There exists in nature biological forms not explicable by Darwinian theory.
A new video has been posted on youtube.
Do non-adaptive and beyond-adaptive order pose an existential challenge to Darwinism?
Denton says yes.
152 thoughts on “The Biology of the Baroque”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Let us accept the proposition that “There exist… in nature biological forms not explicable by Darwinian theory.”
Is there some other theory under which said “forms” are “explicable”, using “explicable” in the same sense according to which said forms are not “explicable” under “Darwinian theory”?
If there is indeed some other theory which can indeed provide the explanation which Darwinian theory cannot, what is that explanation?
The closing credits for the video in the OP contain some names that may be familiar to the regulars hereabouts…
John G. West is credited as the video’s director and co-editor; Michael Denton, Ann Gauger, and Jonathan Wells are all credited as script consultants; and the whole video is “© Discovery Institute, 2016. All Rights Reserved.”
I at first misread that URL as “steam.org”. And I thought that appropriate for such a steaming pile of horse manure as we find in that video.
Looks like a great video and makes killer points. Id/YEC should do videos as it gets people who are surfing the net.
Patterns in nature is unlikely if evolution was true. It is likely if a common design and creator is true.
Prediction would be for like replys to like needs.
Yet evolutionism, even though under constraints of physics etc etc , still would have so much diversity in options if selection on mutations was the agent. Including other things they throw in.
Think about it carefully.
If evolution conclusions, convergent evolution or anything, must follow such restrictive boundaries then this should be ion the textbooks.
It isn’t. They still say, as darwin did, the sky’s the limit on what happens from day one.
Then we see such like answers amongst so many creatures it makes evolution claims of options look silly.
I know the case of a giant rhino in the fossil record. Just wiki. It had the special spaces in its skeleton just as big dinos did.
Not because they claim they are the same creatures but from convergent evolution.
Yet this is unlikely. Its simply the same answer from a common desgin blueprint for any creature that gets too big.
In fact one could predict it.
Heh, Denton is a funny guy. He thinks leaf-shapes have no adaptive benefit.
Maybe he should talk to a botanist some day? Anyway, from Sandwalk:
And what evidence is there FOR that explanation? What does it predict that has yet to be found, which we can test against future observations?
For example, what sorts of organisms should we expect to find in future excavations of Ediacaran strata and why does this follow from the alternative explanation?
I say no. Depends what you mean by Darwinism, I guess. It’s not evolutionists that have rebranded ‘Darwinism’ as a particular metaphysical position.
But if you mean strict adaptationism, even Darwin wasn’t a Darwinist. It is not necessary for every last detail of every last feature to be explicable by selective elimination of a competing type for evolution to be true.
Mung,
Lots of things are yet to be explained. And yet, whenever one of those things gets explained the answer without exception does not require any Intelligent Designer.
That never seems to trouble Intelligent Design Creationists however, as an explanation that does not require ID simply creates two smaller gaps either side of it where ID has not yet been deemed unnecessary, doubling total support!
Didn’t Darwin write about orchids?
Has Denton actually tested the hypothesis that forms are not adaptive?
That’s one of the most stupid things I’ve ever heard. It takes the limitations of “Darwinism,” like basic bauplans, and pretends that these are somehow anti-Darwinian because such limits aren’t themselves adaptive. Pentadactylism need never have been adaptive versus hexadactylism, it’s that bones in limbs that are adaptive, say, for lobed fins.
It’s also completely untrue that “strict Darwinism” has no place for the non-adaptive, as vestigial organs like the coccyx (and no, the slight function it serves hardly explains its structure) were always understood as enduring not only as non-adaptive but anti-adaptive, with only their diminution and/or “repurposing” being adaptive. The horse’s hoof may be pentadactyl developmentally, but it’s functionally monodactyl. That’s where the film is highly misleading, since the other “fingers” of the horse have either been lost or become sensibly non-functional, which type of adaptation is to be expected of unintelligent evolution. Why does the horse have vestigial digits, if intelligently designed?
Leaf shapes are highly functional, of course. The idea that each and every variety of leaf shape has to be functional is a strawman of evolutionary theory. Leaves of grass vs. the leaves of broadleaf plants differ substantially because of how grass grows, which appears to be due at least in part to grazing–grass leaves just push out from the base when eaten, easily dealing with the loss. Flowers seem to have many of their “beautiful” patterns because these allow for iterative growth of the flower. Why are flower sepals modified leaves, btw?
And oh, we happen to like the beauty of nature, even when the same sort of order elaborating into chaos is found in music. Gee, I wonder if we were supposed to find productive natural settings to be ugly (much of nature is hardly beautiful anyhow, but the basic structures are mostly valued aesthetically by ourselves). And the judgment of beauty needn’t end with nature. Well, how could it?
Of course it’s the usual creationist tripe, oh and ah over the beautiful parts of nature, mislead regarding the adaptive nature of leaves, ignore the fact that pentadactyl limbs have been modified into functionally monodactyl limbs in the featured horses, and pretend that the very entailments of mindless evolution point to some sort of baroque artistry.
It’s safe to say that the film itself is non-functional, at least in the sense of imparting truth to anyone. Rather, it is anti-functional in the sense of conveying knowledge to the viewer.
Glen Davidson
Lots of things have non obvious fonction. Where I live, live oak trees shed their leaves when the wind exceeds 50 mph. They just let go, allowing the tree to survive hurricanes without being blown over.
Is this an adaptation, or a coincidence. I’d like to see IDists do a bit of research.
As one Sandwalk commenter noted, at the level of details you can find what amounts to a random walk through a space of solutions all equally useful. Sure, leaves show evidence of a cost-benefit tradeoff — large enough to catch sunlight, shaped to shed water, affordable to shed and replace each year, whatever. Now, how many shapes can meet those requirements?
For that matter, why all that speciation among cichlids? One ancestral population, one homogeneous environment, lots of species. Back to the Sandwalk commenter, who argued that all of these achieved the same evolutionary goal of “not being dead.”
Lizzie would be proud. This site (TSZ) is a joke.
You may wish to re-read cubist’s post #2 up there. He points directly to the punch line.
That’s excellent. I’ll have to google the source — I’m sure it will come in useful in future discussions here.
As the most prolific commenter (2015) that makes you the biggest joker.
Here is a link:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016/02/replaying-lifes-tape.html#comment-form
The post is by Alex SL
Umm, not that thread.
Here’s Alex SL in the “Straw Man” thread.
No, it isn’t. Almost every post you make is, though. 🙂
Thanks, you’re right. He makes a good point.
Pz has a blog piece today about that Baroque movie and how Denton’s strawman characterization of “Darwinism” contradicts his fellow IDiot’s previous, opposite, characterization.
The only thing I disagree with PZ about is his snark towards the narrator’s accent. No, the accent is fine, it’s the cheesy Salieri porn music which should be criticized.
PZ is either ignorant or lying. Denton is not anti-evolution. Neither is ID.
Ah, the JoeG maneuver.
Well, yeah, evolution by magic is acceptable to them.
Like that matters to science.
Glen Davidson
Another possibility is that PZ actually watched the video and/or read the book.
Mung has read more books than you have.
The breadth of his denial is amazing!
Glen Davidson
I suppose it would be unfair to ask exactly how ID or Denton differ from whatever it is they are complaining about.
As far as I can tell, Denton is in complete agreement with Larry Moran. Maybe that’s not true, but how are we to know?
Regarding Maple leaves, there are so many different shapes, it seems odd to say they are either finely selected or the result of some archetype.
No, of course not. Denton just thinks “evolution” is so wrong that it’s a theory STILL IN CRISIS in spite of thirty years of practical advances in biology including both field and lab confirmation of evolution in action (in the decades since Denton’s previous book). No no no, whatever gives anyone the idea that Denton is anti-evolution? I’m sure Denton believes in “micro-evolution” or “common descent” within general “kinds” as much as any ignorant creationist. Denton just reserves all the interesting advances in lifeforms for the poofing of some designer (not Jesus’ daddy, natch, because admitting that would disqualify ID as science, if it weren’t disqualified already).
Whatever gives YOU the idea that PZ thinks Denton is anti-evolution? You can’t read? Or don’t want to?
PZ thinks Denton is an IDiot, which is patently true.
PZ also thinks that the main point of Denton’s (newly rehashed) book contradicts the thrust of the previous IDiot argument about god/designer making sure all/almost all DNA is functional, specific, and necessary. Because god doesn’t create random garbage, ya know. That’s the UD/ENV argument claiming that Encode refutes “Darwinism” in case you don’t recognize my synopsis of your side’s argument. Now Denton, in order to sell his book to the gullible, says that many lifeforms are so over-exaggerated, baroque, and unnecessary that they could not have evolved without a push from some god/designer. Because god creates random garbage just to prove that he can, doncha know.
Make up your minds, idiots.
Denton says that he opposes evolution, but supports common descent with modification.
By “evolution”, he means an extreme version of Darwinism — probably more extreme than anyone has ever proposed.
But no, he really doesn’t agree with Larry Moran.
That’s one place where he disagrees with Larry. In Denton’s view, maple leaves are all variations of the one archetypal shape. Moreover, there is something about nature that constrains them to take that shape (he gives an analogy with crystal formation).
ID is not anti-evolution, of course not, and it’s not creationism, and doesn’t identify the designer, doesn’t dwell in the pathetic level of detail that evolution does…
ID is not so many things….
From someone who hasn’t read the book and isn’t going to read the book. An “expert witness.”
A near certainty.
Denton differs from ‘typical ID’ by not appealing to an intelligent cause to explain that which he considers to be part of nature and a result of natural causes. If you read the book, you’d know that.
Probably ignorance. Which can be cured, but the way. It’s not terminal. But perhaps it’s better to mock a book you haven’t read.
That is patently false.
Where does Denton say he opposes evolution?
Apparently truth is only relevant when analyzing the statements of theists and IDists.
Find it yourself.
The last time you asked such a question, I gave the location. Yet you continued your denial.
So he’s still wrong. The forms of living thing are not destined.
Of course I continued my denial, because Denton never wrote any such thing. So far your track record for accurately representing what Denton says is 0-2.
Perhaps you could provide actual quotes so that everyone can see that you are right and I am wrong. Unless you just can’t.
I just love the double standard here at TSZ.
This might be relevant if you could actually quote from Denton’s book where he claims the forms of living things are destined. For example, does he claim the shape of the maple leaf was destined?
petrushka has no idea what determines the forms of living things. Such a thing is absent from evolutionism
Absolutely. Absolutely better than wasting hours of one’s only finite lifetime reading a bunch of dressed-up pap “gosh, isn’t nature amazing, must be god’s handiwork!” Just as life is too short to read Ted Haggard’s biography. Some things are only worth mocking, not interacting with.
Too bad for you that you don’t focus your life on something more worthwhile than defending idiot’s books. But suit yourself, you always do.
I’m liking this Frankie – Mung alliance. Phoodoo seems to have tapped out, probably busy learning from UD or something.
Rich,
Synergistic tard.
Does he accept that the shapes are accidental?
I think it’s worthwhile to expose lies when I find them, yes. For example, in the book Denton never claims that the things he is writing about “must be god’s handiwork.”
That’s always the danger one runs into when arguing from ignorance though.
Mung, if you like Denton’s book, perhaps you could summarize his thesis. Give people a reason for reading it.
How would he know whether they were accidental or not? Since he doesn’t think they were brought about by cumulative selection I guess you might say he accepts they are random with respect to cumulative fitness.