not science. You’re confusing science with democracy. Perhaps this explains your reference to “most people”.
First, we certainly aren't doing science here at Uncommon Descent, so... Second, you didn't say "unsupported disagreements are not science", you said "You can't just 'disagree' in science". I agree that unsupported arguments are not scientific. But of course scientists obviously, constantly, publically, and sometimes famously disagree with each other. The point really is too obvious to debate.
The rest of your reply makes no sense whatsoever. Including the very hilarious “a huge amount of knowledge”.
Here, you are disagreeing with me but not offering any support for your position. Hmmm. (calling something "hilarious" does not actually advance your argument).dogdoc_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

@69 Actually you can't. Unsupported disagreements are not science. You're confusing science with democracy. Perhaps this explains your reference to "most people". The rest of your reply makes no sense whatsoever. Including the very hilarious "a huge amount of knowledge".Nonlin.org_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Jerry,
ID is not a theory. If anyone believes it is a theory, then describe the theory.
Far be it from me to defend ID as a valid scientific theory. The explanation that ID offers for OOL, speciation, the physical constants, the size of the moon, and who knows what else, is nothing more than "intelligent cause", which could mean any number of things. As I've pointed out here, there is nothing we could ever observe that could not be attributed to an "intelligent cause" one way or another. Nonlin,
You can’t just “disagree” in science.
Actually, you can. Happens all the time.
Think about it: there’s no such thing as a “mechanistic process” that needs no further explanation.
You can always ask "why", no matter where the explanation stops. Always - even for "intelligent" actions. Still, science has undeniably generated a huge amount of knowledge about physical mechanisms that explain so much of what we observe. The fact that we can't provide ultimate explanations doesn't mean those explanations are untrue, or that those mechanisms are somehow "random". The effects are predictable, reliable, repeatable - the opposite of randomness. If you are referring to randomness at the quantum level, the fact remains that deterministic probabilities still describe predictable, reliable, repeatable regularities of the behaviors of ensembles. Anybody: One more try - can anyone think of any observations that ID excludes? Or is it that we agree that ID is consistent with any possible observation, but you think (as opposed to PaV in the OP here) that it doesn't matter?dogdoc_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

@65 You can't just "disagree" in science. And in fact you're "not even wrong" as you're not replying to my comment. Think about it: there's no such thing as a "mechanistic process" that needs no further explanation. Maybe you should consult "most people" on this.Nonlin.org_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

If one could show randomness capable of creating the patterns we get from ID, that would falsify ID.
Both theists and atheists use the same concept of miracle but atheists replace the word "miracle" with the word "randomness" . That is the only difference. :)))Lieutenant Commander Data_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

suppose I was under the impression that Intelligent Design Theory was a theory, because, you know, the name
I repeat ID is not a theory If anyone believes it is a theory, then describe the theory.jerry_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Nonlin,
As far as “mechanistic processes”, if those were valid primary explanations of anything, we wouldn’t try to further explain them down to the laws of nature. But we do. That means “mechanistic processes” are not valid alternatives to ID and randomness.
Ok, we disagree about this. Like most people, I see physical causes as valid explanations for innumerable phenomena we observe. Jerry,
You fail to understand what ID is. It’s not a theory.
I suppose I was under the impression that Intelligent Design Theory was a theory, because, you know, the name.
It’s the use of logic. Applied to observations. So any observation is possible.
The point of the OP here was that in order to have explanatory power, a theory (or explanation) needs to exclude (be inconsistent with) a set of possible observations. ET, I don't appreciate ad hominem arguments and name calling; these are the refuge of people who lack confidence in their arguments. If you could describe one single observation that would disconfirm ID, you would. But you haven't, because you can't. A theory that can explain anything explains nothing. KF, Again you haven't described one single observation that would disconfirm ID. You would if you could, but you haven't, because you can't. A theory that can explain anything explains nothing. I have to say, your strategy of writing these long screeds mixed with accusations of deceit and bad faith is bizarre. If you can describe a single observation which would disconfirm ID then just say what it is, plainly and succinctly.dogdoc_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

ET: They don’t make any testable claims. That is the whole point! You and yours just spew shit and think it’s up to us to prove you wrong. Pathetic, really. Aside from the use of profanity which I think is against the site's guidelines you do realise that what you request is impossible based on your criteria? You look at the same data that most biologists say shows that mutations are random with respect to fitness and say that matches what you'd expect to see if the processes were guided. So, there is no way to convince you that the mutations are unguided. Additionally, you have never been able to state a condition or test that would have to be met to show that mutations are unguided. Based on that contested interpretation of the data you say no one can prove that mutations are unguided. BUT, if you interpretation is incorrect then it's all unguided. So, the question is: what is your mathematical basis for saying that mutations are guided? Or some are guided? And, if it's some then how do you distinguish between them? AND what is the explanation for the timing of the beneficial mutations? In the past you've punted by insisting that people pay money to read one of Dr Shapiro's books even though you have always insisted that your detractors bring all their evidence. That is hypocritical and disingenuous. Please present your evidence that (some) mutations are guided and how you can tell the difference. You don't have to cut-and-paste a lot of text but providing links to free, online references would help. Knowing you I expect you will, once again, fail to explain the mathematics behind your claim that (some) mutations are guided. Which, by your own criterium, means you haven't defended you claim. Your turn.JVL_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: I explained FSCO/I above and over years while you were here. You you have. AND I've read much of the material you published on your own website. The problem is, again, you are arguing that the genomes of highly complex life forms could not have arisen via purely random processes and no one is saying they did. Another problem is you are assuming that there is no unguided evolutionary process which could explain how a common ancestor led to much different living species such as human beings and wombats. Since you assume there is no such process you then feel justified in claiming there are islands of function in the genomic landscape. The very least you could do, as a gesture of good will, is to address the actual unguided theory of evolution instead of your version. I've bothered to try and understand what the ID hypotheses are because I didn't want to misrepresent its proponents. You could, at the minimum, adapt the same interest in having a real dialogue. JVL, do you think my WF headaches could be due to censorship? Or is it I likely fell afoul of algorithms? Again, my bans last for days and sometimes occur over many threads at the same time. IF it's a matter of WordFence picking on foreign IPs (me being from England, you being from Monserrat) then it's possible we're both falling victim to the same or a similar reaction. But yours seem temporarily whereas mine last for quite a while. If the settings of WordPress security plugins are set to react differently to foreign (i.e. non-US) IPs then it may just be that the site admin isn't very aware of the amount of international traffic the site receives. That I would classify as incompetence and not censorship. So which is it?JVL_{January 19, 2022
January
01
Jan
19
19
2022
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply