The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Special issue on Alfred Russel Wallace

Posted 5 September 2015 by Matt Young

The September issue of Natural History magazine is devoted almost entirely to essays concerning Alfred Russel Wallace. I usually turn the pages of NH, look at the pictures, and read many of the captions -- but I read this issue almost in its entirety (and therefore cannot resist writing about it). Unfortunately, it looks as though none of the articles is available on the Web, but you can get your own copy for $3.95 (US), presumably on the newsstand. The issue was edited by Richard Milner, head of the Wallace Centenary Celebration. According to the second comment below, he also edited a special issue of Skeptic magazine, and you may request a free copy of either or both magazines by writing Mr. Milner an e-mail. The first article, by the distinguished naturalist David Attenborough, outlines Wallace's career. I did not know that, as Wallace returned from South America, his ship caught fire, and he lost all his notes and his specimens; I think I learned that fact 2 more times in subsequent articles. Attenborough outlines how Wallace got the idea of natural selection while studying birds of paradise. As is widely known, he sent an essay to Darwin. Lyell and Hooker arranged to have Wallace's paper presented alongside a paper by Darwin, who then rushed his own book, On the Origin of Species, into print. Attenborough remarks, "You might have thought there was an embarrassment or perhaps hostility or resentment" between Darwin and Wallace. "Not at all. The two men had great respect for each other, untinged by any sign of jealousy." An article by geneticist Andrew Berry goes over some of the same material, though in more detail and more biographically. Berry observes that Wallace's 1865 definition of "species" is identical to the "biological species concept" that is usually attributed to Ernst Mayr 80 or so years later. There is a certain amount of redundancy in these articles, each of which was written as if the authors thought they would have to stand alone: Berry introduces us to Wallace's Line, apparently unaware that Attenborough has already done so in the preceding article and Gary Noel Ross will do so later. Wallace originally went abroad, says naturalist Errol Fuller, to earn money by supplying stuffed animals to middle- and upper-class England; evidently such products were in considerable demand at the time, and Attenborough estimates that Wallace collected 110,000 insects, 7500 shells, 8050 bird skins, and over 400 mammals and reptiles. Fuller shows us some stuffed specimens that remain in remarkably good condition today. But for someone who just wants to look at the pictures, the high point of the issue might be a series of photographs of birds of paradise by Tim Laman with a narrative by Edwin Scholes. An article by Ross describes (sort of) following in Wallace's footsteps and searching for the golden birdwing butterfly; this article likewise displays excellent photographs, some by the author and including what seems to be a selfie taken from a distance of several meters. The final article is a reprint of a 1980 article by Stephen Jay Gould. Gould discusses the fact, noted in an earlier article as well, that Wallace and Darwin disagreed on sexual selection, and also on the origin of the human brain. Wallace, according to Gould, took the "hyperselectionist" position that everything that evolved is an adaptation. The brain, however, can do much that it is not adapted to do, like write symphonies. Such reasoning, says Gould, leads Wallace "right back to the basic belief of an earlier creationism that it [Wallace's hyperselectionism] meant to replace—a faith in the rightness of things, a definite place for each object in an integrated whole." If you want to know more, I am afraid that you will have to buy the magazine. And cheer up! The pictures are better in print than on your monitor.

62 Comments

Ted Herrlich · 5 September 2015

I wonder if they will mention how he was re-baptised as an proto-intelligent design supporter by the Discovery Institute?

Megaloblatta · 5 September 2015

Special Wallace editions of both Natural History and Skeptic magazines have recently been produced thanks to Richard Milner's Wallace Centenary Celebration project (see http://www.darwinlive.com/wallace/amnh.html). Richard edited both issues - and they are packed with excellent Wallace-related articles by famous writers, ranging from Sir David Attenborough to Richard Conniff. Milner's project has paid for several hundred extra copies of each magazine and these will be sent free of charge to anyone who wants them, anywhere in the World! If you would like one or both magazines please send your postal address to Richard - stating whether you want one of them or both. Please put "Free Magazine" in the subject line of your message. Richard's email address is rmilner2012@gmail.com Please forward this information to anyone else who you think might like copies - including schools, colleges etc.

Matt Young · 5 September 2015

I should have mentioned that Richard Milner was the editor, and I will correct that error shortly. Meanwhile, I had no idea that the mags were available free, and I may write for a copy of the Skeptic issue myself. The Web page cited above also has a number of slide shows, 3 or 4 of which seem to correlate with the articles I mentioned. Thanks for the tip!

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 6 September 2015

Ted Herrlich said: I wonder if they will mention how he was re-baptised as an proto-intelligent design supporter by the Discovery Institute?
Maybe that's what his spirit wanted. At least he seemed to think such a thing possible. Not such a big deal, I should think, as he was human. Something for the DI to exploit, though. Glen Davidson

Mark Sturtevant · 6 September 2015

What sounds to me a lot like the biological species concept was described long before Ernst Mayr. I have here an oooold edition of an Evolution text by Strickberger, and he has this little item from French naturalist Buffon (1707-1788): " We should regard two animals as belonging to the same species if, by means of copulation, they can perpetuate themselves and preserve the likeness of the species; and we should regard them as belonging to different species if they are incapable of producing progeny by the same means."

Megaloblatta · 6 September 2015

Very interesting!
Mark Sturtevant said: What sounds to me a lot like the biological species concept was described long before Ernst Mayr. I have here an oooold edition of an Evolution text by Strickberger, and he has this little item from French naturalist Buffon (1707-1788): " We should regard two animals as belonging to the same species if, by means of copulation, they can perpetuate themselves and preserve the likeness of the species; and we should regard them as belonging to different species if they are incapable of producing progeny by the same means."

Megaloblatta · 6 September 2015

I thought that readers might be interested in the following short but excellent video about Wallace which is narrated by David Attenborough: http://dai.ly/x34q1wy

Joe Felsenstein · 6 September 2015

Wallace surely deserves much honor and celebration. However, he had some views that many of us here would not share. Not just his support of spiritualism, but his resistance to seeing some features (human intelligence, for example) as evolved by natural selection. This expanded as he grew older. Glen Davidson alluded to these views of Wallace. As we have recently had the sad news of the death of Will Provine, it is appropriate to quote an exchange of emails he and I had in November 2013. I said in a letter about another matter:
Odd coincidence to hear from you -- I was just thinking of emailing you. I noted your comment on Jerry Coyne's blog ("website") about Alfred Russel Wallace and the disaster of his last book. I think you and I are aware of Wallace's proto-ID views there. You more than I because you have probably read Wallace 1914 more than I have. Many of the commenters on blogs that defend evolution are saying "well, it was just with regard to the human brain that Wallace denied the efficacy of natural selection". But I think he went much farther in the 1914 book. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.
and Will replied:
Yes, I read again the 1914 book again. It is filled with ID.
In his 1909 acceptance speech for the Darwin/Wallace Medal (he got the very first one, and the only one struck as a gold medal) Wallace had many supportive, and modest, things to say about Darwin and natural selection. So he is not the icon that the ID advocates want to make him. But that does not mean that we can ignore the views in his last book. Wallace's posthumous 1914 book The World of Life can be read here.

Megaloblatta · 7 September 2015

Well, it also does not mean that we can ignore the fact that Wallace 'jointly published' the theory of natural selection with Darwin in 1858, or his VERY many other major contributions to science (evolutionary biogeography, warning colouration etc etc)...

Joe Felsenstein · 7 September 2015

Of course not.

By the way, the charming 1909 acceptance speech which I mentioned is available here.

harold · 7 September 2015

Did Wallace directly deny science that was well-established in 1914?

Because if not, there is no comparison to ID.

Neither spirituality, nor even a logically false belief that something that actually is not yet fully explained by science requires a magical explanation, tiresome though the latter is, is anywhere near ID/creationism.

ID/creationism is a pack of deceptive crap that specifically denies well-established science, in the service of a social/political agenda.

I strongly suspect that Wallace is being unfairly associated with ID.

Being wrong, being superstitious, etc, are common.

Outright denying established science in service of an ideology is also common, but less so, and is more obnoxious.

Again, let's not give ID/creationists too much credit. They aren't sincere eccentrics. It isn't some idea that spontaneously occurred to someone. It's a pack of claptrap that was put together to try to sneak sectarian science denial into taxpayer funded public school science classes, because a slightly more open effort to do that was found to violate the constitution, and so "creation science" was made more dissembling. (Again, to clarify, I realize that ID/creationists are probably not consciously aware of deceit, but rather, merely intensely biased, arrogant, and literally unable to think, at a conscious level, that they might be wrong.)

I doubt if Wallace was ever so mendacious.

Joe Felsenstein · 8 September 2015

The modern ID movement is defined rather precisely by its political purposes, as a recasting of creationism as a response to the Edwards vs. Aguillard ruling, as a narrow tactic to get around that court ruling. Its paleontological marker is the phrase "cdesign proponentsists". But the scientific arguments they make are older, going back into the mists of time. A good example is the argument that complex structures such as the human eye cannot be evolved stepwise.

Wallace's arguments are in the tradition of these older objections, Rereading the 1914 book, I do see him being firm in giving natural selection a great role in the evolution of adaptations. He also was firm in his support of common descent. Most modern ID advocates try to downplay the role of natural selection as much as they can, and work hard to avoid the issue of common descent.

But Wallace did point to a number of cases where he thought a Design Intervention had occurred, and he felt that these were evidence of a higher purpose for evolution. An example was the evolution of feathers that had form specially adapted for flight. Ironically, we now know that feathers were more widespread among theropod dinosaurs, and that those early feathers did not have forms specially adapted for flight.

So what do we call Wallace's position?

harold · 8 September 2015

Joe Felsenstein said: The modern ID movement is defined rather precisely by its political purposes, as a recasting of creationism as a response to the Edwards vs. Aguillard ruling, as a narrow tactic to get around that court ruling. Its paleontological marker is the phrase "cdesign proponentsists". But the scientific arguments they make are older, going back into the mists of time. A good example is the argument that complex structures such as the human eye cannot be evolved stepwise. Wallace's arguments are in the tradition of these older objections, Rereading the 1914 book, I do see him being firm in giving natural selection a great role in the evolution of adaptations. He also was firm in his support of common descent. Most modern ID advocates try to downplay the role of natural selection as much as they can, and work hard to avoid the issue of common descent. But Wallace did point to a number of cases where he thought a Design Intervention had occurred, and he felt that these were evidence of a higher purpose for evolution. An example was the evolution of feathers that had form specially adapted for flight. Ironically, we now know that feathers were more widespread among theropod dinosaurs, and that those early feathers did not have forms specially adapted for flight. So what do we call Wallace's position?
Well, I wouldn't call anything "Intelligent Design" unless it comes out of the Discovery Institute or something clearly ideologically allied with them, and uses the term precisely the way they use it. They developed its use in this particular context and it means a specific thing when they use it. Denial of established science like common descent and evolutionary relationships that are strongly supported, often by the use of flawed logic disguised as mathematics, information theory, etc, purporting to show that well documented scientific results are "theoretically impossible", for political purposes. I guess I would call Wallace's thoughts "brilliant scientific thinking mixed with magical thinking", a combination that remains common. However, deceptively worded denial of well established science, as a form of propaganda to support a right wing political ideology, is a more extreme thing, and I think it's unfair to associate Wallace with the latter. The DI is always trying to create false equivalence between religious or superstitious ideas held by past thinkers, sometimes ideas that are now in conflict with science but weren't at the time of their formation, sometimes ideas that aren't even at direct odds with contemporary science, and their own political science denial. The equivalence is always false. Unless someone is here on Earth right now, aware of ID output and potentially aware of current scientific consensus, and claims to support contemporary Casey Luskin style ID output, it usually isn't fair to associate them with it.

Matt Young · 8 September 2015

So what do we call Wallace’s position?

Magical realism?

Megaloblatta · 8 September 2015

Unlike modern ID proponents, Wallace was never a creationist and he shed the vestiges of his belief in Christianity when he was a young man. He developed the notion that the spirit world has 'guided' the evolution of certain traits when he was in his late 70's and he championed natural selection to the end of his days. Wallace believed that man had evolved from earlier non-human ancestors and, perhaps curiously, that the spirit world was part of the natural world and could therefore be investigated scientifically. He never believed in the 'supernatural' in the way that many religions do.

Megaloblatta · 8 September 2015

Also see Wallace scholar Charles Smith's analysis here: http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/FAQ.htm#idesign

Joe Felsenstein · 8 September 2015

@Megaloblatta, thanks for the link. That is a really useful resource on Wallace's thinking.

Ray Martinez · 15 September 2015

Joe Felsenstein: But Wallace did point to a number of cases where he thought a Design Intervention had occurred, and he felt that these were evidence of a higher purpose for evolution. An example was the evolution of feathers that had form specially adapted for flight. Ironically, we now know that feathers were more widespread among theropod dinosaurs, and that those early feathers did not have forms specially adapted for flight. So what do we call Wallace’s position?
Wallace, I believe, only concluded for immaterial intelligence after he became convinced that certain séance miracles were genuine (post-1865). In this context he felt compelled to account for the human brain and its distance from animal intelligence as signaling the work of spirits. So as a modern biography of Wallace is aptly titled, he was "The Heretic in Darwin's Court."

Ray Martinez · 15 September 2015

Matt Young said:

So what do we call Wallace’s position?

Magical realism?
No, heretical spiritualism.

Ray Martinez · 15 September 2015

Ted Herrlich said: I wonder if they will mention how he was re-baptised as an proto-intelligent design supporter by the Discovery Institute?
Good point. As bad as scholarship gets by the Discovery Institute. A foray into seance spiritualism and a subsequent conclusion for very limited non-divine intervention in biological production is NOT in any way, shape or form, historical Creationism or design. Except for this one instance, as described, Wallace remained a Materialist until the day he died. I cannot stress how bad the D.I. is playing with an absurd interpretation of facts. There seems to be no end of how far these people will go to corrupt truth. RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist)

Ray Martinez · 15 September 2015

[Wallace] never believed in the ‘supernatural’ in the way that many religions do.
Absolutely true. Wallace believed in what the English Bible calls "witchcraft." He believed certain people, known as "mediums," could access immaterial spirits. The Bible says these immaterial spirits are actually demons who have the power and license to impersonate dead people.

phhht · 15 September 2015

Ray Martinez said: I cannot stress how bad the D.I. is playing with an absurd interpretation of facts. There seems to be no end of how far these people will go to corrupt truth. RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist)
You should know, Ray.

Ray Martinez · 15 September 2015

Did Wallace directly deny science that was well-established in 1914? Because if not, there is no comparison to ID.
The point has been made that Wallace 1914 went far beyond immaterial intelligence contributing to the superiority of human brain. In the book mentioned Provine said "It is filled with ID." Again, the context of Wallace's views are based on the genuineness of certain séance miracles. In this frame he concluded immaterial intelligence was responsible for the great distance between human and animal intelligence. So when people mention this fact the same should be seen as presupposing all other biological phenomena attributed to immaterial intelligence---the human brain representing the all and the pinnacle.

stevaroni · 22 September 2015

Heard a quote off the campaign trail from Ben Carson today....

“I personally believe that this theory that Darwin came up with was something that was encouraged by the adversary, and it has become what is scientifically, politically correct.”

Weird how the technical mind works. I know that when I heard the word "adversary" I was supposed to automatically think "Satan", but instead the first thing that popped into my head was "Wallace?" And while I'm at it, that last part - "and it has become what is scientifically, politically correct.” - is weird too. Of course it has become what is scientifically correct. When you have an idea that withstands 160-odd years of intense, minute scrutiny that's the kind of thing that happens to it. Only a modern Republican candidate would get up on a stump and declare this weird.

No Evolution · 9 October 2015

Recent peer reviewed article challenges Darwin: "Life and Consciousness – The Vedantic View" http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

DS · 9 October 2015

No Evolution said: Recent peer reviewed article challenges Darwin: "Life and Consciousness – The Vedantic View" http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Well the journal looks legit, but the abstract looks like pure and utter crap. What are they discussing the big bang in a journal about integrative biology? Looks like every bad mischaracterization about science wrapped up into one big stinking mess. Maybe another editor wanted to dump a stealth piece of crap before he retired. Speaking of dumps, it looks like this little gem should be immediately dumped to the bathroom wall. It has even less to do with Wallace than the big bang has to do with consciousness.

Mike Elzinga · 9 October 2015

No Evolution said: Recent peer reviewed article challenges Darwin: "Life and Consciousness – The Vedantic View" http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
The paper can be found here. I didn't even have to get through the entire abstract to see the problems with the paper. Reading the paper confirmed my suspicions within the first few pages; these authors are seriously out of date, totally off the rails, and don't understand anything about the physics and chemistry of life. I keep coming back to a common phenomenon, the profound significance of which apparently completely escapes these authors and all other purveyors of a supernatural explanation of life; that phenomenon being the extremely sensitive temperature dependence of life. In order to appreciate that phenomenon, one would need to dig deeply into the chemistry and physics and comprehend just what temperature dependence tells us. No purveyor of these supernatural explanations of life has ever made the effort to even begin that journey; and those from our own subcultures of fundamentalist hostility to evolution avoid these lessons out of fear of burning in hell. And temperature dependence is just the proverbial "tip of the iceberg" when it comes to physical phenomena that affect the growth and behaviors of all living organisms. Attempts to portray articles such as this as providing "profound alternatives" to "materialistic" (read atheistic) explanations of life reveal that their authors have never taken the time to learn science in any significant depth; all they do is reveal a lazy ignorance that is being filled in with ancient superstitions. One can't even carry on a conversation with such ignorance because there is not even a basic vocabulary of science one can work with, let alone any conceptual understanding of the relevant science. All we ever get are sneering accusations that we are rejecting their deities; and there are so many deities we have to contend with we can't even get them to provide the details of why their specific deity is the one that is the supernatural explanation of life.

Matt Young · 9 October 2015

... this little gem should be immediately dumped to the bathroom wall.

That abstract is certainly drivel, but I am inclined to leave the comments up; it is good to occasionally see manure in a flower bed (though I admit that manure is useful, whereas drivel is not). The journal is apparently on the up and up, and the article is billed as an opinion piece; I can only conclude that they need the money.

No Evolution · 9 October 2015

Differences Between Organisms and Artifacts: Living Organisms are Beyond Design
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138#_i10

No Evolution · 9 October 2015

Mike Elzinga said:
No Evolution said: Recent peer reviewed article challenges Darwin: "Life and Consciousness – The Vedantic View" http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
The paper can be found here. I didn't even have to get through the entire abstract to see the problems with the paper. Reading the paper confirmed my suspicions within the first few pages; these authors are seriously out of date, totally off the rails, and don't understand anything about the physics and chemistry of life. I keep coming back to a common phenomenon, the profound significance of which apparently completely escapes these authors and all other purveyors of a supernatural explanation of life; that phenomenon being the extremely sensitive temperature dependence of life. In order to appreciate that phenomenon, one would need to dig deeply into the chemistry and physics and comprehend just what temperature dependence tells us. No purveyor of these supernatural explanations of life has ever made the effort to even begin that journey; and those from our own subcultures of fundamentalist hostility to evolution avoid these lessons out of fear of burning in hell. And temperature dependence is just the proverbial "tip of the iceberg" when it comes to physical phenomena that affect the growth and behaviors of all living organisms. Attempts to portray articles such as this as providing "profound alternatives" to "materialistic" (read atheistic) explanations of life reveal that their authors have never taken the time to learn science in any significant depth; all they do is reveal a lazy ignorance that is being filled in with ancient superstitions. One can't even carry on a conversation with such ignorance because there is not even a basic vocabulary of science one can work with, let alone any conceptual understanding of the relevant science. All we ever get are sneering accusations that we are rejecting their deities; and there are so many deities we have to contend with we can't even get them to provide the details of why their specific deity is the one that is the supernatural explanation of life.
Dear Mike Elzinga I have following observations based on article's arguments. We should not inflict our ideas on nature; let nature reveal herself to us. Life and its evolution are beyond simplistic Darwinian mechanistic reductionism. Honest biologists should go beyond physics and chemistry to understand 'Life and Its Origin'. Leaving aside biological systems, reductionism is even unable to explain the nature and teleological function of artifacts. For example, to understand the nature and function of an earthen pot, reductionists may apply appropriate natural laws and also determine what kind of soil the pot is made from, then they can study the structure of that soil under the microscope, and carry on downward through chemistry to the basic molecules, atoms, and elementary particles of which the soil is composed. Such an approach cannot contribute anything towards understanding the properties of a pot as a pot. A sentient subject may use the same pot for many different purposes and thus the purpose of the pot has an external teleological dependence (subject is outside the system) on the sentient subject. Different pots may be made of many different substances like soil, plastic, metals and so on, and yet, they can be used for the same function (say, storing water) by the sentient subject. Therefore, a mindless application of reductionism cannot comprehend the external teleological function of the pot, which is dependent on the sentient subject. Similarly, in a sentient living organism a single chemical structure of a biomolecule can execute many different functions and also one function can be produced by several different chemical structures. In a living cell, molecules like proteins can specifically catalyze a chemical reaction or recognize an antigen not only because their amino acids are arranged in a particular way, but also because their three-dimensional structure and function are controlled by the sentient living cell. Without the existence of sentience, as in the case of a dead cell, the same proteins may be present, but they cannot do all those functions that are observed in a sentient cell. The complex functions of the body of a living organism have an internal teleological (subject is inside the system) dependence on the sentient living entity within the body. Being more complex than external teleology, it is impossible for reductionism to grasp the internal teleological functions of different chemical structures present within a sentient living organism.

No Evolution · 9 October 2015

DS said:
No Evolution said: Recent peer reviewed article challenges Darwin: "Life and Consciousness – The Vedantic View" http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Well the journal looks legit, but the abstract looks like pure and utter crap. What are they discussing the big bang in a journal about integrative biology? Looks like every bad mischaracterization about science wrapped up into one big stinking mess. Maybe another editor wanted to dump a stealth piece of crap before he retired. Speaking of dumps, it looks like this little gem should be immediately dumped to the bathroom wall. It has even less to do with Wallace than the big bang has to do with consciousness.
In the framework of materialism, the major attention is to find general organizational laws, stimulated by physical sciences, ignoring the uniqueness of Life. Following this approach, scientists made several attempts to deny the living organism of its veracity as an immortal soul, in favor of genes, molecules, atoms and so on. However, advancement in various fields of biology has repeatedly given rise to questions against such a denial and has supplied more and more evidence against the completely misleading ideological imposition that, living entities are particular states of matter. In the recent past, however, the realization has arisen that cognitive nature of life at all levels has begun presenting significant challenges to the views of materialism in biology and has created a more receptive environment for the soul hypothesis. Therefore, instead of adjudicating different aprioristic claims, the development of an authentic theory of biology needs both proper scientific knowledge and the appropriate tools of philosophical analysis of life.

No Evolution · 9 October 2015

Matt Young said:

... this little gem should be immediately dumped to the bathroom wall.

That abstract is certainly drivel, but I am inclined to leave the comments up; it is good to occasionally see manure in a flower bed (though I admit that manure is useful, whereas drivel is not). The journal is apparently on the up and up, and the article is billed as an opinion piece; I can only conclude that they need the money.
Scientists and philosophers were always puzzled by the nature of life, the property of being alive. In the modern era, to study an organism, scientists have mainly adopted Descartes’ ontological view of the organism as a complex machine. The continued usage of physicalist science to comprehend biological systems is the biggest hurdle in the path of understanding life. The materialistic understanding of reality depends on natural laws, mathematics, determinism, and reductionism. This materialistic science continually failed to provide a theory for biology. There were several repeated attempts to explain organisms materially and all of them have repeatedly come full circle, because, physical sciences mostly deal with questions that begin with “what?” and “how?” On the other hand, biological sciences will be incomplete without addressing the functional questions of purpose that begin with “why?”

Yardbird · 9 October 2015

No Evolution said: Unsupported bullshit and blather.
This is just Byers's bio-sci in bigger words and better sentence structure.

stevaroni · 10 October 2015

No Evolution said: We should not inflict our ideas on nature; let nature reveal herself to us.
We can't "inflict" our ideas on nature even if we wanted to. Nature does not seem to find herself amenable to following the whims of a majority vote. All we can do with nature is to measure it. And seeing as we have been measuring it carefully for a couple of hundred years, we can tease out some of the mechanism.
Life and its evolution are beyond simplistic Darwinian mechanistic reductionism.... [snip]...... impossible for reductionism to grasp the internal teleological functions of different chemical structures present within a sentient living organism.
Word salad. Never in that little speech do you demonstrate that the apparent conclusions of evolution are wrong. You make lots of flowery allusions to philosophical arguments about (I think) how the observer changes the observed and such, but like most philosophical objectors to evolution you never get around to that one critical sentence - "And this is where you've got your sums wrong". If you think there's a better explanation for the physical evidence that seems to so solidly support evolution, by all means, feel free to make it, I'll listen attentively. But if all you're going to do is wave your hands and argue the philosophy of understanding or the difference between "observational science" and "historical science", please, give it a break. We've seen ten years of that here on PT, and somehow the people who take that tack use a lot of pretty words but never, ever, ever get around to actually explaining why all those ancient half-man / half-ape things come out of the Great Rift Valley on such a regular schedule.

Mike Elzinga · 10 October 2015

No Evolution said: I have following observations based on article's arguments. We should not inflict our ideas on nature; let nature reveal herself to us. Life and its evolution are beyond simplistic Darwinian mechanistic reductionism. Honest biologists should go beyond physics and chemistry to understand 'Life and Its Origin'.
As I already said, a sentence like this reveals a complete lack of understanding of not only the history of science, but no knowledge of how science is actually practiced today.

Leaving aside biological systems, reductionism is even unable to explain the nature and teleological function of artifacts. For example, to understand the nature and function of an earthen pot, reductionists may apply appropriate natural laws and also determine what kind of soil the pot is made from, then they can study the structure of that soil under the microscope, and carry on downward through chemistry to the basic molecules, atoms, and elementary particles of which the soil is composed. Such an approach cannot contribute anything towards understanding the properties of a pot as a pot. A sentient subject may use the same pot for many different purposes and thus the purpose of the pot has an external teleological dependence (subject is outside the system) on the sentient subject. Different pots may be made of many different substances like soil, plastic, metals and so on, and yet, they can be used for the same function (say, storing water) by the sentient subject. Therefore, a mindless application of reductionism cannot comprehend the external teleological function of the pot, which is dependent on the sentient subject. Similarly, in a sentient living organism a single chemical structure of a biomolecule can execute many different functions and also one function can be produced by several different chemical structures.

Accusing scientists of "reductionism" is one of the hallmarks of an accuser who not only doesn't understand what has been going on in physics and chemistry in the last 50 to 75 years, it is also the hallmark of an amateur "philosopher" who is just discovering "philosophical" words without understanding their meanings and limitations. For example, "emergence" is an important concept in chemistry and physics, but amateur "philosophers" haven't got beyond sneering at the word without having a clue about what it means.

In a living cell, molecules like proteins can specifically catalyze a chemical reaction or recognize an antigen not only because their amino acids are arranged in a particular way, but also because their three-dimensional structure and function are controlled by the sentient living cell.

How "sentient" is a cell at 0 degrees Celsius? How "sentient" is a mammal at 60 degrees Fahrenheit? If one hasn't appreciated the significance of even a simple observation of phenomena like hypothermia and hyperthermia, that individual should bite his tongue before making such pronouncements as "structure and function are controlled by the sentient living cell." These days, it is possible to use the laws of physics and chemistry to construct and determine the properties of molecular assemblies using a computer. Look up the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry; work that has been going on for about 50 years. Biophysicists know how cells and molecules derive their energy from the ambient water and heat bath in which they are immersed. They know how to shut life down and start it up again. Just because we don't know the original recipe(s) for the beginning of life on this planet doesn't mean we don't have a pretty good understanding of what animates molecular assemblies that have the properties of living organisms.

TomS · 10 October 2015

Mike Elzinga said: Just because we don't know the original recipe(s) for the beginning of life on this planet doesn't mean we don't have a pretty good understanding of what animates molecular assemblies that have the properties of living organisms.
Anything in the natural world could be the workings of an agency of which we know no limits. Even things for which we have rather good natural explanations: the motions of the Solar System; fire; the structure of the taxonomy of life. Supernatural agencies for which we cannot distinguish between what happens to be the case, and the infinity of ways that are not, are no more helpful nor needed when it comes to puzzles: dark matter and dark energy; the origins of life on Earth; Goldbach's conjecture.

No Evolution · 11 October 2015

Yardbird said:
No Evolution said: Unsupported bullshit and blather.
This is just Byers's bio-sci in bigger words and better sentence structure.
Yardbird how do you think that Byers's bio-sci and “Life and Consciousness – The Vedantic View” http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138 are similar?

No Evolution · 11 October 2015

stevaroni said:
No Evolution said: We should not inflict our ideas on nature; let nature reveal herself to us.
We can't "inflict" our ideas on nature even if we wanted to. Nature does not seem to find herself amenable to following the whims of a majority vote. All we can do with nature is to measure it. And seeing as we have been measuring it carefully for a couple of hundred years, we can tease out some of the mechanism.
Life and its evolution are beyond simplistic Darwinian mechanistic reductionism.... [snip]...... impossible for reductionism to grasp the internal teleological functions of different chemical structures present within a sentient living organism.
Word salad. Never in that little speech do you demonstrate that the apparent conclusions of evolution are wrong. You make lots of flowery allusions to philosophical arguments about (I think) how the observer changes the observed and such, but like most philosophical objectors to evolution you never get around to that one critical sentence - "And this is where you've got your sums wrong". If you think there's a better explanation for the physical evidence that seems to so solidly support evolution, by all means, feel free to make it, I'll listen attentively. But if all you're going to do is wave your hands and argue the philosophy of understanding or the difference between "observational science" and "historical science", please, give it a break. We've seen ten years of that here on PT, and somehow the people who take that tack use a lot of pretty words but never, ever, ever get around to actually explaining why all those ancient half-man / half-ape things come out of the Great Rift Valley on such a regular schedule.
As it is stated in the paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138 "right from mid 19th century to the last few decades of 20th century, biology witnessed a complete dominance of this Darwin-imposed mechanistic insentient picture for sentient living organism. Such an incorrect representation of life (mechanistic insentient picture for sentient living organism) can be called abiology." Also it states: "Considering a machine analogy of the living organism, abiogenesis and evolution theory in biology do not include these subtle elements when it studies living organisms. It excludes mind, intelligence and false ego. Obviously, consciousness is untouched in those theories. Vedantic literature explains that wherever life is present, the soul (atman) is there within and following the ‘laws of karma’ the soul (atman) in human body may obtain bodies of nonhuman species and vice versa. By advancement, the soul (atman) can obtain the human form, and by degradation it can also go back to other forms of life. The soul (atman) is endowed with freewill and by misutilizing freewill, a soul (atman) may do many misdeeds. The acquired reactions from those misdeeds are known as karmic reactions. ‘Laws of karma’ check the freewill of the soul (atman) by providing new bodies and throwing into different suffering conditions. This ancient theory of evolution is based on the subjective evolution of consciousness and the Darwinian objective evolution theory of bodies is a perverted representation of this ancient wisdom. In Darwinism, evolution means transformation of bodies, and in Vedantic view evolution means transformation of consciousness. Twenty first century biology also teaches us that we should not inflict our ideas on nature; let nature reveal herself to us. Life and its evolution cannot be understood by imposing simplistic Darwinian mechanistic reductionism on sentient biological systems. Evidence is forcing biologists to go beyond physics and chemistry to properly comprehend the science of consciousness."

No Evolution · 11 October 2015

Mike Elzinga said:
No Evolution said: I have following observations based on article's arguments. We should not inflict our ideas on nature; let nature reveal herself to us. Life and its evolution are beyond simplistic Darwinian mechanistic reductionism. Honest biologists should go beyond physics and chemistry to understand 'Life and Its Origin'.
As I already said, a sentence like this reveals a complete lack of understanding of not only the history of science, but no knowledge of how science is actually practiced today.

Leaving aside biological systems, reductionism is even unable to explain the nature and teleological function of artifacts. For example, to understand the nature and function of an earthen pot, reductionists may apply appropriate natural laws and also determine what kind of soil the pot is made from, then they can study the structure of that soil under the microscope, and carry on downward through chemistry to the basic molecules, atoms, and elementary particles of which the soil is composed. Such an approach cannot contribute anything towards understanding the properties of a pot as a pot. A sentient subject may use the same pot for many different purposes and thus the purpose of the pot has an external teleological dependence (subject is outside the system) on the sentient subject. Different pots may be made of many different substances like soil, plastic, metals and so on, and yet, they can be used for the same function (say, storing water) by the sentient subject. Therefore, a mindless application of reductionism cannot comprehend the external teleological function of the pot, which is dependent on the sentient subject. Similarly, in a sentient living organism a single chemical structure of a biomolecule can execute many different functions and also one function can be produced by several different chemical structures.

Accusing scientists of "reductionism" is one of the hallmarks of an accuser who not only doesn't understand what has been going on in physics and chemistry in the last 50 to 75 years, it is also the hallmark of an amateur "philosopher" who is just discovering "philosophical" words without understanding their meanings and limitations. For example, "emergence" is an important concept in chemistry and physics, but amateur "philosophers" haven't got beyond sneering at the word without having a clue about what it means.

In a living cell, molecules like proteins can specifically catalyze a chemical reaction or recognize an antigen not only because their amino acids are arranged in a particular way, but also because their three-dimensional structure and function are controlled by the sentient living cell.

How "sentient" is a cell at 0 degrees Celsius? How "sentient" is a mammal at 60 degrees Fahrenheit? If one hasn't appreciated the significance of even a simple observation of phenomena like hypothermia and hyperthermia, that individual should bite his tongue before making such pronouncements as "structure and function are controlled by the sentient living cell." These days, it is possible to use the laws of physics and chemistry to construct and determine the properties of molecular assemblies using a computer. Look up the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry; work that has been going on for about 50 years. Biophysicists know how cells and molecules derive their energy from the ambient water and heat bath in which they are immersed. They know how to shut life down and start it up again. Just because we don't know the original recipe(s) for the beginning of life on this planet doesn't mean we don't have a pretty good understanding of what animates molecular assemblies that have the properties of living organisms.
Mike Elzinga what is your arguments for what is stated in the paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138 "Following a linear logic in the case of artifacts, parts are produced and combined into a whole by the designer. On the other hand, following a circular logic, the body of the living organism appears from another living organism by a developmental process (cell division) and not by the linear accumulation of parts – design." Also "Empirical evidence shows that every living cell comes from a living cell and there is no single evidence that shows a case where a living cell appears from the external assembly/accumulation of biomolecules." A recent paper (D. Needleman, and J. Brugues, ‘Determining Physical Principles of Subcellular Organization’, Dev Cell 29 (2014), 135–138.) also accepts that, despite a significant progression in reductionism based cell biology, an elementary rationalization of even the simplest subcellular biological processes is missing. In this article, based on the so called notion of theories of “active matter”, the authors raised hopes on developing the physical principles of subcellular organization to help establish predictive theories of cell biology. However, the term “active matter” is grossly misleading because matter by its nature “inactive” and it may apparently be observable as “active” only under the influence of external forces or by the subtle influence of sentient or cognitive principles. Consciousness is a force within the body and only when it is conscious an organism will stand up and perform its usual activities. The moment consciousness leaves, the body collapses. Therefore, by using a reductionism based self organization theory biologists can never discover the natural laws that govern the actual cellular microscopic behaviors of the molecular constituents or the interactions between cytoskeleton filaments.

No Evolution · 11 October 2015

TomS said:
Mike Elzinga said: Just because we don't know the original recipe(s) for the beginning of life on this planet doesn't mean we don't have a pretty good understanding of what animates molecular assemblies that have the properties of living organisms.
Anything in the natural world could be the workings of an agency of which we know no limits. Even things for which we have rather good natural explanations: the motions of the Solar System; fire; the structure of the taxonomy of life. Supernatural agencies for which we cannot distinguish between what happens to be the case, and the infinity of ways that are not, are no more helpful nor needed when it comes to puzzles: dark matter and dark energy; the origins of life on Earth; Goldbach's conjecture.
The paper clearly states: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138 "Even though the attempt towards mechanization of nature served as an important driving force behind the scientific revolution, it also created an image of a clockwork universe set in motion by an intelligent first cause. Such machine analogy is also applied to living organisms. However, the view that a supernatural being, God, is external to living organisms and that He imposes form on matter from the outside (intelligent design) is also reductionistic, and shows a logical fallacy. The logic of extrinsically purposive systems (machines) cannot be applied to intrinsically purposive systems (living organisms). The Vedantic view offers a scientific alternative: “‘Organic Wholes’ produces ‘organic wholes’ and an ‘organic whole’ cannot arise from parts that have to be mechanically assembled. The process of externally assembling parts can only produce inorganic, mechanical machines or chemical processes, not living organisms.”"

Dave Luckett · 11 October 2015

No Evolution (whom I strongly suspect of being either Borzoghmehr or Ray Martinez) said: Anything in the natural world could be the workings of an agency of which we know no limits.
So it could. Alas, we know of no such agency.
Even things for which we have rather good natural explanations: the motions of the Solar System; fire; the structure of the taxonomy of life. Supernatural agencies for which we cannot distinguish between what happens to be the case, and the infinity of ways that are not, are no more helpful nor needed when it comes to puzzles: dark matter and dark energy; the origins of life on Earth; Goldbach's conjecture.
Arthur C Clarke said it better: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". The same applies to any natural event insufficiently understood. There are many such events. So? Are we to ascribe all of them to magic, then?
(quoting from the paper) "The logic of extrinsically purposive systems (machines) cannot be applied to intrinsically purposive systems (living organisms).
Why not? And what on earth allows you to beg the question that life is intrinsically purposive?
The Vedantic view offers a scientific alternative: “‘Organic Wholes’ produces ‘organic wholes’ and an ‘organic whole’ cannot arise from parts that have to be mechanically assembled.
I call nonsense. If that's what the "Vedic view" offers, it's nothing but a vaguely described mystical woolly-minded vacuity.
The process of externally assembling parts can only produce inorganic, mechanical machines or chemical processes, not living organisms.”"
That's at best an unsubstantiated opinion. That is to say, it's a puff of hot air, devoid of evidence. It doesn't rise to the level of actual argument. I suppose that's its Best Thing. It's impossible to refute something so void of content. Or, to put it more succinctly: Sez you.

Yardbird · 11 October 2015

No Evolution said:
Yardbird said:
No Evolution said: Unsupported bullshit and blather.
This is just Byers's bio-sci in bigger words and better sentence structure.
Yardbird how do you think that Byers's bio-sci and “Life and Consciousness – The Vedantic View” http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138 are similar?
I'm sorry. Did you say Vedantic or pedantic?

Mike Elzinga · 11 October 2015

No Evolution said: "Following a linear logic in the case of artifacts, parts are produced and combined into a whole by the designer. On the other hand, following a circular logic, the body of the living organism appears from another living organism by a developmental process (cell division) and not by the linear accumulation of parts – design."
The statement is simply false; and it is a complete mischaracterization of what is known in science. As I said earlier, amateur "philosophers" who are just now discovering "philosophical words" have no idea what those words mean; nor do they know anything about what has been going on in chemistry and physics over the last 50 to 75 years.

“Empirical evidence shows that every living cell comes from a living cell and there is no single evidence that shows a case where a living cell appears from the external assembly/accumulation of biomolecules.”

This statement is also misleading. Whoever believes this doesn't know anything about the concept of emergence in the evolution of complex assemblies of atoms and molecules. Every instance of condensing matter in the universe is an instance of the emergence of properties and behaviors that have no antecedents in the constituents making up the assembly. Those emerging properties depend not only on the environment in which the assembly is immersed; they also depend on the temperature range and the binding energies of the constituents.

However, the term “active matter” is grossly misleading because matter by its nature “inactive” and it may apparently be observable as “active” only under the influence of external forces or by the subtle influence of sentient or cognitive principles. Consciousness is a force within the body and only when it is conscious an organism will stand up and perform its usual activities. The moment consciousness leaves, the body collapses. Therefore, by using a reductionism based self organization theory biologists can never discover the natural laws that govern the actual cellular microscopic behaviors of the molecular constituents or the interactions between cytoskeleton filaments.

This is a fake "counter argument" against a quote-mined paper. The highlighted part is pure gibberish; and any "therefore" that follows from the assertion is meaningless. Consciousness is NOT a "force" within the body. I have already mentioned in my previous comments why it is not; but without the vocabulary and knowledge of the concepts of chemistry, physics, and biology, and with no awareness of the advances that have taken place in the last 50 to 75 years, no defender of this "paper" could have a clue of why that "argument" is completely vacuous. It is not worth the time and effort to try to educate someone who has not, and will not, take the time and effort to understand the current science. All that can happen is that we will get repeated blasts of gibberish full of misconceptions and misrepresentations of science followed by "therefore (insert gratuitous gibberish here)" statements with no evidence from the accuser that he has even attempted to understand the science.

Mike Elzinga · 11 October 2015

However, the term “active matter” is grossly misleading because matter by its nature “inactive” and it may apparently be observable as “active” only under the influence of external forces or by the subtle influence of sentient or cognitive principles.

This sentence reveals that whoever thinks this has never even taken a high school level chemistry or physics course; in fact, even middle school students learn about the various phases of matter. The assertion is another instance of the "tornado-in-a-junkyard" concept of atoms and molecules. This is why it is pointless to even try to carry on a conversation with someone who is attempting to substitute a "philosophical system" or a sectarian religious belief for their ignorance of science.

“A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it.” ― H.L. Mencken

TomS · 11 October 2015

Mike Elzinga said:

However, the term “active matter” is grossly misleading because matter by its nature “inactive” and it may apparently be observable as “active” only under the influence of external forces or by the subtle influence of sentient or cognitive principles.

This sentence reveals that whoever thinks this has never even taken a high school level chemistry or physics course; in fact, even middle school students learn about the various phases of matter. The assertion is another instance of the "tornado-in-a-junkyard" concept of atoms and molecules. This is why it is pointless to even try to carry on a conversation with someone who is attempting to substitute a "philosophical system" or a sectarian religious belief for their ignorance of science.

“A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it.” ― H.L. Mencken

You have been able to discern more sense in it than I have. It reminded me somewhat of the kind of jargon one meets with in astronomy or other such.

Mike Elzinga · 11 October 2015

TomS said: You have been able to discern more sense in it than I have. It reminded me somewhat of the kind of jargon one meets with in astronomy or other such.
What I see is probably not so much "sense" as it is the common misconceptions and misrepresentations of science promulgated by the various self-proclaimed "gurus" of mystic religions; including those Christian fundamentalists who attempt to replace science with sectarian pseudoscience. This kind of woo-woo cuts across nearly all "religions" and "philosophical systems." It starts with "ancient mysteries" - mysteries that have long since been illuminated by science - and then attempts to fill in those purported mysteries with poetic and metaphorical nonsense that intoxicates its followers into a state of euphoric belief in having perceived something deep and profound about themselves and the universe. In nearly every case, the followers of these systems of belief excuse themselves from understanding any science because, by definition, science is bad (unless, of course, some bastardization of science props up their religion or "philosophy" and gives it "gravitas" and "respectability"). I would argue that actually understanding what science has learned about the properties of matter and energy is far more inspiring and interesting. Such understanding actually illuminates our real relationships to and interdependencies with everything else in the universe; and furthermore, we are not conned into believing that some deity will fix what we screw up if we just toady to its self-designated guru on Earth.

stevaroni · 11 October 2015

After I called his post "word salad" No Evolution said: As it is stated in the paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138 "right from mid 19th century to the last few decades of 20th century, biology witnessed a complete dominance of this Darwin-imposed mechanistic insentient picture for sentient living organism. Such an incorrect representation of life (mechanistic insentient picture for sentient living organism) can be called abiology."
You can call it "William the happy frog" for all it matters. From the mid 19th century Darwinian evolution had had a dominant position in biology. Similarly, Newtonian mechanics has a dominant place in everyday physics. This is because they are models that actually work when used to explain and predict natural phenomenon. Again, if you want to propose an alternative model that works as well as Darwinian evolution, please, by all means, go ahead. But you're not doing that. You're waving your hands and quoting old websites. What you still haven't done, what no evolution denier has ever done, is provide any evidence that some other mechanism is at work and propose any way of measuring it. Bring out your karmic scale, and we'll toss some fruitfly genome on it and see what we get.
“Empirical evidence shows that every living cell comes from a living cell and there is no single evidence that shows a case where a living cell appears from the external assembly/accumulation of biomolecules.”
Eh. Maybe there are. Look up "prion". Besides, it's a little disingenuous for you to start talking about "no evidence", seeing as you were rude enough to come to the party with none of your own.

Dave Luckett · 11 October 2015

TomS said: You have been able to discern more sense in it than I have. It reminded me somewhat of the kind of jargon one meets with in astronomy or other such.
I believe you meant to write "astrology", not "astronomy".

TomS · 11 October 2015

Dave Luckett said:
TomS said: You have been able to discern more sense in it than I have. It reminded me somewhat of the kind of jargon one meets with in astronomy or other such.
I believe you meant to write "astrology", not "astronomy".
blush Yes, of course. Thank you.

TomS · 11 October 2015

stevaroni said: Again, if you want to propose an alternative model that works as well as Darwinian evolution, please, by all means, go ahead.
As far as I know, there is no model which attempts to account for this, rather than something else in biology without reference to evolution. No matter how poor the attempt. They can't talk long without saying "and whatever goes on, it isn't evolution". And no matter how long they talk, they never get around to suggesting what does go on; or what mechanism there is for producing results; or what rules are followed (do supernatural agents follow rules?); etc. And there is always omphalism, from which they never quite distance themselves.

No Evolution · 12 October 2015

Dave Luckett said:
(quoting from the paper) "The logic of extrinsically purposive systems (machines) cannot be applied to intrinsically purposive systems (living organisms).
Why not? And what on earth allows you to beg the question that life is intrinsically purposive?
This paper explains that purposive behavior that is noticeably goal directed is ubiquitous in living organisms. Please read the section "Ubiquity of Consciousness" in the article: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138#_i4
The Vedantic view offers a scientific alternative: “‘Organic Wholes’ produces ‘organic wholes’ and an ‘organic whole’ cannot arise from parts that have to be mechanically assembled. Dave Luckett said:I call nonsense. If that's what the "Vedic view" offers, it's nothing but a vaguely described mystical woolly-minded vacuity.
Your views are nonsense because you cannot produce even a blade of grass by mechanical assembly.
The process of externally assembling parts can only produce inorganic, mechanical machines or chemical processes, not living organisms.”" Dave Luckett said:That's at best an unsubstantiated opinion. That is to say, it's a puff of hot air, devoid of evidence. It doesn't rise to the level of actual argument. I suppose that's its Best Thing. It's impossible to refute something so void of content. Or, to put it more succinctly: Sez you.
As this article says in the section 'Conclusion': http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138#_i12 "Proposals like “artificial life”, “artificial intelligence”, “sentient machines” and so on are only fairy tales because no designer can produce an artifact with the properties like internal teleology (Naturzweck) and formative force (bildende Kraft). In other words, a machine will never do things for its own internal purpose and it cannot build itself."

No Evolution · 12 October 2015

Yardbird said:
No Evolution said:
Yardbird said:
No Evolution said: Unsupported bullshit and blather.
This is just Byers's bio-sci in bigger words and better sentence structure.
Yardbird how do you think that Byers's bio-sci and “Life and Consciousness – The Vedantic View” http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138 are similar?
I'm sorry. Did you say Vedantic or pedantic?
Do you have a brain?

No Evolution · 12 October 2015

Mike Elzinga said:
No Evolution said: "Following a linear logic in the case of artifacts, parts are produced and combined into a whole by the designer. On the other hand, following a circular logic, the body of the living organism appears from another living organism by a developmental process (cell division) and not by the linear accumulation of parts – design."
The statement is simply false; and it is a complete mischaracterization of what is known in science. As I said earlier, amateur "philosophers" who are just now discovering "philosophical words" have no idea what those words mean; nor do they know anything about what has been going on in chemistry and physics over the last 50 to 75 years.
You have not refuted by providing actual evidence to refute the scientific arguments in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138 Please produce a simple living entity by using all your knowledge of chemistry and physics. Do not dream that you know the science/philosophy better than others. Please prove your sentences with evidence. Do not prove repeatedly that you are simply an illiterate in science/philosophy.

“Empirical evidence shows that every living cell comes from a living cell and there is no single evidence that shows a case where a living cell appears from the external assembly/accumulation of biomolecules.”

This statement is also misleading. Whoever believes this doesn't know anything about the concept of emergence in the evolution of complex assemblies of atoms and molecules. Every instance of condensing matter in the universe is an instance of the emergence of properties and behaviors that have no antecedents in the constituents making up the assembly. Those emerging properties depend not only on the environment in which the assembly is immersed; they also depend on the temperature range and the binding energies of the constituents.
Please show an actual evidence where a living cell appears from the external assembly/accumulation of biomolecules. You can tell your stories to the kinds who have no idea about real science. You have to talk in terms of evidence in actual science. Please read the section "Self-Organization: Without a Self!" in the article: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138#_i9 If you have any objections to these views, then you must cite the actual evidence to refute them. Please do not judge others by your ignorance.

No Evolution · 12 October 2015

Mike Elzinga said:

However, the term “active matter” is grossly misleading because matter by its nature “inactive” and it may apparently be observable as “active” only under the influence of external forces or by the subtle influence of sentient or cognitive principles.

This sentence reveals that whoever thinks this has never even taken a high school level chemistry or physics course; in fact, even middle school students learn about the various phases of matter. The assertion is another instance of the "tornado-in-a-junkyard" concept of atoms and molecules. This is why it is pointless to even try to carry on a conversation with someone who is attempting to substitute a "philosophical system" or a sectarian religious belief for their ignorance of science.

“A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it.” ― H.L. Mencken

In the context of biology, you have not shown yet that you have studies even the high school level chemistry or physics course.

No Evolution · 12 October 2015

Mike Elzinga said:
TomS said: You have been able to discern more sense in it than I have. It reminded me somewhat of the kind of jargon one meets with in astronomy or other such.
What I see is probably not so much "sense" as it is the common misconceptions and misrepresentations of science promulgated by the various self-proclaimed "gurus" of mystic religions; including those Christian fundamentalists who attempt to replace science with sectarian pseudoscience. This kind of woo-woo cuts across nearly all "religions" and "philosophical systems." It starts with "ancient mysteries" - mysteries that have long since been illuminated by science - and then attempts to fill in those purported mysteries with poetic and metaphorical nonsense that intoxicates its followers into a state of euphoric belief in having perceived something deep and profound about themselves and the universe. In nearly every case, the followers of these systems of belief excuse themselves from understanding any science because, by definition, science is bad (unless, of course, some bastardization of science props up their religion or "philosophy" and gives it "gravitas" and "respectability"). I would argue that actually understanding what science has learned about the properties of matter and energy is far more inspiring and interesting. Such understanding actually illuminates our real relationships to and interdependencies with everything else in the universe; and furthermore, we are not conned into believing that some deity will fix what we screw up if we just toady to its self-designated guru on Earth.
God does it is a more rational idea then saying that chemical does it. However, the paper I am referring refutes the "Intelligent Design" idea: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138#_i10 "Even though the attempt towards mechanization of nature served as an important driving force behind the scientific revolution, it also created an image of a clockwork universe set in motion by an intelligent first cause. Such machine analogy is also applied to living organisms. However, the view that a supernatural being, God, is external to living organisms and that He imposes form on matter from the outside (intelligent design) is also reductionistic, and shows a logical fallacy. The logic of extrinsically purposive systems (machines) cannot be applied to intrinsically purposive systems (living organisms)."

No Evolution · 12 October 2015

stevaroni said:
After I called his post "word salad" No Evolution said: As it is stated in the paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138 "right from mid 19th century to the last few decades of 20th century, biology witnessed a complete dominance of this Darwin-imposed mechanistic insentient picture for sentient living organism. Such an incorrect representation of life (mechanistic insentient picture for sentient living organism) can be called abiology."
You can call it "William the happy frog" for all it matters. From the mid 19th century Darwinian evolution had had a dominant position in biology. Similarly, Newtonian mechanics has a dominant place in everyday physics. This is because they are models that actually work when used to explain and predict natural phenomenon. Again, if you want to propose an alternative model that works as well as Darwinian evolution, please, by all means, go ahead. But you're not doing that. You're waving your hands and quoting old websites. What you still haven't done, what no evolution denier has ever done, is provide any evidence that some other mechanism is at work and propose any way of measuring it. Bring out your karmic scale, and we'll toss some fruitfly genome on it and see what we get.
The paper talks about "Subjective Evolution of Consciousness" as a viable alternative for Darwin's "Objective Evolution of Bodies" in the "Vedanta" section: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138#_i11 Your claims about knowing reality in terms of measurements show that you have no idea about living nature. You cannot measure any of the subjective experiences like "happiness", "anger", "love", "beauty" and so on. Do you have any means to measure these realities? We have the units like kilogram and meter for mass and length respectively. What are the units for these subjective experiences? Even a child can realize this: life is not that simple that you can understand it by the methods that are commonly used in physics and chemistry.
“Empirical evidence shows that every living cell comes from a living cell and there is no single evidence that shows a case where a living cell appears from the external assembly/accumulation of biomolecules.” stevaroni said:Eh. Maybe there are. Look up "prion". Besides, it's a little disingenuous for you to start talking about "no evidence", seeing as you were rude enough to come to the party with none of your own.
Following the paper ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138 ), I am also humble enough to accept that all our science and all the scientists in the world together cannot produce a blade of grass by external assembly/accumulation of biomolecules. You are claiming rudely that you can create a living cell by external assembly/accumulation of biomolecules. But what is your actual supporting evidence for your claims?

DS · 12 October 2015

Does anone else think that it is strange that this asshole posted this shit here on the exact same day that it was first posted online? Maybe Joe, I mean No, wrote the whole thing just so he could come here and quote this bullshit. He certainly doesn't seem capable of doing anything else.

I warned you that this shit should be dumped to the bathroom wall. Now look what went and happened. Joe took over another perfectly good thread. And once again he has broken the rules and used yet another alias. He is also once again in violation of his permanent ban from this site. As soon as he realizes that absolutely no one is falling for his bullshit, he will once again start making threats of violence against the rational. You should make sure to save all of this as evidence for the trial.

No Evolution · 12 October 2015

DS said: Does anone else think that it is strange that this asshole posted this shit here on the exact same day that it was first posted online? Maybe Joe, I mean No, wrote the whole thing just so he could come here and quote this bullshit. He certainly doesn't seem capable of doing anything else. I warned you that this shit should be dumped to the bathroom wall. Now look what went and happened. Joe took over another perfectly good thread. And once again he has broken the rules and used yet another alias. He is also once again in violation of his permanent ban from this site. As soon as he realizes that absolutely no one is falling for his bullshit, he will once again start making threats of violence against the rational. You should make sure to save all of this as evidence for the trial.
This is what you mean the real scientific mindset? This behavior shows that we are becoming more and more arrogant and abusive to others when they do not agree with our views.

Matt Young · 12 October 2015

I warned you that this shit should be dumped to the bathroom wall. Now look what went and happened. Joe took over another perfectly good thread.

I doubt it is Joe, but I agree that this nonsense has gone far enough: Further comments by or about "No Evolution" will be sent to the Bathroom Wall.

DS · 12 October 2015

Dump please.

DS · 12 October 2015

Thanks Matt.

Yardbird · 12 October 2015

No Evolution said:
Yardbird said:
No Evolution said:
Yardbird said:
No Evolution said: Unsupported bullshit and blather.
This is just Byers's bio-sci in bigger words and better sentence structure.
Yardbird how do you think that Byers's bio-sci and “Life and Consciousness – The Vedantic View” http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138 are similar?
I'm sorry. Did you say Vedantic or pedantic?
Do you have a brain?
Dude, you are one fucking deranged asshole, a coward, and a liar!! Your passive-aggressive horseshit, your taunting and baiting doesn't work here. Your crap belongs in the crapper. Please send this exchange to the BW, Matt.