The Philosopher is Dead, Long Live the Philosopher
For a theory that is supposed to be scientific, and therefore not teleological, evolution certainly does have its share of Aristotelian commitments. In fact, the Philosopher seems to be present at every turn in evolutionary thought. Consider the
latest thinking from evolutionists—a brand new theory formulated to replace the last brand new theory which, not surprisingly, failed just as badly as the previous theories. The new one is called the
extended evolutionary synthesis. First there was evolution. Then there was the evolutionary synthesis. Now there is the extended evolutionary synthesis. Well at least this one affords evolutionists a three-letter acronym. Here is how evolutionists describe it (as usual, watch for the infinitive form):
the EES regards the genome as a sub-system of the cell designed by evolution to sense and respond to the signals that impinge on it. Organisms are not built from genetic ‘instructions’ alone, but rather self-assemble using a broad variety of inter-dependent resources. Even where there is a history of selection for plasticity, the constructive development perspective entails that prior selection underdetermines the phenotypic response to the environment.
Designed by evolution? To sense and respond? Organisms self-assemble? This isn’t science, this is absurdity.
The basis for this is hilarious, but I think welcome - FIRST "evolution" DESIGNED the genome (wow that random evolution is SMART!) And NO you can't have natural selection at the level of just the genome so that would be a miracle in itself), then it hooked in with some miraculous "laws" of purposeful self-assembly. I love it, just as in the quest for materialist explanations of the Cosmos, they end up proving intelligent design at every turn. They keep hoping to find some kind of boot strap, which is so improbable as to be nonsensical, but then they assume they are done by throwing on some rambling about self-assembly... and then you have Shapiro with "Natural Genetic Engineering" LOL, what is next "Natural Genetic Programming"?" They keep digging their own hole and yet I think they are getting closer to the facts - life cannot be defined by current laws of physics and chemistry, it is information and a purposeful use thereof - DESIGN. Sorry Darwin, Dawkins, it's not just the appearance of, it is...
ReplyDelete""...a brand new theory formulated to replace the last brand new theory which, not surprisingly, failed just as badly as the previous theories."
ReplyDelete"First there was evolution. Then there was the evolutionary synthesis. Now there is the extended evolutionary synthesis."
Are you implying that there is something wrong with scientific theories being modified as additional evidence becomes available? I always thought that this is a requirement of the scientific process.
I also think that you are being a little disingenuous with your statements that each earlier theory failed badly. The modern synthesis did not discard Darwin's theory; it simply incorporated new knowledge (new for the first few decades of the 20th century). And the current understanding of evolution has not discarded the concepts from either Darwin or the modern synthesis; it simply is addressing more recent evidence (e.g., HGT, epigenics, etc. etc.). Given these facts, no rational person could clai that the previous theories failed badly. All they can claim was that they were incomplete, something that Darwin knew in his day.
Neo-Darwinism is a complete and utter failure empirically and logically- this is not some slight modification to the synthesis (mutation jumped on simply because it was the only material process they could think of), and that ended up explaining NOTHING. In fact, even in micro-evolution as in the infamous Finch Beaks, the most likely explanation is moving toward epigenetics as it happens so quickly and cyclically. They are not "tweaking" a successful theory, they are pilling on all new breakthroughs in "what" happens in evolution - but even the mechanisms of these, HGT, Gene duplication, epigenetics are poorly understood. Yet they have disproved neo-darwinism as any type of creative force (controlled death is all mutations get you basically). We see this in origin theories of the Cosmos as well endless epicycles dumped on a theory to keep it viable, instead of envisioning a new approach. I am not trying to offend you, but you sound like a typical materialist in that you choose "of course it happened because we are here" but at the same time you are saying that all of the new mechanisms that seem to go far beyond laws of physics and chemistry, that we are not even close to understanding the "how" of, are still part of the modern synthesis. The tree of life is dead, now an "impenetrable" thicket, Stasis is a label they give to creatures that remain unchanged over Millions of years (we are expected to believe their environment did not change one bit), epigenetics is taboo for Darwinsim - how many failures should a theory get before you cry "uncle" and start over?
DeleteMaybe you and you friends should start a new theory over no ?
DeleteI you think this EES is bullcrap, you could maybe propose your own theory.
It's easy to critize and much harder to propose alternatives.
For the moment ID can't even produce a paper like the one cited, even with its numerous supporters.
Get to work guys !
Evolution isn't a theory. As for ID, at least it has a scientific methodology. Evolutionism doesn't even have that.
Delete"... the EES regards the genome as a sub-system of the cell designed by evolution to sense and respond ..."
DeleteJ: In other words, the EES is another story-telling clan. The cause of stories is the human imagination. No sane person thinks that the human imagination caused genomes to evolve.
Huh? You just proved your own theory wrong and contradicted yourself, if a genome is a cell that evolution designed to sense and respond then wouldn't it make sense? if humans evolve with imagination what makes you think that the genome wouldn't follow suit? Sense and respond Duh, or r you so smart to know that life cant figure it out on its own. My recall tells me man sure can mess up what he does not know.or better yet what he thinks he knows. Seems to me man is notorious for believing that he knows what's best for any living thing no less self. when he can't even figure out where it came from. Come on fellas???
DeleteIts like they are just guessing and we are smarter now then when they first guessed with old man Chuck.
ReplyDeleteI don't think 15 years will go by without evolution, as is, being sent to the ashheap of history of wrong, maybe dumb, ideas.
Its like they are just guessing and we are smarter now then when they first guessed with old man Chuck.
ReplyDeleteI don't think 15 years will go by without evolution, as is, being sent to the ashheap of history of wrong, maybe dumb, ideas.
Actually this blog is quite good if you want to know more about evolution. This is a good paper to discuss indeed !
ReplyDeleteThe paper is really interesting. Taking sentences out of context without trying to understand it does not do it justice.
Thanks, Calamity, I think we have a winner!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLOL. Figured you two guys would like it.
ReplyDeleteThey should have named the paper "How to prove evolution with zero scientific proof in 20 pages or more."
You should read that : http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080
DeleteThe answer to Laland et al is very well documented. You might learn a few thing about the current knowledge of the evolution of living organisms.
Thanks to evolutionism no one knows what makes an organism what it is. We can't even answer that most basic biological question!
DeleteJoke: "Thanks to evolutionism no one knows what makes an organism what it is. We can't even answer that most basic biological question!"
ReplyDeleteThen it looks like a vacuum that you and ID should be able to fill with little effort. But I forget, iD is not about the mechanism (ie, HOW) of what makes an organism.
Come back when you have an answer.
LoL! Evolutionism can't answer anything. And only through ID will we ever figure out what makes an organism what it is.
DeleteI'm OK with that.
"And only through ID will we ever figure out what makes an organism what it is."
DeleteHow is that possible when you repeatedly say that ID is not about the "how"? And if it's not about the "how", why do IDists keep wanting to teach it as an alternate to evolution, which is all about the "how"? That makes as much sense as teaching cooking as an alternate theory to the biochemistry of digestion.
How is that possible when you repeatedly say that ID is not about the "how"?
DeleteThat has nothing to do with what makes an organism what it is. Obviously you have other issues.
And evolutionism doesn't know how- evolution is all about the how but your position has nothing. I know that makes you upset.
Boy, for smart people you sure wasted alot of money on concluding your degrees in ass hole ism not to be confused with any of the current theories, which are all building blocks of information leading to the inevitable horizon of truth. this particular ism has been proven time and time and time again by man himself not being willing to look at what is right in front of him.boy oh boy go to sushi together have a saki and vow to donate your brains to twd. Omg! Stop trying to impress and look for the plain beauty in life,creation and its will to be. Your answers may in fact sound like "were working on it". Done
ReplyDelete