Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Natural selection as negative principle only

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A friend writes to note what philosopher of science, John Elof Boodin (1869-1950), had to say about natural selection:

The principle of natural selection is indeed an important contribution to biology. But it is a negative, not an architectonic, principle. It does not explain why variations appear, why they cumulate, why they assume an organization in the way of more successful adaptation. Organisms must, of course, be able to maintain themselves in their life environment and in the physical environment, in order to leave descendants and determine the character of the race. But that is all natural selection tells us. It does not explain the traits and organization of organisms nor why they become well or badly adapted to their specific environment.

Can’t seem to find this online, but it’s consistent with something we did find:

Even in such fields as science, where reason is supposed to be most at home, we drift invariably into traditions and schools. Darwin’s hypothesis of chance variations and natural selection has not merely become a dogma of science, but has been erected into a philosophy of the universe; and the limitations of the hypothesis and the empirical spirit of its creator have been lost sight of in an intolerant tradition which has had serious consequences, not only for the development of natural science but for the social ideals and progress of the race. This is only one instance where mysticism has supplanted reason in science and where the authority of facts has been forced to yield to the authority of tradition. In every field of science we are haunted by ghosts of the past to which lesser minds pay superstitious reverence and by which even greater minds are misled into false assumptions. And the most dangerous ghost of all is that mechanical materialism which, while it has no scientific credentials but is simply a false dogma tacked on to science, has become fashionable among scientists. If science is always in danger of subordinating reason and experience to dogmas, the danger is even greater iii philosophy and art where the emotional element naturally plays a greater part – John E. Boodin. “The Law of Social Participation”, American Journal of Sociology, 27, 1921: 22-53.

Imagine, 1921… Well before Mencken on the Scopes Monkey Trial (1925) and Buck v. Bell (1927). Also:

The modern point of view which finds its typical expression in Darwinism emphasizes change, history, mechanical causes, flux of species, determination of the higher by the lower. History runs on like an old man’s tale without beginning, middle, or end, without any guiding plot. It is infinite and formless. Chance rules supreme. It despises final causes.

More on Boodin’ approach here. See also: Natural selection: Could it be the single greatest idea ever invented?

Comments
Origenes, Take dog coats, for instance. Three genes have been identified, RSPO2, FGF5 & KRT71 that work in combination. Mutations to these genes, mutations not found in wolves, result in coats that are wiry, curly, long, or have furnishings (moustaches and eyebrows). (Short is the ancestral wolf condition.) http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/genomics/2011/Green/Fig3-Dog.pngZachriel
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
re 130: see https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/new-scientist-vs-william-lane-craig-on-infinity-explanations/#comment-601832 starting about comment 43.Aleta
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
Ellazimm: Are you saying that ever single modern breed of dog is the result of culling from the thousand year old wolf genome? That dogs have no new genes from wolves? Are you really saying that? Origenes: Yes. Really. I am really saying that. That's something that can be tested — has been tested. It's called the Dog Genome Project. The dog genome shows the signs of a complex evolutionary history. One finding is that all dog breeds are more closely related to one another than to wolves. Another finding is that dogs crossbred with wolves later in history. In any case, your claim is false. The dog genome has many features not found in wolves.Zachriel
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
F/N: Is this the thread where Mapou has been most aggressively fulminating recently? KFkairosfocus
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
F/N: My clip from Trevors and Abel on OSC, RSC, FSC in my always linked background note: http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Info_design_and_science.htm#orfsc KF PS: The paper: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958 (onwards, in 2007, Durston et al provided a metric) PPS: For clarity the discussion was on orderly, random and functional sequence complexity. As any 3-d structure can in principle be described by a string of y/n q's in a description language, discussion on strings is WLOG. Something I have pointed out for years and years. I get the feeling that polarisation in the penumbra of attack sites based on strawman caricatures has led to confusion and to ears closed to what we actually have to say so there is a loss of sense of duty of care to fairness, accuracy and truth. It is high time this stopped. In the wider circles, the Wikipedia article on ID has long been an open shame, an example of a willful hostile distortion presented in hopes of it being perceived as true. A hatchet job and proof of Wiki's blatant lack of credibility and balance when addressing matters that are not aligned with the evolutionary materialist secularist statist agenda.kairosfocus
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
KF Thanks for offering a good example of how key distinctions are blurred and terminology is misused. RSC:rglercg ddkfow4o ayqgjtdirvmkcay7pycnire3uy OSC: SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD FSC: This is a functionally specific, organised string of glyphs in English text coded for by use of ASCII codes or the like In the first example, Random Specified Complexity -- through a manipulation of terminology and disguise, this is claimed as "Highly Structured". Of course, it is "structured" even "ordered" if you want to play that game. Converting all terms to numerics, you can derive a range, mean, medium and plot the results and run a line through them. In the end, this is claimed to be "non-random" and a basis for prediction. So, Non-Random (a term that applies to every molecule in the universe if you want, since all have similar/predictable composition and movement) -- is exaggerated to mean "Ordered". Then Ordered is extrapolated out as "Structured". From Structured, the distinction is blurred so it is equivalent to "Functional Specific Complexity". Or at least, when we require examples of FSC, we hear the claim that we're 'moving the goalposts'. The process is the same with the most trivial adaptation one can observe in bacteria. That is extrapolated as clear evidence for the mechanism that produced all of the diversity of life on earth. It's like saying that this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_high_jump_world_record_progression is clear evidence that natural selection is enabling humans to fly.Silver Asiatic
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
F/N: Thaxton et al in TMLO, 1984:
1. [Class 1:] An ordered (periodic) and therefore specified arrangement: THE END THE END THE END THE END Example: Nylon, or a crystal . . . . 2. [Class 2:] A complex (aperiodic) unspecified arrangement: AGDCBFE GBCAFED ACEDFBG Example: Random polymers (polypeptides). 3. [Class 3:] A complex (aperiodic) specified arrangement: THIS SEQUENCE OF LETTERS CONTAINS A MESSAGE! Example: DNA, protein.
So, there is no excuse for setting up strawman caricatures. KFkairosfocus
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
Dr Selensky, Are you thinking of the reference in Plato to nature vs art, in The Laws, Bk X? If so, here is what I have:
Ath. . . . we have . . . lighted on a strange doctrine. Cle. What doctrine do you mean? Ath. The wisest of all doctrines, in the opinion of many. Cle. I wish that you would speak plainer. Ath. The doctrine that all things do become, have become, and will become, some by nature, some by art, and some by chance. Cle. Is not that true? Ath. Well, philosophers are probably right; at any rate we may as well follow in their track, and examine what is the meaning of them and their disciples. Cle. By all means. Ath. They say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art, which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . . . fire and water, and earth and air, all exist by nature and chance . . . The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them . . . After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [i.e. mind], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? . . . . if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise.
Could this be it? KFkairosfocus
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
EZ, again, it is quite plain that there is a distinction between say -- WLOG -- orderly and periodic, random and complex, specified strings, with extensions to 3-d structures. That goes back to Orgel, but can be seen in a simple case, as has been commonly put into ID literature since TMLO by Thaxton et al in 1984:
RSC:rglercg ddkfow4o ayqgjtdirvmkcay7pycnire3uy OSC: SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD FSC: This is a functionally specific, organised string of glyphs in English text coded for by use of ASCII codes or the like
If you profess not to know the difference between the three, then that simply exposes the refusal to face patent facts. Here is Orgel, 1973:
. . . In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . . [HT, Mung, fr. p. 190 & 196:] These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure. [--> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant "wiring diagram" for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here, here and here (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).] One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [--> so if the q's to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions. [--> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes. [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196. Of course, that immediately highlights OOL, where the required self-replicating entity is part of what has to be explained (cf. Paley here), a notorious conundrum for advocates of evolutionary materialism; one, that has led to mutual ruin documented by Shapiro and Orgel between metabolism first and genes first schools of thought, cf here. Behe would go on to point out that irreducibly complex structures are not credibly formed by incremental evolutionary processes and Menuge et al would bring up serious issues for the suggested exaptation alternative, cf. his challenges C1 - 5 in the just linked. Finally, Dembski highlights that CSI comes in deeply isolated islands T in much larger configuration spaces W, for biological systems functional islands. That puts up serious questions for origin of dozens of body plans reasonably requiring some 10 - 100+ mn bases of fresh genetic information to account for cell types, tissues, organs and multiple coherently integrated systems. Wicken's remarks a few years later as already were cited now take on fuller force in light of the further points from Orgel at pp. 190 and 196 . . . ]
That is the baseline from which all of this comes. The question now on the table for you is can you face patent facts, and -- like onto it -- are you willing to hold your fellow design objectors accountable to such patent facts? KFkairosfocus
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
F/N: A fellow of Max Planck will have had a long string of publications in the peer reviewed literature whatever debates or disagreements may have happened onward. Dismissing such a person as an unpublished loon is utterly inappropriate. KFkairosfocus
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
IE, Mapou speaks for himself and sees to have gone off rails recently. I have been too busy to watch and look closely but noticed something seems wrong. KFkairosfocus
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
KF: "Scorched earth rhetorical tactics are a sign of a desperate retreat, just as say the Russians did in the face of the advancing panzers in 1941. KF" Based on your statement, Mapou's antics must be a confirmation that ID is in full retreat.Indiana Effigy
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
WD400, I think the misunderstanding is on your part in not recognizing the fact that your asserting a population is increasing its fitness is to state the obvious. To be blunt, its one of those 'no shit shirlock' moments. An organism has to be constantly changing its allele frequency in order to stay viable. So there will always be an increase in a particular allele over another allele. It couldn't be any other way. So what is the point of stating that a population is increasing its fitness? If it didnt increase its fitness, the population would not exist. IOW, a constantly increasing fitness is equal to no change in fitness. Organisms are always fit precisely because they continually shuffle their allele frequency to be ready for any change in environmental conditions.
Steve, in a thread full of strange misunderstandings this might be the strangest. Consider a an allele “p” in a population with frequency 0.05 and phenotype such that “p/p” homozygotes have fitness 1, wild type homozygotes have fitness 0.9 and heterozygotes are exactly intermediate. In this population much less that one percent of the population has the most fit genotype, and the mean fitness is around 0.9. But after ten generations the expected frequency of “p” is ~0.81, about 65% of the population have the most fit genotype and the mean fitness is ~0.98. Do you really claim this population has not increased its fitness?
Steve
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
KF #115
loon is a dismissive personal insult not the addressing of an argument on merits
Interesting that you call me on this one, small incident whereas no one has been calling Mapou on much, much worse things. It's your site so you can have a double standard if you wish.
I suspect also that a fellow of the Max Planck Institute would have a significant number of peer reviewd articles for what that is worth.
As Me_Think has pointed out already, his background is far from respectable.
The issue however is not the appeal to authority of a hidden magisterium, but the substantial matter. And if we see people on your side failing to police a refusal to recognise a material distinction between low information order, randomness and functionally specific, information rich functional organisation — now abundantly discussed in peer reviewed materials per Abel, Trevors et al — then that itself tells us in a back handed way just how strong the case is.
We disagree with you and we're failing to police a refusal to accept your view?
Scorched earth rhetorical tactics are a sign of a desperate retreat, just as say the Russians did in the face of the advancing panzers in 1941.
Again, you've failed to 'police' similar tactics perpetrated on UD in the last few days. Secondly, just calling one person's qualifications into question is NOT scorched earth rhetoric. I know you find it difficult to understand why some intelligent people disagree with you but quite a few do. That doesn't excuse your use of a very crude and divisive metaphor. By the way, the recent comments sidebar on the home page is not updating. You might want to fix that.ellazimm
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT
Andre @ 118 He worked at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research until 2008. He was such an embarrassment to Max Planck that it had to removed his publication list: http://www.mpipz.mpg.de/~loennig/literatur.html He surreptitiously ran personal homepage on Max Planck server to give credibility to his researchMe_Think
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT
I think the good Doctor is an expert in his field, me thinks Ellazimm is a weasel..... http://www.amazon.com/Unser-Haushund-Eine-Spitzmaus-Wolfspelz/dp/3956451082Andre
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT
Silver #108 Handshake! And Zachriel, of all people here, accusing others of playing word games. It is hilarious ;)EugeneS
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus, I haven't seen your comments here for a long time. Actually, I was going to ask a favour of you. Could you point me to a citation from Aristotle drawing an analogy between art and life. I seem to remember you using it. Many Thanks.EugeneS
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT
EZ, loon is a dismissive personal insult not the addressing of an argument on merits. I suspect also that a fellow of the Max Planck Institute would have a significant number of peer reviewd articles for what that is worth. The issue however is not the appeal to authority of a hidden magisterium, but the substantial matter. And if we see people on your side failing to police a refusal to recognise a material distinction between low information order, randomness and functionally specific, information rich functional organisation -- now abundantly discussed in peer reviewed materials per Abel, Trevors et al -- then that itself tells us in a back handed way just how strong the case is. Scorched earth rhetorical tactics are a sign of a desperate retreat, just as say the Russians did in the face of the advancing panzers in 1941. KFkairosfocus
March 30, 2016
March
03
Mar
30
30
2016
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT
Origenes #111
Yes. Really. I am really saying that.
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is a loon. I've heard him interviewed on ID: The Future. I wouldn't base your beliefs on his work. Which has not been peer-reviewed. That means other people in his field have not had a chance to look it over and offer criticisms pre-publication. Are you a geneticist? Can you fairly evaluate his work? Or are you just agreeing with him because he supports a view you already hold? Following that logic you must think that all life forms are pared-down versions of some ancient genome. But you won't make that commitment explicitly. I can't blame you for that as there are clear problems with such a belief. Modern genome sizes are one issue. Also a massive genome which combines all the genetic diversity we see today would be for what kind of creature? A plantimal? I don't think you've really thought this through.ellazimm
March 29, 2016
March
03
Mar
29
29
2016
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT
EugeneS,
“Sometimes I am 100% sure Zachriel is a ID supporter.” I have that suspicion too. He posts sometimes such utter rubbish that I am now more inclined to believe he is doing it on purpose ????
How deviously clever! So Z subtly lures WD400 and others off into dangerous territory for some perverse pleasure, and then advances rubbish arguments to make them look silly by association. Some people are way too smart. Plus Z never breaks character. I'm amazed! Thanks for pointing this out--I fell for it too. ;-) -QQuerius
March 29, 2016
March
03
Mar
29
29
2016
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
Origenes @ 111 What do you expect from a person who included this as hypothesis in a journal ? :
Hypothesis C: The ICS is a result of intelligent design, and appeared independently irrespective of phylogeny
Note: ICS is inverted calyx syndrome He is part of Euro-ID creationism movement. He was also on the editorial board of Biocomplexity. For more such 'novel' interpretation check out the German website http://www.evolutionslehrbuch.info/ I understand that we should address the arguments of the person, but what you quote is equivalent to quoting Mapou on physics :-). I mean, who can you argue against their 'profound' knowledge ?Me_Think
March 29, 2016
March
03
Mar
29
29
2016
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
Ellazimm:
Origenes: Dogs exemplify loss of information and are therefor illustrative for the not creative nature of culling.
(...) how do you know dogs exemplify loss of information? Are you saying that ever single modern breed of dog is the result of culling from the thousand year old wolf genome? That dogs have no new genes from wolves? Are you really saying that?
Yes. Really. I am really saying that.
Excerpt: In his latest book, geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig of the Max Planck Institutes in Germany takes on the widespread view that dog breeds prove macroevolution. … He shows in great detail that the incredible variety of dog breeds, going back in origin several thousand years ago but especially to the last few centuries, represents no increase in information but rather a decrease or loss of function on the genetic and anatomical levels.
“Dr. Lönnig shows forcefully that one of the chief examples Darwinists rely on to convince the public of macroevolution — the enormous variation in dogs — actually shows the opposite. Extremes in size and anatomy come at the cost of broken genes and poor health. Even several gene duplications were found to interfere strongly with normal growth and development as is also often the case in humans. So where is the evidence for Darwinian evolution now? The science here is indeed solid. Intriguingly, Lönnig’s prediction from 2013 on starch digestion in wolves has already been confirmed in a study published this year. … ” [Behe]
linkOrigenes
March 29, 2016
March
03
Mar
29
29
2016
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
But they wouldn’t! They didn’t arise naturally before men starting selective culling.
I thought they did it by selective breeding. If you breed selectively, then you will get something new without regard to what dies when.Phinehas
March 29, 2016
March
03
Mar
29
29
2016
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
EugeneS: Read a book. The Aeneid by Virgil: "I sing of arms and of the man who of old from the coasts of Troy came, an exile of fate" EugeneS: Order vs chaos is a false dichotomy. True. Many chaotic systems also exhibit order, such as storm complexes.Zachriel
March 29, 2016
March
03
Mar
29
29
2016
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
EugeneS Understood. I think function is a better term than either order or organization, since there's no agreed-upon definition for the latter two. Specified complex function is even better, as I see it. This thread illustrates quite well that much of evolutionary thinking is just word games. Natural selection, evolution, fitness, random, non-random, order, species ... the list goes on. They're ambiguous terms used in manipulative ways.Silver Asiatic
March 29, 2016
March
03
Mar
29
29
2016
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic Order vs chaos is a false dichotomy. This is evolutionistic pet toy. Function is organization i.e. a totally different concept.EugeneS
March 29, 2016
March
03
Mar
29
29
2016
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Zachriel. Read a book.EugeneS
March 29, 2016
March
03
Mar
29
29
2016
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
Hence, populations are not getting more or less fit. Rather they are maintaining fitness.
Steve, in a thread full of strange misunderstandings this might be the strangest. Consider a an allele "p" in a population with frequency 0.05 and phenotype such that "p/p" homozygotes have fitness 1, wild type homozygotes have fitness 0.9 and heterozygotes are exactly intermediate. In this population much less that one percent of the population has the most fit genotype, and the mean fitness is around 0.9. But after ten generations the expected frequency of "p" is ~0.81, about 65% of the population have the most fit genotype and the mean fitness is ~0.98. Do you really claim this population has not increased its fitness?wd400
March 29, 2016
March
03
Mar
29
29
2016
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: That article offered no empirical evidence of what structure is and therefore it cannot show that crystals meet the standard of what is correctly meant by “structured” or give evidence of what is “non-structured”. structure, the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex. "flint is extremely hard, like diamond, which has a similar structure" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/structure Seriously. You're arguing that crystal structure is not an example of structure. You seem to enjoy playing semantics. Not sure the point.Zachriel
March 29, 2016
March
03
Mar
29
29
2016
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 7

Leave a Reply