Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

Shadow, please don't lie to us and, more importantly, please don't lie to yourself. Bullshit. That is not how your thought process went and you know it. I don't believe for a second that you were lead to your belief in God as creator by Shapiro's waffle. No-one is going to believe that, since it is transparently false. Here is what I suspect you actually did;You already believed in God as creator;
That means it had to be a planned process;
You searched for any scientist pushing a hypothesis that could be made to fit that model;
Shapiro fitted the bill;
That lead you to Shapiro.You didn't reach your "God conclusion" by following the evidence; you retro-fitted the evidence to the conclusion you already believed.Of course, even if your silly bit of self-deception were true, it would still be terribly poor logic. Why should this evidence point to Yaweh? Why not Brahma? Why gods of any kind? Why not aliens? Or extra-dimensional beings?The truth is that none of this is specific support for the Christian god, despite your best attempts to convince yourself that it is.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Hi jar,I completely agree. Humpty-Dumpty would be proud. That one is Shapiro's fault though. As far as I can tell he is wilfully abusing the term "sentient", probably for the attention, but who can say...I just feel sorry for those who, like Shadow, are taken in by the con trick. All they will see is a sciencey-sounding rationalisation, that allows them to continue believing what they already believed and so deeply wish to believe. It must be a very tempting business.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Hi bluegenes,I see where you're coming from, but I still think that Shapiro's use of language is deeply misleading. Dualist, materialist, whatever, it is just silly and misleading to use the same term for feedback mechanisms in the cell as we use for the activity of an entire brain. I certainly don't think that he is using the word in the way that most people would understand it.Interestingly, this would seem to be a far bigger problem for shadow than for nay materialist. I always thought that Catholics regarded sentience as some sort of special quality, which needed the intervention of God. If we accept Shapiro's usage, then a mere assemblage of genetic regulatory systems are sentient. That seems to argue as much against the need for a divine origin for sentience as it argues for it.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

No, you very strongly implied that Shapiro had led you to the conclusion that God had been involved in creation. Which just so happened, by an astonishing co-incidence, to be what you already believed. How convenient. Exactly as I described above. You spent two years looking for ways to prop up your pre-existing belief in Catholic dogma. In fact your desire to find ways to pick holes in the ToE has been your primary pre-occupation during your time here. You dig out these little holes and then you inject your little god into them.It's plainly rationalisation.I suspect that you do this because you know perfectly well that Catholic theology is extremely shaky on the subject of evolution and you are looking for a way to make that problem go away. Well this isn't it my friend. You are wasting your energy. Oh please do tell! I would sincerely love to hear your scenario. What exactly do you imagine is going on? Does Yaweh meddle in every mutation? Just a few? What exactly is his involvement? How does God fill the alleged gaps in the ToE? Yes, exactly as I said. You go looking to prop up your belief. You find the work of someone like Shapiro and, no matter how much that work is criticised, no matter how fringe it is, no matter how much it is derided by other scientists, you cling onto that germ of hope. I have seen it many times before. Every single one of your posts here has reeked of rationalisation, of the pursuit of a God of the Gaps argument. That is why I say that you are lying to yourself. My advice is to try and break that bad habit and stop lying to yourself, but you are free to take that as you will. They just papered over a crack. I don't think you'll find it to be load-bearing in the long run. I'm not sure that it's chemically possible for me to be more relaxed right now, but for you, I'll give it a damn good try. Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Hi shadow, You misunderstand me, which is a shame, because I think I made my position quite clear; Now I do not object to people challenging the modern synthesis or any other scientific theory. What I do object to are attempts to vandalise science so that someone's cherished superstitions can be forced into it. I object to assuming one's conclusion. I object to ad hoc reasoning and rationalisation. I object to people who have no idea what they are talking about claiming that they have challenged a theory that they plainly do not understand.I have no objections to people challenging scientific theories, but you are spectacularly under-qualified for the task. You don't understand the subject and you are essentially just trying to inject magic into science. Well, science does not deal in magic. You know if you just write [qs=Granny Magda] you will find that the messages take care of attribution for you. Like so; Catholic dogma on evolution consists of little more than a collection of unsupported ad hoc assumptions, which are extremely far-fetched and a poor fit for known data. In fact, i would go as far as to say that Catholic teaching on Adam and Eve, for example, is in direct contradiction to known facts. What the hell are you talking about Shadow? What on Earth has the monarchy got to do with anything? Are you quite well?Never mind. On to the amazing explanatory power of your Catholicised theory of Evolution. What? this is your "better explanation"? This explains nothing. This is less than nothing. This is a contemptible waste of time.Scientific theories are supposed to have explanatory power. What you have presented is basically a refusal to provide any kind of explanation, or even an attempt.This is exactly why superstition is banished from the scientific realm; it has no ability to explain anything.You want to violate the good practice of science and replace it with non-explanatory hogwash which you refuse to even attempt to explore. Pathetic.Disagree? Then provide us with an example of the explanatory power of Catholicised Evolution. Show us how one might use it to discover new fossils perhaps. Or use it to help fight disease. We're waiting... World renown! Oh that's classic! Devastated! You sure are entertaining, I'll give you that.Shapiro is a fringe figure who attracts pseudo-scientific types such as yourself because he is feeding you want you want to hear. that's all. His obsessions are entirely within the natural realm, no magic is required. You are a very strange man. Where exactly is this horseshit about royalty coming from? Are you sure you know who you're talking to? You haven't mixed this up with some other forum, where they're droning on about the royal wedding?Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Hi Shadow,Still desperately trying to make the ToE go away and stop interfering with your religious fantasy life I see. Good for you. Why let a little thing like reality get in the way of a good daydream. But you can't be bothered to cite them so that we can all judge the truth of this for ourselves. Nice. Very nice.Meanwhile; Emphasis mine.And since I can be bothered to cite my sources, you can go find that text here at Pigliucci's blog Rationally Speaking.So, would you care to tell us in which paper Masimo Pigliucci disagrees with Massimo Pigliucci?Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

I shall refrain from speculation as to why you felt unable to provide a link. Googling the title sufficed for me. If you do that, Pigliucci's paper is the first result. And the second, and the third... Yes and he says that the MS has been expanded to accommodate these ideas. He does not say that it must be swept aside.Modification yes, replacement no, just as we have been telling you throughout this thread. People have been asking that for a very long time. It's hardly a revolution. Except that Pigliucci, not being an attention whore, doesn't seem to feel the need to use misleading terminology, like "Intelligence". Doesn't the fact that Pigliucci can describe similar processes to those described by Shapiro without such terminology tell you something? Yes, he states; He could almost be talking about you. Did you even read that before you quoted it? He's saying that you're wrong Shadow. He's saying that what modifications must be made to the MS are not sufficient to bring the whole crashing down. He is saying that the theory can take these modifications just fine. That is how it is supposed to work. That is not you being a cynic. that is you being astonishingly pig-headed.You have been told, again and again that all scientific theories are constantly modified. This is nothing surprising. Pigliucci is not going beyond this. In fact, he explicitly denies it, right there in the abstract of the paper you cite. And again here, from one of his blog posts;

quote:

---

What exactly is it that the MS does not incorporate and may require an Extended Synthesis? Ah, this brings us back to why creationists, IDers and others who have been writing about this over the past few months are either misunderstanding the issue or (surely in the case of the Discovery Institute) are deliberately distorting it to serve their inane agenda.

​

The basic idea is that there have been some interesting empirical discoveries, as well as the articulation of some new concepts, subsequently to the Modern Synthesis, that one needs to explicitly integrate with the standard ideas about natural selection, common descent, population genetics and statistical genetics (nowadays known as evolutionary quantitative genetics). Some of these empirical discoveries include (but are not limited to) the existence of molecular buffering systems (like the so-called heat shock response) that may act as capacitors (i.e., facilitators) of bursts of phenotypic evolution, and the increasing evidence of the role of epigenetic (i.e., non-genetic) inheritance systems (this has nothing to do with Lamarckism, by the way). Some of the new concepts that have arisen since the MS include (but again are not limited to) the idea of evolvability (that different lineages have different propensities to evolve novel structures or functions), complexity theory (which opens the possibility of natural sources of organic complexity other than natural selection), and accommodation (a developmental process that may facilitate the coordinated appearance of complex traits in short evolutionary periods).

​

Now, did you see anything in the above that suggests that evolution is a theory in crisis? Did I say anything about intelligent designers, or the rejection of Darwinism, or any of the other nonsense that has filled the various uninformed and sometimes downright ridiculous commentaries that have appeared on the web about the Altenberg meeting? Didn’t think so.

---

Just because evolutionary theory expands to include new information, does not mean that it is in crisis. It does not mean that it need be replaced. It does not mean that any non-material force is at work. It does not mean that "intelligence" need be invoked. Funny how it looks that way to you (who has repeatedly proved that he does not understand the topic), but it doesn't look that way to Pigliucci. He must be a right moron eh? To have so badly misinterpreted his own research. Whilst you, who have seen through the veil and uncovered the truth, must be so amazingly perspicacious that you should be granted a Nobel Prize immediately.Either that or you just don't understand the topic.Pigliucci does not mention engineering. In fact, he explicitly rules that out. The fact that you imagine an appearance of engineering is of no import whatsoever. I am not the one acting as an apologist for absurd Catholic dogma which is falsified by known facts.Mutate and Survive

But the important point is that neither RM nor NS has been overthrown. They remain central to the modern theory. The MS has only been added to since it was founded, exactly as one would expect from decades of cumulative research. This is, of course, complete crap. If Shapiro had any justification for his claims of intelligence, then there would be no need to consider anyone's religious views. If it was justified by the evidence, he would have no problem convincing others of his case. The reason that he does not isn't because of some atheist conspiracy of silence - always a bad argument, since the ToE is widely believed across religious boundaries - it's because he has not justified his hyperbole with evidence. I don't know what you expect to gain from this. What I would or would not accept is not really the point. I would say that any findings that eliminated the roles of RM or NS would be a major modification, but that has not happened. And you, over five-hundred posts, are yet to show a glimmer of an inkling of awareness that you might simply be wrong. The Catholic dogma on evolution still includes Adam and Eve. Laughable! The idea that humans evolved to a certain point, only for A&E to have souls inserted into them like so much jelly in a doughnut, is not only palpably stupid, it is in contradiction of known facts about human evolution. If there had been such a pairing, they would show up in our genomes. They do not. The Catholic church is still clinging onto simple-minded superstition, when there is good concrete science available. I can see where you get it from.Mutate and Survive

No, mostly because imaginary objects are extremely difficult to detect. The resulting population bottleneck however would be easy to detect. In fact, if we were all descended from two individuals, both living at the same time, it would be very obvious.It's not there.The reason I mention this is because it's emblematic of the Catholic church's position on evolution. They seem to want to have it both ways, accepting evolution on the one hand and retaining odd fragments of myth on the other. For as long as the church hierarchy insists upon inserting just a little bit of magic into its biology, it is always going to be out of step with the scientific consensus. Similarly, you are doing yourself no favours by insistently scouring the scientific literature for gaps in the Modern Synthesis within which you can house the God of the Gaps.Mutate and Survive

You asked me a question and I answered. That the answer was not to your liking shouldn't surprise you. Are you really yet to work out that this is a debate site? Why so shocked at an opposing view?I have already told you what bothers me. It is that those ignorant of science, a category that most assuredly includes yourself, seek to replace it with superstition. You asked me where Catholic dogma on evolution has been falsified. I told you. You have no answer, so you resort to childish taunts and whining. You misrepresented Pigliucci, several of us clearly demonstrated that his views are actually the opposite of what you claimed. You have no answer for that either, so you once again resort to whining. It is a sad spectacle. You haven't cited one yet. You are confusing Philosophical Materialism with Methodological Materialism. Try again when you have something of substance.Mutate and Survive

This whole thread has been about one single problem; Shadow is upset that reality hasn't left any room for God.The basic problem is that evolution, depending as it does upon natural forces acting without conscious guidance, leaves very little for God to do in the whole creation of life. That seems to bug Shadow, leading him to sink a great deal of effort into finding instances of biologists (doesn't matter how fringe they might be) saying things that sound a little bit like intelligent guidance. Thus God. Or something.Of course no-one has agreed with Shadow about any of this. To judge from his rather petulant summation, he thinks this is because the assembled evolutionists of EvC are a big bunch of mean meanies. There is another, simpler reason though; Shadow doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.Shadow has repeatedly hidden behind quotes from scientists. When asked to expand upon these quotes he refuses, saying "Well I'm not a scientist", as if that excused him from understanding the points he raises. What is worse is that when offered the chance to understand these issues Shadow has pretty much refused. It's not just that he knows sod all about biology, it's that he doesn't want to know. And why would he? That would make it less mysterious and then there would be no way for him to crowbar God into the proceedings. He isn't actually interested in biology at all, except insofar as it can be abused for the purpose of Christian apologetics.Shadow has spent the entire thread puffing up quotes that he doesn't understand, hyping fringe science that he doesn't understand and even misrepresenting at least one scientist so that he appears to endorse the opposite of his actual position (as we saw with the Pigliucci example). Strangely, no-one has been impressed by these antics. For this, Shadow blames everybody else.Meanwhile, the Theory of Evolution, the Modern Synthesis and general biological research continue unabated. They require modification of course. All scientific theories require constant reappraisal and modification. That's how science works. But replacement? Hardly. The fact is that these ideas continue to prove their worth every day in multiple areas of study. They aren't going to go away just because certain Christians find them inconvenient.Mutate and Survive