Behe's argument in Darwin Devolved

[David Bailey]

That's what I "believe" as well, but we both are being fallacious about it.

After all, if we were having this conversation 1,000 years ago we would have made similar statements about things that are considered mundane by comparison today.

Yes, but where is your proof? If I said the earth is flat, it wouldn't take you long to come up with an experiment that would force me to think again.

Behe has come up with a new idea (did you read what I wrote at the start of this thread?) that is a very strong argument to back up the intuitive idea that RM+NS cannot achieve very much.

David

 

[David Bailey]

Here is an interesting interview of Stephen Meyer by Ben Shapiro’s. After about 2 minutes of a senseless advertisement for a life insurance company (actually read by Shapiro himself!), it really covers the evidence for ID very well indeed - although I think it came out before Behe's new research.

David

 

[Wormwood]

Yes, but where is your proof? If I said the earth is flat, it wouldn't take you long to come up with an experiment that would force me to think again.

Behe has come up with a new idea (did you read what I wrote at the start of this thread?) that is a very strong argument to back up the intuitive idea that RM+NS cannot achieve very much.

David

I’m of the opinion that the “accidental mutation” mechanism of theory is so popular because its the best they can come up with. And since they KNOW (a-priori) that there’s no intelligence behind the formation of the universe, what else could they believe? It HAS to be an accident, and since it HAS to be an accident, what else could it be other than genetic mutation? If I were a materialist I’d believe the same thing. If you start with the assumption that materialism is correct, are there any alternatives?

But we know that consciousness affects matter through the following phenomena

1) The Psi research
2) Quantum Physics
3) The placebo effect
And there are others, but they aren’t as scientifically established.

Given this, along with the astounding improbability that bodies form on accident from random colliding particles, along with the hard problem of consciousness, I think the reality of some form of ID is readily apparent. Of course I reject the popular Christian notion of ID. But I find that more probable than the popular materialist explanation.

 

[David Bailey]

I think it is worth throwing this into any discussion about evolution:

It is another interview with Donald Hoffman, that pushes his ideas a little further.

In a way his ideas also connect with Behe's ideas in the sense that both contain the idea that evolution by NS doesn't do what we think!

You may want to skip the first few minutes until you hear Donald Hoffman start speaking.

We really should have this guy on Skeptiko!

David

 

[David Bailey]

Here indeed is a whole set of Donald Hoffman talks!

http://www.themindoftheuniverse.org/scientist?id=Donald_Hoffman

David

 

[Wormwood]

I find sheldrakes arguments toward the idea of “morphogenetic fields” pertinent towards any discussion of the idea evolution. No doubt his theories are not right in all regards, but the data he cites is very strong evidence that some other force is helping to shape the formation of living matter. I particularly find it interesting when he states that DNA has no known property or propensity towards directing proteins to be built in certain shapes and directions.

 

[David Bailey]

That is an excellent description of Sheldrake's idea of a morphogenetic field, and it illustrates most clearly why he chose to describe his hypothesis as a field.

I think it is worth pointing out that his fields are intentional - maybe conscious - I mean all those limb reintegrations are done with the intention of restoring the normal limb.

David

 

[The Ethical Skeptic]

OK, got Behe's book on order. It has pretty high Amazon ratings despite being targeted by the religious nihilism crowd. Looking forward to it.

I will read it with a neutral to critical eye, as an evolutionist.

 

[Wormwood]

That is an excellent description of Sheldrake's idea of a morphogenetic field, and it illustrates most clearly why he chose to describe his hypothesis as a field.

I think it is worth pointing out that his fields are intentional - maybe conscious - I mean all those limb reintegrations are done with the intention of restoring the normal limb.

David

Totally. To me, Sheldrakes idea of “morphogenetic fields” are roughly analogous to the idea of “collective consciousness.” Which we are all part of. That’s how I see it anyways. It’s a directive and self aware, creative force of which we are all part. And this is what I think of the idea of Intelligent Design as well. These things are roughly analagous in ways we don’t understand, but I think the connection To consciousness is there. And I believe that all current living creatures are playing a part in deciding “design” or “physician and psychological” evolution.

 

[David Bailey]

Totally. To me, Sheldrakes idea of “morphogenetic fields” are roughly analogous to the idea of “collective consciousness.” Which we are all part of. That’s how I see it anyways. It’s a directive and self aware, creative force of which we are all part. And this is what I think of the idea of Intelligent Design as well. These things are roughly analagous in ways we don’t understand, but I think the connection To consciousness is there. And I believe that all current living creatures are playing a part in deciding “design” or “physician and psychological” evolution.

Yes - we mustn't identify ID with Yaweh - far better to identify it with Sheldrake's ideas. And indeed what Sheldrake is implying is that evolution may be far less about changing DNA, and far more with changing the MF! I mean, most of the protein-specifying DNA codes for stuff that we have in common with yeast! I mean, how much are slight variations in succinic dehydrogenase (to pick a metabolic enzyme at random) going to make to an organism anyway? To really move an organism in a new direction you probably need to modify Sheldrake's MR.

David

 

[David Bailey]

Here is a general (but very good) discussion with Behe:

https://www.discovery.org/v/michael-behe/

David

 

[The Ethical Skeptic]

Here is a general (but very good) discussion with Behe:

https://www.discovery.org/v/michael-behe/

Thanks David, enjoyed that video. I am slowly working through his book, trying to get to a point where I can ensure that I truly understand the critical argument, can craft an objective model of it, and finally can contrast that with a true genetic model of evolution (not the symbolic argument) - and then add value ...still at it.

But Behe has a good point, scientists make for horrible philosophers. The problem is that skepticism is philosophy, and is as well the basis of science. We observe many issues where failures in skepticism have served to harm tens or hundreds of millions of people. Behe may be right here.

 

[David Bailey]

Thanks David, enjoyed that video. I am slowly working through his book, trying to get to a point where I can ensure that I truly understand the critical argument, can craft an objective model of it, and finally can contrast that with a true genetic model of evolution (not the symbolic argument) - and then add value ...still at it.

But Behe has a good point, scientists make for horrible philosophers. The problem is that skepticism is philosophy, and is as well the basis of science. We observe many issues where failures in skepticism have served to harm tens or hundreds of millions of people. Behe may be right here.

Thanks, I look forward to that. For some reason Behe seems to have slipped from the news a bit - but that might just be that not too many conventional biologists want to do battle with him!

David

 

[Bart V]

Thanks, I look forward to that. For some reason Behe seems to have slipped from the news a bit - but that might just be that not too many conventional biologists want to do battle with him!

David

Or he is simply not on their radar.
It is hard to see how scientists would be interested in the output of an organization that has vowed to replace science with religion.

 

[Bart V]

This is a good example of the discussion starting at a point far beyond what i can agree with.
I see much more evolution in design, than design in evolution.

 

[David Bailey]

This is a good example of the discussion starting at a point far beyond what i can agree with.
I see much more evolution in design, than design in evolution.

How much genetics do you know? I'd be interested if you can critique what I wrote - particularly the three different types of mutations.

You need to realise that I too used to believe in evolution by natural selection (RM+NS) before Lone Shaman and I had some long discussions. I think Behe's book is very strong evidence (along with many other pieces of information) that RM+NS could never have been primarily responsible for life on earth.

I'll try to go through it with you if you like.

Thanks, I look forward to that. For some reason Behe seems to have slipped from the news a bit - but that might just be that not too many conventional biologists want to do battle with him!

If you listen to the latest video that I posted, you will discover that Behe doesn't know the origin of the intelligence, and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, David Berlinski, describes himself as an 'Atheist Jew', and just for good measure, I am not a member of any religion - certainly not a Christian.


David

 

[The Ethical Skeptic]

This is a good example of the discussion starting at a point far beyond what i can agree with.
I see much more evolution in design, than design in evolution.

Exactly what stands as "a good example of the discussion starting at a point far beyond what [you] can agree with?" The fact that DNA mutates, or talk of morphogenetic fields? Or of the 150 things contended or pondered here, every single one of them?

 

[David Bailey]

Bart,

I may be wrong, but I think your approach is to believe in mainstream science, but without choosing to delve into any of the details.

A lot of people take your approach, which is superficially quite reasonable, esspecially to those who aren't interested in science.

However, many of us are interested in those details, and question whether those details stack up to produce anything like the standard overall picture which you take for granted. If you don't want to discuss the details because they don't interest you, that's fine, but there doesn't seem to be much point in posting here.

David

 

[dr.cyd]

Such a smart discussion of evolution! Makes me think I can ask you-all your opinion of this idea I've been having about "junk" DNA. Do you suppose we can think of "junk" DNA as a history of prior DNA coding that is no longer used by the organism? If this were so, would not the huge portion of our unused DNA be a kind of Noah's Ark, carrying forward the evolutionary history of life on earth, used or unused as needed by the particular organism?

I've written a couple of long articles debunking natural selection over at my blog. My articles are more theoretical/thought experiments; not research based. I float this idea of unused DNA being a historical record of life on earth. Do you think that Is possible? [https://asimpleexplanation.blogspot.com/2018/11/a-simple-explanation-of-tuskless.html] [https://newgnosticgospel.blogspot.com/2019/04/a-gnostic-perspective-of-evolution.html]

As promised, here is an explanation as to why I find Behe's new book exciting!

Behe has written a number of books on evolution, all of which contain strong arguments against the idea of evolution by Natural Selection (NS). In his latest book he introduces a new, and I feel clinching argument against NS (although frankly I don't think more argument against NS should be necessary).

Behe then goes on to consider the alternative - that all the machinery in the cell (he gives amazing examples of this) must have been intelligently designed. Although he is (I think) a Christian, he doesn't really mention this - preferring to discuss the way science developed to exclude teleological explanations.

Behe says the book is suitable for anyone to read, but I would say those with at least some understanding of the biology of cells (DNA, RNA, proteins, chromosomes, etc) would get a lot more out of it. I really recommend this book!

David

 

[David Bailey]

Such a smart discussion of evolution! Makes me think I can ask you-all your opinion of this idea I've been having about "junk" DNA. Do you suppose we can think of "junk" DNA as a history of prior DNA coding that is no longer used by the organism? If this were so, would not the huge portion of our unused DNA be a kind of Noah's Ark, carrying forward the evolutionary history of life on earth, used or unused as needed by the particular organism?

Thanks!

I guess some of the 'junk' must consist of broken genes, but also some of it seems to code for RNA which isn't transcribed into proteins, but does something in its own right.

Michael Larkin is the biologist around here, so maybe he can take the discussion further.

David