Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Sad Case of the Darwinian Fundamentalist

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the 20th century, a powerful confluence of evidence emerged that essentially eviscerated the creative power of Darwinian mechanisms. This is not hard to figure out.

The most “simple” cell is a marvel of functionally integrated information-processing technology. Those who propose that the Darwinian mechanisms of random errors filtered by natural selection explain all of life are living in an era gone by, a time when it was thought that the foundation of life was chemistry, physics, time, and chance.

The fossil record is a grand and ever-persistent testimony that Darwin was wrong about gradualism. Simple logic, trivial combinatoric mathematical analysis, and the monstrous problems presented by the likelihood of functional, naturally-selectable intermediates, present overwhelming evidence that Darwinian mechanisms are on their deathbed in terms of their explanatory power for anything but the utterly trivial.

In a sense I feel sorry for Darwinian fundamentalists. It must be depressing to realize that one has wasted his life defending a transparently ephemeral goal that has little to do with reality, nothing to do with real scientific investigation, and that has nothing whatsoever to recommend itself besides philosophical nihilism.

Comments
I emphasize, there is no way to prove the reality of agency. It is something one chooses to accept on the basis of experience. So you are a robot spewing forth pre-determined babble? Then why should anyone listen to you?DATCG
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
The obligatory Darwinist comment: /*insert on */ but, but, but... Tiktaalik "transition" fossil makes Darwinist graualism true... /*insert off */DATCG
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
StuartHarris @ 9: Physical chances have a habit of vanishing as we improve our understanding of nature. There is no way to establish that chances are definitely real. It may be that events merely seem random in an incompletely understood universe that is in fact deterministic. Even quantum mechanics has been modeled in terms of deterministic machines. As a personal matter, I have no choice but to see myself as an agent, but as an epistemological matter, there is no way to establish definitely that my actions are not determined. Claims that we can "prove" the evolutionists wrong on their own turf are ill founded. There is no way to do science without initial assumptions, and it is the present assumptions of science that "prove" ID wrong. We face a social problem of persuading a great many intellectuals of the value of assuming their own agency in science. I emphasize, there is no way to prove the reality of agency. It is something one chooses to accept on the basis of experience. Please study Gödel, Von Neumann, Turing, and others to understand what the cell and life is. Incompleteness theorems, mathematical realism, putative proof of the existence of God in modal logic, computer architecture, self-replicating systems, cellular automata, the Turing machine, Turing-computable numbers, the Turing-Church thesis, the Turing test, morphogenesis, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, ... You're going to have to connect some dots before we continue talking about these guys.Oatmeal Stout
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Anyone who thinks a random mutation or two, as visualized in a lab, is a miracle has a very inadequate definition of miracle.Borne
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
Miracles?
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." --A. Einstein
Borne
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
Miracles?
When trying to explain the world on a strictly materialistic basis one finds oneself in strange paradoxes: "If the 'natural' means that which can be paralleled, that which can be explained by reference to other events, then Nature herself as a whole is not natural. If a miracle means that which must simply be accepted, the unanswerable actuality which gives no account of itself but simply is, then the universe is one great miracle" - CS Lewis: God in the Dock
Borne
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Cabal asks: You observe ID miracles on-stage? Yes. We generally don't view them as miracles, because we're so used to seeing them. For example, note the miracle of FSCI being played out in this thread by the precise arrangement of letters formed by pixels arranges on varous screens as various intellects design responses; more FSCI has here been generated than can be accounted for by any combination of chance & known forces of nature (natural laws, chemical self-organization, etc). In fact, the FSCI you are witnessing being generated falls outside of the known probability range of many universes combined, even if all the elementary particles of those universes were pixels on screens randomly forming in accordance with the laws of nature. What miracle of evolution have you witnessed in a lab? The random (supposedly) mutation of a fortunate gene or two in tens of thousand of generations of bacteria?William J. Murray
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Cabal: And the evolutionary miracles all happen off-stage. So, we don’t observe them . . . GEM of TKI
You observe ID miracles on-stage? BTW, evo 'miracles' have indeed been observed on-stage so to speak; in the laboratory, that is.Cabal
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Gil, From your linked post:
What is the probability of arriving at our Hello World program by random mutation and natural selection?
One criticism of this example is that it singles the "Hello World" program as a long-term goal of evolution, which is unrealistic. Shouldn't you be considering the chances of programs with other functions evolving as well?yakky d
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
Where is the simple logic? the trivial combinatorial analysis? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/writing-computer-programs-by-random-mutation-and-natural-selection/GilDodgen
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Oatmeal Stout: Samuel Smith - my absolute fav! In this case I feel we are communicating quite intelligently.alan
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
Oatmeal Stout :
I think you do ID a disservice with verbiage like this. Where is the simple logic? the trivial combinatorial analysis? I am an ID proponent who has taught combinatorics, and I can’t produce them. What is it that you know and I do not?
Come on oat, you start by claiming Gil does a disservice and then you ask what he knows that you don't in a way that seems to imply he really doesn't. You really should read up on this. Probabilistic principles are a vital part of analysis of biological systems. Combinatorics are just as evident. I'm rather astounded that you don't see why, where and how? Any engineer studying the E. coli flagellum can easily see that all such principles have to apply. It's a motor in every sense of the term and no motor can ever work unless couplings, mechanical stresses, rpm, material strength etc etc are all of the appropriate measures. Steve Petermann posted on this over at telicthoughts - here's an excerpt:
First we have a passive pore that starts things off. Since this is the base of the eventual flagellum one has to ask is the pore the right size that the whip of the flagellum can provide the locomotion we see? If it is too small the resulting whip will not be able to handle the stresses from torsion and coupling. If it is too big the whip will be too bulky to be driven in any effective way by the motor. Then we add the secretion system. Is the pore the right size and of the right protein type for the existing secretion system? If not there will be no coupling of the two and no progress. Ok now we have a selective pore and an secretion system but does it secrete proteins that will be right for the whip? The whip has to have the right protein shape. In engineering the components of a flexible whip have to be designed to mesh correctly such that there is just the right combination of coupling, flexibility, and rigidity. They also have to be the right material. If they are too soft there will be galling. If they are too hard fatigue cracks will set in and destroy the whip. The same goes for clearances between parts. This is a goldie-locks situation. Things have to be just right or it won't work. Next we have to add the motor. Let's assume we're very lucky that a motor will fit and couple with what we have so far. However, the motor has to have the rpm and torque to drive the whip just right. If it doesn't have enough torque we won't get what we see. If the rpm is too fast the whip will destroy itself because of the hydrodynamic forces applied to it by the fluid. Then it and all the other components have to be sized just right to reverse or the torsional forces on the whip will rip it apart. Remember the diameter, materials, meshing of parts, etc. in this Darwinian scenario have no idea what will be required later.
It doesn't take an Einstein to realize why probabilities, statistical mechanics, combinatorics etc, are a necessary part of the whole analysis of the Darwinian mechanism's ability to produce any structurally sound machine that works.Borne
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
Oatmeal Stout:
What constitutes intelligence?
Anything that can create counterflow.Joseph
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed @ 10: "The question is, from where does information come?" From mutations. Then natural selection tests the mutations against the environment by trying to make a living with the new DNA. If it works better than the old, it's kept, if not it's discarded.djmullen
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
Cabal: And the evolutionary miracles all happen off-stage. So, we don't observe them . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
GD,
The fossil record is a grand and ever-persistent testimony that Darwin was wrong about gradualism.
Darwin, Origins (all editions after the third):
the periods during which species have been undergoing modification, though very long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which these same species remained without undergoing any change.
Still going strong.Cabal
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
Oatmeal, “what is the foundation of life?” Okay I’ll bite. Here is a possibility: The foundation of life (from a purely empirical viewpoint) is information. Information imposes function upon matter to become living tissue. The primary quality of information which is evident (and reliable) is that of functional organization. Information gains its existence by virtue of communication. That communication may be from one object to another or from my fingertips to my brain. A rock may contain a certain number of atoms arranged in a certain way, but it contains no information until I sense it, and it is communicated to me. So the constituents of reality are matter, energy, time, and information. Of those, the first three are necessary but not sufficient for life. The fourth is necessary. The question is, from where does information come?Upright BiPed
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
Oatmeal @ 8, You say, "Random, according to Gil, and deterministic, according to you. Can we get our act together here?" Yes we can. Reality and all causality is a three act play: 1. Chance (randomness) 2. Necessity (determenism) 3. Design (teleology) I accept all three as real. Perhaps you tend to ignore the third act as being part of reality. The statement that you "do" computers might just be as relevant as the fact that I "do" automobiles when I drive my car. Please study Gödel, Von Neumann, Turing, and others to understand what the cell and life is. It's came about from all three acts listed above.StuartHarris
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT
StuartHarris @ 6, Random, according to Gil, and deterministic, according to you. Can we get our act together here? In fact, Darwin was no probabilist. The randomness of mutations is an aspect of the Twentieth Century synthesis, not Victorian science. These days, evolutionists do not insist that all variation in reproduction is random, or even neutral with respect to fitness. I "do" computers for a living, and I cannot imagine why you would regard a cell as a computer. If you absolutely must go with a metaphor to make the cell more "intelligenty-designy," then try saying that the cell is a robot. I say that there is something extraordinary in the intelligence of a cellular robot, not the mere fact that it processes information.Oatmeal Stout
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT
Gil, What does it mean to say that life has a foundation, and what is the foundation of life? BTW, the Darwinian fundamentalists may feel sorry for cogs in the American military-industrial complex. Those who consider that the almost continual warring of the United States since the turn of the Twentieth Century has constituted the absence of peace may view devotion to making little contributions to warfighting technology as a tad nihilistic. Simple logic, trivial combinatoric mathematical analysis, and the monstrous problems presented by the likelihood of functional, naturally-selectable intermediates, present overwhelming evidence that Darwinian mechanisms are on their deathbed in terms of their explanatory power for anything but the utterly trivial. I think you do ID a disservice with verbiage like this. Where is the simple logic? the trivial combinatorial analysis? I am an ID proponent who has taught combinatorics, and I can't produce them. What is it that you know and I do not? As for likelihood of intermediate forms, is this just something you feel in the seat of your pants? I have no idea how to go about calculating the probability of such things. Please enlighten me. Otherwise, let's stick to the truth of where we have gotten in the development of a theory of intelligent design, and stop the posturing. As I have said elsewhere, we ID proponents must be exemplary in our conduct if we hope to gain credibility in intellectual circles.Oatmeal Stout
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT
The Darwinian Fundamentalist, led by it’s chief fool Doctor Dawkins, has a pickle-pussed, deterministic view from the cozy triumphalist Victorian age of science where such uncomfortable discoveries like information theory, the quantum world, Gödel’s Theorem, Von Neumann, Alan Turing, the computer we call the “cell”, and a full exploration of the record of life didn't exist. The Darwinian Fundamentalist essentially believes in a revamped version of the old theory of spontaneous generation wherein life springs miraculously from inanimate matter. Never mind probability, math and evidence: just wave your hands, throw some putrid rags, fecal matter, and rotting fruit together and out pop maggots, bugs and vast computational automata from nowhere.StuartHarris
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT
Lenoxus (#3),
Poor Darwinists; all those fossils of organisms giving birth to utterly different organisms…
You mean like the algae that gave birth to trilobites without obvious intermediates? :) (Ditto for starfish, clams, etc.) Even chordates don't seem to have a series of fossils leading up to them.Paul Giem
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT
Barry, That was my attempt at subtlety. GilGilDodgen
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
The fossil record is a grand and ever-persistent testimony that Darwin was wrong about gradualism.
Poor Darwinists; all those fossils of organisms giving birth to utterly different organisms…Lenoxus
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
I believe that arguments from improbability, even when suped up with "detachable patterns," are on their deathbed. The reason is, purely and simply, that it is meaningless to speak of the objective probability that the universe should unfold in space and time as it has. We cannot say that Darwinian evolution is probable or improbable. What is remarkable about living systems, from my perspective, is that they are all intelligent systems. In contrast, a watch found on the heath is not an intelligent system, in any reasonable sense of the term. I think we need to drop the unsuccessful program of attempting to infer intelligent creation of information of some special type and move to emphasizing that intelligent systems are spawned only by other intelligent systems. This would force us to address directly a fundamental question that ID theorists have long evaded answering: What constitutes intelligence?Oatmeal Stout
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
Gil, stop it with the tiptoing around your point. Please tell us what you really think. ;-)Barry Arrington
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply