What modern science has to say about guided evolution

Can it be established using the tools of modern science that evolution is guided and has purpose and that the only tinkerer is not just blind uncaring indifferent forces and collisions?

If so, how?

If not what does that mean for ID, if anything?

81 thoughts on “What modern science has to say about guided evolution

  1. Mung: Three times Krauss claims evolution is directed. I only caught two of them.

    Shame, you might have heard a cock crow on the third….

  2. hotshoe_: you didn’t provide any clue with your quote that it might be from something you were watching — rather than a creationist website which is what you typically copy/quote from.

    The claim that I typically copy/quote from creationist websites is without foundation. Even worse, it’s false.

    hotshoe_: …you didn’t provide any clue with your quote that it might be from something you were watching…but since I don’t taint my mind with those sites, I had no way of knowing.

    Actually you did have a way of knowing without going to any site other than TSZ and I did provide a clue. I posted a link to the debate here at TSZ. Next time ask me before trying to rip my throat out. Thank you.

  3. Mung: I posted a link to the debate here at TSZ

    Most people would have put that link in the same post they put the controversial quote. You know, for context. You know, as it was a somewhat controversial quote as you provided it.

    Any particular reason you chose not to mention the link at that time?

  4. OMagain: Shame, you might have heard a cock crow on the third….

    Your side has nothing but insults and false accusations.

    Congratulations.

  5. Mung’s the smartest guy posting at TSZ, remember? At least he told us he is. So what if the topic here was “is evolution guided by an external intelligent entity?. Clever Mung found a quote to mine where he could misrepresent the views of a real scientist who was saying the exact opposite of ID claims. Isn’t Mung the most clever fellow?

  6. Mung: and I did provide a clue.

    Yeah, it’s the audience’s fault for not stitching together the narrative you are so generously providing.

    You know when people say, it’s not you it’s me. Well, it’s you.

  7. Mung: Your side has nothing but insults and false accusations.

    Congratulations.

    Your side has nothing but lies and dishonestly mined quotes. Real congratulations.

  8. Mung: Congratulations.

    What is your problem? If you have something to say about ID’s claims of evolution being guided by an Intelligent Designer then please say it.

    Otherwise, don’t bother.

  9. Mung: Your side has nothing but insults and false accusations.

    In the OP I ask what it means for ID. What it seems to mean for ID is that an ID supporter when asked how evolution is guided provides links that support the mainstream narrative and fail to support ID in any way shape or form.

    I guess I should just take that answer at face value.

  10. Mung:
    Yes, moderation here at TSZ is a joke and the people accusing me of dishonesty are liars.

    Quote mining to give a false impression of the speaker’s views is dishonest.

    You were caught blatantly quote mining.

    Q.E.D.

  11. A reminder for Patrick:

    …do not accuse other posters of being deliberately misleading.

    It’s in the rules and it doesn’t get any plainer than that.

  12. Mung: Yes, moderation here at TSZ is a joke and the people accusing me of dishonesty are liars.

    I accept that you perhaps posted those links about guided evolution in error, perhaps not realizing the topic was ID guided evolution in your haste.

    Would you care to post the links you would have posted had the intent of the OP been clearer in the first instance?

  13. Mung: It’s in the rules and it doesn’t get any plainer than that.

    I’m confused. Is the topic moderation or the claims of the ID community regarding how evolution is in fact guided by an intelligent entity?

    If you’d prefer to discuss moderation and the rules of the site, there are of course threads for that. But I’m hoping you’ll put the earlier misunderstandings behind us and post about how ID guides evolution.

  14. Mung:
    A reminder for Patrick:

    It’s in the rules and it doesn’t get any plainer than that.

    So you’re saying we should assume your blatant quote-mining was the result of your stupidity and not duplicity?

    OK, I can accept that.

  15. Adapa: So you’re saying we should assume your blatant quote-mining was the result of your stupidity and not duplicity?

    OK, I can accept that.

    But then what do we do with his statement that he’s smarter than everyone here? I mean, other than laugh at such delusion?

    Chalk that up to grinding, irrevocable stupidity as well? Maybe, since he’s clearly not good at catching on, but it’s a bit hard to avoid the fact that he’s especially stupid about anything he disagrees with.

    Glen Davidson

  16. Given that there are clear violations of the rules in this thread, and given that moderator Patrick has decided that the violations of the rules are justified, my participation in this thread is at an end.

  17. Mung:
    Given that there are clear violations of the rules in this thread, and given that moderator Patrick has decided that the violations of the rules are justified, my participation in this thread is at an end.

    Given that there was a clear instance of dishonest quote mining and given that the quote miner was called out it’s not surprising the quote miner would lack the integrity to apologize and continue.

  18. OMagain:

    Mung: I posted a link to the debate here at TSZ

    Most people would have put that link in the same post they put the controversial quote. You know, for context. You know, as it was a somewhat controversial quote as you provided it.

    Exactly.

    But not putting the link in with the quote at first gives Mung an excuse to accuse me of “trying to rip [his] throat out.”

    I know they say “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” … but malice is sure a strong contender in the Mung-motivation sweepstakes this time around.

  19. Mung: [3:57] my participation in this thread is at an end.

    Oookaaay …

    Mung: [9:08] God? People seriously think that I was trying to make it appear as if that’s what Krauss was saying? If not, please fill in the blank.

    Participation “is at an end” for barely five whole hours. Some end!

  20. hotshoe_: Oookaaay …

    Participation “is at an end” for barely five whole hours. Some end!

    Obviously Mung was just engaging in a little bit of street theater. 🙂

  21. Mung:

    Three times Krauss claims evolution is directed. I only caught two of them.

    OMagain:

    Shame, you might have heard a cock crow on the third….

    🙂

  22. Guided/ directed evolution is exemplified by genetic algorithms. We can observe the power of guided/ directed evolution.

  23. Frankie: We can observe the power of guided/ directed evolution.

    Yet nowhere in biology can we observe the direction of an intelligent designer, just the environment.

    Unless of course you know better?

  24. Your strawman is duly noted, OM. And too bad you don’t have a methodology for testing unguided evolution’s ability to produce complex adaptations.

  25. keiths:

    I stress this because there are too many people, including many on our side of the ID/creation fence, who think that the question “Is evolution guided?” is not a scientific question. It is, and it has been answered by science — in the negative.

    Flint:

    I am not persuaded. I think if it can’t be addressed empirically AT ALL, then it is not a scientific question. And this question has NOT been answered by science in any way, or even addressed. It has simply been ignored by science as irrelevant and unhelpful. Because it’s not a scientific question.

    Science is not a purely empirical process, and hypotheses are rejected for reasons other than falsification.

    Virtually any hypothesis can be rescued by the addition of ad hoc assumptions that bring it into line with the evidence. The “phlogiston has negative mass” assumption is a classic example. A similar stunt can be attempted with regard to guided evolution: “Evolution is guided, but the Guider guides in a way that makes it look unguided.”

    Scientists reject these ad-hocified hypotheses not because they are falsified, but for other reasons: they aren’t parsimonious, their assumptions are unjustified, they seem less likely to be true, etc.

  26. Frankie: And too bad you don’t have a methodology for testing unguided evolution’s ability to produce complex adaptations.

    Lenski.

  27. LoL! There weren’t any complex adaptations that occurred under Lenski and he hasn’t shown any of the changes were the result of unguided evolution.

    Whoopsie…

Leave a Reply