Paul Davies on the gap between life and non-life

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 14, 2023

Origin Of Life}

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

It’s a big one. Theoretical physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist Paul Davies talks to Robert Lawrence Kuhn at Closer to Truth about the conundrums: “What is life and how did it arise from non-life? Is it as simple as the random organization of complex chemicals on the early Earth? What are the pathways whereby chemicals turned into life? Is life inevitable? Or extremely rare? What’s remarkable is how little we know. ”

A reader notes that Davies says at 37m30s: “What life makes is consistent with physics and chemistry, but is not dictated by physics and chemistry.” Well, by a process of elimination, doesn’t that leave information? Design? And how are things designed without intelligence? At this point, one can only say, Keep talking.

Comments

Whistler @284 I agree with you and others who point out that things are not "random." However, the point I am trying to make is that, granted random mutations, unguided evolution performs far worse than a blind search because it is hampered — not aided — by natural selection. IOWs the whole Darwinian concept makes no sense at all.Origenes_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Specifically, random variation can be seen as driving the search for biological novelties.
There's no search. Please pay attention.Alan Fox_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

So, here is my question again: if unguided evolution is not a search, tell me what it is and give me a model of it.
A cell is a far more advanced version of an Automatic pilot. Automatic pilots consist of four major elements: (1) a source of steering commands (such as a computerized guidance program or a radio receiver), (2) motion and position sensors (such as gyroscopes, accelerometers, altimeters, and airspeed indicators), (3) a computer to compare the parameters specified in the guidance program with the aircraft’s actual position and motion, and (4) servomotors that actuate the craft’s engines and control surfaces to alter its flight when corrections or changes are required. PS: Do not confound "random" weather conditions with response of autopilot itself to "random" weather conditions. If a darwinist watch only the autopilot reactions he would think that are random which is totally wrong. :)whistler_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

Seversky @282
Natural selection is not “searching” for anything. It’s simply the process by which the less well-favored species lose out in the competition for resources in a given environmental niche.
I agree. However, my question was about the entire process of unguided evolution, not the aspect of natural selection exclusively. Specifically, random variation can be seen as driving the search for biological novelties. So, here is my question again: if unguided evolution is not a search, tell me what it is and give me a model of it.Origenes_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Natural selection is not "searching" for anything. It's simply the process by which the less well-favored species lose out in the competition for resources in a given environmental niche. If one of those unfortunate species went extinct a couple of mutations short of some "biological novelty" (whatever that might be), too bad. Apart from us, who cares? As PM1 pointed out, there is no known capability in living organisms by which they can forecast their future needs and then go in and edit their genome to generate just the right mutations in just the right places to produce the traits that will give them a survival advantage over their competitors down the line. And what if their competitors have the same ability?Seversky_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

tell me what it is and give me a model of it
Unguided Evolution is a "stumble on it" process. There is a gazillion possibilities but only the 100th root of this gazillion have shown up. The better "stumble ons" are preserved and this process is called natural selection. It's not a search but a stumble or happenstance process People here should read what they claim instead of calling them names. There used to be evolutionary biologists that commented here so it was easier to know what was what. Everything was polite with them and they were very informative. A good metaphor is that there is a valley with a thousand valleys beyond and a hiker weaves his way through the valley and finds another valley. This valley leads to another thousand valleys. But he never found the original 999 valleys only the one he got to. Similarly he will miss most of the valleys beyond the new valley he just found as he stumbles through this new valley. This was an analogy that was presented years ago.jerry_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox @279 If unguided evolution is not a search, tell me what it is and give me a model of it.Origenes_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

In the context of finding biological novelties, unguided evolution is a search.
No.Alan Fox_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

Assuming that there are random mutations, unguided evolution, starting with the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), veers off in all possible directions. Next natural selection eliminates entire branches of the viable organisms that random mutations supposedly come up with. Therefore, the random search for biological novelties is hampered by natural selection. Yet, somehow, many believe that natural selection improves a blind search for biological novelties. Explain to me why that is. Teach me why that is.Origenes_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

ChuckyD, as someone who takes his handle from Charles Darwin himself, it is more than just a little hypocritical for you to claim that someone who disagrees with your scientifically unsupported, and metaphysically insane, Darwinian worldview is the one who has 'confirmation bias'.bornagain77_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus However, over the past decade plus, this has been addressed enough that it should be clear that mutations do affect genes etc and that they are often effectively random.
No. What you call it "random" actually is an error in the system. Darwinists have been controlling the language in the last 80 years and ID proponents fell into the trap by using those terms . It's impossible to know if a mutation is random without knowing EVERYTHING about the cell. We don't know if a mutation is an error or a directed mutation unless we observe the consequences of that mutation and call it negative or neutral (positive mutations without loss of function nobody observed :) )because we don't know all the "scripts" operating in the cell. Barbara McClintock understood this in 1940 or something. PS: No positive mutations are observed but adaptation works like a charm. Why? Not because of chance . Chance has no place in life systems that survive for 1 week let alone thousands of years.Sandy_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

Meanwhile as Rome burns and the fiddlers fiddle, there is someone who according to a UD OP has solved it all. The top OP of UD is on someone who will tell you how proteins arise. Is that true? I had a hard time understanding her so I don't know what she has said. Meanwhile, here the overwhelming evidence is that two variants of species evolution by basic genetics (Darwinian processes including natural selection) can inner breed. Wow!jerry_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

BA77/273 Nice set of secondary sources. Let's just call it Confirmation Bias R Us........chuckdarwin_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

A few notes that the meat robot named Alan Fox may find uncomfortable, (if meat robots are capable of having the inner subjective conscious experience necessary to 'feel' uncomfortable) :)
Jan. 2022 Fossil Record refutes human evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-fox-news-adam-and-eve-are-compatible-with-evolution/#comment-744141 Fossils and Human Evolution (full series) - Casey Luskin - Oct. 2022 https://evolutionnews.org/tag/fossils-and-human-evolution-series/ Sept: 2022 - Genetic Evidence falsifies the claim the humans evolved from apes-like creature. And falsifies it in a ‘hard’ manner. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-did-life-first-arise-by-purely-natural-means/#comment-765765 Population Genetics falsifies, instead of confirms, Darwinian claims for human evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/christian-darwinists-must-now-backtrack-re-adam-and-eve/#comment-741335 Human exceptionalism falsifies Darwinian claims for human evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740249 Darwinists, (in what makes the ‘problem’ of explaining the origin of the human species pale in comparison), have no clue whatsoever why “I” should even come into existence as a “person” with a unique individual subjective conscious experience, but are instead reduced to arguing that my sense of self, my “I”, is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/casey-luskin-the-mytho-history-of-adam-eve-and-william-lane-craig/#comment-740568
bornagain77_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

AF @267
Ori: Put differently, how NS improves the blind search that is being conducted by random mutations.
AF: Mutations and other sources of variation happen. There is no searching going on.
In the context of finding biological novelties, unguided evolution is a search.
Ori: In my understanding, NS is at best a “gamble.” All the chips are put on genotype B. The gamble is that this genotype will produce biological novelties, and genotype A and C would not.
AF: Life is a gamble. Selection is a statistical bias on reproductive success. It does not need a huge bias to drive some alleles to fixation and others to extinction. If you mean selection can only act on whatever variation turns up in a population, that’s right.
That’s not my point. The context of my questioning here is finding biological novelties. It seems obvious to me that polar bears and brown bears BOTH involved in the search for biological novelties improve the chance of finding new stuff. You, and Darwin, seem to think that natural selection improves the chance of a successful search by eliminating the brown bears. Can you explain that concept? Can you explain how NS improves the blind search that is being conducted by random mutations?Origenes_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

To expand on my point, ultimately, we (the human species) are one product of the evolutionary process acting over four billion years, the product of the various niches our ancestors have found themselves in. But that evolutionary process today is less important now than the cultural evolution that has led to humans current domination and destruction of this planet.Alan Fox_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

AF: "The current mountain of evidence overwhelmingly supports the the ideas of common descent and change over time." Unsurprisingly, yet another patently false claim from the meat robot named Alan Fox. From the fossil record, to comparisons of genetic sequences themselves, the 'mountain of evidence' itself testifies strongly against common descent. Shoot, the biological form of any particular species is now shown to be irreducible to mutations to DNA.
Fossil record https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/could-newly-hatched-pterosaurs-fly/#comment-743796 New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model - Cornelius Hunter - July 20, 2018 Excerpt: Ewert’s three types of data are: (i) sample computer software, (ii) simulated species data generated from evolutionary/common descent computer algorithms, and (iii) actual, real species data. Ewert’s three models are: (i) a null model which entails no relationships between any species, (ii) an evolutionary/common descent model, and (iii) a dependency graph model. Ewert’s results are a Copernican Revolution moment. First, for the sample computer software data, not surprisingly the null model performed poorly. Computer software is highly organized, and there are relationships between different computer programs, and how they draw from foundational software libraries. But comparing the common descent and dependency graph models, the latter performs far better at modeling the software “species.” In other words, the design and development of computer software is far better described and modeled by a dependency graph than by a common descent tree. Second, for the simulated species data generated with a common descent algorithm, it is not surprising that the common descent model was far superior to the dependency graph. That would be true by definition, and serves to validate Ewert’s approach. Common descent is the best model for the data generated by a common descent process. Third, for the actual, real species data, the dependency graph model is astronomically superior compared to the common descent model. Where It Counts Let me repeat that in case the point did not sink in. Where it counted, common descent failed compared to the dependency graph model. The other data types served as useful checks, but for the data that mattered — the actual, real, biological species data — the results were unambiguous. Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent. Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other. We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand. Ten thousand is a big number. But it gets worse, much worse. Ewert used Bayesian model selection which compares the probability of the data set given the hypothetical models. In other words, given the model (dependency graph or common descent), what is the probability of this particular data set? Bayesian model selection compares the two models by dividing these two conditional probabilities. The so-called Bayes factor is the quotient yielded by this division. The problem is that the common descent model is so incredibly inferior to the dependency graph model that the Bayes factor cannot be typed out. In other words, the probability of the data set, given the dependency graph model, is so much greater than the probability of the data set given the common descent model, that we cannot type the quotient of their division. Instead, Ewert reports the logarithm of the number. Remember logarithms? Remember how 2 really means 100, 3 means 1,000, and so forth? Unbelievably, the 10,064 value is the logarithm (base value of 2) of the quotient! In other words, the probability of the data on the dependency graph model is so much greater than that given the common descent model, we need logarithms even to type it out. If you tried to type out the plain number, you would have to type a 1 followed by more than 3,000 zeros. That’s the ratio of how probable the data are on these two models! By using a base value of 2 in the logarithm we express the Bayes factor in bits. So the conditional probability for the dependency graph model has a 10,064 advantage over that of common descent. 10,064 bits is far, far from the range in which one might actually consider the lesser model. See, for example, the Bayes factor Wikipedia page, which explains that a Bayes factor of 3.3 bits provides “substantial” evidence for a model, 5.0 bits provides “strong” evidence, and 6.6 bits provides “decisive” evidence. This is ridiculous. 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence, and when the dependency graph model case is compared to comment descent case, we get 10,064 bits. But It Gets Worse The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450. In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450. We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/ Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/could-newly-hatched-pterosaurs-fly/#comment-743732
bornagain77_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT}

Insanity, thy name is Darwinian metaphysics!
Disingenuousness, thy name is Phil. ETA: What I said: Yes, sort of, though I don’t know, as I said. The current mountain of evidence overwhelmingly supports the the ideas of common descent and change over time. Why there is a universe and why there are humans has not been answered yet.Alan Fox_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT}

For people interacting with the meat robot named Alan Fox, please be forewarned, you not talking with Alan Fox himself but you are merely talking with Alan Fox's 'niche'
BA77: “So AF holds that the ‘niche”, not AF himself, is responsible for the information that he himself is writing in his posts?” Alan Fox: “Yes, sort of, though I don’t know,,,,” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-for-darwinism-pregnancy-is-the-mother-of-all-chicken-and-egg-problems/#comment-771084
:) Insanity, thy name is Darwinian metaphysics!
“You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today” Jerry Coyne – professor emeritus at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution - No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20
bornagain77_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

I would like to have a general understanding of the concept that natural selection helps find biological novelties.
A biological novelty in genetics is a new variant of a gene, a new allele. Variation happens not only via mutations but also during meiosis in gametes prior to sexual reproduction. Natural selection favours beneficial (in the immediate niche) alleles by differential reproduction. For example, one adaptation polar bears have that helps their survival in arctic conditions is fat storage and digestion, as their diet is almost exclusively seal meat and blubber.
Put differently, how NS improves the blind search that is being conducted by random mutations.
Mutations and other sources of variation happen. There is no searching going on.
In my understanding, NS is at best a “gamble.”
Life is a gamble. Selection is a statistical bias on reproductive success. It does not need a huge bias to drive some alleles to fixation and others to extinction.
All the chips are put on genotype B. The gamble is that this genotype will produce biological novelties, and genotype A and C would not.
If you mean selection can only act on whatever variation turns up in a population, that's right.Alan Fox_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

So, polar bears survived the polar niche and some type of brown bears have been eliminated.
No, it's much more interesting than that. Here is one press account of recent work comparing genomes.
My question here is: how did it help to eliminate these brown bears in the context of finding biological novelties?
In this case, the generally accepted hypothesis is speciation by allopatry. A warm period allowed brown bears to extend their range further north, then a glaciation trapped a small population of brown bears forcing them to adapt to arctic conditions or die out.Alan Fox_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox
Ori: Suppose there are 3 different genotypes in this population: A, B, and C. Next a very cold winter sets in and only genotype B survives. So, we see the much-glorified selection pressure applied by the niche in action. Now explain to me how the elimination of genotypes A and C contributes to finding biological novelties.
Alan Fox: The shared ancestry of brown bears and polar bears is a fascinating example of this scenario.
So, polar bears survived the polar niche and some type of brown bears have been eliminated. My question here is: how did it help to eliminate these brown bears in the context of finding biological novelties? Feel free to give another example. I would like to have a general understanding of the concept that natural selection helps find biological novelties. Put differently, how NS improves the blind search that is being conducted by random mutations. In my understanding, NS is at best a "gamble." All the chips are put on genotype B. The gamble is that this genotype will produce biological novelties, and genotype A and C would not.Origenes_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT}

F/N: Meanwhile, we have no plausible, empirically supported mechanism for a darwin pond or the like to be a base for origin of cell based life by blind chance and mechanical necessity. Where, there is no doubt that statistical thermodynamics rests on chance as driving the micro level. What do we know about the source of FSCO/I? Design, intelligently directed configuration, trillions of observed cases, no exceptions. But, that is oh so inconvenient so it must be locked out. KFkairosfocus_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT}

BA77, yes, you have a serious point. Chance and/or randomness are core concepts put on the table by champions of evolutionism, and they have to now live with the consequences. KF PS, Wiki confesses, thumbscrews and racks in sight:
In common usage, randomness is the apparent or actual lack of pattern or predictability in events.[1][2] A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination.
[--> thus, reflects utter want of intelligently directed configuration, we again see how the design issue goes to the heart of matters, with signs of intelligently directed configuration and/or signs of mechanical necessity both being distinct contrasts to random chance, thence too detachable description as specification and fine tunes functional configuration at a zone of operating points [island of function] amidst a vast sea of non functional ones in a configuration space as a strong sign of design. But, no, no, no, strictly verboten, tut tut!]
Individual random events are, by definition, unpredictable, but if the probability distribution is known, the frequency of different outcomes over repeated events (or "trials") is predictable.[note 1]
[--> this ties to, probabilities as indices of what is known/unknown, thence information as what reduces uncertainty or ignorance thus metrics of information. Information lurks here . . . ]
For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will tend to occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is not haphazardness; it is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome. Randomness applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy. [--> yup, thence, the informational school of thermodynamics etc, as has often been raised here at UD] The fields of mathematics, probability, and statistics use formal definitions of randomness. In statistics, a random variable is an assignment of a numerical value to each possible outcome of an event space. This association facilitates the identification and the calculation of probabilities of the events. Random variables can appear in random sequences. A random process is a sequence of random variables whose outcomes do not follow a deterministic pattern, but follow an evolution described by probability distributions.
[--> thus, the trichotomy, mechanical necessity, blind chance, choice and the ART-ificial, with design as intelligent choice leading to directed configuration, which can in certain cases be detected by studying signs of design. But of course, Wiki must lock out the very notion that such is reasonable, going back to Plato in The Laws, Bk X]
These and other constructs are extremely useful in probability theory and the various applications of randomness. Randomness is most often used in statistics to signify well-defined statistical properties. Monte Carlo methods, which rely on random input (such as from random number generators or pseudorandom number generators), are important techniques in science, particularly in the field of computational science.[3]
and
Chance may refer to: Mathematics and Science In mathematics, likelihood of something (by way of the Likelihood function and/or Probability density function). [Wictionary] Noun chance (countable and uncountable, plural chances) (countable) An opportunity or possibility. We had the chance to meet the president last week. (uncountable) Random occurrence; luck. Why leave it to chance when a few simple steps will secure the desired outcome? (countable) The probability of something happening. There is a 30 percent chance of rain tomorrow. (in plural as chances) probability; possibility. (countable, archaic) What befalls or happens to a person; their lot or fate.
So, yet again, we see the suppression of what should be manifestly significant.kairosfocus_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

FP 241:
Whistler writes: "Who demonstrated that mutations are random? Nobody" FP: "Nobody attempts to demonstrate this because nobody claims that mutations are random. The only claim is that they are random with respect to fitness."
Well actually FP, the theoretical core of Darwin's 'bottom-up' materialistic theory holds mutations to be truly random, not just random in regards to fitness. As Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod once wrote, "chance alone is at the source of every innovation, and of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution",,,
“It necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, and of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among many other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition - or the hope - that on this score our position is ever likely to be revised. There is no scientific concept, in any of the sciences, more destructive of anthropocentrism than this one.” - Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology
And as Curtis Johnson found in examining Darwin’s writings all the way back to his earliest notebooks, "Randomness remained, and still remains, the disturbing center of Darwin’s theories."
True Darwinism Is All About Chance – – Noah Berlatsky – Jun 14, 2017 Excerpt: Chance is an uncomfortable thing. So Curtis Johnson argues in Darwin’s Dice: The Idea of Chance in the Thought of Charles Darwin, and he makes a compelling case. The central controversy, and the central innovation, in Darwin’s work is not the theory of natural selection itself, according to Johnson, but Darwin’s more basic, and more innovative, turn to randomness as a way to explain natural phenomena. This application of randomness was so controversial, Johnson argues, that Darwin tried to cover it up, replacing words like “accident” and “chance” with terms like “spontaneous variation” in later editions of his work. Nonetheless, the terminological shift was cosmetic: Randomness remained, and still remains, the disturbing center of Darwin’s theories. https://psmag.com/environment/wealth-rich-chance-charles-darwin-darwinism-chance-meritocracy-89764 “Johnson has meticulously examined the role of chance in Darwinian evolution and produced a superlative study. By dissecting the mass of Darwin’s writings back to his earliest notebooks, Johnson has concluded that “‘Darwinism’ had a single meaning . . . from beginning to end” (xii) and that chance formed the leitmotif of his thought from his Notebooks B and C commenced in July of 1837 to his death in April of 1882. “A designed world in all of its parts and operations,” he writes, “cannot be a chance world in any (of) them; and a world in which chance plays any role at all seems to be one that excludes a place for an omnipotent designer” (67). Darwin had to choose between a designed world or a world of chance; he chose the latter and adopted a variety strategies aimed a concealing this atheistic proposition. Focusing on chance allows Darwinian evolution to come into much sharper metaphysical focus. Johnson’s assertion that Darwin’s departure from Christianity was early and abrupt may be uncomfortable to some, but his detailed and exhaustive analysis makes it hard to argue against the fact that Darwin’s “chance-governed world seems tantamount to a godless world” (xviii). As such, Johnson’s bold and clearly argued thesis makes for an important addition to our understanding of the man and his theory.” – Michael Flannery review: “Darwin’s Dice: The Idea of Chance in the Thought of Charles Darwin” – 2017
In fact, a major reason that many prominent members of the "Third Way" have rejected Neo-Darwinism is precisely because of the fact that the vast majority of mutations to DNA are now known to not be truly random, but are found to be cell-mediated, even 'directed', changes to DNA.
"It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns” - James Shapiro - Evolution: A View From The 21st Century - (Page 82) "Physiology Is Rocking the Foundations of Evolutionary Biology": Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Takes Aim at Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin March 31, 2015 Excerpt: Noble doesn't mince words: "It is not only the standard 20th century views of molecular genetics that are in question. Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Noble, 2006, 2011; Beurton et al. 2008; Pigliucci & Muller, 2010; Gissis & Jablonka, 2011; Shapiro, 2011). In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved." Noble then recounts those assumptions: (1) that "genetic change is random," (2) that "genetic change is gradual," (3) that "following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population," and (4) that "inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible." He then cites examples that refute each of those assumptions,,, He then proposes a new and radical model of biology called the "Integrative Synthesis," where genes don't run the show and all parts of an organism -- the genome, the cell, the body plan, everything -- is integrated. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/physiology_is_r094821.html
Moreover FP, even your attempt to salvage Darwinism by falsely claiming that "nobody claims that mutations are random. The only claim is that they are random with respect to fitness", falls flat. First, as the following study found, "mutations are assumed to be random in the bereft of selection pressures," (Yet) "there are fixed probabilities for the type of change in selection pressure-free conditions that are far from random."
Probability of change in life: Amino acid changes in single nucleotide substitutions - June 2020 Excerpt of Abstract: mutations are assumed to be random in the bereft of selection pressures,,,, (Yet) Our calculations reveal an enigmatic in-built self-preserving organization of the genetic code that averts disruptive changes at the physicochemical properties level.,,, Discussion We found in-built intrinsic biases and barriers to drastic changes within the genetic code. Within single mutational events, there are fixed probabilities for the type of change in selection pressure-free conditions that are far from random. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/11/06/729756.full.pdf
And as Cornelius Hunter documents in the following article, the claim that mutations are only held to be random ‘with regard to fitness’, i.e. to the needs of the individual, is now also known to be a false claim in and of itself.
(False) Prediction of Darwinism – Mutations are not adaptive – Cornelius Hunter In the twentieth century, the theory of evolution predicted that mutations are not adaptive or directed. In other words, mutations were believed to be random with respect to the needs of the individual. As Julian Huxley put it, “Mutation merely provides the raw material of evolution; it is a random affair, and takes place in all directions. … in all cases they are random in relation to evolution. Their effects are not related to the needs of the organisms.” (Huxley, 36),, Ronald Fisher wrote that mutations are “random with respect to the organism’s need” (Orr). This fundamental prediction persisted for decades as a recent paper explained: “mutation is assumed to create heritable variation that is random and undirected.” (Chen, Lowenfeld and Cullis) But that assumption is now known to be false. The first problem is that the mutation rate is adaptive. For instance, when a population of bacteria is subjected to harsh conditions it tends to increase its mutation rate. It is as though a signal has been sent saying, “It is time to adapt.” Also, a small fraction of the population increases its mutation rates even higher yet. These hypermutators ensure that an even greater variety of adaptive change is explored. (Foster) Experiments have also discovered that duplicated DNA segments may be subject to higher mutation rates. Since the segment is a duplicate it is less important to preserve and, like a test bed, appears to be used to experiment with new designs. (Wright) The second problem is that organisms use strategies to direct the mutations according to the threat. Adaptive mutations have been extensively studied in bacteria. Experiments typically alter the bacteria food supply or apply some other environmental stress causing mutations that target the specific environmental stress. (Burkala, et. al.; Moxon, et. al; Wright) Adaptive mutations have also been observed in yeast (Fidalgo, et. al.; David, et. al.) and flax plants. (Johnson, Moss and Cullis) One experiment found repeatable mutations in flax in response to fertilizer levels. (Chen, Schneeberger and Cullis) Another exposed the flax to four different growth conditions and found that environmental stress can induce mutations that result in “sizeable, rapid, adaptive evolutionary responses.” (Chen, Lowenfeld and Cullis) In response to this failed prediction some evolutionists now are saying that evolution somehow created the mechanisms that cause mutations to be adaptive. https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/mutations-are-not-adaptive
Moreover, as if that was not bad enough for Darwinists, in population genetics John Sanford and company, (when realistic rates of detrimental to beneficial mutations are taken into account), have now falsified “Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase”
The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations – June 2018 Excerpt: Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part I: Fisher’s Impact – Bill Basener and John Sanford – February 15, 2018 Excerpt: While Fisher’s Theorem is mathematically correct, his Corollary is false. The simple logical fallacy is that Fisher stated that mutations could effectively be treated as not impacting fitness, while it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, providing a downward pressure on fitness. Our model and our correction of Fisher’s theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations), take into account the tension between the upward force of selection with the downward force of mutations.,,, Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics). Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality. Therefore, we have reformulated Fisher’s model and have corrected his errors, thereby have established a new theorem that better describes biological reality, and allows for the specification of those key variables that will determine whether fitness will increase or decrease. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/defending-the-validity-and-significance-of-the-new-theorem-fundamental-theorem-of-natural-selection-with-mutations-part-i-fishers-impact/
Moreover, if, (as Darwinists hold), ‘fitness’ really were the way in which all life on earth originated and diversified, then, as Donald Hoffman has now mathematically proven, “an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.”
The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/
This finding that ‘fitness’ undermines our ability to have reliable observations, and as far as empirical science itself is concerned, is catastrophic for the claim that Darwin’s theory is 'scientific'. Specifically, since a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself is the presupposition that we have, fairly, reliable observations about reality, then a worldview that directly undermines our ability to have, fairly, reliable observations about reality, obviously, cannot possibly be based upon the scientific method.
Steps of the Scientific Method Observation/Research Hypothesis Prediction Experimentation Conclusion - per science made simple
Moreover, completely contrary to what is, via the mathematics of population genetics, predicted, via Darwin's theory, for the “unreliability’ of our observations, it turns out that accurate perception, and/or fairly reliable conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than what the mathematics of population genetics predicts, via ‘fitness’, for Darwinian evolution. For instance, In the following ‘Delayed Choice’ experiment that was done with atoms instead of photons, it was found that “At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness - 27 May 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/experiment-confirms-quantum-theory-weirdness
Apparently empirical science itself could care less if Darwinian atheists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, and ‘fitness’ in particular, that ALL of their observations of reality are unreliable and/or illusory!
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

PS, in a highly polarised environment with ideological domineering at work, what "majorities" think is of little value. The issue, ever, is warrant. And here, when objectors have a track record of dismissiveness on:
- watches [not to mention sidestepping Paley's self replicating watch in Ch 2 ever since 1858/9 and sidelining Wallace], - 747s, - von Neuman kinematic self replicators, - ASCII text they composed in English here at UD, - the well known genetic code in the cell, - the Orgel-Wicken SC-wiring diagram framework followed up by Thaxton et al, - Abu 6500 C fishing reels, - gears, nuts and bolts, - hardware store inventories, - a world of artifacts around us, and even - fishing pliers and water pump pliers
. . . as examples of FSCO/I -- so, it cannot be imaginary or incoherent, as observed to be actual -- that tells us we are not dealing with reason but with ideological agendas. At this stage, we need to expose the clear irrationality and want of respect for evidence, duty to truth, duties to fairness, etc involved. Then, perhaps, there can be a willingness to actually address substance seriously.kairosfocus_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

Folks, randomness is a big issue. I can consider the effective model approach, where the mathematical concept is good enough [e.g. classical ideal gas], or sensitive dependence on initial conditions triggers unpredictability [toss a die], or clashing of uncorrelated . . . independent . . . dynamical or circumstantial processes yields effective randomness [e.g. the use of phone numbers to generate poor man's random numbers], or things like sky noise or quantum based noise [zener diode noise], and of course Johnson counters. There is indeed a lot of loose talking and yes the insincere will pounce on such as a distractor, the above snideness and suggestiveness distraction from pairs of pliers as demonstrations of the observable reality of FSCO/I, joined to refusal to acknowledge the demonstration speak for themselves on the polarised, dismissive, hyperskeptical mentality that is too often at work among objectors. However, over the past decade plus, this has been addressed enough that it should be clear that mutations do affect genes etc and that they are often effectively random. Back in radiation physics 101, I recall being astonished that the first focal case for radiation damage is water molecules, not the biomolecules themselves. But, H2O is the commonest molecule in the cell and setting loose H, OH and possibly O in the otherwise tightly controlled cellular environment can have obvious disruptive impact that can overwhelm the built in repair mechanisms. Radiation sickness due to RA exposure is real and can kill. At lower levels, subtler abnormalities can lead on to cancer, where as ovaries are formed and loaded in the womb, say a bomb or industrial accident can directly affect three generations: mother, daughter in the womb, grandchildren. Sadly, there are two major experiments now approaching their eightieth year, in Japan. However, the point the infinite monkeys exercise shows, is the unreasonableness of expecting complex code to be composed incrementally through survival filtered lucky noise. There is a reason why FSCO/I is a strong sign of design, and there is a reason why such is stoutly resisted, even by resorting to questionable rhetoric. KFkairosfocus_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT}

PS Mike Behe used Polar bear genetics as an example of an edge to evolution. I don't think it was widely accepted. No time to look up stuff now.Alan Fox_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT}

Suppose there are 3 different genotypes in this population: A, B, and C. Next a very cold winter sets in and only genotype B survives. So, we see the much-glorified selection pressure applied by the niche in action. Now explain to me how the elimination of genotypes A and C contributes to finding biological novelties.
The shared ancestry of brown bears and polar bears is a fascinating example of this scenario. There's plenty of stuff to find on the web. Apparently the most recent common ancestor was Irish. ;)Alan Fox_{February 22, 2023
February
02
Feb
22
22
2023
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT}

Whistler writes:
A bot can’t detect the main meaning in a message with multiple competing meanings
My apologies. I wasn’t aware that I was responding to a bot.Ford Prefect_{February 21, 2023
February
02
Feb
21
21
2023
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply