Cosmology Intelligent Design Probability

Rob Sheldon offers some comments on Karsten Pultz’s “Bicycle” ID thesis

Spread the love

Karsten Pultz outlined his approach here: Why randomness depends on order: Comparing to evolution, the randomness produced by the orderly dice, would be the same randomness having produced the dice itself, because that’s how evolution works, slowly building order by random events from the bottom up. Applying the same hypothetical process to bicycles the random event that I get a puncture when riding my bike would be the same type of event which initially created the bike.

Experimental physicist Rob Sheldon responds:


A couple of comments on your excellent post:

a) in computer science, it is very difficult to make a random number generator. Successive runs of the code should not produce the same numbers. But most generators do. Likewise, if the numbers are grouped in triplets, and plotted in a cube, do they fill the cube smoothly, or is it clumpy? Again, most random number generators are clumpy. That’s because a program with information is attempting to act like randomness. There are even companies that use a radioactive material whose decays are turned into numbers to get a random number generator! In this case, attempting to throw away all the information in a computer program.

So I do understand your claim that disorder is only in reference to order. Because our tools are all about order. Nevertheless, there can be randomness without tools, without programs, without persons. Such randomness, however, isn’t recognized. It is only when we apply a tool to it, like the decays of radioisotopes, that we find it is random. Ontologically, neither the randomness or the order is first, but it takes order to recognize disorder.

b) Second, randomness, like the computer that uses a radioisotope to make random numbers, can be a orderly process. There is no reason that disorder cannot be the product of an ordered system. Purpose includes both order and disorder. On the other hand, disorder cannot include order at all. So in one sense, order is the greater of the two, and swallows up, or incorporates randomness. This can be seen, for example, in “intrinsically disordered proteins”, that by design, do not settle down in a specific shape. Clearly, it takes effort to find a protein that is so unstable, and the cell makes use of such proteins.

Likewise, in the dice example, there is a careful preparation of a perfect cube with a centered center-of-gravity. In college I had a shop class, and tried to make a die on the end-mill. I could not get a perfect cube, as I watched my project shrinking to a smaller and smaller piece of metal. It takes skill to make a die random, and disordered end-mill cuts only made things worse. Randomness does not arise by accident.

c) Finally, let me say something about physics. In the 1800’s we described the motion of an object as subject the forces acting on it. The theoretical equations of motion were described by the “Lagrangian”. The solutions to the Lagrangian determined the motion of the particle. So powerful was this paradigm that a philosophical position was called “Lagrangian Determinism”, that we were all made of atoms, and the atoms all behaved as point particles with forces, and therefore given the initial conditions, we could integrate the Lagrangian and determine the future.

Common wisdom is that QM destroyed this possibility, but actually even before the advent of QM, at the turn of the century, Henri Poincare showed that there were numerical solutions to Lagrangians that were “chaotic”, indescribable by any regular function. Russian mathematicians around the time of the Communist revolution, showed that there were entire classes of functions that had no derivative or continuity—that knowing the value of a function at time t, told you nothing about later times t+dt. Determinism was impossible. (These mathematicians were Russian Orthodox, and felt that their math would prove the Communist programme to be a failure.)

No one knew what to do with these discoveries at the time. We invented computers and in the 1960’s rediscovered chaos. It turns out, that if you make a “Poincare plot” by say, plotting the position versus velocity of a pendulum at t, t+dt, t+2dt, t+3dt etc, the points sometimes retrace a figure showing a “closed solution” and sometimes scatter all over the place filling the area densely, “chaotic solution”. So if you compare the area of chaotic orbits to the area of closed, deterministic orbits, you find that chaos is by far the most common behavior. We just had never seen it because we didn’t have computers, and the tools to find it.

What this says is that far from “Lagrangian determinism”, we are far more likely to have “Lagrangian chaos” for physical systems. It takes planning to make a system deterministic, closed orbits.

But does this mean the system is most likely random? By no means. These chaotic orbits have special properties. For one thing, they obey the Lagrangian equations. They have little islands and inclusions that represent closed solutions. And often they present “strange attractors” or basins where all the solutions end up. So just as mathematicians find that true randomness is very hard to produce in a program, so physicists have come to realize that we live on the edge between chaos and order, where the chaos is just order on a higher plane. Chaos is a global solution, not just a local one. The equations or area described by the chaotic orbits is not defined by the current values of x,v_x, but rather by the global properties and boundaries of the system.

Why is this significant? Because in the 1800’s physics believed that diffusion, heat, transport were local, random, processes defined by a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. That randomness was inherent in Nature, and that global order was a difficult, information-rich process that rapidly degenerated (entropized) on its own. Darwinism was a direct result of applying that local physics to biology. Now the very same systems are seen to be part of a global chaotic system with its own set of rules. Diffusion is no longer random, but a process by which the global system approaches its lowest energy state. When magnet domains are involved, that minimum energy state can be “frustrated”, leading to many “non-equilibrium” long-lasting states. In other words, we have learned to make global “smart materials” that do not behave like the 19th century “dumb” materials subject to local diffusion and entropy.

It is not that our materials are different, it is because physics is no longer assuming that “randomness” is a natural or inevitable state of matter, or that all forces are local. Locality and randomness isn’t as basic as we thought. It is actually a subset of all states that are available, being unable to account for global states. Darwin is just so 19th century, but we are now in the 21st.

I hope this gives a flavor of what I enjoyed about your post. – Rob


Note: Karsten Pultz’s is the author of Exit Evolution. Rob Sheldon is the author of Genesis: The Long Ascent and The Long Ascent, Volume II .

16 Replies to “Rob Sheldon offers some comments on Karsten Pultz’s “Bicycle” ID thesis

  1. 1
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Ontologically, neither the randomness or the order is first, but it takes order to recognize disorder.

    Disorder enables us to understand what order is by contrast. There can be slight levels of disorder and more perfect levels of order. But disorder can only exist within an ordered framework – boundaries are order. Total chaos would have no limits.
    So evolutionists claim both that “evolution is not random” and that “chance is the only source of innovation” (paraphrasing Monod).
    The idea that evolution was by chance alone was a nice idea when attempting to refute any intelligent design in the process. That way, you don’t have to explain the source of order.
    But now that it is proven that randomness cannot produce the effect, the claim is that “natural selection is not a random process”, or the idea that evolution is “only random in terms of fitness”.
    Then there’s the idea that since mutations can be modelled statistically and some level of probability can be assigned, then evolution is not random.
    But any random process can be modeled with a line to fit. In fact, even some events known to be designed carry random elements (probably the huge majority do since it is impossible to remove environmental mistakes).
    The claims by evolutionists remain bogus however often they go back and forth between random and determined.
    They like to claim that natural selection is some sort of physical law like gravity.
    The idea that evolution is not random buys them some credibility among a public that does not think in terms of ultimate causality any more. Natural laws just pop into existence or were “always there”. If pushed, evolutionists have the multiverse to explain the ontological origin of non-randomness.
    But they can’t model evolutionary history anyway. Environmental randomness alone is impossible to detail. Then there’s what the book “Billions of Missing Links” points out that every feature of an organism has to be supported by evolutionary ancestors and billions of them have never been evident.

  2. 2
    chuckdarwin says:

    I was going to let this go, but given Sheldon’s fawning review of Pultz’s post on randomness, a comment is necessary. Pultz makes this statement:
    “Looking at random mutations and assume [sic] randomness produced the whole shebang in the first place, is like looking at a flat bike tyre and assuming that the same odd random event of a puncture is the same kind of event that initially brought the bike into existence.
    In evolutionary theory this is exactly what is claimed….”
    In fact, evolutionary theory makes no such claim. Evolutionary theory, as is explicit in the title of Darwin’s The Origin of Species, and as understood by all biologists, makes no claims as to the origins of life. Evolution makes no claims as to “randomness produc[ing] the whole shebang in the first place.”
    Setting aside the quaint “whole shebang” colloquialism, this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution that detractors perpetuate.
    Even Darwin’s most vehement detractors in the ID movement would have to concede this point.

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution that detractors perpetuate.

    Even Darwin’s most vehement detractors in the ID movement would have to concede this point.

    I believe evolutionary theory is based on three things:

    (1) mutations (the engines of variation)
    (2) inheritability
    (3) natural selection

    (1) and (3) are somewhat more random or should I say unpredictable than (2) with (1) being the most unpredictable.

    Critics of evolutionary theory do not deny any of the three and say that all three happen.,

    What they do deny is that any of the three or all three put together has been shown to produce any meaningful changes to life since it first began.

    So why try to distort what ID/critics of Darwin believe? It just supports their position.

    But we appreciate your support anyway.

    Aside: only (1) is a possible source for major changes in life forms and nothing/absolutely no research conclusion in terms of variation has been shown to produce any meaningful change.

    You are welcome to refute this research conclusion and we would all be appreciative if you did. But silence will just be confirmation.

  4. 4
    Silver Asiatic says:

    CD

    Setting aside the quaint “whole shebang” colloquialism, this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution that detractors perpetuate.

    True, but I think there are a few things going on that are getting mixed up.
    Just aside — given that Pultz’s book is not even yet translated into English, I wonder if he wrote that post or if it was translated. I wouldn’t think he’d use the term “shebang”, but it could be. We read of a bike “tyre” so that’s something.
    But you’re pointing to one level of the conversation and that’s where it gets confused.
    If Pultz was talking only about evolution itself, within its own parameters – then yes, you’d be right that it’s the common misdirected target of origin of life complaint assigned to evolution. Randomness applied to origin of life and then misapplied to evolution of existing organisms.
    But Pultz is talking about a higher level – the origin of the system itself:

    Being an error driven process, evolution points to the necessity of pre existing orderly systems, which we must assume only can have been brought into existence by the same sort of causal agency that makes bicycles.

    So, the whole shebang actually goes beyond origin of life, but to the mechanisms and processes in nature.

    The inherent order of the universe is treated by Neo-Darwinians as a free lunch whereby, because there’s something rather than nothing, they can spend their fruitless time pondering on how the something came from the nothing.

    This is assuming that Darwinists will care or take interest in this, but strictly speaking that would have nothing to do with evolution itself. But Pultz is just pointing to the higher level order. Randomness has to come from somewhere.

    Evolution is an error driven process. Errors are precisely the meaningless exceptions we find in organized meaningful systems. Evolution is thus a self refuting theory because by being error driven it depends on preexisting, highly ordered, meaningful systems in which errors can occur.

    That’s where we debate if mutations are errors or not. But if they are, then errors pre-suppose correctness and that would mean that organisms have an ontological value. They’re something good, to be preserved. DNA is functional and that’s good. Mutations are “errors” that can produce innovations (also good).
    But this is all anti-Darwinian because organisms do not need to exist, there is nothing “good” about them. Mutations are not “errors” even if they kill the organism. In the materialist view, if all organisms ceased to exist, there’s nothing better or worse about that scenario than any other. Innovations are also not “good” – evolution is not moving in a direction towards anything. Non-living chemicals are not more important or “better” than living organisms.
    So, it all just underscores the teleology built into evolutionary stories.

    But obviously the random event of a punctured tyre could not exist without the order of the constructed bike, so why assume that random events like mutations can exist without the meticulous order of (in this case) the genome existing prior to the random mutations?

    Here he shifts the focus again from “order in the universe” to “order in the genome” – but this is origin of life, as you point out. But eventually the genome had to come from somewhere and it exhibits a high degree of order. That’s the foundation for mutations anyway, so to claim that evolution is random ignores the fact that it’s built in a highly ordered genome.

    Obviously we can’t have errors before we have an orderly system that defines what an error is. Being an error driven process, evolution points to the necessity of pre existing orderly systems, which we must assume only can have been brought into existence by the same sort of causal agency that makes bicycles.

  5. 5
    chuckdarwin says:

    SA
    I appreciate your comments. My one and only point relates to evolutionary theory as a trained biologist. However, it is a fundamental point that gets constantly misrepresented, misunderstood, twisted, and conflated with all kinds of irrelevant ideas.
    I don’t really see anything helpful debating order vs. randomness, except I do think the concept of randomness, like biological evolution, is also commonly misunderstood, at least in the context of biology. I think most lay people, when they read “randomness,” confuse it with chaos. Randomness is not a causal agent. Randomness is merely a description of the distribution of variables as they occur in a natural state, such as age, height, weight, intelligence, etc. It is, for example, the natural state of gases.
    I don’t know any biologists that claim that “evolution is random.” I also think it is inappropriate to label mutations as “errors,” but that is another discussion. Mutations (changes in the sequence of DNA) are random. Natural selection, acting on those changes is not. I think Paul Davies puts it best in his book Cosmic Jackpot:
    “Notice that although variations may be random, [natural] selection is far from random, so that it is not true to say, as is sometimes quipped, that Darwinism attributes the organized complexity of the biosphere to nothing more than random chance.”

  6. 6
    Silver Asiatic says:

    CD

    I agree that the concept is commonly misunderstood and your correction has merit in those cases where evolution is viewed as a totally chance occurrence. So, we would think of natural selection as a non-random process where which ever organisms have fitness and reproduction will be present in the population.
    But that does not make evolution a non-random process. Paul Davies corrects the idea that it is “nothing more than random chance”. Ok, true – there’s something “more” in the process, but the end result actually a random output.
    As an analogy: Let’s say I am walking. My non-random variable (like natural selection) is that I will always put one foot ahead of the other. So, I will always be moving. That’s non-random. It’s determined that I will be moving. Then I add the random variable. That is the direction I move for each step will be a random choice of North, South, East or West. That’s the random mutation.
    We could say the mutation is neutral, positive or negative – or perhaps even kills the organism. That’s random.
    So, the two variables combined give us a random output. We will not know where I am walking, where I end up after 20 steps cannot be predicted.
    Now we could say that we might use probability with mutations because they are random but statistically might be modeled.
    But the thing here is that there is a second random variable to deal with (actually a collection of random variables) under the category of “environment”.
    That’s random effects from climate (heat, humidity), food sources, presence of other organisms, competition, atmospheric conditions (earthquakes, tornadoes, lava flows, floods).
    So, the very same new feature created over time by mutations in one environment as a benefit, is a detriment to survival in another environment.

    So, the presence of random mutations plus random environmental variables really puts the emphasis on evolution as a chance occurrence – and the non-random aspect of natural selection cannot do much to change that. It adds a little, so that some organisms may out populate others, but how those organisms develop and if they can survive the environment relies on random chance.

  7. 7
    Querius says:

    The OP and comments are fascinating, especially regarding randomness, which made me think about a lot about types of randomness. For example, any string of counting numbers that doesn’t include occasional non-random-looking patterns is not truly random. Any measurement (time, distance/coordinate, temperature, resistance, etc. includes essentially random digits as one moves to the right (less-significant digits) and as one increases precision. And vice versa . . . if for example one measures human body temperatures rounded to one significant digit.

    Measures of randomness are also interesting–for example, statistical analysis of encrypted messages within a constant stream of data meant to exhibit as random noise can separate the message from the noise. Any added noise to a message will likely degrade or destroy the message depending on things like parity checking mechanisms. It doesn’t improve the message: “Methinks it is like a weasel” doesn’t work when there are a billion letters in the alphabet and that entire sentence needs to be complete for it to be successful.

    DNA, epigenetic, and other cellular information is an interesting case in point. But here’s the problem.

    1. People who’ve studied biological systems and chemical cycles appreciate the stupendous complexity in these systems. What’s amazing is how resilient organisms are despite genetic changes and that suboptimal changes are not always fatal. One can certainly argue that evolution has somehow already optimized ALL organisms and that future mutations will all be detrimental with the exception of some loss-of-function changes that aid in survival. This might explain the lack of novel beneficial evolutionary changes so far observed. It doesn’t explain the lack of abiogenesis in our current biome, except that conditions “musta” been different when life evolved. We’re still looking for a new Van Helmont recipe for generating abiogenetic mice (or tinier organisms that are erroneously called “simpler”).

    2. There’s also the problem of the evolution of stable ecosystems that don’t result in wild population swings and the resulting severe degradation of the carrying capacity of an ecosystem. Organisms can’t be too successful. Decades ago, I verified this outcome with my own computer simulations.

    3. The separation of origin of life with evolution masks the insurmountable problem of ratcheting up the complexity tree. There’s simply not enough time in for the earth to have run through the number of generations and the number of coincidental mutations required for novel features and capabilities such as echolocation in bats.

    4. The fossil record doesn’t support the hypothesized “tree of life,” necessitating the introduction of both repeated and convergent evolution, so-called “living fossils,” and explaining fossils that appear to be identical with modern species.

    5. “Follow the science” doesn’t mean following only the current narrative. It seems that scientific progress should follow trails that don’t conform to the science fiction currently being taught. There are other alternatives. For example, what if the species on earth were once a hundred times more numerous forming a sort of continuous biological spectrum. Over time, gaps formed as a result of competition within each ecosystem and unsuccessful species migrated or became extinct? Panspermia also seems more likely now than terrestrial abiogenesis.

    6. It would be interesting to experiment on rapidly reproducing bacteria using irradiation to test what kind of mutations form in shorter periods of time than what Lenski observed with a broken citrate switch (https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/misleading-claims-about-a-long-running-evolution-experiment/).

    Darwin speculated that evolution would act as a sort of pigeon breeder, but his predicted discoveries never materialized.

    -Q

  8. 8
    jerry says:

    I think we should remove the word “random” from any ID documents. It does no good to include it. It is just a term to use instead of difficult to predict. It appears over 80 times in this thread.

    Also Chuckdarwin did not answer my assessment of evolutionary theory. So I assume he agrees that there is no evidence to support it for other than minor changes to life forms which do not lead to anything substantive in terms of change.

  9. 9
    Querius says:

    Chuckdarwin,
    This was just posted by Kirk Durston, who specializes in genetic information:

    Evolution and Faith
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv_PfN4quhM

    -Q

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    At 5 Chuckdarwin objects that,

    “Notice that although variations may be random, [natural] selection is far from random, so that it is not true to say, as is sometimes quipped, that Darwinism attributes the organized complexity of the biosphere to nothing more than random chance.”

    Whenever discussions diving into the intricacies of randomness and/or chance come up, Chuckdarwin’s (CD’s) reply is, more or less, the standard reply from Darwinists. Which, by the way, is a disingenuous reply since Karsten Pultz’s (and Sheldon’s) critique of randomness/chance, and the slippery way that Darwinists use those terms, is spot on.

    No less than Wolfgang, “Not even wrong”, Pauli agreed with Pultz’s observation and stated that, “While they (Darwinian biologists) pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”

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

    Anyways, despite CD’s refusal to honestly address, according to Pauli himself, this ‘very irrational’ aspect of Darwin’s theory, and for CD to try to move the discussion away from randomness and/or chance towards Natural Selection,, Natural Selection turns out to be worse than useless for CD in regards to producing order from disorder.

    , Natural Selection, Darwin’s imagined ‘Designer substitute’, which supposedly produces the ‘illusion of design’,,,

    “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
    – Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21
    quoted from this video – Michael Behe – Life Reeks Of Design – 2010 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY

    Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought By Ernst Mayr – November 24, 2009
    Excerpt: Every aspect of the “wonderful design” so admired by the natural theologians could be explained by natural selection.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwins-influence-on-modern-thought/

    Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer – Francisco J. Ayala – May 15, 2007
    Excerpt: “Darwin’s theory of natural selection accounts for the ‘design’ of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes,”,,,
    Darwin’s Explanation of Design
    Darwin’s focus in The Origin was the explanation of design, with evolution playing the subsidiary role of supporting evidence.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567.full

    ,,, Yet, despite CD’s disingenuous attempt to move the discussion on to Natural Selection, Natural Selection, Darwin’s supposed ‘Designer substitute’ which supposedly produces the ‘illusion of design’, and as far as empirical science and mathematics are concerned, is now shown to be grossly inadequate in its role as the supposed ‘Designer substitute’.

    For instance, the impotency of Natural Selection was clearly illustrated in the following study on fruit flies where “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.”

    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/.....202010.pdf

    Michael Lynch himself stated that, “There is no compelling empirical or theoretical evidence that complexity, modularity, redundancy or other features of genetic pathways are promoted by natural selection…”

    “There is no compelling empirical or theoretical evidence that complexity, modularity, redundancy or other features of genetic pathways are promoted by natural selection…”
    (Lynch, “The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes,” Nature Rev. Gen., 8:803-13, (October, 2007))

    James Shapiro himself observed that “some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis.”

    “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/

    Besides empirical evidence showing us that Natural Selection is grossly inadequate as the supposed ‘Designer substitute’, the mathematics of population genetics also now shows us that Natural Selection is grossly inadequate as the supposed ‘Designer substitute’

    The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17
    John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner
    Excerpt: 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]. ,,,
    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.,,, 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.
    ,,, 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/pm.....MC4573302/

    And as Robert Marks commented, ““there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”

    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/

    Darwinists simply have no empirical, nor mathematical, evidence that Natural Selection can function as a ‘Designer substitute’ as they have falsely imagined it to be.

    And given the abject failure of Natural Selection to function as a ‘Designer substitute’, then the explanation for the ‘appearance of Design’, which even leading Darwinists admit that they see in life, reverts back to ‘real Design’ as the explanation for life.

    As Richard Sternberg, (via the ‘waiting time’ problem), commented, “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”

    “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”
    Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary
    – Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Natural Selection has never been, nor is it now, a rigorous scientific explanation.

    As Adam Sedgwick himself chastised Charles Darwin, “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.,,,
    You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.,,,”

    From Adam Sedgwick – 24 November 1859
    Cambridge
    My dear Darwin,
    Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous. You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the the true method of induction—& started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkin’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the Moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?.
    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.,,,
    You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.,,,
    We all admit development as a fact of history; but how came it about?,,,
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

    And as the late William Provine honestly admitted, “Natural selection as a natural force belongs in the insubstantial category already populated by the Necker/Stahl phlogiston or Newton’s ‘ether’…Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for Darwinists now.”

    “Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for, or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push or adjust. Natural selection does nothing. Natural selection as a natural force belongs in the insubstantial category already populated by the Necker/Stahl phlogiston or Newton’s ‘ether’…Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for Darwinists now. Creationists have discovered our empty ‘natural selection’ language, and the ‘actions’ of natural selection make huge vulnerable targets.”
    – William B. Provine, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001)

    Indeed Natural Selection, rather than ever being a rigorous scientific explanation, has always functioned, more or less, as a proxy for an Intelligent agent in the imaginary ‘just-so stories’ of Darwinists.

    As Stephen J Gould himself honestly admitted, “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

    And as Austin Hughs commented, ““… another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness… Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling… it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…”

    “… another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness… Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling… it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…”
    – Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism – The New Atlantis, Fall 2012

    In fact, the imaginary ‘just-so stories’. that are constructed around Natural Selection as the supposed ‘Designer substitute’, will often contradict one another.

    As the late Philip Skell commented, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: 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?
    Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology
    PHILIP S. SKELL AUGUST 29, 2005
    Excerpt: Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: 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.
    https://www.discovery.org/a/2816/

    Evolutionary biology, (especially with its heavy reliance on ‘just-so stories’, and with its shunning of empirical evidence that contradicts its just-so stories), simply does not even belong in the realm of experimental science in the first place.

    As Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, stated, “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    And as Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, stated, “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    – Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    So thus in conclusion, we, once again, find that Darwinists are, practically speaking, wholly reliant on their imagination rather than on any hard empirical science and/or mathematics.

    Which is interesting since empirical science, when properly used, is SUPPOSE to clearly and distinctly separate what is fictitious and imaginary from what is real and true. Yet we find Darwinists to be, time and again, wholly reliant on their imagination rather than on any substantiating empirical science.

    Supplemental quote and verse:

    Scant search for the Maker – 2001
    Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.
    – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
    http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  12. 12
    ET says:

    Again, for the learning impaired: How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. And natural selection is non-random in the most trivial sense in that not all variants have the same chance of being eliminated.

    It is only if blind and mindless processes produced life would we infer they also had complete dominion over evolutionary processes. And seeing there isn’t any evidence that blind and mindless processes produced life so we can dismiss blind watchmaker evolution as having produced life’s diversity.

    Also there isn’t any scientific theory of evolution.

  13. 13
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Jerry

    I think we should remove the word “random” from any ID documents. It does no good to include it. It is just a term to use instead of difficult to predict. It appears over 80 times in this thread.

    I think we use the term because evolutionists use it and make the case that evolution occurs through random mutation. So, we show that if mutations are random, then evolution won’t work.
    If we get rid of the term random, that helps evolution. They’ll say that mutations are non-random so evolution is a natural law like gravity or any chemical reaction.
    How do they prove that in the lab? It’s the same problem they have now, but they can say “look at all of the plants and animals that emerged from evolution. That proves that it occurred in the past.”
    It’s trading one deception for another.

  14. 14
    jerry says:

    I think we use the term because evolutionists use it and make the case that evolution occurs through random mutation. So, we show that if mutations are random, then evolution won’t work.

    If we get rid of the term random, that helps evolution.

    I don’t follow your reasoning. Mutations happen whether they are random or not. Random just implies we don’t know the source of the mutation and they are hard to predict. So I don’t see how this helps evolutionists since the more scientific explanation is that the source and type of mutations are unpredictable but definitely happen. ID does not deny this and comes out taking the high road while others like ChuckDarwin distort the argument..

    The fact that mutations have never produced something major is the issue, not whether they are random or not.

    I prefer the word “uncertain” instead of random. Random is a very unscientific term.

    so evolution is a natural law like gravity or any chemical reaction.

    Yes, it is a natural process but I would not use the word “law” with it. It has never produced any change that is substantial. That is the issue not that mutations/variations exist or not and how predictable they are but that there are no major consequences in terms of evolution.

    What Darwin discovered and morphed into is not evolutionary theory but modern Genetics. A very important field of study but it has nothing to do with the evolution debate.

    ChuckDarwin above, a. trained biologist, has just admitted that.

  15. 15
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Jerry

    Random just implies we don’t know the source of the mutation and is hard to predict. So I don’t see how this helps evolutionists since the more scientific explanation is that the source and type of mutations are unpredictable.

    True – but it’s a couple of things that I mentioned before. Evolutionists will use both or any terms to try to support their concept. As stated, Monod claimed back in the ’70s that evolution was totally random. He got all sorts of support for that because that was the weapon against God. If evolution is totally a chance event, then God has nothing to do with it, and there is “no plan, no design, no purpose – all blind, unintelligent forces” — so human life is an accident and nothing matters. That’s just basic atheism supported by evolution.
    But since the ’70s, anti-evolutionists have been relentless and have made a mockery of evolution by supposed random-chance. So, the evolutionists began claiming (with all kinds of outrage and frustration) “Evolution is not random!” That way, ID and creationists could not attack random chance. So, evolutionists will play both sides of the coin, for certain. So, how they react if we decide to never use the term random is a question? – we don’t know. I suggested that it helps them because they don’t have to face criticism on the lack of power of random events to create anything.

    The fact that mutations have never produced something major is the issue, not whether they are random or not.

    As always, the Darwinists claim that all the “major stuff” happened a long time ago. They claim it for evolution because they see micro-evolution.. ID can say, yes but with random mutations, we can project it out over a billion years and nothing is going to happen.
    However, if we said – yes, micro-evolution happened AND mutations are not random. So, micro-evolution eventually will create new species. We don’t have to model it statistically because that’s just the way it works. We see micro-evolution. Give it a billion years and mice turn into whales.
    Yes, it’s still a very ignorant theory, but it’s easier if they claim that mutations are non-random and they’re necessarily going to evolve things.

    The opposite of random would be either designed or determined by law. Darwinists obviously won’t accept design, so they’ll claim determined.

    Also, it’s a lot easier for ID to refute randomness as the supposed cause of mutations. We just look at what random anything produces. Create a random number generator – it doesn’t produce anything. But if mutations are non-random but are determined, that’s a problem for trying to model them.

    But the reality is, nothing is truly random in a theistic perspective. God knows what happens and everything fits under natural laws or is directly guided by God somehow. But atheists aren’t going to buy that anyway – so I think we use their concepts to show that they don’t work.
    Even accepting that mutations are not random – that really should be a huge problem for evolution because where did the non-randomness come from?
    That’s actually a lot more difficult for evolutionists to explain, but they avoid it all the time by claiming it is outside of their field of interest, or they just laugh at it like our only defense is a cosmic solution to the problem.

    Bottom line – either way Darwinism fails. Randomness does have meaning and we know what is meant by it. But it’s also true that random just means we don’t know the origin.

  16. 16
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Quite useless discussion. Nobody proved that information can emerge from chemicals. Information problem cancels the idea of evolution.
    Randomness? 🙂 A snail would think that the buses come randomnly in bus station because the snail can’t read the schedule.

Leave a Reply