Why Evolutionary Theory Is Fundamentally Flawed

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1231
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: "failed-theory Darwinians"

Post #121

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 118 by mgb]
My argument is that even though there are millions of individuals that don't amount to a hill o'beans when compared to the immense complexities we are talking about.


That is a very vague statement. You have 2-3 billion years of trillions upon trillions of single-celled organisms evolving over the globe, then 1 billion or so years of multicellular organisms. The single-celled prokaryotes are immensely complex themselves, and once brains, nervous systems, muscle systems, and things like that developed they spread across millions of species. "Immense complexities" has no quantitative meaning.
Another problem with evolution by chance changes is that you would have to have innumerable mass extinctions just to evolve one species.


Why? That makes no sense. Nothing in ToE says that one group has to go extinct before another one can dominate. If that were true we wouldn't have the diversity of life we have today, with millions of species all living together on the same planet. And you have to consider chance changes, plus selection, as we keep pointing out.
If there's another guy 1000 miles away he is not going to go extinct just because the other guy can run faster!


Of course not, and ToE makes no such claim.
Even if there are individuals getting different advantages throughout the population it would still take too many generations for the rest to go extinct and for them to dominate because, according to the theory, changes are small and painfully slow.


Why do the rest have to go extinct? There are some 250,000 described species of plants, 12,000 described species of roundworms, 4,000 described species of mammals, and over 350,000 beetle species described. It has never been a situation where one species rises to domination and all the others must go extinct. That is a really strange (and wrong) interpretation of how ToE works.
If evolution is incremental on this small scale it would take forever for the ones with slight advantages to dominate. Many generations. But how long have mammals existed? Only millions of years.


Why do they have to dominate? They can live in different geographical areas, or speciate, etc. Mammals have existed for about 200 million years, with generational cycles lasting from under 1 year to 20-30 years. With a 10 year generational cycle that's 20 million generations of mammals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals

The speed of evolutionary change depends on the forcing functions as well as mutation rates. It is well known that exposure to certain chemicals, for example, and cause the DNA repair mechanism to fail allowing far greater mutation rates than normal (ie. more mutations "get through" because the DNA repair mechanism doesn't stop them as it normally would). Drastic environmental changes can cause selection for traits present only in a tiny part of the population, which then very rapidly spread to a new population (eg. bacteria that have resistance an an antibiotic). It is not one fixed rate process based purely on mutation rates, and can happen very slowly or relatively rapidly depending on many external factors (with natural selection operating on the results of any DNA changes).
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown..
Carl Sagan

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8684
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: "failed-theory Darwinians"

Post #122

Post by Bust Nak »

mgb wrote: All the body parts get what they needed at more or less the same time. It is the difference between getting a 6 on a dice and getting 10 6s on 10 dice simultaneously.
Is it though? Did you see my earlier post re: adding in the mechanism of lock down? It's easy to get 10 6's on 10 dice simultaneously if you get to re-roll only the failures, locking in the successes. I have dice right here, I just did a run, all it took was 16 tries to get 10 6's.

(Again, with the caveat this is an over simplication as evolution doesn't get to lock down successes this way, instead it uses multiple trials to get a simular result to one trial + lock down.)
What are the chances of all body parts getting the right mutations at the same time? (I'm speaking about the article on whales here)
Don't know, you tell me. What are the odds? More importantly, why don't you think such odds are beyond random mutations?

mgb
Guru
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Europe

Post #123

Post by mgb »

DrNoGods wrote:That is a very vague statement. You have 2-3 billion years of trillions upon trillions of single-celled organisms evolving over the globe, then 1 billion or so years of multicellular organisms. The single-celled prokaryotes are immensely complex themselves, and once brains, nervous systems, muscle systems, and things like that developed they spread across millions of species. "Immense complexities" has no quantitative meaning.
I think it puts a clearer perspective on things if we just focus on 'modern' life which has evolved since the Cambrian Explosion. As I said earlier, if we ascribe 10 years to each generation since then, there have only been 55 million generations. Then the argument must be that all the evolution that has taken place since then has had only that many generations. That's not much considering the complexity that has arisen since the Cambrian Explosion.
Bust Nak wrote:Is it though? Did you see my earlier post re: adding in the mechanism of lock down?
No. Can you post again?
More importantly, why don't you think such odds are beyond random mutations?
Because of the complexity of living organisms. Evolution is not just about a species changing shape - like getting bigger bones or longer hair or more fat cells for warmth. That is just more of the same. Evolution is about complex structures evolving like the interlocking vertebrae of the backbone or the hinge of a fly's wing etc. Not to mention the brain or kidneys etc. Millions of individuals don't really add up to much when you consider the complexity of it all.

Also, a human being is not just a physical body. The true mystery of human life is an ontological mystery - the mystery of mind and being. The human mind is connected to a vast universe of intelligence and creativity and inventiveness. You only have to look at the history of civilization to see that. So how could such sophisticated minds evolve as a mere by product of natural selection? What IS the psyche? Why are our minds living in this vast universe of creativity and intelligence? Is all this really just an accidental spin off of survival advantage? Kurt Godel said that the idea that the self/ego is a construction of molecules is one of the stupidest ideas ever. I'm inclined to agree.

Personally, I think ToE is a very elegant theory and there is SOME truth in it (eg, species certainly do evolve). But science and mathematics is strewn with the corpses of failed theories. And I think a lot of people believe in ToE because it is so logical and coherent and makes sense. One only has to imagine a house fly turning into a flying dragon to see how neat the theory is. But just because the theory flows so easily in the imagination does not mean it is true. Abstractly, in the imagination, it works. But the real question is, can it work in the crudness of the physical world? That's where I have my doubts.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1231
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Post #124

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 121 by mgb]
That's not much considering the complexity that has arisen since the Cambrian Explosion.


This is just a qualitative feeling though. You have to crunch the numbers to determine if it is reasonable. It is clear you believe the complexity of modern life is just too much for evolution to have arrived at, but the fossil record and genetics work both show that ToE is a viable explanation, and so far the best one that has been put forth that is supported by enough empirical data to stand up to scrutiny.
Millions of individuals don't really add up to much when you consider the complexity of it all.


Again, you're just looking at the complexity and saying it seems impossible that this could have happened via ToE. It is evidently just a feeling you have that it can't be true.
The human mind is connected to a vast universe of intelligence and creativity and inventiveness.


Yes ... but only to other humans. For the first 99.956% of Earth's existence (2 million years out of 4.6 billion) this "vast universe of intelligence and creativity and inventiveness" did not exist. Why is that? Because there were no humans who as a species evolved an incredibly capable brain. Isn't it obvious that this universe of creativity you refer to is specifically a characteristic of humans? Why didn't it exist prior to the arrival of the genus Homo (and only the more recent members of that genus at that)? Doesn't that tell you something very important?
Kurt Godel said that the idea that the self/ego is a construction of molecules is one of the stupidest ideas ever. I'm inclined to agree.


One quote from one person, regardless of his/her accomplishments, is meaningless against the cumulative empirical evidence on a subject. There is still no evidence to support the idea that consciousness ("mind") is anything more than an emergent property of a functioning brain. Humans just happen to have evolved a very capable brain, one capable of abstract thought, and ideas like the notion that humans are something special in the universe because we have the ability to think we are. But we are just another primate that has evolved a highly capable brain. Intelligence is clearly a major benefit that natural selection confirmed. We are evidence of that.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown..
Carl Sagan

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8684
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #125

Post by Bust Nak »

mgb wrote: No. Can you post again?
1) Get 10 dice.
2) Roll the dice, pick out any 6's you have.
3) Are there 10 6's? Yes - you are done, if not repeat 2.

I got 10 6's after 16 tries. That's pretty good despite the original suggested odds of "1.65e-8," no? Surely 16 rolls with just 1 person rolling fit the criteria of "more or less at the same time," no?
Because of the complexity of living organisms. Evolution is not just about a species changing shape - like getting bigger bones or longer hair or more fat cells for warmth. That is just more of the same. Evolution is about complex structures evolving like the interlocking vertebrae of the backbone or the hinge of a fly's wing etc. Not to mention the brain or kidneys etc.
But isn't interlocking vertebrae is just more of different shape bones. Hinge of a fly wing is just more of a less flexible hinge?
Millions of individuals don't really add up to much when you consider the complexity of it all.
Why not? Scientists think thousands of individuals is plenty for genetic viability, a million is 1000 times that number.
Also, a human being is not just a physical body. The true mystery of human life is an ontological mystery - the mystery of mind and being. The human mind is connected to a vast universe of intelligence and creativity and inventiveness. You only have to look at the history of civilization to see that. So how could such sophisticated minds evolve as a mere by product of natural selection? What IS the psyche? Why are our minds living in this vast universe of creativity and intelligence? Is all this really just an accidental spin off of survival advantage?
The very same process that got us whales form land ancestor is enough to produce sophisticated minds. Our mind give us an massive survival advantage, do they not? How is this even contraversal?
Kurt Godel said that the idea that the self/ego is a construction of molecules is one of the stupidest ideas ever. I'm inclined to agree.
And yet molecules are all we have ever found inside our brains, and the relative complexity of brains corresponds to relative sophistication of minds.
Personally, I think ToE is a very elegant theory and there is SOME truth in it (eg, species certainly do evolve). But science and mathematics is strewn with the corpses of failed theories. And I think a lot of people believe in ToE because it is so logical and coherent and makes sense. One only has to imagine a house fly turning into a flying dragon to see how neat the theory is. But just because the theory flows so easily in the imagination does not mean it is true. Abstractly, in the imagination, it works. But the real question is, can it work in the crudness of the physical world? That's where I have my doubts.
Again you mention math, but it's not clear why you think the math doesn't work out.

justme2
Apprentice
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 12:07 pm

we are the aliens

Post #126

Post by justme2 »

I believe this planet was seeded by outsiders just as we will seed planets that are habitable but yet have no life on it.

Every thousand years or so they return to observe the results.
On one of their latest visits they observed humans, being much like themselves and decided to offer a helping hand. To do this they implanted new ideas in our minds that stimulated new theories that developed into the industrial world we live in today.

I also believe they are among us today.

Once we stop eating the flesh of other living things, they will reveal themselves. If, and only if we do not destroy ourselves before then.
Just a thought
:study:

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1303
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Why Evolutionary Theory Is Fundamentally Flawed

Post #127

Post by 2ndRateMind »

Don McIntosh wrote:
...1. Evolution posits that the function of any complex biological system can be adequately explained as the accumulation of countless minor functional adaptations of its individual components...

...Questions for debate: Is evolutionary theory a fallacy? If so, does that make it false?
Hmmm. Do you have any evidence at all that this is what Darwin says? Or even what the neo-Darwinists say? Darwin, it seems to me, was wholly concerned with the structure of phenotypes and how they develop into new species and contribute to the rich diversity of life that confronts us. Neo-Darwinists, with the benefit of advances in science such as the discovery of DNA, have extended their research into areas such as the genotype of the phenotype, and the behaviour of the phenotype, with quite considerable explanatory success. None of them make any claims as to the teleological 'function' of a genotype, phenotype or species. Evolution is entirely a theory about cause, not purpose.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

Don McIntosh
Apprentice
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:20 am

Re: Why Evolutionary Theory Is Fundamentally Flawed

Post #128

Post by Don McIntosh »

2ndRateMind wrote:
Don McIntosh wrote:
...1. Evolution posits that the function of any complex biological system can be adequately explained as the accumulation of countless minor functional adaptations of its individual components...

...Questions for debate: Is evolutionary theory a fallacy? If so, does that make it false?
Hmmm. Do you have any evidence at all that this is what Darwin says? Or even what the neo-Darwinists say? Darwin, it seems to me, was wholly concerned with the structure of phenotypes and how they develop into new species and contribute to the rich diversity of life that confronts us. Neo-Darwinists, with the benefit of advances in science such as the discovery of DNA, have extended their research into areas such as the genotype of the phenotype, and the behaviour of the phenotype, with quite considerable explanatory success. None of them make any claims as to the teleological 'function' of a genotype, phenotype or species. Evolution is entirely a theory about cause, not purpose.
What Darwin says? Well, what I describe certainly wasn't the main focus of Darwin's theory, though he did take the trouble to address the problem of "organs of extreme perfection" (like the mammalian eye), which corresponds well with the more technical modern concepts of "specifiable complexity" (Dawkins) and "irreducible complexity" (Behe). What makes those organs so remarkable is the association of a particular arrangement or construction with a particular function, like vision. Per Darwin's theory, these so-called organs of extreme perfection, along with their functions, would be parts of the "the rich diversity of life that confronts us," and therefore had to be somehow explicable via modification with descent (evolution).

Dawkins is certainly a neo-Darwinist, and wrote an entire book, The Blind Watchmaker, with the express purpose of demonstrating that "complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" were nonetheless not designed. And yes, Dawkins' theory of "cumulative natural selection" basically postulates that the origin of specifiable complexity can be "explained" by breaking down specifiably complex systems into so many individuated parts or components, each of which can purportedly be explained by natural selection.

In other words, to explain the parts is to explain the whole. Ken Miller and other well-respected biologists reason similarly. My argument is that their reasoning runs afoul of the fallacy of composition.
Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary claims.
Awaiting refutations of the overwhelming arguments and evidence for Christian theism.
Transcending Proof

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1303
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Why Evolutionary Theory Is Fundamentally Flawed

Post #129

Post by 2ndRateMind »

Don McIntosh wrote:
In other words, to explain the parts is to explain the whole.
Of course it isn't. And that is not what evolutionary biologists, evolutionary psychologists, etc, say. If it was, I would join you in pointing out the deficiency of the argument. But I think you are just repeating the mischaracterisation of what the anti-Darwinists, creation 'scientists', biblical literalists, etc, pretend the theory to be.

If you must talk purpose, rather than cause, then the 'purpose' of the genotype is to develop phenotypes fit for their environment, to reproduce the genotype (in a slightly modified form) and the 'purpose' of each specific organ of the phenotype is to contribute to that end. Dawkins is quite clear on this, in 'The Selfish Gene'. The sole (unconscious, and therefore purposeless) mission of the gene is to replicate itself, as efficiently and effectively as possible. That is the chemical nature of the gene, and it provides a perfectly adequate account of 'the origin of species', and 'the descent of man', so I still think it quite misguided to view Darwin's theory as anything other than a causal explanation.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

Don McIntosh
Apprentice
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:20 am

Re: Why Evolutionary Theory Is Fundamentally Flawed

Post #130

Post by Don McIntosh »

2ndRateMind wrote:
Don McIntosh wrote:
In other words, to explain the parts is to explain the whole.
Of course it isn't. And that is not what evolutionary biologists, evolutionary psychologists, etc, say. If it was, I would join you in pointing out the deficiency of the argument.
Most of them don't state it quite so directly. Ken Miller comes close, though, when he counters Behe's argument from irreducible complexity by saying:

"Darwin's answer, in essence, was that evolution produces complex organs in a series of fully functional intermediate stages. If each of the intermediate stages can be favored by natural selection, then so can the whole pathway."

In other words, to explain the intermediate stages is to explain the whole pathway.

In other words, to explain the parts is to explain the whole.

But I think you are just repeating the mischaracterisation of what the anti-Darwinists, creation 'scientists', biblical literalists, etc, pretend the theory to be.
Think what you like. But I don't know of anyone else who has depicted the explanatory logic of evolution as a fallacy of composition. So it's really not possible for me to be simply parroting the views of anti-Darwinists, creation scientists, biblical literalists, and any other outgroups you might equally despise.
If you must talk purpose, rather than cause, then the 'purpose' of the genotype is to develop phenotypes fit for their environment, to reproduce the genotype (in a slightly modified form) and the 'purpose' of each specific organ of the phenotype is to contribute to that end. Dawkins is quite clear on this, in 'The Selfish Gene'. The sole (unconscious, and therefore purposeless) mission of the gene is to replicate itself, as efficiently and effectively as possible. That is the chemical nature of the gene, and it provides a perfectly adequate account of 'the origin of species', and 'the descent of man', so I still think it quite misguided to view Darwin's theory as anything other than a causal explanation.
That's all interesting, but my argument has little to do with purpose and everything to do with the very kind of causal explanation you mention. The problem is that the phenomenon of specifiably complex systems calls for an explanation, while the evolutionary explanation for those systems is demonstrably fallacious. Or to put it another way: evolution simply does not adequately explain certain important biological phenomena.

To say that, in theory, each part of a functionally complex phenotype was unconsciously adapted to achieve environmental fitness is not to say that the entire phenotype was unconsciously adapted to achieve environmental fitness – especially not when various important functions of that phenotype depend upon its complexity.
Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary claims.
Awaiting refutations of the overwhelming arguments and evidence for Christian theism.
Transcending Proof

Post Reply