Is Darwinism “completely worthless to science”?

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 14, 2018

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

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

Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor doesn’t mince words:

I despise Darwinism. It is, in my view, an utterly worthless scientific concept promulgated by a third-rate barnacle collector and hypochondriac to justify functional, if not explicit, atheism. Richard Dawkins got it right: Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. A low bar, admittedly, but “natural selection” satisfied, and still satisfies, many. Even bright Christians, regrettably.

Darwin still has some cache among design advocates — the usual trope is that he provided evidence for common descent and explained microevolution. In this I differ from some of my friends and colleagues sympathetic to ID/Thomism. Darwin’s “theory” is completely worthless to science, a degradation of philosophy, and lethal to culture.

As Jerry Fodor (an atheist philosopher) has pointed out, natural selection is an utterly empty concept. It does no work; it explains nothing. Evolution is driven by natural history and genetic and phenotypic constraint. “Natural selection” adds nothing to our understanding of the process. Of course things change and survivors survive. Any real understanding of change in populations entails understanding the natural history of the changes and the biological constraints imposed by nature. Some of this evolutionary change is best explained as accidental. Some is best explained as design, and the conjunction of accident and design is where evolutionary change takes place. “Natural selection” is meaningless junk science — dismal logic put to the service of atheism. Darwinism is the most effective engine of atheism in modern times, except perhaps for consumer culture, for which Darwin bears some responsibility. “Survival of the fittest” casts a scientific imprimatur on acquisition as a life-goal. Michael Egnor, “A Darwinian Pilgrimage” at Evolution News

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

See also: The brain is not a “meat computer.” Dramatic recoveries from brain injury highlight the difference

and

Neurosurgeon outlines why machines can’t think: The hallmark of human thought is meaning, and the hallmark of computation is indifference to meaning.

Comments

Ambly:
But the paper I linked to demonstrates that evolutionary models (which include selection) are able to predict the progression of tumours.
Evolutionary does not equal Darwinian evolution. And NS does NOT relate to cells on/ in an individual.ET_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

Some progress, I guess. But the paper I linked to demonstrates that evolutionary models (which include selection) are able to predict the progression of tumours. So seems like "what it does after" is also the result of Darwinian evolution. Again, I think it would really be a good idea to read about this topic before you get into an argument you are so clearly ill-equipped for.Amblyrhynchus_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

Ambly:
So, you agree that cancer is the result of random mutations that increase in frequency as a result of their relative reproductive success.
The cancer is the result of Darwinian evolution. What it does after that is not. But yes, Darwinian evolution brings us disease and deformities. So are you saying those are a help to science?ET_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Non-sequitur. Cancer hijacks the existing intelligently designed system. And given an intelligently designed system chance mutations are the bane of its existence. Most genetic changes are by design. That means that cancer took it over and is having its way.
So, you agree that cancer is the result of random mutations that increase in frequency as a result of their relative reproductive success. Which is to say Darwinian natural selection is crucial for the formation of cancer? Almost as if Darinian evolution is not “completely worthless to science”?Amblyrhynchus_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Ambly:
Do you think there is a program in human cells designed to introduce cancer mutations?
Non-sequitur. Cancer hijacks the existing intelligently designed system. And given an intelligently designed system chance mutations are the bane of its existence. Most genetic changes are by design. That means that cancer took it over and is having its way. Also unless you can link to the scientific theory of evolution where it says that cancer is treated like an individual you don't have anything but you making crap up as you go.ET_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

As to this claim in particular from Amblyrhynchus, "In the cancer of tumour evolution, the individual is a cell." That reminds me of this: if evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most 'mutational firepower', since only they, since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and 'mutational firepower', would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution ruled and only the fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this Richard Dawkins' video:
Richard Dawkins interview with a 'Darwinian' physician goes off track - video Excerpt: "I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly -- a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves -- that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we're stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html
In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient reproduction, be realistically 'selected' for?
The Logic of Natural Selection - graph http://recticulatedgiraffe.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/6/2/40627097/1189735.jpg?308
Any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, thinking, etc.., would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian view, be discarded, and/or 'eaten', by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it obviously slows down successful reproduction which is practically the central, primary, tenet of Darwinian theory. In fact, Darwin himself stated that "Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species"...
Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection. - Charles Darwin - Origin of Species http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1866/1866-241-c-1859.html
Yet, contrary to this central 'survival of the fittest' assumption of Darwinian evolution, instead of eating us, time after time we find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their own ‘survival of the fittest'’ concerns.
The following researchers said they were ‘banging our heads against the wall' by the contradictory findings to Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' thinking that they had found: (May 2018),,, Moreover, if anything ever went against Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is the notion that a single cell somehow became tens of trillions of cells that cooperate “exclusively for the good of other cells” in a single organism. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/external-testicles-another-instance-of-bad-design/#comment-658573
bornagain77_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Amblyrhynchus
In the cancer of tumour evolution, the individual is a cell. If cells with a particular genotype divide more rapidly than other cells that genotype will become more common. A heritable variant will rise in frequency as the result of increased reproductive success. That’s natural selection.
And that is precisely the point. Natural Selection is not an actual cause of anything but is defined as an after the fact 'effect'. Yet in the literature, Darwinists continue to talk of natural selection as if it had some sort of causal power. As Adam Sedgwick originally pointed out to Charles Darwin himself about his theory of natural selection, “what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.”,,, and yet,,, "You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent."
From Adam Sedgwick to Charles Darwin? 24 November 1859 Cambridge Excerpt: As to your grand principle—natural selection—what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact. For you do not deny causation. I call (in the abstract) causation the will of God: & I can prove that He acts for the good of His creatures. He also acts by laws which we can study & comprehend— Acting by law, & under what is called final cause, comprehends, I think, your whole principle. You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent. ’Tis but a consequence of the presupposed development, & the subsequent battle for life.— https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml
And as Egnor pointed out in the OP "Evolution is driven by natural history and genetic and phenotypic constraint. “Natural selection” adds nothing to our understanding of the process."
As Jerry Fodor (an atheist philosopher) has pointed out, natural selection is an utterly empty concept. It does no work; it explains nothing. Evolution is driven by natural history and genetic and phenotypic constraint. “Natural selection” adds nothing to our understanding of the process. Of course things change and survivors survive. Any real understanding of change in populations entails understanding the natural history of the changes and the biological constraints imposed by nature. Some of this evolutionary change is best explained as accidental. Some is best explained as design, and the conjunction of accident and design is where evolutionary change takes place. “Natural selection” is meaningless junk science — dismal logic put to the service of atheism.
And to reiterate, despite the fact that natural selection has no causal power within itself, but is in reality 'but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts', Darwinists continue to talk in the literature of Natural Selection as if it has some sort of causal power. As Philip Skell noted, "Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery. Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. "
Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Aug 29, 2005 PHILIP SKELL Excerpt: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery. https://www.the-scientist.com/opinion-old/why-do-we-invoke-darwin-48438
The false attribution of 'causal power', even agent causality itself, to natural selection in evolutionary 'just so stories' is what makes 'natural selection', and Darwinism in general, pathetically unscientific. As Gould himself honestly admitted (and caught flak for), “When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection.”
Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530
bornagain77_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Do you think there is a program in human cells designed to introduce cancer mutations? Or are you just making sh*t up as you go along now?Amblyrhynchus_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

Ambly:
In the cancer of tumour evolution, the individual is a cell.
Total nonsense. Also in order for it to be natural selection the variation has to be due to chance (Mayr) and there isn't any way you can demonstrate such a thing.ET_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

Why do you keep doing this ET? Doubling down on your ignorance like this? In the cancer of tumour evolution, the individual is a cell. If cells with a particular genotype divide more rapidly than other cells that genotype will become more common. A heritable variant will rise in frequency as the result of increased reproductive success. That's natural selection. The importance of evolutionary biology to cancer biology is no so great that Nature has a special page highlithing their papers on this topic. So, perhaps it's time to step back from the keyboard and learn about this topic, instead of embarrassing yourself like this?Amblyrhynchus_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

For Ambly- According to Ernst Mayr the individual is the target of natural selection. He says it is quite clear that a gene as such can never be the object of natural selection.ET_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

Eugene S @69
“How can you not see the tautology?” Because there is none.
You keep talking about "better suited", "best fit", "beneficial mutations" and "natural selection", but why not do the thought experiment I asked @29? It's not that beneficial mutations are a rarity. Instead they are all trade-off mutations, not "beneficial". How does "evolution" work in antibiotic resistance? If antibiotic resistance were an absolute "beneficial mutation" it would spread in the bacteria population and never disappear. But this is NOT what happens contrary to the alarmist predictions. Antibiotic resistance is a problem only in hospitals and a few isolated places. But cut the use of antibiotics and it GOES AWAY in time! And this is not even "evolution" but a built in defense mechanism of bacteria. Our immune system works the same way and we don't call that "evolution".Nonlin.org_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Why do people keep clinging to Darwinism like a child’s security blanket? Because it provides a metaphysical hand and glove fit with atheistic naturalism/materialism. However, what Darwinism-- specifically "modern" Neo-Darwinism-- doesn’t fit with is the scientific evidence. I disagree with Egnor when he says, “Darwin still has some cache among design advocates — the usual trope is that he provided evidence for common descent and explained microevolution.” I am very open to other non-Darwinian forms, of evolution. However, the problem for the Darwinist (read: naturalist/materialist) is that any other form of evolution brings in teleology or design. That’s anathema for the Darwinist who is so wedded to his paradigm that he must force fit the evidence into his theory. Unfortunately that is exactly backwards from the way empirically objective science is supposed to work.john_a_designer_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

EricMH (and Eugene S if interested):
Despite the name, an evolutionary algorithm is an example of intelligent design. Also, the key feature of the evolutionary algorithm, variation of the genome, is better attributed to Mendel than Darwin.
Agreed on both counts. Here's an interesting application of evolutionary computation to a mathematical problem, namely finding new lower bounds for Van der Waerden numbers (which you might already be aware of). Intuitively, it seems reasonable that EC might be relatively effective strategy for a problem such as this. This problem has to with sequences of integers 1, 2, 3, ..., N with certain properties. For example, to find a lower bound for W(7, 3), you search for integers N (as large as you can find) for which there is a 7-coloring of the integers 1 through N such that are no 3 elements of the sequence in arithmetic progression with the same color. You would not want 1, 5, and 9 to all be red, for example. My question is, if we consider other properties these integer sequences could have, for which would evolutionary computation be relatively effective? Perhaps an intractable problem, but it might give insight into when evolution "works" or not.daveS_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Ambly:
If it’s not abundantly clear, subclonal selection is natural selection that occurrs at the level of cell lineages within a tumour.
That's your opinion. Unfortunately for you, you cannot support it. Clearly you have issues, AmblyET_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

And last but not least, Amblyrhynchus claims that natural selection is defined by 'fitness"
We measure the strength of selection using the selection coefficient (s), which can be defined such that the fitness of a wildtype (or the mean fitness of a population) is set to 1 and the fitness of some variant is 1+s (so positive values correspond to traits that we expect to increase). Fitness is, of course, the expected contribution of a given variant to the next generation.
Yet, in this following video and article, Donald Hoffman has, through numerous computer simulations of population genetics (where 'fitness' plays the key role), shown that if Darwinian evolution were actually true then all our observations of reality would be unreliable.
Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark Quote: “fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?” https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601 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/
Thus, in what should be needless to say, a worldview that undermines the scientific method itself by holding all our observations of reality are unreliable is NOT a worldview that can ever be firmly grounded within the scientific method!
Steps of the Scientific Method Observation/Research Hypothesis Prediction Experimentation Conclusion http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html
Moreover, completely contrary to what Donald Hoffman found from the mathematics of population genetics,, conscious observation, far from being unreliable, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics had predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
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 science itself could care less if Darwinists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, that their observations of reality are unreliable! Moreover, as if all that was not bad enough, Darwinian evolution, since it is based on ‘reductive materialism’, denies the reality of the immaterial realm. That is to say, there simply is no place for the immaterial, “Platonic”, realm of mathematics to find grounding for its reality within the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought.
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html Platonic World vs Physical World https://i2.wp.com/abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/platonic_physical.gif
Therefore, besides Darwinian evolution already being shown to be mathematically impossible (by Sanford, Dembski, Marks, Axe, Behe, Durston etc.. etc..), Darwinian evolution is further falsified by mathematics as being a scientific theory since Darwinism denies the very reality of one the thing it most needs, i.e. mathematics, in order to be considered scientific in the first place.
Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA
Of supplemental note on 'fitness', Sanford and Basener have, (by including realistic mutation rates into the model) recently falsified Fisher's supposed mathematical proof that fitness must always increase
The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations - William F. Basener,John C. Sanford - 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
bornagain77_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

Amblyrhynchus apparently holds that differential survival among cancer cells within an organism is proof of the efficacy of natural selection to create all life on earth. And what obvious fact is Amblyrhynchus missing in his 'cancer' demonstration of the all creative power of his 'designer substitute' of Natural Selection?
"The Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory: Evolutionary theory ascribes inventive power to natural selection alone. However, because selection can only home in on the fitness signal from an invention after that invention already exists, it can't actually invent." — Douglas Axe, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition that Life Is Designed (2016), p. 97
Contrary to what Amblyrhynchus may believe, differential survival of deadly cancer cells within an organism is NOT proof that his imagined 'designer substitute' of Natural Selection can create the organism, or any other organism, in the first place. (See Jonathan Wells - Does Cancer Really Innovate?)
Mutant Destruction - Does Cancer Really Innovate? by Jonathan Wells - 2017 http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo42/mutant-destruction.php
Amblyrhynchus, nor any other neo-Darwinist, has any real evidence that Natural Selection can do what he and other neo-Darwinists claim it can. Namely create all the different variety of life on earth.
The Third Way” – James Shapiro, Denis Noble, and etc.. etc..,,, excerpt: “some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis.” http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/ “the uncritical acceptance of natural selection as an explanatory force for all aspects of biodiversity (without any direct evidence) is not much different than invoking an intelligent designer” Michael Lynch – The Origins of Genome Architecture, p 368 Mutation, Not Natural Selection, Drives Evolution Molecular evolutionary biologist Masatoshi Nei says Darwin never proved natural selection is the driving force of evolution — because it isn’t. By Gemma Tarlach|Sunday, March 16, 2014 “But among the people working on evolution, most of them still believe natural selection is the driving force. If you say evolution occurs by natural selection, it looks scientific compared with saying God created everything. Now they say natural selection created everything, but they don’t explain how. If it’s science, you have to explain every step. That’s why I was unhappy. Just a replacement of God with natural selection doesn’t change very much. You have to explain how.” – Masatoshi Nei http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/12-mutation-not-natural-selection-drives-evolution Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila – 2010 Excerpt of concluding paragraph: “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments.” http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/aspiliop//2010_2011/Burke%20et%20al%202010.pdf
Besides a lack of empirical evidence to support his claims, mathematical modeling also fails to provide any evidence that the 'pressure' of Natural Selection is anything other than a figment of Darwinian imagination:
The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,, Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information. While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/
In fact, because of this failure of natural selection within the models of population genetics, most Darwinists, such as Graur and Moran, who are aware of this insurmountable difficulty, have ditched natural selection as a driver of evolution in favor of a theory called 'neutral theory' and/or 'genetic drift'.
Austin Hughes and Neutral Theory – Laurence A. Moran – June 19, 2017 Excerpt: Originally proposed by Motoo Kimura, Jack King, and Thomas Jukes, the neutral theory of molecular evolution is inherently non-Darwinian. Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/06/austin-hughes-and-neutral-theory.html “many genomic features could not have emerged without a near-complete disengagement of the power of natural selection” Michael Lynch – The Origins of Genome Architecture, intro “a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance” Mae Wan Ho – Beyond neo-Darwinism – Evolution by Absence of Selection
Thus, with Natural selection being tossed aside by the mathematics of population genetics, and by empirical evidence, as the explanation for the ‘appearance of design’ that we see in life, Darwinists did not accept such a devastating finding from mathematics as an outright falsification for their theory, as they should have done, but are instead now reduced to arguing that the ‘appearance of design’ that we see in life is, basically, the result of pure chance with natural selection now playing a very negligible role if any role at all. To call such a move on the part of Darwinists disingenuous would be an understatement. As William Murray comments on this development within Darwin’s theory,
“One wonders what would have become of evolution had Darwin originally claimed that it was simply the accumulation of random, neutral variations that generated all of the deeply complex, organized, interdependent structures we find in biology? Would we even know his name today? What exactly is Darwin really famous for now? Advancing a really popular, disproven idea (of Natural Selection), along the lines of Luminiferous Aether? Without the erroneous but powerful meme of “survival of the fittest” to act as an opiate for the Victorian intelligentsia and as a rationale for 20th century fascism, how might history have proceeded under the influence of the less vitriolic maxim, “Survival of the Happenstance”?” – William J Murray
Secondly, the mathematics of population genetics has forced Darwinists to claim, via the genetic load argument, (and against all common sense and the results of ENCODE), that the vast majority of our DNA is junk.
Revisiting the genetic load argument with Dan Graur – Larry Moran – JULY 14, 2017 Excerpt: The deleterious mutation rate is calculated using the lowest possible mutation rate and the smallest percentage of deleterious mutations (4%). Under these conditions, the human population could survive with a fertility value of 1.8 as long as less than 25% of the genome is functional (i.e. 75% junk) (red circle). That’s the UPPER LIMIT on the functional fraction of the human genome. But that limit is quite unreasonable. It’s more reasonable to assume about 100 new mutations per generation with about 10% deleterious. Using these assumptions, only 10% of the genome could be functional with a fertility value of 1.8 (green circle). Whatever the exact percentage of junk DNA it’s clear that the available data and population genetics point to a genome that’s mostly junk DNA. If you want to argue for more functionality then you have to refute this data. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/07/revisiting-genetic-load-argument-with.html
To put this kindly, anyone who claims the vast majority of our DNA is junk, especially after ENCODE, is not playing with a full deck.
Why Are Biologists Lashing Out Against Empirically Verified Research Results? - Casey Luskin July 13, 2015 Excerpt: no publication shook this (ID vs Darwin) debate so much as a 2012 Nature paper that finally put junk DNA to rest--or so it seemed. This bombshell paper presented the results of the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) Project, a years-long research consortium involving over 400 international scientists studying noncoding DNA in the human genome. Along with 30 other groundbreaking papers, the lead ENCODE article found that the "vast majority" of the human genome shows biochemical function: "These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80 percent of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions."3 Ewan Birney, ENCODE's lead analyst, explained in Discover Magazine that since ENCODE studied 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand cell types, "it's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent."4 Another senior ENCODE researcher noted that "almost every nucleotide is associated with a function."5 A headline in Science declared, "ENCODE project writes eulogy for junk DNA."6,,, Evolutionists Strike Back Darwin defenders weren't going to take ENCODE's data sitting down.,,, How could they possibly oppose such empirically based conclusions? The same way they always defend their theory: by assuming an evolutionary viewpoint is correct and reinterpreting the data in light of their paradigm--and by personally attacking, (i.e. ad hominem), those who challenge their position.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/the_encode_embr097561.html
bornagain77_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

Nonlin.org 29 "How can you not see the tautology?" Because there is none. Think in terms of populations, not individual organisms. It is a differential to differential relation. "More adapted" = "possessing a set of traits better suited for the environment" => "produces more offspring". Over time, with all other things being equal, the best fit traits will be fixed in the population. This accounts for microevolutionary population dynamics, given a population and the environment. The real problem of the neo-Darwinian model is in this bit: all other things being equal. The problems I am aware of are: genetic drift, rarity of beneficial mutations, low sensitivity of natural selection (statistical barriers), the limit on the speed of evolution (Holdane's dilemma). On average, Darwinian evolution does not work but in rare cases it does (e.g. antibiotic resistance). That said, to my knowledge, cases of evolution leading to rapid substantial increases in functional complexity (real innovations) are nowhere to be found in the literature. "and chemicals react with particular other chemicals because something else causes that, not because they “select” each other." Of course, they do not select! Selection is always done from among a set of alternatives, where each alternative state is characterized by minimum potential energy, on a pragmatic utility-based criterion. It can be done automatically (like in artificial decision making systems) but ultimately there is always consciousness involved in order to steer events towards optimum utility. Nature can only steer events towards min potential energy states. Fluctuations occur but statistically the tendency towards min potential energy holds nonetheless. This is no true choice, of course.Eugene S_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT}

Paolo, I think now I understand what you wrote better. Your comment @17 makes more sense to me now. Thanks for helping me to understand this better. I agree with you. Perhaps George Castillo could benefit from reading your "long sermon" @17 too. It might help him to read text more carefully next time. :)jawa_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

jawa, that's it! You've got it right. Now, in light of your new "discovery", would you mind going back to your comment @27 and reviewing it? Thanks.PaoloV_{August 16, 2018
August
08
Aug
16
16
2018
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT}

Paolo, Now I see a problem: George Castillo wrote that Peter and OLV were writing persistently and tediously "on the fact that eukaryotes have histones and a complex genome organization, while prokaryotes do not have histones." However, I don't see where PeterA or OLV wrote that prokaryotes don't have histones. Apparently they didn't say so. Is this correct?jawa_{August 15, 2018
August
08
Aug
15
15
2018
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT}

Paolo, here's the text I missed reading before (@125):
George Castillo, PeterA posted this in #115:
Eukaryotic genomes are stored in the form of chromatin. The fundamental building block of this polymeric structure is the nucleosome in which the DNA is tightly associated with an octameric assembly of the highly basic histone proteins, H2A, H2B, H3, and H4.
and this in #116:
In eukaryotic cells, genetic information stored in DNA is present in a highly organized chromatin structure. The nucleosome, the basic unit of chromatin, is composed of two copies of each core histone, H2A, H2B, H3 and H4, wrapped by about two turns of DNA.
Do not elaborate. At this point just answer yes or no. Thanks. Do you know how the genetic information is stored in prokaryotes? Do you know how the eukaryotes got this chromatin structure? Some folks here claim it was designed and they back it with a rational explanation. Do you have a different explanation? Do you require more precise questions? Do these questions make sense to you?
jawa_{August 15, 2018
August
08
Aug
15
15
2018
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT}

Paolo, I have to admit that I had not opened that link or read the comment associated with it. My response @58 wasn't accurate to say it nicely. My fault.jawa_{August 15, 2018
August
08
Aug
15
15
2018
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT}

jawa, That's correct. Did you open the link and read the comment #125?PaoloV_{August 15, 2018
August
08
Aug
15
15
2018
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT}

Paolo, you're right, that's not all the bold text. This text is also in bold characters: (see #125)jawa_{August 15, 2018
August
08
Aug
15
15
2018
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT}

jawa, That's not all the bold text, is it?PaoloV_{August 15, 2018
August
08
Aug
15
15
2018
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

Paolo, I see this bold text: "prokaryotes do not have histones"jawa_{August 15, 2018
August
08
Aug
15
15
2018
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

jawa, did you notice the bold text? What does it say?PaoloV_{August 15, 2018
August
08
Aug
15
15
2018
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT}

Paolo, I think I read everything carefully to no avail. Please, give me a hint. Thanks.jawa_{August 15, 2018
August
08
Aug
15
15
2018
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

jawa, Don't you see the problem? Did you read everything carefully?PaoloV_{August 15, 2018
August
08
Aug
15
15
2018
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply