 point that I’m trying to make. By shouting out the word ‘Unguided’ in your reply you demonstate that your judgement of what is or is not legitimate scientific questioning of the theory of evolution as it stands today is blinkered. It could easily be argued that these books have a place — or perhaps several places — in the continued development of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis but I would by grateful if you could direct me to the places where they as much as imply that evolution is a guided process.
With these four carefully selected books, I think that it is about the science, so there you go.
John, if you wish to contend that evolution is ‘guided,’ could you provide an explanation for why 80% of all mutations are harmful to an organism’s fitness.
Does 80% speak to competent guidance, or randomness?
How on earth does the view of a philosopher have the right to be regarded on an equal footing with a biologist on the subject of evolution?
That’s like calling in an expert on Papier-mâché to offer a second opinion to an oncologist!
…A florist to critique the engineering specs of the space shuttle.
nor do these authors seek to contend that and that is why they are on this list.
Again, point missed, the journalists and philosophers are asking the questions and biologists are not dismissing those questions as quickly as you think they are. Anyway, Piattelli-Palmarini for one started his career as a bio-physicist and a molecular biologist so your divide is not as great as you think.
Well, anyone can ask questions. That’s how we learn stuff.
This is when the men in the white coats need to be called and the kiddies removed.
these books don’t do that which is why I listed them.
Misplaced suspicions of god-of-the-gaps intrusions will cause a lot of collateral damage.
Do they provide evidence that refutes evolution?
I accept there is persuasive circumstantial evidence for evolution, but I do not accept that there is any significant evidence that that the mechanism driving that evolution is the neo-Darwinian mechanism of chance mutation coupled with natural selection.
All I’m saying here is that treating a thesis which expressly denies being a refutation as though it is a failed refutation is not the optimum way to safeguard science.
So no, there is no refutation of evolution.
Evolution is regarded as fact. No god needed.
 This means ‘indirect’. The evidence for evolution is not indirect. For example, Great Apes have 24 chromosomes, Humans 23 and only significant difference between the is your very own Chromosome 2, which just so happens to have telomeres in the middle. Telomers, as I’m sure you know, are the buffers located at the end of chromosomes and are the key feature in division during development. Chomosome 2 is hybrid, that when broken into two at this telemere accurately reflect almost identical base pairs as any other Great Ape. To consider this ‘circumstantial’ when added to thousands upon thousands of other examples that always, always, always align with the central mechanism of evolution by means of genetic inheritance is to not just misrepresent the science but to border on open denial of all this aligned evidence.
And this raises the second idiocy of this statement is about “neo-Darwinism” and describing the mechanism of natural selection as random mutations he calls “chance.” Anyone who has even the most elementary school understanding of natural selection understands that genetic mutations alone is not the driver but the interaction between the environment and the suitability of the traits critters inherit: natural selection is NOT “chance” at all with this rudimentary understanding but a direct influence by the environment on arbitrating which traits are favourable to promote reproduction. And we know – not by indirect but direct evidence – that the environment can and does influence which heritable features best suit successful multi-generational reproduction. That’s what term ‘fitness’ means in the Darwinian lexicon. This fact of suitability that over time weans out traits that are not helpful in successful reproduction is obvious to anyone who looks at life in nature: organisms well suited to their environment flourish; those that are not yield lower multi-generational rates of successful reproduction. Always.
So the question raised here is whether or not random mutations can increase fitness and the evidence for this is not only direct but overwhelming. And it aligns PERFECTLY with the theory of evolution becuase this is what the theory of evolution proposes: changes to life over time by NATURAL selection. This is the all-purpose term for all the NATURAL mechanisms involved beyond direct inheritance but the central one remains firmly genetically inherited traits.
So to pretend “chance” is synonymous with natural selection and therefore circumstantial is beyond simple misrepresentation. It demonstrates EITHER brute ignorance about evolution OR a willful intent to deceive. You have bought into it not because it is a legitimate scientific question about evolution but because it SEEMS to align with your thesis that evolution is an ideology. It’s not. It is the very best science ever produced because it is the most applied and effective understanding we have about anything. It is not just a fact but the most productive explanation in any field of science that, oh by the way, works for everyone everywhere all the time. But according to you, we should doubt this knowledge because this person or that says this or that. And this is why I say one has to be motivated by something other than respecting what’s true to urge this unreasonable doubt… because any contrary evidence would do the job. The problem is, no such evidence has been, is, or likely will be produced. If it is, if we turn out to be wrong in this, then we have even less reason to accept any other scientific understanding. In addition (and this is where all these Merchants of Doubt like you fail spectacularly) it falls to YOU to come up with an explanation that not only fits all the evidence raised to support evolution but also explains why it works all the time for everyone everywhere. The Intelligent Designer crowd assume ‘the Intelligent Designer designed it this way’ is sufficient, but that, too fails to account, for example, Lenski’s experimental results where a single random mutation in e coli creates an entire new subspecies with traits to utilize a new food source NOT inherited but yielding massive increase in fitness.
So a Nobel awaits you and these supposed critics of evolution. All you have to do is demonstrate that the theory does not account for something. Seems simple, right? Well, it turns out to be Herculean because no such evidence has ever been produced.And that is why evolution is not an ideology but the pinnacle of good science that only the ignorant and the deceivers tell us is still up for debate when it’s not.
because we’re made in his image and we sooner or later deify whatever we put our trust in. Until you get it that Christians believe in the God who made and sustains everything, explained or unexplained, you will continue your windmill-tilting attack on the god-as-hypothesis-to-fit-the-gap that nobody puts any faith in. I know that the first line of defense is that Atheists can’t deify anything because it’s part of the definition of what an Atheist is. I’d be so bold as to say that there is nobody who is so bound to his God as the man who says that he doesn’t have one.
Take the reply we’ve just had from tildeb — who has missed the point that I’ve quoted Milton simply to show that the ‘religious indoctrination’ defence won’t do — and what we get is nothing less than religious indoctrination!
The minute you introduce your god into anything it has a similar effect on me as a horse tranquiliser, and no matter how you try to wrap up your flowery language and present it as having some sort of ”sciencey” legitimacy you simply sound like a twit.
As evolution is fact then unless you can provide evidence to refute this it is you, I’m afraid, that believes we see your god as an enemy.
There is no faith in science.
No, John, it is you who has missed the point: to assume anything other than UNGUIDED change to life over time by means of NATURAL selection imports an ideology that reality itself refutes. Not scientists. Not ideologues. Reality refutes this imported contrary belief. No matter what you may call this imported denial of reality, the opinion is equivalent in all ways to an incompatible religious belief with what the method of science has revealed. It is not any kind of ‘faith’ in the religious sense that is used to recognize this fact of unguided natural mechanisms as you continue to believe, continue to insist, continue to use to support your opinion. It is reality that refutes it.
So to categorize those of us who respect reality enough to allow it to arbitrate our beliefs about reality as some kind of ideologue, some kind of religious person who replaces worshiping a god with worshiping science, is again another very intentional and, frankly, dishonest attempt to misrepresent those who respect reality. The method of science that produces knowledge derived from reality, produces a derived explanation that when used as a model for how reality operates empowers technologies and applications and therapies that work for everyone everywhere all the time, is not another kind of religious ‘faith’ but the necessary groundwork to legitimize confidence in it. Your sources have all failed to do this, failed to legitimately question with evidence why we should decrease the confidence in the theory. It is this overwhelming alignment in all the evidence that creates the confidence to support the theory that is means, the