Darwinism and a book by David Berlinsky

[markg]

To begin, I want to state that I do not believe that Darwinian Evolution is good science.

I want to be open minded and hear what you gentleman have to say about it. Feel free to prove me wrong or right.

I dont want this to be a religious discussion, I want it to be an honest discussion about the merits and failings of Darwinian Evolution.

I think Darwinian evolution fails for several reasons:

The notion that life can spring from inert matter in violation of the 2 law of theromodynamics is a big stumbling block for me.

The explosion of complex information in DNA at such an early phase of life seems to me to be improbable.

The notion that mutation would result in beneficial traits as opposed to damaging traits despite empirical evidence to the contrary in lab conditions.

The idea that a specific trait would appear in a specific species with another individual developing the same trait at the same time in the same geographical location and be of the opposite sex so that those two individuals could reproduce and pass said trait to there offspring seems improbable if not impossible.

This is a scientist/ author that agrees with my position. I find his work to be interesting. He claims to be agnostic so comes across as fairly objective. Sometimes People of Faith (both scientific naturalist and Christians) to name a few can be very dogmatic.

About Deniable Darwin

In a Controversial New Book, David Berlinski
Tears Apart the Facade of Scientific Overconfidence

When it comes to some of life’s most profound questions—the origins of life, of matter, of the universe itself—does modern science already have everything all figured out? Many scientists would like us to think they are mere steps away from solving all the deep enigmas of physical existence.

Consummate skeptic David Berlinski shows that all such confidence is at best a bluff. In essays about evolution using humor and wit, Berlinski shows how lost today’s scientists really are. His new book The Deniable Darwin frees us from the superstition of preening scientism and illuminates the path to a renewal of real science.

In The Deniable Darwin & Other Essays (DI Press 2009) Berlinski wields his famous skepticism excluding neither Darwinism nor intelligent design from his critical eye. Included among the 32 essays spanning 15 years are his award winning essays What Brings a World into Being?, and On the Origins of Mind (Best American Science Writing 2002, 2005 respectively).

The prolific author of numerous books on mathematics and logic, he has written a series of famously controversial essays on biology, physics, psychology, and mathematics in Commentary magazine, provoking each time an outpouring of dumbfounded letters to the editor. Berlinski’s replies are witty and sharp. For the first time, The Deniable Darwin collects all of these essays and exchanges, and others in a similar vein, into a single volume.


So to Close please feel free to comment about where i am wrong or on what you might agree with.

[fish gunner]

Lots of things can happen in billions of years. In our life time. Primates have been alleged to have started using tools.
Life will succeed against all odds every time. Now we know we can see 13odd billion light years. A point at which we do not even know if space still exists. Wrap your head round that one.

[markg]

So here are the authors qualifications:

Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques. He lives in Paris.>

I hope his qualifications are up to snuff for some serious discussions

[NewGuard84]

You address some interesting areas and make some equally interesting suggestions/challenges. There are few, if any, subjects more intellectually engaging and I respect your intent to start a discussion of this nature.

Just skimming you suggestions, however, I think some posters with more time than I have at the moment, may have some answers. Answers that have enough scientific support to have constituted the generally agreed upon history of life. The ideas here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis, are, to date, the most convincing ideas I have heard of. Perhaps in due time, it may be re-written, but it will require convincing evidence.

And of course, when I say "generally agreed upon", I mean generally agreed upon in the scientific community. I am anticipating the arrival of some religiously-motivated responses, the credibility of which are, with respect, suspect at best.

[whammy]

Originally Posted by markg

The notion that life can spring from inert matter in violation of the 2 law of theromodynamics is a big stumbling block for me.

This is an argument that I have heard before and can not wrap my head around. Care to explain how the beginnings of life violate the 2nd law?

[markg]

Given time matter breaks down, it does not become more complex. Darwinism states that the opposite occurs. This is a bit simplistic but is basically what I am talking about. When will and energy are applied to matter then it can be changed into something more complex.

If I may use an analogy:

A car left in a in a field doest fix it self and become something better in rusts away.

Hope that makes things clearer.

[Winch101]

I wondered how today would go......seemed kinda quiet in
A post apocalyptic way.....There are no shortage of authors
On the subject ,most are educated beyond their intelligence
Show fidelity to whomever pays them ....book *****s....
Darwin was cutting edge. Everything after that has been plagiarism .
The authors of these posts always plead for rational discussion....
Of this I have total faith ,not gonna happen , also on this subject
Who gives rats patooti. .really......actually you could be misconstrued
As a trouble maker....pot stirrer ....pseudo intellectual gobleygook...

But it's a slow ramble on...

[adogwiththumbs]

I think being outdoorsmen, most of us see a small amount of evolution, even in our short lifetimes. If you think about the odds that any plant or animal lives or dies, the formula to calculate anything becomes so convoluted that a correct answer is not attainable. I don't believe things of this nature can be figured out with formulas. Look at the complex computer systems they have to predict weather, yet any more than a few weeks is just a crapshoot, too many variables, things constantly changing. I do trust common sense, common sense tells me that things are ALWAYS changing, unpredictably.
My gut tells me that we are smart mammals that have taken millions of years to attain this level of awareness. When we become aware that our dominance and existence is both temporary and natural is yet to be determined, maybe impossible to determine absolutely. Much the same as our origins. Theories are grrrrrrreat however!

[whammy]

Originally Posted by markg

Given time matter breaks down, it does not become more complex. Darwinism states that the opposite. This is a bit simplistic but is basically what I am talking about. When will and energy are applied to matter then it can be changed into something more complex.

The second law has nothing to do with 'will'.

The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy of an isolated system will never decrease.

You have to consider that if you treat the earth as an isolated system, then it will tend to maximum entropy - thermodynamic equilibrium - disorder.

BUT, the earth is not an isolated system, as we have energy constantly bombarding us from the sun, cosmic radiation, etc. Entropy COULD decrease on earth because earth is not an isolated system.

Consider further, that life did not spontaneously appear all of the globe at one time, it likely started at a single point, and if you treat that single point as a non-isolated system, there is no reason that entropy could not decrease.

[markg]

I liked this hypothesis in the link:

"Metabolism first" models[edit]
Several models reject the idea of the self-replication of a "naked-gene" and postulate the emergence of a primitive metabolism which could provide an environment for the later emergence of RNA replication. The centrality of the Krebs cycle to energy production in aerobic organisms, and in drawing in carbon dioxide and hydrogen ions in biosynthesis of complex organic chemicals, including amino acids and nucleotides, suggests that it was one of the first parts of the metabolism to evolve.[117] Harold J. Morowitz concludes that given sufficient concentrations of ingredients the cycle will "spin" of its own, as the concentration of each intermediate rises, it tends to convert into the next intermediate spontaneously. It thus appears to be in origin, not a creation of the genes, but the product of thermodynamics and chemistry alone.[118] Somewhat in agreement with these notions, physicist Sean Carroll has proposed that "the purpose of life is to hydrogenate carbon dioxide" (as part of a "metabolism-first", rather than a "genetics-first", scenario).[119]

Do you know if they have done any experiments to replicate this process? Are there any examples of this naturally occurring today?

Part of it sounds a bit like a perpetual motion machine. Theoreticaly possible but as of yet unproven.

It is still a big jump to go from a chemical process to self replicating information storage and transfer system that is DNA.

[markg]

Your explanation is superior to my most basic one. Thank you.

[fish gunner]

A suns elements become more complex as its fuel is consumed and its core reaches collapse. It estimated our solar system is on a 4-7 th generation star.

[whammy]

I've got a couple comments on these as well.

Originally Posted by markg

The notion that mutation would result in beneficial traits as opposed to damaging traits despite empirical evidence to the contrary in lab conditions.

Mutation does not select for beneficial or damaging traits, mutation occurs in a totally non-selective way.
You are right, the majority of mutations are entirely damaging and result in nothing other than being replaced with healthy genes. HOWEVER, a small number of mutations occur that have the potential to be beneficial. If a mutation occurs which gives the organism an advantage over it's population, it will allow for that organism to pass along it's genes more easily - statistically speaking. This is a hard one to visualize for most people because it is such an incredibly slow process.


The idea that a specific trait would appear in a specific species with another individual developing the same trait at the same time in the same geographical location and be of the opposite sex so that those two individuals could reproduce and pass said trait to there offspring seems improbable if not impossible.

The trait does not need to necessarily be carried by both individuals in order for it to be passed down to the offspring. All of these mutations occur as changes in genetic code. When an embryo is fertilized half of the genetic code from the father and half from the mother is combined for the child. It's entirely up to chance what code is preserved.

[Reddin]

pota.jpg

[recce43]

Darwinism Here i thought you where going to talk about stuipid and the things they do that could take they out of life

[markg]

Originally Posted by whammy

I've got a couple comments on these as well.

I guess were my scepticism comes in is the notion of potential. (SEE Above on Mutation) From what I have read nearly all the mutations seen in nature today or have created in the lab are regressive and life prohibiting in the organism they occur.

Do you have any specific examples to the contrary?

[Winch101]

Using any info from berlinsky is like saying it must be true ,the bible says so...

He has created his own crap science ,he is discredited by all his contemporaries

A fence sitter of the first order, described as a manic street preacher ,

For intelligent design but not religious ,improbable, to mix proven science

With his assenine assertions is ridiculous , he has been condemned by both

Sides of the argument , he would have been more credible theorizing that

The earth was started by aliens...an opportunist that having taken the third

Side of the argument , he is a non issue .....

[whammy]

Originally Posted by markg

I guess were my scepticism comes in is the notion of potential. (SEE Above on Mutation) From what I have read nearly all the mutations seen in nature today or have created in the lab are regressive and life prohibiting in the organism they occur.

Do you have any specific examples to the contrary?

Sure, every year the elderly are encouraged to head to the doctors for their annual flu shot. Reason being, is that since the last flu season, the flu has evolved/mutated enough that last years flu shot is now ineffective in protecting you against it. The flu virus continues to mutate in order to effectively infect people who have built up an immunity - positive mutation for the flu, negative for us .

[Etownguy]

Originally Posted by markg

I think Darwinian evolution fails for several reasons:

The notion that life can spring from inert matter in violation of the 2 law of theromodynamics is a big stumbling block for me.

Evolution does not deal with how life came into existence, only how life changed once it was established. Abiogenesis concerns how life came to exist.

Edit: oops, I see this point was made already...carry on!

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by markg

To begin, I want to state that I do not believe that Darwinian Evolution is good science.

I want to be open minded and hear what you gentleman have to say about it. Feel free to prove me wrong or right.

I dont want this to be a religious discussion, I want it to be an honest discussion about the merits and failings of Darwinian Evolution.

I think Darwinian evolution fails for several reasons:

The notion that life can spring from inert matter in violation of the 2 law of theromodynamics is a big stumbling block for me.

The explosion of complex information in DNA at such an early phase of life seems to me to be improbable.

The notion that mutation would result in beneficial traits as opposed to damaging traits despite empirical evidence to the contrary in lab conditions.

The idea that a specific trait would appear in a specific species with another individual developing the same trait at the same time in the same geographical location and be of the opposite sex so that those two individuals could reproduce and pass said trait to there offspring seems improbable if not impossible.

This is a scientist/ author that agrees with my position. I find his work to be interesting. He claims to be agnostic so comes across as fairly objective. Sometimes People of Faith (both scientific naturalist and Christians) to name a few can be very dogmatic.

About Deniable Darwin

In a Controversial New Book, David Berlinski
Tears Apart the Facade of Scientific Overconfidence

When it comes to some of life’s most profound questions—the origins of life, of matter, of the universe itself—does modern science already have everything all figured out? Many scientists would like us to think they are mere steps away from solving all the deep enigmas of physical existence.

Consummate skeptic David Berlinski shows that all such confidence is at best a bluff. In essays about evolution using humor and wit, Berlinski shows how lost today’s scientists really are. His new book The Deniable Darwin frees us from the superstition of preening scientism and illuminates the path to a renewal of real science.

In The Deniable Darwin & Other Essays (DI Press 2009) Berlinski wields his famous skepticism excluding neither Darwinism nor intelligent design from his critical eye. Included among the 32 essays spanning 15 years are his award winning essays What Brings a World into Being?, and On the Origins of Mind (Best American Science Writing 2002, 2005 respectively).

The prolific author of numerous books on mathematics and logic, he has written a series of famously controversial essays on biology, physics, psychology, and mathematics in Commentary magazine, provoking each time an outpouring of dumbfounded letters to the editor. Berlinski’s replies are witty and sharp. For the first time, The Deniable Darwin collects all of these essays and exchanges, and others in a similar vein, into a single volume.


So to Close please feel free to comment about where i am wrong or on what you might agree with.

To begin, I want to state that Darwin's theories are 150 years old and do not reflect our modern understanding of evolution and speciation.

If you wish to comment on what is good science, you are welcome to move your argument out of the victorian era and into the modern one.

A simple analogy of this discussion would be:

The failings of the steam engine from a modern automotive engineering perspective.



Finally, I would like to state, that our understanding of biology and evolutionary processes in no way undermine spirituality.

That said, knowledge always conflicts with fundamentalism. If you believe the earth is 6000 years old, there is no hope for you.

Best wishes.

[NewGuard84]

Originally Posted by markg

I liked this hypothesis in the link:

"Metabolism first" models[edit]
Several models reject the idea of the self-replication of a "naked-gene" and postulate the emergence of a primitive metabolism which could provide an environment for the later emergence of RNA replication. The centrality of the Krebs cycle to energy production in aerobic organisms, and in drawing in carbon dioxide and hydrogen ions in biosynthesis of complex organic chemicals, including amino acids and nucleotides, suggests that it was one of the first parts of the metabolism to evolve.[117] Harold J. Morowitz concludes that given sufficient concentrations of ingredients the cycle will "spin" of its own, as the concentration of each intermediate rises, it tends to convert into the next intermediate spontaneously. It thus appears to be in origin, not a creation of the genes, but the product of thermodynamics and chemistry alone.[118] Somewhat in agreement with these notions, physicist Sean Carroll has proposed that "the purpose of life is to hydrogenate carbon dioxide" (as part of a "metabolism-first", rather than a "genetics-first", scenario).[119]

Do you know if they have done any experiments to replicate this process? Are there any examples of this naturally occurring today?

Part of it sounds a bit like a perpetual motion machine. Theoreticaly possible but as of yet unproven.

It is still a big jump to go from a chemical process to self replicating information storage and transfer system that is DNA.

I am unsure how the later progressions are explained, but the initial chemistry is theoretically explained in the Miller-Urey Experiment, which is decades old I believe.

Here is the link to the original Miller-Urey Experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%...rey_experiment

I have not done much reading on this gentleman, however, this is what I am seeing for recent abiogenesis updates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU

I am not a scientist and know very little about this stuff. Chemistry 30 and Biology 108 were the ends of those respective roads for me. I am just providing the kinds of ideas which have generally informed me on abiogenesis.

I base my views on which expert opinion has the fewest credible experts opposing it and the most credible experts supporting it. I guess that is why scientific journals are peer-review journals, no more credible system has been developed.

[nekred]

Maybe before you go on aboput a book critiquing another book you actually read Darwin's book.

Theory on the evolution of species which actually describes the mechanism for gentic change and selection of traits as a means of adaptation and is named as the....

"Theory of Natural Selection"...

This here then was taken by people who then expanded this as the only means whereby genetic change could happen and exptrapolated the theory to account fo all forms of life both extant and extinct...

The final two paragraphs of Darwin's book should put it to rest but he is accused of things he is not repsonsible for by people who do not take the time to understand or read and use hearsay and opinion to sway their own political agenda.

[markg]

Dear Bee: Thank you for your reply.

I would point out that Newtonian physics are older then even Darwinian biology and are still relevant to today's science. If an idea is true it doesnt matter how old it is.

Have modern biologist abandoned the theory all together and not told me about it? Can you please explain you comment I might have misunderstood your meaning and intentions.

I am genuinely seeking enlightenment and you seem to be critical of this, can you explain? After reading Berlinsky and listening to him speak i found his take on the topic to be quite informative. I wanted to hear the other side, and you seem to think this is a futile effort. You will notice that I quoted a biogenesis theory that i thought had some explanitory power. True, i have a worldview contrary to this topic but i want to see things from the perspective of the other side. Please try and be respectful of that.

[nekred]

Here is a philosophical question....

If the earth was created yesterday with all the life as is, all the media, books etc. and your memories are in fact implanted...

Could you tell? How would you know?

Another question...

Why can't we go back and see the actual childhood of many video game characters?

If there is a Supreme being that is all powerful and all knowlegeable that created the univers would he have created at the the age it is... or or if there really was a big bang.... Who lit the fuse?

[markg]

Originally Posted by NewGuard84

I am unsure how the later progressions are explained, but the initial chemistry is theoretically explained in the Miller-Urey Experiment, which is decades old I believe.

Here is the link to the original Miller-Urey Experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%...rey_experiment

I have not done much reading on this gentleman, however, this is what I am seeing for recent abiogenesis updates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU

I am not a scientist and know very little about this stuff. Chemistry 30 and Biology 108 were the ends of those respective roads for me. I am just providing the kinds of ideas which have generally informed me on abiogenesis.

I base my views on which expert opinion has the fewest credible experts opposing it and the most credible experts supporting it. I guess that is why scientific journals are peer-review journals, no more credible system has been developed.

I was more interested in an experiment that demonstrated a chemical process that accounted for early metabolic process as opposed the creation of amino acids.

I am of the mind that the jump from amino acids to DNA is too large and mathmatically improbable to have occured randomly.

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by markg

I was more interested in an experiment that demonstrated a chemical process that accounted for early metabolic process as opposed the creation of amino acids.

I am of the mind that the jump from amino acids to DNA is too large and mathmatically improbable to have occured randomly.

Yep because believing that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree makes much more sense.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by markg

I was more interested in an experiment that demonstrated a chemical process that accounted for early metabolic process as opposed the creation of amino acids.

I am of the mind that the jump from amino acids to DNA is too large and mathmatically improbable to have occured randomly.

Just a lightning strike in a goopie puddle. Bam life in its simplest form . Primordial soop any one.

[Fisherpeak]

Didn`t we all just have this dance a few months ago?
As I recall,nobody won.

[markg]

I just dont understand the anger. I asked that this discussion be limited to science and some people want to take it in a completely different direction. I have went to the sites linked and viewed the video's and read the articles. Some interesting points. I have a much better understanding of Abiogenesis. It has come a long way since I took biology in high school and university.

Please refrain from being insulting. It is not helping your position.

[markg]

Originally Posted by Winch101

Using any info from berlinsky is like saying it must be true ,the bible says so...

He has created his own crap science ,he is discredited by all his contemporaries

A fence sitter of the first order, described as a manic street preacher ,

For intelligent design but not religious ,improbable, to mix proven science

With his assenine assertions is ridiculous , he has been condemned by both

Sides of the argument , he would have been more credible theorizing that

The earth was started by aliens...an opportunist that having taken the third

Side of the argument , he is a non issue .....

Are you saying he is not a qualified source of information? His credentials seem to be impressive. Princeton PHd, Columbia post doc work, these aren't community colleges we are talking about hear. I am trying to be objective. It seems like any scientist that disagrees with ones own worldview is imediately suspect and often attacked by those that disagree with there point of view. I find that offensive and scientifically regressive. The whole point of science is to question. He is critical of the dogma that seems to be associated with the scientific community and find that refreshing frankly.