Tag: natural selection

darwinian muddlehead pugliucci is wrong about darwinian natural selection…//Richard Feynman was wrong about beauty and truth in science | Aeon Ideas

Attacking a figure like Feynman on this issue is a bit of an attack of the Lilliputians. The aesthetic reaction to much of physics is more an exclamation than hard philosophy of science, and the sentiment is frequent when confronting the elegance of much of modern physics. The idea is certainly open to challenge if made into a definite heuristic principle but as an emotional reaction it remains significant. That  elegance remains even after the theories become falsified…
In any case Pugliucci is a notorious muddlehead about darwinism and natural selection and makes a mockery of his essay with nonsense about the evolution of an aesthetic sense via natural selection, a proposition that makes Feynman’s errors seem trivial. Anyone confused about darwinism is going to have a hard time with the aesthetics of science theories.

And of course, beauty is, notoriously, in the eye of the beholder. What struck Feynman as beautiful might not be beautiful to other physicists or mathematicians. Beauty is a human value, not something out there in the cosmos. Biologists here know better. The capacity for aesthetic appreciation in our species is the result of a process of biological evolution, possibly involving natural selection. And there is absolutely no reason to think that we evolved an aesthetic sense that somehow happens to be tailored for the discovery of the ultimate theory of everything.

Source: Richard Feynman was wrong about beauty and truth in science | Aeon Ideas

Fred Hoyle: natural selection can never be right…

This article (at least now they have such a page) is typical of the way establishment darwinism buries objections in a ton of sophistry, in the process unwittingly giving you what you need to know …

Source: Fred Hoyle: natural selection can never be right…//What Darwin Got Wrong – Wikipedia – Darwiniana

Historian: Evolution means that human equality is a myth | Uncommon Descent

This is grim addditional evidence of the inherent social darwinism of darwinism itself. If natural selection is false as a mechanization the whole idea collapses.
A look at the eonic effect shows the way equalization is an aspect of macroevolution, in history.

The “evolutionary” view (Darwinism, in fact) is often portrayed as a sort of liberation but people may be rather surprised to discover exactly what that liberation is.

Source: Historian: Evolution means that human equality is a myth | Uncommon Descent

Dawkins’ confusion over darwinism (and religion)

Dawkins has the most useless take on both revolution and religion: i am reluctant to even post his junk, backed up by that propagandist coyne who should know better and probably does.

Dawkins is wrong about natural selection and he uses that error to claim darwinism disproves the design argument. And this has been going on for forty years.
It is a scandal that the ID group, despite their own religious confusions and evolutionary pseudo-science, sees through darwinism where Dawkins is stubbornly confused…
we can comment on the religion issue later…Dawkins on religion is atrocious and I am not even a theist…

Reader Michael called my attention to Richard Dawkins’s Darwin Day Lecture to Humanists UK (HUK). Richard is introduced by Humanists UK President and evolutionary biologist Alice Roberts, who…

Source: Dawkins’s Darwin Day lecture for Humanists UK: “Taking Courage from Darwin to Fight the Hubris of Faith” « Why Evolution Is True

Design versus ‘Intelligent’ Design

Despite our challenge to darwinism, and support of the idea of design, we might well challenge the idea of ‘Intelligent Design’ rather than simply ‘design’. The use of the term ‘intelligent’ is no doubt a deliberate attempt to introduce either ‘god’ or at least some ‘mental power’ in the universe connected to evolution. But the gesture is not legitimate: the idea of a design inference allows us to see ‘design’ but its source may or may not be an ‘intelligent mind’ but a process that mimics intelligence, perhaps, but is something different. the distinction is crucial. The idea of design suggests teleology in nature but we cannot produce theology around that. The distinction is essential because the abuse of design arguments in proofs of the existence of god has long since flunked a Kantian metaphysical test. The idea of design however cannot be dismissed using natural selection arguments and the attempt to do so has almost destroyed biological reasoning of scientists…
It may well be that there is some ‘intelligent’ power in the universe, man is one of them, and philosophers like Hegel use the term ‘geist’ (spirit, or mind) explicitly, but that is open to Kantian challenge and in any case is far more sophisticated and reasoned than creationist theologizing…

It is almost incredible that at this late date scientists in a journal such as Science are still in denial over the issue of (irreducible) complexity and the design factor in biology/evolution.

Source: Behe won the argument long ago…dumbing down of science ED…//A biochemist’s crusade to overturn evolution misrepresents theory and ignores evidence | Books, Et Al. – Darwiniana

Behe won the argument long ago…dumbing down of science ED…//A biochemist’s crusade to overturn evolution misrepresents theory and ignores evidence | Books, Et Al.

It is almost incredible that at this late date scientists in a journal such as Science are still in denial over the issue of (irreducible) complexity and the design factor in biology/evolution. The problems pointed to by Behe have not been really answered for the simple reason that they can’t be: design in complex machines, even given some possible but dubious counterexamples, cannot be explained with the usual boilerplate about natural selection…
A whole generation of students of science has been dumbed down to darwinian idiocy about natural selection and have lost the ability to think…

In 1996, biochemist Michael Behe introduced the notion of “irreducible complexity,” arguing that some biomolecular structures could not have evolved because their functionality requires interacting parts, the removal of any one of which renders the entire apparatus defective. This claim excited creationists and remains a central plank of the “intelligent design” movement, despite being rightly rejected by a U.S. federal judge in 2005 in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. In Darwin Devolves, Behe continues his quixotic efforts to overturn modern evolutionary theory.

Source: A biochemist’s crusade to overturn evolution misrepresents theory and ignores evidence | Books, Et Al.

The Dissent from Darwinism list now tops 1000 scientists 

In time for Darwin’s birthday February 12:The Dissent statement represents a splash of cold water on the great man. It reads, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

Source: The Dissent from Darwinism list now tops 1000 scientists | Uncommon Descent

  the darwinian ideology was exposed long ago…//Beyond Natural Selection: Robert Wesson

A quiet classic exposing darwinism nearly a generation ago in the 90’s: this book must leave us with the suspicion that biologists already know the ‘Paradigm’ is bunk but conform to the pubic ideology…Outsiders are needed here, still…

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Natural-Selection-MIT-Press/dp/0262731029/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1546920980&sr=1-1&keywords=beyond+natural+selection