Introducing Gunter Bechly (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 19, 2019, 00:34 (40 days ago)

A paleontologist who started out with Darwin and now is an ID proponent. This is a short video with him introducing his background in the first two minutes and thereafter discusses transitional forms and many gaps. His discussion of micro and macro evolution fits exactly my approach to adaptation and innovation definitions. His final discussion is the issue of calculated 'waiting time', how long it would take for Darwin style mutations to create something quite new. His answer is longer than the universe is old. Please listen after 2 minutes until the end almost at 11 minutes:

https://youtu.be/NmZd4SzVD7M

Exerpts:

For one, he distinguishes between two meanings of “transitional” fossil forms and identifies the problem these forms pose for Darwinism.

Certainly, we find organisms that are “morphologically intermediate,” bearing resemblances to organisms that came before and others that came later. What we don’t find is the smooth curve of change expected by Darwinian theory, a “fossil lineage that shows a gradual transition from one form into the other.” The record of abrupt appearances, “explosions” (not just the famous Cambrian explosion), “revolutions,” etc., is not the exception but the rule. Given conventional evolutionary assumptions, this should not be the case!

Comment: A good taste as to why I know these folks are real scientists. I've followed him for awhile. An academic like Behe.

Introducing Gunter Bechly

by dhw, Thursday, December 19, 2019, 11:24 (39 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A paleontologist who started out with Darwin and now is an ID proponent. This is a short video with him introducing his background in the first two minutes and thereafter discusses transitional forms and many gaps. His discussion of micro and macro evolution fits exactly my approach to adaptation and innovation definitions. His final discussion is the issue of calculated 'waiting time', how long it would take for Darwin style mutations to create something quite new. His answer is longer than the universe is old. Please listen after 2 minutes until the end almost at 11 minutes:

https://youtu.be/NmZd4SzVD7M

Thank you. Well worth listening to, and well worth noting that he tries to dissociate ID from religion. He clearly hasn’t heard of Shapiro’s “natural genetic engineering”, and might perhaps revise his view of the accuracy of calculated “waiting time” if he realized that Darwin style mutations are not the only route to novelty, and ID could be accomplished by the intelligence of the cell communities of which all multicellular organisms consist. There is simply no way of calculating how long intelligent, cognitive, sentient beings might need to design an evolutionary novelty.

Introducing Gunter Bechly

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 19, 2019, 15:47 (39 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: A paleontologist who started out with Darwin and now is an ID proponent. This is a short video with him introducing his background in the first two minutes and thereafter discusses transitional forms and many gaps. His discussion of micro and macro evolution fits exactly my approach to adaptation and innovation definitions. His final discussion is the issue of calculated 'waiting time', how long it would take for Darwin style mutations to create something quite new. His answer is longer than the universe is old. Please listen after 2 minutes until the end almost at 11 minutes:

https://youtu.be/NmZd4SzVD7M

dhw: Thank you. Well worth listening to, and well worth noting that he tries to dissociate ID from religion. He clearly hasn’t heard of Shapiro’s “natural genetic engineering”, and might perhaps revise his view of the accuracy of calculated “waiting time” if he realized that Darwin style mutations are not the only route to novelty, and ID could be accomplished by the intelligence of the cell communities of which all multicellular organisms consist. There is simply no way of calculating how long intelligent, cognitive, sentient beings might need to design an evolutionary novelty.

All ID folks avoid using religion. He may well be aware of Shapiro's theory. Bechly is a paleontologist, not a geneticist, but exploring the mechanics of genetics. I've never seen any article mentioning Shapiro as a support for a presentation that builds on his theory. Bechly would bring his waiting time view to Shapiro's idea. "How long" means it must fit into the timing history gives us. We all admit something has to be a quick process to act within the known time gaps. A mind is the fastest designer we know. That is a real, not a theoretical view.

Introducing Gunter Bechly

by dhw, Friday, December 20, 2019, 08:10 (39 days ago) @ David Turell

https://youtu.be/NmZd4SzVD7M

dhw: Thank you. Well worth listening to, and well worth noting that he tries to dissociate ID from religion. He clearly hasn’t heard of Shapiro’s “natural genetic engineering”, and might perhaps revise his view of the accuracy of calculated “waiting time” if he realized that Darwin style mutations are not the only route to novelty, and ID could be accomplished by the intelligence of the cell communities of which all multicellular organisms consist. There is simply no way of calculating how long intelligent, cognitive, sentient beings might need to design an evolutionary novelty.

DAVID: All ID folks avoid using religion. He may well be aware of Shapiro's theory. Bechly is a paleontologist, not a geneticist, but exploring the mechanics of genetics. I've never seen any article mentioning Shapiro as a support for a presentation that builds on his theory. Bechly would bring his waiting time view to Shapiro's idea. "How long" means it must fit into the timing history gives us. We all admit something has to be a quick process to act within the known time gaps. A mind is the fastest designer we know. That is a real, not a theoretical view.

And Bechly makes no mention of the possibility that even micro-organisms may have minds, and if they do, we can have no idea how long those minds would need to work out new ways of coping with or exploiting their environment.

Under “homo erectus”:
Quote: "These specimens confirm that the species likely went extinct due to climate change, study coauthor Russell Ciochon, a biological anthropologist at the University of Iowa, tells CNN. “The open woodland was replaced by a rainforest. No Homo erectus fossils are found after the environment changed, so Homo erectus likely was unable to adapt to this new rainforest environment,” he says."

DAVID: No time for adaptation is suggested, or the species was incapable of adapting and remained the same for two million years. dhw thinks environmental changes drives speciation. Hmmmmm.

Why hmmmmm? My suggestion is that when the environment changes, some organisms die out, some adapt, and some exploit the new conditions through innovations. How does the extinction of homo erectus through climate change create a hmmmmm?

Introducing Gunter Bechly

by David Turell @, Friday, December 20, 2019, 12:56 (38 days ago) @ dhw

https://youtu.be/NmZd4SzVD7M

dhw: Thank you. Well worth listening to, and well worth noting that he tries to dissociate ID from religion. He clearly hasn’t heard of Shapiro’s “natural genetic engineering”, and might perhaps revise his view of the accuracy of calculated “waiting time” if he realized that Darwin style mutations are not the only route to novelty, and ID could be accomplished by the intelligence of the cell communities of which all multicellular organisms consist. There is simply no way of calculating how long intelligent, cognitive, sentient beings might need to design an evolutionary novelty.

DAVID: All ID folks avoid using religion. He may well be aware of Shapiro's theory. Bechly is a paleontologist, not a geneticist, but exploring the mechanics of genetics. I've never seen any article mentioning Shapiro as a support for a presentation that builds on his theory. Bechly would bring his waiting time view to Shapiro's idea. "How long" means it must fit into the timing history gives us. We all admit something has to be a quick process to act within the known time gaps. A mind is the fastest designer we know. That is a real, not a theoretical view.

dhw: And Bechly makes no mention of the possibility that even micro-organisms may have minds, and if they do, we can have no idea how long those minds would need to work out new ways of coping with or exploiting their environment.

Only you want microorganisms to have minds. He is looking at the rate of mutations, which is generally known. Why should Bechly who has no idea of your theories?


Under “homo erectus”:
Quote: "These specimens confirm that the species likely went extinct due to climate change, study coauthor Russell Ciochon, a biological anthropologist at the University of Iowa, tells CNN. “The open woodland was replaced by a rainforest. No Homo erectus fossils are found after the environment changed, so Homo erectus likely was unable to adapt to this new rainforest environment,” he says."

DAVID: No time for adaptation is suggested, or the species was incapable of adapting and remained the same for two million years. dhw thinks environmental changes drives speciation. Hmmmmm.

dhw: Why hmmmmm? My suggestion is that when the environment changes, some organisms die out, some adapt, and some exploit the new conditions through innovations. How does the extinction of homo erectus through climate change create a hmmmmm?

Over two million years of many changes, they survived, and didn't adapt. Survival and adaptation are not automatic and may vary with other forces at work, is the hmmm. Note your ideas are fixed as re Bechly..

Introducing Gunter Bechly

by dhw, Saturday, December 21, 2019, 10:24 (37 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: And Bechly makes no mention of the possibility that even micro-organisms may have minds, and if they do, we can have no idea how long those minds would need to work out new ways of coping with or exploiting their environment.

DAVID: Only you want microorganisms to have minds. He is looking at the rate of mutations, which is generally known. Why should Bechly who has no idea of your theories?

Bacterial intelligence is not “my” theory. All these years I have been quoting scientists such as McClintock, Margulis, Buehler and now Shapiro, and I have asked you to consult the many websites on the subject of bacterial intelligence, but suddenly you think I am all alone! If you want more names, look under references and further reading:

Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence

You are getting confused. It’s your theory of evolution that leaves you out on your own.

DAVID: No time for adaptation is suggested, or the species was incapable of adapting and remained the same for two million years. dhw thinks environmental changes drives speciation. Hmmmmm.

dhw: Why hmmmmm? My suggestion is that when the environment changes, some organisms die out, some adapt, and some exploit the new conditions through innovations. How does the extinction of homo erectus through climate change create a hmmmmm?

DAVID: Over two million years of many changes, they survived, and didn't adapt. Survival and adaptation are not automatic and may vary with other forces at work, is the hmmm. Note your ideas are fixed as re Bechly..

Exactly Gould’s point: there are long periods of stasis. New species occur when they are required or allowed by changes in the environment. Your hmmm fits in perfectly with my proposal: nothing is automatic. When the environment changes, some species die out, some adapt, and – the controversial bit – some use the new conditions to invent new methods of enhancing their chances of survival. And yes, the “other forces” at work are the capacity of the cell communities to adapt and/or innovate. This is not a fixed idea but a theory which I find considerably more convincing than your own theory of evolution. IF the theory is correct, then the time required for Darwinian evolution via random mutations etc. is irrelevant.

Introducing Gunter Bechly

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 21, 2019, 21:45 (37 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: And Bechly makes no mention of the possibility that even micro-organisms may have minds, and if they do, we can have no idea how long those minds would need to work out new ways of coping with or exploiting their environment.

DAVID: Only you want microorganisms to have minds. He is looking at the rate of mutations, which is generally known. Why should Bechly who has no idea of your theories?

dhw: Bacterial intelligence is not “my” theory. All these years I have been quoting scientists such as McClintock, Margulis, Buehler and now Shapiro, and I have asked you to consult the many websites on the subject of bacterial intelligence, but suddenly you think I am all alone! If you want more names, look under references and further reading:

Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence

You are getting confused. It’s your theory of evolution that leaves you out on your own.

No it doesn't. The ID folks group is filled with many scientists. I've only introduced a few. Their belief, which I think you fully understand, is that a designer is required for all advances in evolution. Bechly is a prime example. You want intelligent cells which can make designs, when all we know they do is make reasonable responses to the requirements of living, which cqan be from designed instructions. Your little list of scientists are expressing hyperbole about cells abilities. Those cell abilities are the amazing complexity of the biology of life, without which thee would be no life. ID and I all believe it requires a designer constantly at work. The only difference is I identify God as the designer and they avoid the issue, but underneath that is what is understood. They constantly produce scientific results that strongly imply a designer is at work. The only difference is they do not theorize how God does his work and I do. They simply say there is a designer. I don't need Wiki to review. You should look at uncommon descent website.


DAVID: No time for adaptation is suggested, or the species was incapable of adapting and remained the same for two million years. dhw thinks environmental changes drives speciation. Hmmmmm.

dhw: Why hmmmmm? My suggestion is that when the environment changes, some organisms die out, some adapt, and some exploit the new conditions through innovations. How does the extinction of homo erectus through climate change create a hmmmmm?

DAVID: Over two million years of many changes, they survived, and didn't adapt. Survival and adaptation are not automatic and may vary with other forces at work, is the hmmm. Note your ideas are fixed as re Bechly..

dhw: Exactly Gould’s point: there are long periods of stasis. New species occur when they are required or allowed by changes in the environment. Your hmmm fits in perfectly with my proposal: nothing is automatic. When the environment changes, some species die out, some adapt, and – the controversial bit – some use the new conditions to invent new methods of enhancing their chances of survival. And yes, the “other forces” at work are the capacity of the cell communities to adapt and/or innovate. This is not a fixed idea but a theory which I find considerably more convincing than your own theory of evolution. IF the theory is correct, then the time required for Darwinian evolution via random mutations etc. is irrelevant.

Gould also recognize the big gaps in the fossil branching record which he noted had tips and nodes and no explanation for the gaps or the stasis. His explanations were a guess as a staunch Darwinist, in which he saw the deficiencies.

Introducing Gunter Bechly

by dhw, Sunday, December 22, 2019, 11:10 (36 days ago) @ David Turell

I have moved this discussion to the Shapiro thread in order to avoid repetition.

Gunter Bechly: Darwin's gap problem

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 01, 2020, 18:23 (26 days ago) @ dhw

From Darwin in 1859: "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous, … Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. "

https://evolutionnews.org/2019/12/4-of-our-top-stories-of-2019-apeman-waves-goodbye-to-...

"Darwin hoped that over time new paleontological discoveries might resolve this problem for his theory. However, even 160 years later this has not happened, despite the greatly expanded knowledge we have today and a “completeness of the fossil record that is rather high for many animal groups”

***

"...in the fossil record, “stasis is data” (Gould 1991). This led two American paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould to propose their famous model of “punctuated equilibria” (Eldredge & Gould 1972). This model is often misunderstood as advocating saltational evolution, which it explicitly does not. It is just a special version of gradualism that confines the incremental evolution to an isolated small subpopulation and compresses it into a shorter period of time.

***

"Eldredge and Gould suggested punctuated equilibria as a general phenomenon, but it was never accepted as such within mainstream evolutionary biology. Many Darwinists rejected it and others considered it as nothing but a “minor wrinkle on the surface of neo-Darwinian theory”

***

"After the Darwin Year in 2009, celebrating his 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species, Hunt (2010) reviewed all the fossil evidence for species transitions assembled by paleontologists in 150 years of research since the time of Charles Darwin....Hunt’s conclusion, regarding all the available fossil evidence, was startling indeed:

“'The meandering and fluctuating trajectories captured in the fossil record are not inconsistent with the centrality of natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism, but they probably would not have been predicted without the benefit of an empirical fossil record."

"That is a formidable example of obfuscating language. It can be translated as: the empirical data from the fossil record totally contradict the gradualist predictions of Darwin’s theory. There just is hardly any fossil evidence for directional and gradual species-to-species transitions, and especially not for anagenesis. The demise of the three textbook examples described above leaves Darwinian paleontologists empty-handed.

"This may come as a surprise even for many critics of Darwinian evolution, because neither intelligent design proponents nor old earth or young earth creationists generally deny that neo-Darwinism may sufficiently explain low-level speciation, such as the diversification of a founding finch species into the various species of Darwin finches on the Galápagos Islands. That even such a minor phenomenon of gradualist evolution is not supported by fossil evidence gives reason for pause. Maybe we should not grant too much, too early to Darwin’s theory. Neo-Darwinian mechanisms certainly can well explain intraspecific changes of gene frequencies, like the rise of antibiotic resistance in germs, but it is unclear if the explanatory value of this process can be stretched much further. This does not imply that “God did it” as some critics of intelligent design theory often mockingly claim. But it does imply that the fossil support for neo-Darwinism is still very much exaggerated in our education system. And it suggests the need for a paradigm change in evolutionary biology, as is definitely becoming more and more evident. It is not intelligent design theorists who are the science deniers, but rather all those stubborn Darwinists. The latter still close their eyes to the ever-increasing number of anomalies that their pet theory fails to explain. (my bold)

"But there is a silver lining: At the conference “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,” hosted by the prestigious Royal Society in London in November 2016, the renowned evolutionary theorist Professor Gerd Müller explicitly mentioned “non-gradual forms of transition” among his list of five explanatory deficits of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (aka neo-Darwinism). The other points include phenotypic novelty and phenotypic complexity. You heard that right: Everything that is really interesting in the history of life and that should be explained by Darwin’s theory, this very theory actually fails to explain, by the admission of modern evolutionary biologists themselves. No wonder that high-ranking intellectuals like Yale professor David Gelernter are giving up on a beautiful but refuted theory (Gelernter 2019). "

Comment: Upon close examination only gaps are present. Gradualism in the fossil record does not exist. The Cambrian explosion is the most famous gap, which Darwin, himself, despaired of. Gould desperately tried to solve the problem with an invention that is not correct, and as Bechly carefully notes in this very long article, which is worth fully reading, the inventive attempts are desperate and numerous. Note my bold. ID is not unreasonable about minor speciation events as Darwinists view them. Which means ID is worth reading and following, although it should be carefully noted they never name God as designer.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum