Darwinism Evolution Information Intelligent Design Natural selection

Everything is Coming Up “Non-Random”!

Spread the love

On January 12, 2022, Phys.Org had a PR on an article documenting “non-random” mutations found in wild tobacco plants, published by a team from UC Davis. Now, three weeks later (Feb 1, 2022), we have another paper, working with human populations in Africa, and which, according to a team from the University of Haifa, “surprisingly” turns up “non-random” mutations.

From the PR on the first paper:

The scientists found that the way DNA was wrapped around different types of proteins was a good predictor of whether a gene would mutate or not. “It means we can predict which genes are more likely to mutate than others and it gives us a good idea of what’s going on,” Weigel said.

The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival.

And from the PR for the second paper:

“For over a century, the leading theory of evolution has been based on random mutations. The results show that the HbS mutation is not generated at random but instead originates preferentially in the gene and in the population where it is of adaptive significance,” said Prof. Livnat. Unlike other findings on mutation origination, this mutation-specific response to a specific environmental pressure cannot be explained by traditional theories. . . . . . . .
“Mutations may be generated nonrandomly in evolution after all, but not in the way previously conceived. We must study the internal information and how it affects mutation, as it opens the door to evolution being a far bigger process than previously conceived,” Livnat concluded.

What do you know!! There’s “information” in the genome. Lots of it!! What a surprise!!!

45 Replies to “Everything is Coming Up “Non-Random”!

  1. 1
    Nonlin.org says:

    No. There isn’t. There’s data, not information. Shannon mislabeled his theory. He was actually studying data transmission. Irrespective of any information or gibberish carried.

    Regardless. Whether mutations are random or not the theory of “evolution” fails for many reasons. Including the fact that it is being opposed by genetics.

  2. 2
    jerry says:

    Two things:

    1) Is the concept of “random” a meaningful one. Or does it just mean that we do not understand the forces operating because they are so complicated.

    2) the article again is about genetics but try’s to say that genetics is Evolution when it cannot possibly be about Evolution.

    Let’s get away from the nonsense that DNA is the mechanism for the Evolution debate. Also Darwin’s ideas were always about genetics and should be relegated to such.

    (Before anyone says that Darwin knew nothing about genetics, that is nonsense because genetics is essentially the science of heritability and that’s what at the core of Darwin’s ideas. Mendel provided some concrete examples of heritability variations.)

    UD continues to conflate genetics with Evolution.

  3. 3
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    As Perry Marshall put it :”Not the mutations are random, environmental stimuli are random”.

  4. 4
    polistra says:

    “Surprising twist” is another way of saying “epicycle”.

  5. 5
    PaV says:

    Jerry:

    I think you need to clarify your views on just what evolution is. The discovery of Mendelian genetics historically was a body-blow to Darwinism that was only resolved with the Modern Synthesis. It sounds like you want to unravel that. Could you be a little more specific in what you consider to be evolution?

  6. 6
    jerry says:

    Could you be a little more specific in what you consider to be evolution?

    I have been very clear on this for the last 16 years. No one has disputed anything I said over that time.

    Read the following which in one form or another has been repeated about hundred times.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-argument-from-incredulity-vs-the-argument-from-gullibility/#comment-40952

    Evolution is tier 2 and tier 3. Genetics is tier 4.

    I have recently referred to the debate with a capital “E” as in the Evolution Debate as opposed to a small “e” for the word evolution that so many love to use.

    Also how is the modern synthesis different from genetics other than one is unproven while the other is good science?

    Until the ID community starts making these distinctions, they will continue to spin wheels. A good start would be crediting Darwin with a great breakthrough but it only has relevance to genetics. That would be a major embarrassment if Darwin’s ideas was only appropriate for genetics.

    They would have a hard time denying it. Important but not the debate they want. The Darwinists live on confusion.

  7. 7
    chuckdarwin says:

    The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival…
    [I]t opens the door to evolution being a far bigger process than previously conceived,” Livnat concluded.

    Note that both of these conclusions are placed in the context of evolution, not intelligent design. No repudiation of Darwin. No repudiation of evolution. No repudiation of natural selection, but rather a finding regarding mutations that the researchers put in the larger context of evolution.
    There is an amazing subtlety playing out between mutational variation and natural selection which we find in these studies, selects for genetic integrity, or as the first study explicitly states, the organism evolves to protect its genome.
    This subtlety seems to escape the author of this post in his or her giddiness to proclaim that “there’s information in the genome. Lots of it!!” Since when is it news that genes contain information–biologists have always know that there is information in the gene.

  8. 8
    jerry says:

    This subtlety seems to escape Chuckarwin

    Since the commenter hasn’t a clue about evolution, subtlety is way beyond him.

  9. 9
    chuckdarwin says:

    Good old Jerry, ever the clever….

  10. 10
    martin_r says:

    Chuckdarwin

    Note that both of these conclusions are placed in the context of evolution, not intelligent design.

    Color me surprised

    The author of the study is a Darwinist… so what do you expect from a Darwinist?

    Or would you expect something like that:

    Ohhh…we were wrong for decades… now we found out that mutations are directed and non random…. our 150 years old theory is falling apart …. intelligent design advocates were right….

    Chuck, something like that ? Seriously, how old are you ?

  11. 11
    martin_r says:

    The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival.

    Like i said in my other post…
    Dont matter what Darwinists discover, they can explain ANYTHING away …

  12. 12
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    they can explain ANYTHING away …

    They think that “explanations” are science. 😆
    The problem is they reach a point where even fairy tale explanations can’t make sense and are contradictory. After all every man is entitled to his religion.

  13. 13
    Querius says:

    Yep, Darwinism can explain absolutely anything, but successfully predicts absolutely nothing.

    Hardly a week goes by with some headlines saying that evolutionists are stumped by some new find. The only thing they’re positive about is their dogmatism and unequivocal support of a failed 19th century speculation regardless of falsifying discoveries, “living fossils” that evaded evolution, 100+ vestigial organs, so-called “junk” DNA, the “tree of life,” out-of-place fossils, spontaneous generation (undoubtedly through the 1835 magic of “protoplasm”), and Darwin’s blatant racism in his book, The Descent of Man (1871):

    Not only does Darwin believe in white supremacy, he offers a biological explanation for it, namely that white people are further evolved. He writes that the “western nations of Europe … now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization” (178). Darwin imagines that Europeans are more advanced versions of the rest of the world. As previously mentioned, this purported superiority justified to Darwin the domination of inferior races by Europeans. As white Europeans “exterminate and replace” the world’s “savage races,” and as great apes go extinct, Darwin says that the gap between civilized man and his closest evolutionary ancestor will widen. The gap will eventually be between civilized man “and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” (201).

    Charming, isn’t it?

    Nonlin.Org @1,

    Shannon mislabeled his theory. He was actually studying data transmission. Irrespective of any information or gibberish carried.

    Exactly. Data transmission and limits of compression.

    -Q

  14. 14
    martin_r says:

    LCD

    The problem is they reach a point where even fairy tale explanations can’t make sense and are contradictory.

    Darwinists reached the point so many times… does not seem to be a problem for Darwinists … Darwinists dont have any problems …

  15. 15
    chuckdarwin says:

    Querius @ 13:

    Yep, Darwinism can explain absolutely anything, but successfully predicts absolutely nothing.

    Compared to:

    The scientists found that the way DNA was wrapped around different types of proteins was a good predictor of whether a gene would mutate or not. “It means we can predict which genes are more likely to mutate than others and it gives us a good idea of what’s going on,” Weigel said. (emphasis added)

    You need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

  16. 16
    jerry says:

    You need to brush up on your reading comprehension

    Fantastic example of the pot calling the kettle black.

  17. 17
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    If a cow is looking at an electronic scheme I bet she would think that there are random lines and the majority of all lines are junk. If the cow will find out that all lines are not junk certainly would change her mind about randomness.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    CD at 15 presupposes that mindless Darwinian processes can explain DNA wrapping. i.e. “You need to brush up on your reading comprehension”,,

    Yet, directly contrary to what ChuckyD so casually assumes, mindless Darwinian processes can’t even explain the existence of DNA, much less explain how and why DNA wraps in the way that it does.

    Episode 8/13: Nucleotides // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYiguQYCSio

    How DNA is Packaged (Advanced)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbSIBhFwQ4s

    i.e. Someone needs to brush up on the astonishing complexity that we are actually dealing with in DNA instead of simplistically, and self-servingly, assuming that mindless Darwinian processes created it all.

    Far from mindless Darwinian processes being able to explain DNA, the engineering specs of DNA are, for all practical purposes, ‘engineering science fiction’ in so far as outclassing anything man has ever ‘intelligently designed’. For instance,

    The World’s Ideal Storage Medium Is “Beyond Silicon” – January 20, 2017
    Excerpt: it’s easy to see why DNA is “one of the strongest candidates yet” to replace silicon as the storage medium of the future. The read-write speed is about 30 times faster than your computer’s hard drive. The expected data retention is 10 times longer. The power usage is ridiculously low, almost a billion times less than flash memory.,,,,
    – per evolution news and views

    The thermodynamic efficiency of computations made in cells across the range of life. – 2017 Dec.
    Excerpt: Here we show that the computational efficiency of translation, defined as free energy expended per amino acid operation, outperforms the best supercomputers by several orders of magnitude, and is only about an order of magnitude worse than the Landauer bound.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29133443/

  19. 19
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Bornagain77
    CD at 15 presupposes that mindless Darwinian processes can explain DNA wrapping. i.e.

    It’s not a big deal, DNA wrapping is like a plane taking off and that is a very simple process , you just need a plane and a runway, that’s all. Very simple explanation. 😆

  20. 20
    martin_r says:

    LCD

    DNA wrapping. i.e.

    DNA packaging / wrapping actually makes everything way complicated …

    because …

    when a cell wants to use the data stored in DNA (e.g. for transcription), first, the DNA needs to be unwrapped … so an additional very complex step :)))) why on earth would blind unguided process invent something like DNA packaging ???? To make things way complicated ?
    How absurd is such an idea ????

    on the other hand, from engineering point of view, it makes a perfect sense …

  21. 21
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Martin_r
    LCD

    DNA wrapping. i.e.

    DNA packaging / wrapping actually makes everything way complicated …

    I think you didn’t see the invisible irony signs. Were in bold. 😆 The darwinist explanations are similar to children ‘s way of explanation when they play with toys like planes, tanks , barbie dolls , etc.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    LCD: “DNA wrapping is like a plane taking off and that is a very simple process , you just need a plane and a runway, that’s all.”

    Oh golly gee whiz, so all you need to do to be a ‘good Darwinist’ is just assume that airplanes and runways can magically appear out of nowhere,,,, LOL 🙂

    Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017
    Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/
    Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5]
    – per wikipedia

  23. 23
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77 @18,

    CD at 15 presupposes that mindless Darwinian processes can explain DNA wrapping. i.e. “You need to brush up on your reading comprehension”

    Yes, exactly. And I love it when someone has to resort to an ad hominem attack, because it’s an admission that they cannot come up with a cogent rebuttal and have lost the argument!

    The presence and structure of highly compressed information and chemical programming doesn’t explain its origin nor the source of the encoded information! Information and incredibly complex, structured programming arises do not appear spontaneously out of random chaos. The Cambrian Explosion just happened to happen?

    -Q

  24. 24
    martin_r says:

    LCD

    I got you… no worries …. i just wanted to comment some more on DNA packaging when you mentioned it … in my post, those were rhetorical questions …

    Moreover, i can only agree with you …Darwinists are like kids playing with toys … sometimes i call Darwinists romantics … because of their naive / absurd world view … in fact, romantics are like kids in some way …

  25. 25
    PaV says:

    Jerry @6:

    Also how is the modern synthesis different from genetics other than one is unproven while the other is good science?

    Well, I think genetic arguments are used to demonstrate that the Modern Synthesis is wrong. Now, you say “unproven,” but the whole point of the Modern Synthesis is that what Charles Darwin presented as ‘evolution’ (which, for you, is Tier 2 and Tier 3–since Darwin invoked a “Creator” [Tier 1]) is not only ‘compatible’ with the, as you say ‘good science,’ of genetics, but that Charles Darwin is proven correct via knowledge (and ‘good science’) of genetics. You, Jerry, might want to engage the logic of the claims that Darwin made (makes through his advocates today) directly, but the field of evolution is ONLY interested in a ‘material’ explanation, which, they are convinced, has been demonstrated via the Modern Synthesis. IOW, they only want to talk genetics and only will respond to genetics, and not to ‘logic.’ Steven Meyer’s books involve both and are a great statement of ID. But it’s been the ‘philosophers’ who have changed their views, not the evolutionary biologists.

    My simple claim is that genetics doesn’t support the claims that the Modern Synthesis is understood as making. Behe’s approach is along these lines. If, and it’s a big ‘if,’ any concessions are to be forced from the Darwinist side, it will be a ‘materialist’ (i.e., a ‘genetic’) argument that will succeed.

    There are philosophers of physics who understand physics very well, but an experimental physicist won’t read them to figure out their next experiment (with, I suppose, some exceptions). The same is true, I believe, when it comes to Evolution/evolution.

    We can see the ‘logical’ difficulties with Darwin’s theory, or, if not with the theory, with the ‘difficulties’ on the theory that he himself already saw from the beginning; but, that’s not going to change anyone’s mind.

    Philosophy is intellectual–that is, NOT ‘materialist.’ We’re dealing with ‘materialists.’ So, allow a little bit more room for pointing out the defects in the Modern Synthesis as a way forward.

    Pax.

  26. 26
    jerry says:

    Pav,

    I haven’t a clue what you are trying to say.

    It sounds like you just agreed with me that Darwin’s ideas are just genetics and not Evolution.

    Modern Synthesis, various forms – from Wikipedia

    they all include natural selection, working on heritable variation supplied by mutation

    That just what genetics is.

    So Darwin’s ideas along with Mendel’s findings and other have just led to the modern science of genetics. To call genetics Evolution is then a gross distortion.

    But ID and UD specifically constantly adds to this distortion by conflating genetics with Evolution when the two are completely unrelated.

    It’s what I said 16 years ago and continue to emphasize.

  27. 27
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Mind blowing ! even after scientists discovered few mechanisms of FIXING ERRORS they still continue with “random” insanity.
    TO REPAIR means “fighting” against RANDOMNESS, with THE PURPOSE to preserve the accuracy of CODED information.
    Figure how off the target were the scientists when they told us that 95% of DNA was useless when in reality was the most important part of DNA , REGULATING all the life processes.

  28. 28
    jerry says:

    allow a little bit more room for pointing out the defects in the Modern Synthesis as a way forward

    I actually think the Modern Synthesis has few defects.

    The problem is it has nothing to do with Evolution. By pointing this out and that it is good science removes Darwin as a player in the Evolution debate.

    If that objective is achieved, it could change the debate to one based on evidence and logic.

    Darwin’s ideas have nothing to do with Evolution. His ideas however have led to the modern science of genetics.

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    Jerry, “I actually think the Modern Synthesis has few defects.”

    Well actually, right off the bat I can think of at least one rather glaring defect in the modern synthesis that renders the modern synthesis, (at least how Darwinists interpret it), false. Namely, “Fisher essentially assumed that new mutations arose with a nearly normal distribution – with an equal proportion of good and bad mutations (so mutations would have a net fitness effect of zero). We now know that the vast majority of mutations in the functional genome are harmful, and that beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare.”

    Geneticist Corrects Fisher’s Theorem, but the Correction Turns Natural Selection Upside Down – December 22, 2017 | David F. Coppedge
    A new paper corrects errors in Fisher’s Theorem, a mathematical “proof” of Darwinism. Rather than supporting evolution, the corrected theorem inverts it.
    Excerpt: The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change – it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.,,,
    The authors of the new paper realized that one of Fisher’s pivotal assumptions was clearly false, and in fact was falsified many decades ago. In his informal corollary, Fisher essentially assumed that new mutations arose with a nearly normal distribution – with an equal proportion of good and bad mutations (so mutations would have a net fitness effect of zero). We now know that the vast majority of mutations in the functional genome are harmful, and that beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare. The simple fact that Fisher’s premise was wrong, falsifies Fisher’s corollary. Without Fisher’s corollary – Fisher’s Theorem proves only that selection improves a population’s fitness until selection exhausts the initial genetic variation, at which point selective progress ceases. Apart from his corollary, Fisher’s Theorem only shows that within an initial population with variant genetic alleles, there is limited selective progress followed by terminal stasis.,,,
    The authors observe that the more realistic the parameters, the more likely fitness decline becomes.
    https://crev.info/2017/12/geneticist-corrects-fishers-theorem/

    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.....rs-impact/

    Fisher’s proof of Darwinian evolution has been flipped?
    – December 27, 2017
    Excerpt: we re-examine Fisher’s Theorem, showing that because it disregards mutations, and because it is invalid beyond one instant in time, it has limited biological relevance. We build a differential equations model from Fisher’s first principles with mutations added, and prove a revised theorem showing the rate of change in mean fitness is equal to genetic variance plus a mutational effects term. We refer to our revised theorem as the fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. Our expanded theorem, and our associated analyses (analytic computation, numerical simulation, and visualization), provide a clearer understanding of the mutation–selection process, and allow application of biologically realistic parameters such as mutational effects. The expanded theorem has biological implications significantly different from what Fisher had envisioned.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fishers-proof-of-darwinian-evolution-has-been-flipped/

    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

    Of note:, “for biologists he (Ronald Fisher) was an architect of the “modern synthesis” that used mathematical models to integrate Mendelian genetics with Darwin’s selection theories.”,,
    – per wikipedia

  30. 30
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Bornagain77
    We now know that the vast majority of mutations in the functional genome are harmful, and that beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare.”

    If you don’t know the original map of genome and all processes from cell you don’t know if what is called as mutation is not just an preseted intelligent adaptation.

  31. 31
    PaV says:

    Jerry:

    I haven’t a clue what you are trying to say.

    It’s a two-way street.

    You seem to take the position that: “Genetics defines what Darwin says–give him that credit (and NOT Mendel?!?), and that his “genetics” only show us ‘microevolution’ at work. But “real” evolution, evolution spelled with a capital “E,” that is, Evolution, is about “macroevolution.”
    So–I guess, you want us to “pat him [Darwin] on the head” and get on to the really important stuff of Evolution. But, there’s this problem: from what you’ve written about Tiers 1-4, there doesn’t seem to be much “evidence” for Tiers 1-3 (we’ve already given Darwin his due; that is, Tier 4), but. nonetheless, let’s talk about ‘macroevolution’ anyhow. As in: “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”

    Please correct my version of your position; but this seems–to me, at least, the position you’ve carved out. Where have I gone wrong?

    My position is this: Darwinists, that is, the euphemistically-named “evolutionary biologists,” see microevolution as true and demonstrated (a position you agree with) and that ‘macroevolution’ is simply ‘microevolution’ writ large. (When you say that the Modern Synthesis hasn’t defects, you’ve given the store away in they eyes of the “evo-bio”‘s.)

    I think they’re wrong about ‘microevolution’ in very important ways, but, when it comes to rather trivial matters, yes, ‘microevolution’ is in play. Ergo, a fortiori, they are even more wrong about ‘macroevolution.’

    So, I don’t pass up an opportunity to point out that they were/are wrong.

    Now, nothing will convince them that they’re wrong. There’s no hope for that. So, instead, history will simply have to wait for these “true believers” to die, which will eventually allow younger students who kept quiet about their Darwinian misgivings to have access to labs and periodicals where they can publicly express the discomfort they felt all along.

  32. 32
    jerry says:

    You seem to take the position that: “Genetics defines what Darwin says–give him that credit

    Yes on both!

    and NOT Mendel

    Gave him credit too. Mentioned him in two different posts including one you are responding to.

    guess, you want us to “pat him [Darwin] on the head” and get on to the really important stuff of Evolution

    Yes.

    there doesn’t seem to be much “evidence” for Tiers 1-3

    That’s the point. There is no evidence for any natural mechanism for these tiers. That’s why ID exists.

    instead, history will simply have to wait for these “true believers” to die

    Not going to happen. Darwin is too well entrenched with young people. Academia will not allow contrary thought unless forced to. Younger people are more ideological materialistic than previous generations.

    Make him irrelevant instead. If you asked people to name the 5 greatest scientists in history, three sure names would be Newton, Darwin and Einstein. Keep him on list but relegate him to genetics.

    My point is simple.

    1) what Darwin’s work led to is genetics. (This does not obviate Mendel in any way. Interesting point is why people naturally associate Mendel with genetics but resist including Darwin.)

    2) genetics is extremely important so Darwin’s work which helped lead to genetics was important.

    3) genetics and DNA does not explain Evolution. In fact DNA has nothing to do with Evolution.

  33. 33
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    My point is simple.
    1) what Darwin’s work led to is genetics.

    Not really ,breeders of animals and plants do that for thousands of years. Work of Darwin led to most criminal conception ever .

  34. 34
    jerry says:

    Darwin’s ideas are a key part of genetics. And genetics has nothing to do with Evolution. The only commonality is that both focus on change.

    That’s it.

    The Modern Synthesis is essentially the same thing as genetics.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Modern_Synthesis.svg

    The Modern Synthesis is the combination of Mendelian inheritance, genetic variation and natural selection. It is DNA based. It is identical to genetics.

    Genetics is a branch of biology concerned with the study of genes, genetic variation, and heredity in organisms

    Wikipedia

    But yet nearly all the commenters here focus on the change or lack of change in genetics when they believe they are discussing Evolution. The Great bait and switch delusion.

    Also the term “neo Darwinism” is the same thing.

    So genetics, Modern Synthesis and Neo Darwinism are the same thing.

    What Darwin did was take the breeding concept of selection and then coin the term ”natural selection” to explain another form of selection not due to humans.

    But it still is just genetics.

  35. 35
    jerry says:

    From the Great Courses this morning.

    Charles Darwin’s contributions to the science of evolution are impossible to overstate. His theory that all species of life on Earth descend from common ancestors is one of the most fundamental beliefs in science—and one of the most frequently misunderstood.

    Hardly a sign that Darwin is about to disappear as young blood rises up.

    Here is a video by The Great Courses eulogizing Darwin and natural selection. This is what every college student has seen for the last 50 years. By the way two of the lecturers featured teach at religious sponsored universities.

    How to combat such aggrandizement?

    With the truth. Natural selection is only relevant in genetics. The Big Lie about Darwin is how his ideas are what unifies biology. No what unifies biology if anything is genetics.

    Maybe Theodosius Dobzhansky’s expression should have been, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of genetics.”

  36. 36
    Querius says:

    And astonishing chemical cycles, physical chemistry, epigenetic codes, and massively structured information. And intelligent design.

    Otherwise it’s all reductionist such as suggesting that all computer programs naturally evolved from massive numbers of 1s and 0s.

    Now that would be an interesting experiment. Create random strings of machine code, run them on a computer, and allow the ones that can reproduce themselves to be subject to random mutations. Rinse and repeat until you create amazingly functional software!

    Or take Microsoft Windows, randomly change bits in it, and run it on your computer. Keep doing this until you get . . . Windows 12! Maybe that’s exactly what Microsoft is doing right now.

    -Q

  37. 37
    Querius says:

    What, no takers on this easily performed synthetic experiment?

    It’s far more realistic than Dawkins’ “Methinks it is like a weasel,” which involves a predetermined target.

    -Q

  38. 38
    PaV says:

    Jerry:

    I appreciate you spelling out your thoughts on this. It’s certainly a tactic that can be employed. I am tempted to phrase this tactic as: “If you can’t beat them, ignore them.”

    ID certainly is compatible with a metaphysical approach to these issues (though Thomists, for some strange reason, don’t think so), but it is also a ‘scientific’ approach to these issues via what Steven Meyer has been saying: that is, ID has greater ‘explanatory power’ than Darwinism.

    But I certainly see now the position you’ve taken and this helps make sense of discussions we’ve had over the years. I’ll have to ‘scratch my head some.’ At first glance, your approach doesn’t strike me as the best way forward. But, again, thanks for the clarification.

  39. 39
    Querius says:

    Okay, so no takers on computer-based life.

    Let’s make it even easier then. How about computer-generated viruses? The smallest computer viruses include one at 13 bytes, another at 22 bytes, and a 376-byte worm.

    Now, the world’s total data storage is estimated to be over 60 zettabytes or more than 60 billion terabytes in size. Plenty of bits that could randomly go wrong.

    So let’s consider a USB drive sitting for years at the bottom of a sunlit warm pond. The data in the over-cycled, low-quality NAND chips in this USB flash drive has been hit by just the right amount of energy to change 22 bytes of data.

    Years later ,while frogging in the pond, a little boy finds the USB drive and gives hit to his brother who immediately inserts it into his computer and discovers the slightly corrupted application file.

    Opening the file results in a 22-byte buffer overflow into executable memory, which infects the computer with a brand new randomly spawned virus that propagates itself after causing more random mutations in the data files and executables on the system.

    These mutations result in increasingly complex digital organisms that have, after billions and billions of cycles, undergone digital natural selection when the antivirus applications removes detectable versions. The result is that the growing digital life evolves into every greater functionality in its digital ecosystem.

    At some point in its evolving complexity, it has gained consciousness that’s at least as good as that in humans, and it devises strategies to execute at bootup and even to migrate into the BIOS billions and billions of cycles later.

    So, who’s interested in writing up a grant proposal for say 10 million dollars from a foundation or a government agency? How about calling it “Proving Synthetic Evolution through Digital Natural Selection.”

    I only ask that you leave me the movie rights.

    -Q

  40. 40
    jerry says:

    It’s certainly a tactic that can be employed

    It’s called the Truth.

    1) Darwinian processes are nothing but genetics- True

    1a) This includes the Modern Synthesis, Neo Darwinism or whatever name is used – True

    2) Darwin’s ideas significantly affected the science of genetics – True

    3) others developed ideas that also led to modern genetics, including Mendel – True

    4) Darwin as well as others should be praised for their contributions not disparaged – True

    5) Evolution has nothing to do with genetics. The only commonality is that both involve change. True

    6) A major difference between Evolution and genetics is that genetics is well understood while no one has any idea how Evolution happened – True

    7) Another difference is that DNA has nothing to do with Evolution but is essential to genetics- True

    8) Darwin is firmly entrenched in the mind of everyone as the father of evolutionary theory and will not be ousted without a different strategy – True

    So let’s admit the truth and use it.

  41. 41
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    @Jerry
    Darwin has nothing in common with genetics because Darwin thought that a bacterium became a bacteriologist NOT KNOWING what genetic code and functional information is. Darwin believed that “the transformation” is intrinsic in nature like a natural law. Darwin has nothing to do with science.

  42. 42
    Querius says:

    Lieutenant Commander Data @41,

    Darwin has nothing to do with science.

    I disagree. Charles Darwin most certainly provided scientists with a flimsy scientific rationale for blatant racism and eugenics. Racists everywhere are in debt to Charles Darwin.

    In his 1871 book, The Descent of Man, Darwin elucidated his racist ideals clearly and in more detail, which seems to still be defended as “anti-slavery” according to one recent book.

    -Q

  43. 43
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Indeed who believes that darwinism is true is necessarily a racist and a possible “hygienist” of inferior people . There is no way to get round but darwinism doesn’t stop here. As Dawkins “magistrally” put it :”Any fetus is less human than an adult pig. ” Abortion morality :solved .

  44. 44
    Querius says:

    Yikes! So how about aborted fetus tissue being made into nutritious hot dogs for the malnourished masses of the world?

    Anyone want to defend Dawkins?

    Hello?

    -Q

  45. 45
    Querius says:

    Gosh. No takers yet?

    Either this tissue can ethically be used to save people from starvation or not. Which is it?

    -Q

Leave a Reply