Evolution 2.0

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#61
In recent years there have been several great books written by some of the top "intelligence design" scientists, written for a lay readership.

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen Meyer (2010)
Being as Communion: A Metaphysics of Information by William Dembski (2014)
Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen Meyer (2014)
Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed by Douglas Axe (2016)
Heretic: One Scientist's Journey from Darwin to Design by Matti Leisola and Jonathan Witt (2018)

I haven't read that last one, but it's supposed to be pretty good, too. The first one is the book that Thomas Nagel cites in Mind & Cosmos as providing good reasons why Darwinism can't account for the facts. The second is more philosophical and technical. The third expands on the first, showing how the same principles that applied to the emergence of DNA apply to the emergence of body forms. And the fourth, by Axe (whose research was cited and discussed by Meyer in his books), makes the point the point that Laura quoted in her post above: "Evolution by natural selection lacks foresight."

Axe is the guy that did research on protein folding and how the odds are astronomically against one enzyme 'evolving by random mutation and natural selection' into another functional protein.

He also provides the reason why the ID crowd should not be lumped in with the creationism crowd. (I haven't read Evolution 2.0 yet, but it sounds like he goes a bit too far in the creationism direction.) Here's what he writes on that:

Axe said:
The truth is that ID and creationism have always differed fundamentally in their methods and starting assumptions. Creationism starts with a commitment to a particular understanding of the biblical text of Genesis and aims to reconcile scientific data with that understanding. ID, on the other hand, starts with a commitment to the essential principles of science and shows how those principles ultimately compel us to attribute life to a purposeful inventor - an intelligent designer. ID authors settle for this vague description not because they want to smuggle God into science but because the jump from 'intelligent designer' to 'God' requires something beyond the essential principles of science.
I've found that Christian theism often slips into the writings of the ID crowd too, but the best of them are able to keep their religion out of their science. And when they do that, they leave the door open as to the nature of the intelligent designer, which is helpful.
 

genero81

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
#62
I've found that Christian theism often slips into the writings of the ID crowd too, but the best of them are able to keep their religion out of their science. And when they do that, they leave the door open as to the nature of the intelligent designer, which is helpful.
Perry Marshall does a good job of keeping the ID crowd separate from the, what he calls, Young Earth Creationist crowd. He does however, make the leap of assumption that God must be the coder (in so many words) Even so, it's a great read especially for the lay person. Easy to understand. (Evolution 2.0)
 

Keit

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
#63
Perry Marshall does a good job of keeping the ID crowd separate from the, what he calls, Young Earth Creationist crowd. He does however, make the leap of assumption that God must be the coder (in so many words) Even so, it's a great read especially for the lay person. Easy to understand. (Evolution 2.0)
Yes, I listen to his audiobook (which he narrates himself), and he gives a good overview of all the recent new or discarded discoveries in this area, and how DNA changes may happen more more rapidly. Laura wrote about it in this post. Totally fascinating!
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
#64
I've found that Christian theism often slips into the writings of the ID crowd too, but the best of them are able to keep their religion out of their science. And when they do that, they leave the door open as to the nature of the intelligent designer, which is helpful.
I noticed that in Marshall's book too - isn't it interesting that the Christian crowd is so much ahead in many ways compared to the dogmatic materialist people and most "respected scientists"?

Perry Marshall does a good job of keeping the ID crowd separate from the, what he calls, Young Earth Creationist crowd. He does however, make the leap of assumption that God must be the coder (in so many words) Even so, it's a great read especially for the lay person. Easy to understand. (Evolution 2.0)
Personally, I don't think Marshall slips into dogmatism or "religious thinking" much, if at all. He even says at some point that his religious view doesn't depend at all on how evolution unfolded (contrary to the creationist types) - he would be fine either way. I guess his religious views (and this might be true for many Christians) give him a starting point, a justification/reason for daring to question the neo-darwinian orthodoxy and looking at the counter-evidence. But for intelligent, non-fundamentalist Christians, I guess their faith doesn't depend on the details of evolution. For the hardcore materialists on the other hand, anything but "random mutation" contradicts their whole way of looking at the world! No wonder that these are the real fundies and witch hunters nowadays!
 

genero81

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
#65
Personally, I don't think Marshall slips into dogmatism or "religious thinking" much, if at all. He even says at some point that his religious view doesn't depend at all on how evolution unfolded (contrary to the creationist types) - he would be fine either way.
Yes, I would agree for the main text he stays pretty objective, but did you read appendix 2? That seemed a little weird to me to include that in the book, even as an appendix. I did take into consideration, however, that for some people the Bible is their source for truth or spiritual knowledge. We're lucky to have the C's

For the hardcore materialists on the other hand, anything but "random mutation" contradicts their whole way of looking at the world! No wonder that these are the real fundies and witch hunters nowadays!
No kidding! And they can be condescending to boot. All the while completely blind to their own fundamentalist fairy tales.
 

Nienna

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#66
Yes, I would agree for the main text he stays pretty objective, but did you read appendix 2? That seemed a little weird to me to include that in the book, even as an appendix. I did take into consideration, however, that for some people the Bible is their source for truth or spiritual knowledge. We're lucky to have the C's
I just got done reading Evolution 2.0 and, what you say about Appendix 2, well to me, he really is trying to make Genesis out to be factual. I suppose that you can interpret things to mean what you want them to mean in any given circumstance. I have to say that I was rather put-off by it. I guess that's because he seems to be taking the Bible as "truth", or so it seems to me. But the main portion of the book was really good and interesting. I really liked it. It makes a lot more sense than a bunch of chemicals doing something that they don't do.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#67
I just got done reading Evolution 2.0 and, what you say about Appendix 2, well to me, he really is trying to make Genesis out to be factual. I suppose that you can interpret things to mean what you want them to mean in any given circumstance. I have to say that I was rather put-off by it. I guess that's because he seems to be taking the Bible as "truth", or so it seems to me. But the main portion of the book was really good and interesting. I really liked it. It makes a lot more sense than a bunch of chemicals doing something that they don't do.
He should apply the same research methods and throughness to a study of the Bible.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
#68
I just got done reading Evolution 2.0 and, what you say about Appendix 2, well to me, he really is trying to make Genesis out to be factual. I suppose that you can interpret things to mean what you want them to mean in any given circumstance. I have to say that I was rather put-off by it. I guess that's because he seems to be taking the Bible as "truth", or so it seems to me. But the main portion of the book was really good and interesting. I really liked it. It makes a lot more sense than a bunch of chemicals doing something that they don't do.
Yep, I hadn't read the appendix when I first read the book but now did after genero81's remarks, and his "interpretation" of Genesis seems like a classic example of how blind belief can switch-off an otherwise great mind. It's crazy, since in this very appendix, he makes some excellent remarks about how you can't read the bible as science, but then goes ahead and does precisely that :huh:
 

RyanAM

Padawan Learner
#69
I finished reading virolution. The information is quite a lot to think about. I rather frowned at how he said big pharma and the like are putting big money into epigenetics and turning genes on or off. These sound good against disease and the like. However it sounds like this could become very bad in a hurry. Will have to keep gaining new information on this and watch the show.
 

Gandalf

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#70
The biology of belief: Unleashing the power of consciousness, matter, and miracles
by Bruce Lipton (2005)
"Lipton challenges the long-held belief that experiences and character are determined by our genes. You have heard
phrases such as: it must be in my genes; depression runs in my family; and she’s got some of the family’s ‘bad’ genes.
The prevailing belief is that we are locked into our way of living in the world by our genetic makeup. Lipton, however,
suggests that this belief is a myth. In fact, every one of our 75 trillion cells is not controlled by genes, but by the
environment. He states “it is a single cell’s ‘awareness’ of the environment, not its genes, that sets into motion the
mechanisms of life”.
The implications of this are staggering."
This concept certainly provides added impetus for working to increase our attention and awareness.
I'm reading that book now and it is very interesting.

Here are some quotes:

The point: a cell is a “programmable chip” whose behavior and genetic activity are primarily controlled by environmental signals, not genes.

I had been trained as a nucleus-centered biologist as surely as Copernicus had been trained as an Earth-centered astronomer, so it was with a jolt that I realized that the gene-containing nucleus does not program the cell. Environmental data is entered into the cell/computer via the membrane’s receptors, which represent the cell’s “keyboard.” Receptors trigger the membrane’s effector proteins, which act as the cell/computer’s “Central Processing Unit” (CPU).

The function of the computer’s CPU is to convert incoming data into the binary code language used by the computer’s operating system. The receptor-effector protein complexes represent a functional complement of a computer’s CPU processor. Incoming environmental information is passed from the receptor to the effector protein, which in turn converts the incoming signal into the behavioral language of biology.
However, neuroscience has now established that the conscious mind runs the show, at best, only about 5 percent of the time. It turns out that the programs acquired by the subconscious mind shape 95 percent or more of our life experiences. (Szegedy-Maszak 2005)
All that was interesting, but the most exciting finding was when I simultaneously introduced both histamine and adrenaline into my tissue cultures. I found that adrenaline signals, released by the central nervous system, override the influence of histamine signals that are produced locally.
The majority of bioscientists are conventional Newtonians—if it isn’t matter, it doesn’t count. The “mind” is a nonlocalized energy and therefore is not relevant to materialistic biology. Unfortunately, that bias is a “belief” that has been proven to be patently incorrect in a quantum mechanical universe!
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
#71
Awhile back I finished reading Evolution 2.0 and Virolution. They were a great refresher on a number of things I learned in university. It is altogether unsettling though how so much of our genome (at least 43%) is viral in origin. It could be indicative of a pretty rough past, with so many parasitic relationships with viruses eventually becoming symbiotic over time, if only after so much culling of those who weren't able to integrate the viral genome into their own DNA. It almost seems like a metaphor for how suffering approached with the right intentions and attitude produces knowledge and so growth in being ultimately. That may be a lot to read into it, of course.
 
Top Bottom