5 ms·

Why do you assume dualism is not testable? Also, Darwinian evolution is well known to be false. Just read any modern bioinformatics book. There are a whole h

by yters 7y ago

Why do you assume dualism is not testable? Also, Darwinian evolution is well known to be false. Just read any modern bioinformatics book. There are a whole host of other mechanisms besides Malthusian pressure, random mutation and natural selection that are used to explain evolution nowadays. As Eugene Koonin says, the modern synthesis is really a sort of postmodern evolution, where there is no ultimate explanation for how it works. Koonin even promotes a form of neo-Lamarkianism. Darwin's unique contributions to the theory of evolution have been experimentally discredited. You can easily disprove Darwin yourself with all the genomic data that is online these days.

gridlockd 7y ago
> Why do you assume dualism is not testable? I assume that your conception of dualism is not testable because, in your own words, it is "beyond anything in this physical universe". If it's beyond the physical universe, it cannot be observed and therefore it can not be tested. Otherwise, it would be part of physics and the physical universe just like gravity, if only hitherto unknown. > Also, Darwinian evolution is well known to be false. So is the general theory of relativity. Yet, it's "right enough" to allow us to make sufficiently accurate predictions about the physical world. Furthermore, one theory being wrong doesn't make other theories "more right". > There are a whole host of other mechanisms besides Malthusian pressure, random mutation and natural selection that are used to explain evolution nowadays. As you say yourself, that's besides random mutation and natural selection, not instead. It would be a miracle if somehow Darwin could have gotten all of the details right with the tools available to him. Also, in science everything is an approximation to some degree, there are always factors you disregard so that you can actually perform a prediction in a finite amount of time. There's variance and uncertainty in every measurement. > As Eugene Koonin says, the modern synthesis is really a sort of postmodern evolution, where there is no ultimate explanation for how it works. There's no "ultimate explanation" for anything. It's turtles all the way down.
- yters 7y ago
  It doesn't follow that for something to be observed it must be part of physics. If the physical universe is a medium, like our computers, they can transmit information from other entities without the entities themselves being embedded in the computers. It sounds like your argument begs the question by first assuming everything that interacts with us must be physical. Darwin's mechanisms do not explain anything in evolution. All of his mechanisms select against increased complexity and diversity, so are useless to explain the origin of species as he originally claimed. Darwinian evolution is dead and died a long time ago. Modern evolution is very much non-Darwinian.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > It doesn't follow that for something to be observed it must be part of physics. It's the other way around. If it can be observed, it interacts with matter. If it interacts with matter, it is within the domain of physics, by definition. I don't understand why you have a problem with this. Physicists are well aware that we do not understand all the interactions and we do keep discovering more and more interesting phenomena, such as quantum entanglement. > All of his mechanisms select against increased complexity and diversity, so are useless to explain the origin of species as he originally claimed. I don't know where this criticism comes from, but it sounds like a straw man. Natural selection may select against "complexity and diversity", but random mutation puts "complexity and diversity" back in the game.
    - yters 7y ago
      I think you are equivocating between the laws that govern material interaction and things that interact with matter. They are not the same thing. The laws of physics are developed by breaking matter down to its most uniform and granular components, and then characterizing their interaction. An immaterial soul would not be captured by such an analysis, but its interaction with matter could still be empirically identified. As for evolution, I see where you are coming from. Randomness, like flipping a coin, is always complex and different. However, if there are only a few specific, long coin sequence you are trying to construct, then flipping a coin does not get you there. There are just too many possibilities within a couple hundred coin flips to check within the lifespan of the universe. And, if you have one of these sequences, then randomly flipping some of the coins will destroy the sequence. Just think about what happens if you flip random bits in a computer program. For the most part, unless you get really, really lucky, it will destroy the computer program. So, while a few random mutations may be very lucky and flip the right nucleotides to create new functionality, the vast majority of mutations are destructive, and will kill off the species before there is the chance to evolve new functionality.

by yters 7y ago

gridlockd 7y ago

> Why do you assume dualism is not testable? I assume that your conception of dualism is not testable because, in your own words, it is "beyond anything in this physical universe". If it's beyond the physical universe, it cannot be observed and therefore it can not be tested. Otherwise, it would be part of physics and the physical universe just like gravity, if only hitherto unknown. > Also, Darwinian evolution is well known to be false. So is the general theory of relativity. Yet, it's "right enough" to allow us to make sufficiently accurate predictions about the physical world. Furthermore, one theory being wrong doesn't make other theories "more right". > There are a whole host of other mechanisms besides Malthusian pressure, random mutation and natural selection that are used to explain evolution nowadays. As you say yourself, that's besides random mutation and natural selection, not instead. It would be a miracle if somehow Darwin could have gotten all of the details right with the tools available to him. Also, in science everything is an approximation to some degree, there are always factors you disregard so that you can actually perform a prediction in a finite amount of time. There's variance and uncertainty in every measurement. > As Eugene Koonin says, the modern synthesis is really a sort of postmodern evolution, where there is no ultimate explanation for how it works. There's no "ultimate explanation" for anything. It's turtles all the way down.

yters 7y ago
It doesn't follow that for something to be observed it must be part of physics. If the physical universe is a medium, like our computers, they can transmit information from other entities without the entities themselves being embedded in the computers. It sounds like your argument begs the question by first assuming everything that interacts with us must be physical. Darwin's mechanisms do not explain anything in evolution. All of his mechanisms select against increased complexity and diversity, so are useless to explain the origin of species as he originally claimed. Darwinian evolution is dead and died a long time ago. Modern evolution is very much non-Darwinian.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > It doesn't follow that for something to be observed it must be part of physics. It's the other way around. If it can be observed, it interacts with matter. If it interacts with matter, it is within the domain of physics, by definition. I don't understand why you have a problem with this. Physicists are well aware that we do not understand all the interactions and we do keep discovering more and more interesting phenomena, such as quantum entanglement. > All of his mechanisms select against increased complexity and diversity, so are useless to explain the origin of species as he originally claimed. I don't know where this criticism comes from, but it sounds like a straw man. Natural selection may select against "complexity and diversity", but random mutation puts "complexity and diversity" back in the game.
  - yters 7y ago
    I think you are equivocating between the laws that govern material interaction and things that interact with matter. They are not the same thing. The laws of physics are developed by breaking matter down to its most uniform and granular components, and then characterizing their interaction. An immaterial soul would not be captured by such an analysis, but its interaction with matter could still be empirically identified. As for evolution, I see where you are coming from. Randomness, like flipping a coin, is always complex and different. However, if there are only a few specific, long coin sequence you are trying to construct, then flipping a coin does not get you there. There are just too many possibilities within a couple hundred coin flips to check within the lifespan of the universe. And, if you have one of these sequences, then randomly flipping some of the coins will destroy the sequence. Just think about what happens if you flip random bits in a computer program. For the most part, unless you get really, really lucky, it will destroy the computer program. So, while a few random mutations may be very lucky and flip the right nucleotides to create new functionality, the vast majority of mutations are destructive, and will kill off the species before there is the chance to evolve new functionality.