Evolution

[tooblue]

with Berlinski, Meyer, and Gelernter

Was Darwin Wrong?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-darwin-wrong/

"A final point, or rather, prediction, which I first made in The End of Science. No matter how much they learn, biologists will never really know how matter first became animate, just as cosmologists will never know how the universe began. Moreover, we will never find a final, definitive answer to the question of who we really are. Science-lovers should be grateful for the persistence of these mysteries. As long as they endure, so will our quest for self-knowledge.

*Here is James McClellan’s response to this column. For more on our ongoing argument about what Jim would call scientific “truth,” see also the introduction of my book Mind-Body Problems and the first three items in Further Reading."

"Like you, I don’t see these changes as effecting a revolution per se, but what’s happened in recent decades is not Kuhnian “normal science” either. Scientists across a broad range of disciplines (genetics, taxonomy, paleontology, etc.) are not working out problems dictated by the Darwinian paradigm, they have made dramatic new discoveries in entirely new areas that have radically reframed that paradigm and the context in which to think about life and its history. There is grandeur in this new view of life, so why force it into the Procrustean bed of nineteenth-century theorizing?"

[creekster]

I actually listened to the entire discussion in that video. I was not, to be honest, very impressed with their analysis. Moreover, they are focusing on something that is really not very important: whether Darwin was 'wrong' doesn't matter. Darwin created the framework for the paradigm. Nothing they are talking about requires the abandonment of the paradigm as modified by current knowledge. There was nothing there that was new or different. It was just intelligent design with a couple of not so articulate oddballs spitting out commentary. The moderator was pretty sharp, as was the intelligent design guy. But nothing new at all.

[beefytee]

Like Creek is saying, Darwin's theory will never be completely thrown out. It explains pretty generally what are now pretty obvious natural events.

Second if you want to discredit a large chunk of Darwin's theory and convince others that things don't add up, adding in the Intelligent Design paradigm is about the least effective way of doing it. Just say things don't add up and show how. Adding in the unscientific notion that there is intelligent intervention in the process isn't going to convince scientist, nor should it. At most, just say there is some enabling factor that isn't accounted for.

[tooblue]

Like Creek is saying, Darwin's theory will never be completely thrown out. It explains pretty generally what are now pretty obvious natural events.

Second if you want to discredit a large chunk of Darwin's theory and convince others that things don't add up, adding in the Intelligent Design paradigm is about the least effective way of doing it. Just say things don't add up and show how. Adding in the unscientific notion that there is intelligent intervention in the process isn't going to convince scientist, nor should it. At most, just say there is some enabling factor that isn't accounted for.

I'll post the following link again. It is a blog post review of the book: "The Tangled Tree: A Radical New History of Life."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-darwin-wrong/

The book is an interesting read. It's also apologetic—quote from the blog link above:

"Quammen, too, accuses New Scientist of sensationalism. Its headline may have “helped to sell magazines,” he comments, but it “caricatured the genuine challenge to Darwinian orthodoxy that the new discoveries raised.” Darwin “can’t be blamed” for not anticipating horizontal gene transfer, Quammen states. “He did the best he could, which was exceedingly well, with the evidence he could see.”

Throw out the creationist, along with the renowned Yale computer Science professor who lost his right arm opening a Uni-bomber package sent to him, and the eccentric philosopher and it's simple: mathematics, archaea, and Horizontal gene transfer expose serious flaws in a theory that is largely considered an absolute.

[SeattleUte]

I actually listened to the entire discussion in that video. I was not, to be honest, very impressed with their analysis. Moreover, they are focusing on something that is really not very important: whether Darwin was 'wrong' doesn't matter. Darwin created the framework for the paradigm. Nothing they are talking about requires the abandonment of the paradigm as modified by current knowledge. There was nothing there that was new or different. It was just intelligent design with a couple of not so articulate oddballs spitting out commentary. The moderator was pretty sharp, as was the intelligent design guy. But nothing new at all.

https://youtu.be/FDSpLBNQk5I

Somebody persuaded me to listen to Ben Shapiro interview the infamous founder of the Intelligent Design movement, which I've linked. I thought it was very interesting for two reasons. One was that Meyer is very good at explaining super complicated concepts and systems in layperson's terms. Second, Meyer very adroitly raised all of the unexplained issues and gaps in evolution, including the origin of life, consciousness, etc.

The disagreement resides in science's discipline in refusing to countenance anything that isn't material. If you move beyond what is discussed in this interview and discuss an intelligent designer (and they do it somewhat in this interview), you are outside the realm where science will tread. That is a collective policy decision within science, and I have no quarrel that. I think it's key to all of science's fruits. Science can't speculate or even countenance the super natural. That is a professional discipline, even though some individual scientists may have personal beliefs that do.

[tooblue]

I'll post the following link again. It is a blog post review of the book: "The Tangled Tree: A Radical New History of Life."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-darwin-wrong/

The book is an interesting read. It's also apologetic—quote from the blog link above:

"Quammen, too, accuses New Scientist of sensationalism. Its headline may have “helped to sell magazines,” he comments, but it “caricatured the genuine challenge to Darwinian orthodoxy that the new discoveries raised.” Darwin “can’t be blamed” for not anticipating horizontal gene transfer, Quammen states. “He did the best he could, which was exceedingly well, with the evidence he could see.”

Throw out the creationist, along with the renowned Yale computer Science professor who lost his right arm opening a Uni-bomber package sent to him, and the eccentric philosopher and it's simple: mathematics, archaea, and Horizontal gene transfer expose serious flaws in a theory that is largely considered an absolute.

Here's another article:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/s...bacteria-news/

"Until recently, the central tenets of Darwin’s theory of evolution, from how heredity works to the gradual variation in species, had been regarded as settled and beyond challenge. But as David Quammen, a National Geographic contributing writer, explains in his new book The Tangled Tree, new discoveries in human biology in the last few decades have led scientists to radically alter the story of the origins of life, with powerful implications for our health—and even our very nature."

[beefytee]

The disagreement resides in science's discipline in refusing to countenance anything that isn't material. If you move beyond what is discussed in this interview and discuss an intelligent designer (and they do it somewhat in this interview), you are outside the realm where science will tread. That is a collective policy decision within science, and I have no quarrel that. I think it's key to all of science's fruits. Science can't speculate or even countenance the super natural. That is a professional discipline, even though some individual scientists may have personal beliefs that do.

SU explains much more elegantly what I was trying to say.

[tooblue]

SU explains much more elegantly what I was trying to say.

I understand the point (and that SU is responding to my post indirectly ). Regardless, if you set aside Meyer's creationist views, exclusively because he is a creationist etc., you still must address the science behind the mathematics, the paradox of Archaea and horizontal gene transfer. Those are not supernatural forces.

Which is what is starting to happen.

[creekster]

Here's another article:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/s...bacteria-news/

"Until recently, the central tenets of Darwin’s theory of evolution, from how heredity works to the gradual variation in species, had been regarded as settled and beyond challenge. But as David Quammen, a National Geographic contributing writer, explains in his new book The Tangled Tree, new discoveries in human biology in the last few decades have led scientists to radically alter the story of the origins of life, with powerful implications for our health—and even our very nature."

I am probably not familiar enough with this stuff to talk about it here, but I am at a loss as to why you find this material so compelling. First, Darwin never addressed the origin of life, he addressed the origin of species. So you can conclude that archaea must have followed a different creation path and it doesn't affect the mechanism for speciation (plus, it is a peculiar bit of evidence to use to support the notion that God created life; its like God leaving a little drop of material somewhere that doesn't quite fit). It does not mean Darwin was wrong. Likewise, horizontal gene transfer is a mechanism that might have been significant (although the scope of that significance seems very unsettled) but it neither supplants Darwinian mechanisms nor does it urge intelligent design. It is an alternate method for spreading genetic information and allowing species to take advantage of variation that is neutral as to the origin of life. It also does not mean Darwin was wrong, it just means he was incomplete due to lack of information. I am not sure what you mean by your reference to math, but if you mean the timetable of speciation doesn't fit, there are some very real questions to be answered but asking how the human tree speciated at a rate faster than randomness of mutation might permit does not mean that Darwinian thinking (as opposed to Darwin himself) is wrong, it means it is not entirely explored. Moreover, as before, nothing about this issue means intelligent design must be the answer or is even a more plausible answer. In fact, it makes it easier to argue that intelligent design is even less plausible, but that is an irrelevant point.

If you want to say that Darwin, in his writings, was wrong in some respects because he lacked information or didn't foresee and answer all of the questions raised by subsequent analyses and investigations, you are probably correct. But nothing you have presented suggests, to me, that Darwinian inspired thinking is incorrect or is proven wrong. Further, nothing you presented suggests intelligent design as the answer.

[tooblue]

I am probably not familiar enough with this stuff to talk about it here, but I am at a loss as to why you find this material so compelling. First, Darwin never addressed the origin of life, he addressed the origin of species. So you can conclude that archaea must have followed a different creation path and it doesn't affect the mechanism for speciation (plus, it is a peculiar bit of evidence to use to support the notion that God created life; its like God leaving a little drop of material somewhere that doesn't quite fit). It does not mean Darwin was wrong. Likewise, horizontal gene transfer is a mechanism that might have been significant (although the scope of that significance seems very unsettled) but it neither supplants Darwinian mechanisms nor does it urge intelligent design. It is an alternate method for spreading genetic information and allowing species to take advantage of variation that is neutral as to the origin of life. It also does not mean Darwin was wrong, it just means he was incomplete due to lack of information. I am not sure what you mean by your reference to math, but if you mean the timetable of speciation doesn't fit, there are some very real questions to be answered but asking how the human tree speciated at a rate faster than randomness of mutation might permit does not mean that Darwinian thinking (as opposed to Darwin himself) is wrong, it means it is not entirely explored. Moreover, as before, nothing about this issue means intelligent design must be the answer or is even a more plausible answer. In fact, it makes it easier to argue that intelligent design is even less plausible, but that is an irrelevant point.

If you want to say that Darwin, in his writings, was wrong in some respects because he lacked information or didn't foresee and answer all of the questions raised by subsequent analyses and investigations, you are probably correct. But nothing you have presented suggests, to me, that Darwinian inspired thinking is incorrect or is proven wrong. Further, nothing you presented suggests intelligent design as the answer.

I'm not sure what agenda you are assigning to me? I am posting in a thread with the title "Evolution," couched within a forum called "The Foyer" which is, ostensibly, "a place to discuss religion." Thus, in context to the forum's stated purpose, the subject matter of my post(s) is inherently compelling.

Per my part, I am fascinated by the science. And I thought I would share some of the paths my readings on the subject have taken me. One thing in particular I find fascinating is the shift happening within the scientific community. There is now open acknowledgment of a Darwinian Orthodoxy, which is matched by some wonderful apologetics, some of which can be read in your post above (which should be noted didn't touch on the mathematics, likely because they are far too problematic to address, and much easier to ignore). And while you might argue there has always been acknowledgement of Darwinian Orthodoxy that's just not true, at least not in the way it is being spoken of now.

Again, in the context of this forum, predominantly frequented by individuals possessed of a common religious bond, the idea of a Darwinian Orthodoxy is immensely interesting. Is reading "The Tangled Tree," kind of like reading "Rough Stone Rolling?" Sounds like it could be.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Intelligent design is bullshit. SJBH.

[Pelado]

Intelligent design is bullshit. SJBH.

From the comments section of the Youtube link from SU above:

José Pellecer
4 months ago
This is one of my favorite Sunday specials, not because i am a fan of intelligent design, but rather because i am not. This interview gave me a lot of food for thought, which is greatly appreciated.

Fernando Garibaldi
4 months ago
Same man. The moment I saw ID I was like “ohh no not you Ben 🤦🏻*♀️”. But, then I actually listened and well I’m a little more open to ID. Not whole heartedly especially when he talked about the fine tuning of the universe.

Jared
2 days ago
@José Pellecer I agree, I'm actually a bit of ashamed at how inclined I was to think that the only proponents of ID would be some tired old evangelist-types who didn't understand evolution much at all.
We take so much for granted that we ought to be willing to be skeptical about and argue dispassionately. Especially with anything that has political implications, we need to have a culture that is open and relishes argumentation, even to rehash apparently settled arguments and is only as "certain" about something as the rigour or the evidence allows, otherwise motivated reasoning is very likely to lead us awry.
I've realized that many people, even scientists, are so partisan and dogmatic about a theory that we're actually far from having sufficient understanding of the mechanisms underlying it. Now personally I do believe it would be absurd to claim that any particular characterization of God is as scientific a hypothesis as evolution but I do think it is also absurd to claim that evolution as we understand it now is a clear refutation of the possibilty of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is not equivalent to making scientific claims in support of any given religion.

We must be open to possibilities, we don't even need to discard evolution of course, but we do the world a disservice by making strong claims of the explanatory power of evolution as we've presently established it, and I fear that the current way we treat preferred theories and consensus are leading scientists and institutions to enshrine a Scientism world-view that actually violates the openness, skepticism and competition that has made the scientific process so generative and successful.

I have to say, what I've learned about Evolution and Climate Change has left me disillusioned... this is coming from somebody somewhat educated in evolutionary theory and formerly very convinced of it.

[Northwestcoug]

I'll post the following link again. It is a blog post review of the book: "The Tangled Tree: A Radical New History of Life."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-darwin-wrong/

The book is an interesting read. It's also apologetic—quote from the blog link:

mathematics, archaea, and Horizontal gene transfer expose serious flaws in a theory that is largely considered an absolute

I read the Scientific American article, and it claims nothing like you say above. Maybe the book it is referencing tries to claim that, but the article is very skeptical of it. As you should be also.

It would be great if Woot could chime in. But your ‘trifecta’ above does little damage to Darwin’s overall theory. They are at best interesting side notes that modify a minor component of his theory. In my field, epigenetics has had a big impact on our understanding of cancer biology. And yes, Darwin didn’t know about genes, much less epigenetics. Still, his overall theory explains more of our observable life better than anything else. There will always be room for modifications to his theory. But there’s a reason why it has stood the test of time.

[tooblue]

I read the Scientific American article, and it claims nothing like you say above. Maybe the book it is referencing tries to claim that, but the article is very skeptical of it. As you should be also.

It would be great if Woot could chime in. But your ‘trifecta’ above does little damage to Darwin’s overall theory. They are at best interesting side notes that modify a minor component of his theory. In my field, epigenetics has had a big impact on our understanding of cancer biology. And yes, Darwin didn’t know about genes, much less epigenetics. Still, his overall theory explains more of our observable life better than anything else. There will always be room for modifications to his theory. But there’s a reason why it has stood the test of time.

I am well aware the blog article is written by a Darwin apologist. That was the point of sharing it—to provide a counter point to some of the ideas expressed in the video. It also points to his exchange between him and an opponent to his thinking, James McClellan.

When you stop defending the orthodoxy interesting things happen ... such as dialogue!

[Northwestcoug]

I am well aware the blog article is written by a Darwin apologist. That was the point of sharing it—to provide a counter point to some of the ideas expressed in the video. It also points to his exchange between him and an opponent to his thinking, James McClellan.

When you stop defending the orthodoxy interesting things happen ... such as dialogue!

LOL. Ok tooblue, you and those truly heroic scientists continue to ask those dangerous questions. The rest of us will be too busy trying to maintain the orthodoxy.