Comments on: Disproving the Notion of Random Chance in Evolution http://blog.oup.com/2010/02/evolution/ Academic insights for the thinking world. Mon, 20 May 2013 14:53:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Tweets that mention Disproving the Notion of Random Chance in Evolution : OUPblog -- Topsy.com http://blog.oup.com/2010/02/evolution/#comment-156591 Tweets that mention Disproving the Notion of Random Chance in Evolution : OUPblog -- Topsy.com Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:20:40 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=7349#comment-156591 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Rebecca and BelgradeSummerSchool, Ben Sykes. Ben Sykes said: #design Disproving the Notion of Random Chance in Evolution : OUPblog http://bit.ly/aJbVbP [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Rebecca and BelgradeSummerSchool, Ben Sykes. Ben Sykes said: #design Disproving the Notion of Random Chance in Evolution : OUPblog http://bit.ly/aJbVbP [...]

]]> By: Jim Buck http://blog.oup.com/2010/02/evolution/#comment-156564 Jim Buck Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:47:07 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=7349#comment-156564 Rainbow-striped pigs with huge golden wings appearing out of nothing over Trafalgar Square and flying in complex geometric patterns, is no big deal these days; and the first thought of any sane and rational person would be that such phenomena were the products of intelligent design (Like 'Avatar' is for example). Rainbow-striped pigs with huge golden wings appearing out of nothing over Trafalgar Square and flying in complex geometric patterns, is no big deal these days; and the first thought of any sane and rational person would be that such phenomena were the products of intelligent design (Like ‘Avatar’ is for example).

]]> By: Darwiniana » From Oup: book on random chance in evolution http://blog.oup.com/2010/02/evolution/#comment-156561 Darwiniana » From Oup: book on random chance in evolution Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:08:41 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=7349#comment-156561 [...] Disproving the Notion of Random Chance in Evolution Advocates of Intelligent Design contend that complex biological features cannot arise by chance, the implication being that chance equates to sentient forces. From a scientific vantage, however, the driving force of adaptive evolution–natural selection– is itself the antithesis of chance. Hereditary factors that promote organismal survival and reproduction in a particular environment tend to be precisely those that proliferate across the generations and thereby come to characterize natural populations. Whenever genetic variation and differential reproduction exist in nature (as they do in all known species), natural selection is inevitable, both logically and empirically. Biological traits that emerge from this inexorable operation may have the superficial aura of intelligent artistry, but that appearance is illusory (under a scientific interpretation). Natural selection can be a highly creative process (given a suitable supply of genetic variation to work from), but it is merely a mechanistic phenomenon– as inescapable and insentient as gravity. [...] [...] Disproving the Notion of Random Chance in Evolution Advocates of Intelligent Design contend that complex biological features cannot arise by chance, the implication being that chance equates to sentient forces. From a scientific vantage, however, the driving force of adaptive evolution–natural selection– is itself the antithesis of chance. Hereditary factors that promote organismal survival and reproduction in a particular environment tend to be precisely those that proliferate across the generations and thereby come to characterize natural populations. Whenever genetic variation and differential reproduction exist in nature (as they do in all known species), natural selection is inevitable, both logically and empirically. Biological traits that emerge from this inexorable operation may have the superficial aura of intelligent artistry, but that appearance is illusory (under a scientific interpretation). Natural selection can be a highly creative process (given a suitable supply of genetic variation to work from), but it is merely a mechanistic phenomenon– as inescapable and insentient as gravity. [...]

]]> By: mmm http://blog.oup.com/2010/02/evolution/#comment-156557 mmm Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:54:36 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=7349#comment-156557 "In this excerpt, Avise asserts that evolution is not random (as Intelligent Design proponents argue) due to natural selection." Strawman. I have never heard any ID proponent arguing that evolution is random. But there may be confusion about the terminology. The term "chance" has many meanings. ID proponents' question has been: are we products of blind evolution (that means pure "chance" alternative) or are we products of intelligent actions (purpose or "intelligent design" alternative). For example ID advocate Michael Behe believes that design was done in evolutionary process (he favors the theory of common descent). The question has been "By Design or by Chance" in the metaphysical level: what is the last explanation: design or chance? The appearance of suboptimal organic design may be expectation also from ID perspective. If one doesn't know, what is purpose and plan of designer, it is impossible to know, whether the design is optimal or not. Appearance of suboptimal design (seen from human perspective) is ID's expectation. “In this excerpt, Avise asserts that evolution is not random (as Intelligent Design proponents argue) due to natural selection.”

Strawman. I have never heard any ID proponent arguing that evolution is random. But there may be confusion about the terminology. The term “chance” has many meanings. ID proponents’ question has been: are we products of blind evolution (that means pure “chance” alternative) or are we products of intelligent actions (purpose or “intelligent design” alternative). For example ID advocate Michael Behe believes that design was done in evolutionary process (he favors the theory of common descent).

The question has been “By Design or by Chance” in the metaphysical level: what is the last explanation: design or chance?

The appearance of suboptimal organic design may be expectation also from ID perspective. If one doesn’t know, what is purpose and plan of designer, it is impossible to know, whether the design is optimal or not. Appearance of suboptimal design (seen from human perspective) is ID’s expectation.

]]> By: A New Book - Telic Thoughts http://blog.oup.com/2010/02/evolution/#comment-156555 A New Book - Telic Thoughts Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:50:48 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=7349#comment-156555 [...] Disproving the Notion of Random Chance in Evolution is an Oxford University Press blog entry. The first paragraph: Advocates of Intelligent Design contend that complex biological features cannot arise by chance, the implication being that chance equates to sentient forces. From a scientific vantage, however, the driving force of adaptive evolution–natural selection– is itself the antithesis of chance. Hereditary factors that promote organismal survival and reproduction in a particular environment tend to be precisely those that proliferate across the generations and thereby come to characterize natural populations. Whenever genetic variation and differential reproduction exist in nature (as they do in all known species), natural selection is inevitable, both logically and empirically. Biological traits that emerge from this inexorable operation may have the superficial aura of intelligent artistry, but that appearance is illusory (under a scientific interpretation). Natural selection can be a highly creative process (given a suitable supply of genetic variation to work from), but it is merely a mechanistic phenomenon– as inescapable and insentient as gravity. [...] [...] Disproving the Notion of Random Chance in Evolution is an Oxford University Press blog entry. The first paragraph: Advocates of Intelligent Design contend that complex biological features cannot arise by chance, the implication being that chance equates to sentient forces. From a scientific vantage, however, the driving force of adaptive evolution–natural selection– is itself the antithesis of chance. Hereditary factors that promote organismal survival and reproduction in a particular environment tend to be precisely those that proliferate across the generations and thereby come to characterize natural populations. Whenever genetic variation and differential reproduction exist in nature (as they do in all known species), natural selection is inevitable, both logically and empirically. Biological traits that emerge from this inexorable operation may have the superficial aura of intelligent artistry, but that appearance is illusory (under a scientific interpretation). Natural selection can be a highly creative process (given a suitable supply of genetic variation to work from), but it is merely a mechanistic phenomenon– as inescapable and insentient as gravity. [...]

]]> By: RickK http://blog.oup.com/2010/02/evolution/#comment-156554 RickK Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:22:02 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=7349#comment-156554 Nothing found in nature could ever "present a problem" for ID, because ID isn't a rational scientific theory. It's a religiously-driven political advocacy movement. If rainbow-striped pigs with huge golden wings appeared out of nothing over Trafalgar Square and flew in complex geometric patterns, ID "theory" could "explain" it. If a dog gave birth to a cat, ID could "explain" it. There are scores of ways evolutionary theory could be disproved. Why isn't it? Because (1) species evolve, and (2) based on every example we have ever explained, natural phenomena have been caused by natural effects. "Intelligent Design" is useful in politics (google "Wedge Strategy"), but it has no explanatory usefulness whatsoever in science. That's why people like Stephen Meyer direct their great ID tomes at the general public in the religion section of Borders Books, and not at the biology or mathematics community via conferences, papers, journals and academic lectures. As Russell Cross said - the goal is obfuscation, not science. Nothing found in nature could ever “present a problem” for ID, because ID isn’t a rational scientific theory. It’s a religiously-driven political advocacy movement. If rainbow-striped pigs with huge golden wings appeared out of nothing over Trafalgar Square and flew in complex geometric patterns, ID “theory” could “explain” it. If a dog gave birth to a cat, ID could “explain” it.

There are scores of ways evolutionary theory could be disproved. Why isn’t it? Because (1) species evolve, and (2) based on every example we have ever explained, natural phenomena have been caused by natural effects.

“Intelligent Design” is useful in politics (google “Wedge Strategy”), but it has no explanatory usefulness whatsoever in science.

That’s why people like Stephen Meyer direct their great ID tomes at the general public in the religion section of Borders Books, and not at the biology or mathematics community via conferences, papers, journals and academic lectures. As Russell Cross said – the goal is obfuscation, not science.

]]> By: Jim Buck http://blog.oup.com/2010/02/evolution/#comment-156541 Jim Buck Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:26:40 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=7349#comment-156541 A 'routine appearance of suboptimal organic design'. Presents no problem to ID. Microsoft is an inteligent designer, but every version of Internet Explorer turns out to be suboptimal. Creativity's drive towards "perfection" is asymptotic. A ‘routine appearance of suboptimal organic design’. Presents no problem to ID. Microsoft is an inteligent designer, but every version of Internet Explorer turns out to be suboptimal. Creativity’s drive towards “perfection” is asymptotic.

]]> By: Darwiniana » Disproving random chance http://blog.oup.com/2010/02/evolution/#comment-156525 Darwiniana » Disproving random chance Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:06:08 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=7349#comment-156525 [...] Disproving the Notion of Random Chance in Evolution [...] [...] Disproving the Notion of Random Chance in Evolution [...]

]]> By: Russell Cross http://blog.oup.com/2010/02/evolution/#comment-156519 Russell Cross Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:51:40 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=7349#comment-156519 Well, as any good Creationist will tell you, "suboptimal organic design" is simply more evidence for the existence of the Divine. Like refrigerators and cars, the good Lord has ensured that humans have built-in obsolescence (BO). It's a sure-fire recipe for disaster if the Creator sets us up for going forth and multiplying but doesn't have a mechanism to control the upper limit. So what might be seen as "poor design" turns out to be a smart move by the Grand Architect. When the Good Lord said "three score years and ten" He really meant it. Hence all the nasty little things that can go wrong with the human body post 70 years of age. The argument for BO may smell a little but I'm sure the promoters of ID are quite happy to use liberal amounts of that new fragrance - "Obfuscation." Well, as any good Creationist will tell you, “suboptimal organic design” is simply more evidence for the existence of the Divine. Like refrigerators and cars, the good Lord has ensured that humans have built-in obsolescence (BO). It’s a sure-fire recipe for disaster if the Creator sets us up for going forth and multiplying but doesn’t have a mechanism to control the upper limit. So what might be seen as “poor design” turns out to be a smart move by the Grand Architect. When the Good Lord said “three score years and ten” He really meant it. Hence all the nasty little things that can go wrong with the human body post 70 years of age.

The argument for BO may smell a little but I’m sure the promoters of ID are quite happy to use liberal amounts of that new fragrance – “Obfuscation.”

]]>