Letter at The Guardian: Darwin got sexual selection wrong

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 9, 2022

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

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

The Guardian doesn’t seem to be letting up: Having already published a critique of Darwinism, they continue question Darwin. Here’s a letter they published, critiquing his sexual selection theory:

The question isn’t whether or not we need a new theory of evolution (The long read, 28 June); it’s why it has taken so long to bring the old one into the 21st century. Anchor bias, the difficulty of dislodging the first thing we learn about a topic, makes it challenging for biologists to accept and evaluate experimental data that doesn’t play by Darwin’s rules.
Natural selection had many fathers, including Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus. But sexual selection is exclusively Darwin’s, and is the theory most in need of a second look. The failure to update the theory of sexual selection by incorporating recent genetic breakthroughs and viewing the process through a female lens has left us with a seriously flawed theory of human evolution.
Heather Remoff, “How Charles Darwin got sexual selection wrong” at The Guardian (July 8, 2022)

Heather Remoff is the author of What’s Sex Got To Do With It? (2022).

She seems like another witness to the fact that one can question Darwin today without getting cancelled.

Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne is, of course, not pleased: In the end, Remoff is tilting at two windmills that have already fallen. Her attack on Darwin is wrongheaded since Darwin’s correctness is not the issue in Buranyi’s piece and because female preference was already a crucial part of Darwin’s theory. And her claim that it was only the “female lens”, used recently, that helped us understand sexual selection, is also misleading. Female preference has been considered by evolutionists since 1871.Her attack on Darwin is wrongheaded since Darwin’s correctness is not the issue in Buranyi’s piece and because female preference was already a crucial part of Darwin’s theory. And her claim that it was only the “female lens”, used recently, that helped us understand sexual selection, is also misleading. Female preference has been considered by evolutionists since 1871.”

The ground is shifting under his feet.

Comments

Seversky at 12, "The hard problem of consciousness is hard because we don’t yet have a naturalistic account of the origins of consciousness. But that of itself doesn’t mean there isn’t one." Promissory materialism?
"promissory materialism is of no avail here — the inevitable materialist segue to "It may make no sense now, but give scientists time…" The immaterial nature of the intellect and will is not demonstrated by experiment, but by logic. It simply makes no sense to say that intellect and will are material, unless one accepts infinite regress as a valid hypothesis. (Given the materialist proclivity to deny the relevance of all philosophy, which would include logic, infinite regress may well become the materialists’ new tactic.)" - Michael Egnor https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/free_will_is_re/
Moreover, Seversky appealed once again to "What we can say is that, when the physical brain is disabled or destroyed, the associated conscious mind disappears, apparently for good. That in itself is a strong evidence for the physical basis of consciousness." And what Seversky repeatedly, and purposely, forgets when he appeals to his 'damaged brain hypothesis', is that we have millions of Near Death Experience reports of people who testify, adamantly, that they experienced their consciousness apart from their material body/brain. Which is millions of more times than Darwinists have ever shown the origin of any molecular machine by Darwinian processes.
Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or of a molecular machine), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html
In short, we have far more evidence for the reality of life after death, (millions of cases), than we do for the Darwinian claim that unguided material processes can create even a single functional protein, (which is zero examples) Supplemental note:
Near death, explained? - Mario Beauregard - Apr 21, 2012 Excerpt: The scientific NDE (Near Death Experience) studies performed over the past decades indicate that heightened mental functions can be experienced independently of the body at a time when brain activity is greatly impaired or seemingly absent (such as during cardiac arrest). Some of these studies demonstrate that blind people can have veridical perceptions during OBEs associated with an NDE. Other investigations show that NDEs often result in deep psychological and spiritual changes. These findings strongly challenge the mainstream neuroscientific view that mind and consciousness result solely from brain activity. As we have seen, such a view fails to account for how NDErs can experience—while their hearts are stopped—vivid and complex thoughts and acquire veridical information about objects or events remote from their bodies. NDE studies also suggest that after physical death, mind and consciousness may continue in a transcendent level of reality that normally is not accessible to our senses and awareness. Needless to say, this view is utterly incompatible with the belief of many materialists that the material world is the only reality. http://www.salon.com/2012/04/21/near_death_explained/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
bornagain77_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77/14
Thus, since Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a hard science in the first place, Seversky could have just as easily stated, (instead of Darwin), that “(Astrology) was wide of the mark on some things but much closer to it on others.”
Since you insist on quoting Marks, a computer scientist and engineer, and Popper and Lakatos, philosophers of science, none of whom is an evolutionary biologist and certainly not the last word on the status of evolutionary biology as a science, I will just quote part of the following article by someone who is an evolutionary biologist:
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory by Laurence Moran When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution. - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
[…] Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.
The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation .... So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words. - H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.
In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.
Seversky_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Jerry @8 "They believe in micro evolution or genetics. What is operating there? It is natural selection." They are wrong. And with that, they not only keep the darwinist zombie alive but they also destroy the ID credibility. Of course there's no such thing as "micro evolution". Adaptation is what really happens. It is a design feature and not at all "evolution" of any kind. Genetics on the other hand is a real science unlike "evolution" that is just a pipe dream. These two do not belong together and in fact genetics invaliditates "evolution". Furthermore, contrary to the Hollywood "science", genetics does not and will never transform one organism into another either. There will never be any "evolution". Nor a genetically modified superhero. Nor will there ever be a chimera organism. Nor will there ever be a real Jurassic Park (reverse extinction). Mark my words.Nonlin.org_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

Seversky at 15, Was your computer designed and built by nobody? The human body is much more complex.relatd_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Sev: "It is very easy to deny the primacy of consciousness." LOL, trying saying that when you are unconscious! :)bornagain77_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77/6
Moreover, we don’t have to rely solely on the fact that the denial of the primacy of consciousness is a blatantly self-refuting position for Darwinian materialists to be in. We can now also appeal to many recent lines of empirical evidence from quantum mechanics that all converge, and indicate that consciousness must precede material reality.
It is very easy to deny the primacy of consciousness. To be conscious is to be conscious of something. If there is nothing to be conscious of then how can we know we are conscious? If we are rendered unconscious by an injury or just fall asleep we are not conscious of anything for that period. We only become aware of objective reality again when conscious awareness resumes when we wake up. And it appears that reality continues uninterrupted even though we were not aware of it for a period. Also, let's assume there was some sort of primal consciousness that preceded the existence of material reality, what was that conscious of given that there was no material, objective reality at that point? You could argue that it was something like our dreams or hallucinations, but those are apparently based on information stored in our memories. The primal consciousness could not have such information stored in its memory because information has to be about something and at that time there was no material reality for there to be any information about.Seversky_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Seversky at 9, "He (Darwin) was wide of the mark on some things but much closer to it on others." LOL, Darwinian Evolution doesn't even qualify as a hard science,
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
Again, Darwinian Evolution doesn't even qualify as a hard science, Imre Lakatos, a leading philosopher of science in the 20th century, stated that, "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific",
Does Evolution have a Hard Core ? Excerpt: “ people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus's (Theory1), Galileo's (T2), Kepler's (T3), Newton's (T4) ... and Einstein's (T5), along with but this is just my supposition Darwin's (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for." - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun mind-game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off... http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/hardcore_pg.htm
As well, Karl Popper himself stated, “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”
“Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.” - Karl Popper – Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976) Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/
Besides Horgan, Tom Bethell also interviewed Karl Popper after the Darwinian backlash and Popper once again reiterated his claim that Darwinism was not a testable scientific theory.
Tom Bethell on Karl Popper’s rejection of Darwinian Evolution as a testable scientific theory – 5:54 minute mark https://youtu.be/MLdZzf8HoUU?t=352 In his autobiography, Karl Popper said he had come to the conclusion that “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”8 To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment “is almost tautological,” he wrote. “Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists as survival value, and can be measured by actual success in survival. There is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this.” Further controversy ensued, for Popper—apparently under pressure in England—partially recanted in 1978. Later, in 1988, I had a chance to interview Popper myself, when he spent a week at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. I immediately brought up the issue of natural selection. He told me that his opinion had not changed. He also said he thought that natural selection had in fact been falsified “by Darwin’s own theory.” Distortions introduced by sexual selection sometimes meant that offspring were not better adapted than their parents, he said. When I mentioned that Darwinism had evidently benefited from the idea of Progress, widely accepted in the mid-nineteenth century but widely rejected in the late twentieth, Popper said that “I have been one of the people who have destroyed it.” He said he had “preached” along those lines in his book The Poverty of Historicisms. Tom Bethell, Darwin’s House of Cards (2016) (pp. 14–15)
Moreover, as if that was not bad enough for Darwinian evolution, Charles Darwin himself honestly admitted that his theory didn't qualify as a 'true science' when he stated, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” and further conceded that “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.”
Anti-Science Irony Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution. http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/10/anti-science-irony/
Thus, since Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a hard science in the first place, Seversky could have just as easily stated, (instead of Darwin), that "(Astrology) was wide of the mark on some things but much closer to it on others." :) Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

I don’t know of any prominent ID theorist who doesn’t do that.
That’s what I said.jerry_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77/5
But since Seversky emphasized the word “know” when he asked, “How do we know Darwin was wrong about sexual selection,,,?”, it is important to realize that if the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwin’s theory were actually true then it would be impossible for anyone to know anything. This is because of the plain a simple fact that, if Darwinian materialism were actually true, there simply could be no conscious minds that could “know” anything.
Non sequitur. Neither Darwin's original theory nor the current theory of evolution necessarily preclude the possibility of consciousness arising through evolutionary processes. Neither does modern materialism/physicalism necessarily preclude consciousness arising through naturalistic processes. The hard problem of consciousness is hard because we don't yet have a naturalistic account of the origins of consciousness. But that of itself doesn't mean there isn't one. What we can say is that, when the physical brain is disabled or destroyed, the associated conscious mind disappears, apparently for good. That in itself is a strong evidence for the physical basis of consciousness. Also, positing an Intelligent Designer or God does not explain the nature and origins of consciousness, not until you can tell us a lot more about the natures of such beings than you can now.Seversky_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Jerry @8: "I accept natural selection because it’s obvious. I also recognize that it’s very limited in what it can do. So why not accept it for what it can do and reject it for what it cannot do." I don't know of any prominent ID theorist who doesn't do that.Dick_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

Jerry@8: " I accept natural selection because it’s obvious. I also recognize that it’s very limited in what it can do. So why not accept it for what it can do and reject it for what it cannot do." I don't know of any prominent ID theorist who doesn't do this.Dick_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

BobRyan/3
Seversky, Darwin was wrong about everything. Not a single assumption has proven true. There has never been anything witnessed to prove evolution true.
Darwin was a fallible human being like the rest of us, including Remoff and Roughgarden. He was wide of the mark on some things but much closer to it on others. which will also be true of Remoff and Roughgarden. Just because the latter are critics of Darwin doesn't necessarily mean they are right.Seversky_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

ID people that accept “natural selection”, if any such, are of course wrong.
I doubt if any of the highly published authors on ID reject natural selection. They believe in micro evolution or genetics. What is operating there? It is natural selection. I accept natural selection because it’s obvious. I also recognize that it’s very limited in what it can do. So why not accept it for what it can do and reject it for what it cannot do.jerry_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Jerry @4 ID people that accept "natural selection", if any such, are of course wrong. Indeed, "ns" is Darwin's contribution to "evolution" - not just a concept that is not at all obvious - but also based on "artificial selection" aka breeding that we know for a fact it is impotent in changing one "species" into another. Furthermore, said "ns" is simply and easily disproven: https://nonlin.org/natural-selection/ End of story.Nonlin.org_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

The claim that our sense of self, that is to say, our subjective conscious experience, must be a neuronal illusion, (an illusion that is generated by the material brain), is simply a blatantly self-refuting claim that Darwinian materialists are forced to make. As David Bentley Hart states in the following article, “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”
The Illusionist – Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness. – 2017 Excerpt: “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.” – David Bentley Hart https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist
In short, if consciousness is not held to be primary in our model for reality, but is instead held to be a 'derivative illusion', then that model will inevitably collapse into self-refuting nonsense. Consciousness simply must be held to be primary in any model of reality that we may put forth. As Eugene Wigner succinctly stated, "our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied."
“The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists." – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.
And Wigner is not alone. Both Planck and Schroedinger are both also on record arguing that consciousness must be fundamental to reality.
“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” - Max Planck (1858–1947), one of the primary founders of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931 “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” - Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.
Moreover, we don't have to rely solely on the fact that the denial of the primacy of consciousness is a blatantly self-refuting position for Darwinian materialists to be in. We can now also appeal to many recent lines of empirical evidence from quantum mechanics that all converge, and indicate that consciousness must precede material reality. Here are eight intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that all converge to the same point and indicate that consciousness must precede material reality
1. Double Slit experiment, 2. Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, 3. as well as the recent confirmation of the Wigner's friend thought experiment, 4. Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, (Quantum Eraser, etc..) 5. Leggett’s Inequalities, 6. Quantum Zeno effect, 7. Quantum Information theory and the recent experimental realization of the Maxwell demon thought experiment, 8. and the recent closing of the Free Will loophole by Zeilinger and company.
Putting all these lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics together, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality (Jerry Coyne). or is an intrinsic property of material reality, (panpsychism, Philip Goff) 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality (Jerry Coyne). or is an intrinsic property of material reality, (panpsychism, Philip Goff), then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even 'central', position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
Thus in conclusion, Seversky asked "How do we know Darwin was wrong about sexual selection,,,?" Well we know that Darwin was wrong about sexual selection, and about everything else, since, (besides Darwinism being falsified time and time again by empirical evidence), it would be impossible for anyone to know anything since there simply would be no conscious minds to know anything. Verse:
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
bornagain77_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Seversky asks, "How do we know Darwin was wrong about sexual selection,,,?" BobRyan: "Seversky, Darwin was wrong about everything." And indeed Darwin was. Every major prediction, and/or falsification criteria, that Charles Darwin himself laid out for his theory has now been shown to be false.
Darwinism vs. Falsification - list Excerpt: 5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a unique group/kind in the fossil record (disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). 7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” 8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “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.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/
But since Seversky emphasized the word "know" when he asked, "How do we know Darwin was wrong about sexual selection,,,?", it is important to realize that if the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwin's theory were actually true then it would be impossible for anyone to know anything. This is because of the plain a simple fact that, if Darwinian materialism were actually true, there simply could be no conscious minds that could "know" anything. As Michael Egnor succinctly put the insurmountable problem of "knowing" for Darwinian materialists,
"Your computer doesn’t know a binary string from a ham sandwich. Your math book doesn’t know algebra. Your Rolodex doesn’t know your cousin’s address. Your watch doesn’t know what time it is. Your car doesn’t know where you’re driving. Your television doesn’t know who won the football game last night. Your cell phone doesn’t know what you said to your girlfriend this morning. ¶ People know things. Devices like computers and books and Rolodexes and watches and cars and televisions and cell phones don’t know anything. They don’t have minds. They are artifacts — paper and plastic and silicon things designed and manufactured by people — and they provide people with the means to leverage their human knowledge. ¶ Computers (and books and watches and the like) are the means by which people leverage and express knowledge. Computers store and process representations of knowledge. But computers have no knowledge themselves." - Michael Egnor - "YOUR COMPUTER DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING" (JANUARY 23, 2015). .
Charles Darwin himself intimated that the existence of conscious minds might be a insurmountable problem for his materialistic theory when he stated, “The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.” And indeed, ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. The glaring problem for any reductive materialistic explanation that seeks to explain the existence of "our conscious selves' is that consciousness is profoundly immaterial in its foundational nature. Dr. Michael Egnor, who is a neurosurgeon, lists six properties of the immaterial mind that are irreconcilable with Darwinian materialism,
The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor – 2008 Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: – Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super013961.html
The most famous of these defining properties of the immaterial mind that refuses to be reduced to materialistic explanations is ‘qualia’.
Qualia Excerpt: Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, as well as the redness of an evening sky. - per wikipedia “qualia’ is also defined as ‘individual instances of subjective, conscious experience.’
David Chalmers is fairly well known for clearly explaining the ‘hard problem of consciousness’, i.e. qualia, in an easy to understand manner for the general public.
David Chalmers on Consciousness (Descartes, Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem of Consciousness) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo
Materialists simply do not have any realistic clue how anything material could ever possibly generate the inner subjective consciousness experience of qualia. (Which is to say, that materialists have no clue how anything material could ever possibly truly "know" anything) As Professor of Psychology David Barash honestly admitted in the following article, (an article which happens to be entitled “the hardest problem in science?”), “But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.”
The Hardest Problem in Science? October 28, 2011 Excerpt: ‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’ – David Barash – Professor of Psychology emeritus at the University of Washington. https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-hardest-problem-in-science/40845
In fact, the 'hard problem of consciousness', (i.e. qualia, "knowing"), is such a hard problem for Darwinian materialists to try to explain that many prominent Darwinists have been reduced to arguing that our conscious experience is merely a (neuronal) illusion.
The Consciousness Deniers – Galen Strawson – March 13, 2018 Excerpt: What is the silliest claim ever made? The competition is fierce, but I think the answer is easy. Some people have denied the existence of consciousness: conscious experience, the subjective character of experience, the “what-it-is-like” of experience.,,, Who are the Deniers?,,, Few have been fully explicit in their denial, but among those who have been, we find Brian Farrell, Paul Feyerabend, Richard Rorty, and the generally admirable Daniel Dennett.,,, http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/ At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: “consciousness is an illusion” A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s Sam Harris (a scientific materialist): “The self is an illusion.” – Michael Egnor Demolishes the Myth of Materialism (Science Uprising EP1) https://youtu.be/Fv3c7DWuqpM?t=267 The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness – STEVEN PINKER – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. http://www.academia.edu/2794859/The_Brain_The_Mystery_of_Consciousness “that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” - Francis Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis” 1994
bornagain77_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

There has never been anything witnessed to prove evolution true
Depends on what you mean by the word “evolution.” I watch course after course on science and they dutifully refer to Darwin’s ideas. They don’t have to but they do. Why? The answer is that natural selection is so obvious that they then beg the question and assume it for all life changes. If it is so obvious to these scientists why isn’t it obvious to ID people? The answer is that ID accepts natural selection as a process. So why the continuing criticism of Darwin for something ID accepts? We all know why but while being accurate why not up front admit that Darwin’s idea of natural selection most definitely works. But then restrict it to where it works. That is genetics and thus, minor changes in species. Give credit where credit is due. Maybe Darwin would have agreed if he knew now what is known about variation, heritability, ecologies and the logical as well as the physical limits of change. Maybe if ID became the complete arbiter of truth instead of religion, the truth might seep through to the establishment. Right now, ID is creationism to the world not truth. Maybe changing that image should be the focus of ID. But it is not if one reads the comments here.jerry_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

Seversky, Darwin was wrong about everything. Not a single assumption has proven true. There has never been anything witnessed to prove evolution true.BobRyan_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT}

How do we know Darwin was wrong about sexual selection and Roughgarden and Remoff are right?Seversky_{July 9, 2022
July
07
Jul
9
09
2022
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT}

similar mainstream article published in 2007 Joan Roughgarden "Challenging Darwin's theory of sexual selection"
May a biologist in these polarized times dare suggest that Darwin is a bit wrong about anything? Even worse, does a biologist risk insult, ridicule, anger, and intimidation to suggest that Darwin is incorrect on a big issue? We have a test case before us. Darwin appears completely mistaken in his theory of sex roles, a subject called the ‘theory of sexual selection.’1
full article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20028107?seq=1 PS: of course, Darwin got it all wrong, not only the theory of sexual selection ... Darwin misinterpreted everything ...martin_r_{July 9, 2022
July
07
Jul
9
09
2022
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply