If you want to contest this statement you need to solve the perennial problem of the ID movement and come up with some evidence - demonstrate the existence of this external guidance, or some 'guider' doing the 'guiding'.

Jack: Why is this only a problem for the ID movement? Seems to me the ID critics are affirming that there's no detectable guidance (design) in nature while simultaneously affirming that there's no formal way to detect guidance (design) in nature.

But thanks, Odd Digit. I have the "textbook version" of evolution on my bookshelves. I consult it only to confirm that evolution as taught is rot.

Ah, the sweet smell of science denial at its finest.

The 38 Laureates could have said (what is true) biological evolution is a guided process.

Making the same statement over and over again doesn't actually constitute 'contructing an argument'. Also, simply denying what I (and the textbooks) say about natural selection is just a variety of "oh no it isn't".

Like Monty Python say:

M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

Saying that something is 'guided' by a mindless natural process is an anthropomorphism. It's just like saying that everything we do is guided by the laws of physics. Does that make everthing we do guided? Not guided by somebody no.

Dawkins quite clearly defines what he means by 'guided' in the quote Pez has added above (emphasis added):

Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive.

So if someone is stating that evolution is unguided then they are stating that as far - as we can tell - it is not being guided by anybody.

If you want to contest this statement you need to solve the perennial problem of the ID movement and come up with some evidence - demonstrate the existence of this external guidance, or some 'guider' doing the 'guiding'.

Everything is pointless

We humans can, and do, make up our own purposes, but ultimately the universe has none. All the wonderfully complex, and beautifully designed things we see around us were built by the same purposeless process "” evolution by natural selection. This includes everything from microbes and elephants to skyscrapers and computers, and even our own inner selves.

People have (mostly) got used to the idea that living things were designed by natural selection, but they have more trouble accepting that human creativity is just the same process operating on memes instead of genes. It seems, they think, to take away uniqueness, individuality and 'true creativity'.

Of course it does nothing of the kind; each person is unique even if that uniqueness is explained by their particular combination of genes, memes and environment, rather than by an inner conscious self who is the fount of creativity.

Wow - from one of Dawkins' friends!

But thanks, Odd Digit. I have the "textbook version" of evolution on my bookshelves. I consult it only to confirm that evolution as taught is rot.

I'm very interested also, g arago, in why evolutionary scientists describe the process they observe one way, and then relate it another way. I suggested that they (the Nobel Prize winners) ignored the observation that evolution is a guided process because they wanted to make a "theological" point. I mean, God is the Ultimate Guide, isn't he? So, despite the obvious, despite the observations, evolution cannot be "guided""”because the dim-witted public is liable to misinterpret the facts"”which we must interpret for them, by stating the exact opposite of what we actually observe!

The 38 Laureates could have said (what is true) biological evolution is a guided process. But we don't believe God guided it.

But if they say such a thing they can hardly maintain the pretension that they are scientists, absolutely impartial wrt theology. They are now (amateur) theologians. They not only made a theological statement, as if they knew it were true, they also made a scientific statement, which is false.

I've said it so many times w/o count: Evolutionary science needs to divest itself of its "argument with God." Which is just the same as saying evolutionary science needs to divest itself of"¦ Darwin.

Rock: Evolution is a process in the planning of life forms, the very process of constructing their DNA, their plan.

Rock: Evolution is a process that produces "intelligent agents" and by "intelligent agents" we mean life forms that act to control, guide and plan, their own evolution.

How does this fit in to evolution as a theory of origins? How many life forms (on Earth, at a species-like level), would you say, act to control, guide and plan, the process of constructing their DNA? Few? Many? Can you give an example of a life form that can control, guide and plan their own evolution and one that cannot? Thanks in advance.

Does this mean that I-me personally, who lives within a population (actually several populations), don't 'evolve' in my lifetime?

What 'they' tell us:

You develop, but you don't evolve. The only cells in an individual organism's body that play a role in the process of evolution are their gametes, and only if they successfully recombine DNA with another gamete to produce offspring. Then the game of differential reproduction starts all over again in that generation, but only for their 'successful' gametes. If you don't reproduce, you simply don't count at all in the evolution game.

In higher mammals (like us), males continually produce sperm. Since environmental factors alter the genes of sperm nearly as often as they alter the genes of any other cell in your body, most significant mutations come from the male's gametes. Females are born with the next generation gametes already in-place, fairly well insulated from environmental mutagens (like radiation), and during in utero development the mother influences which of each pair of genes is expressed (thereby bypassing some issues with funky male genes).

The cells in your body may change their genetic makeup at any time due to the many factors of life on planet earth that cause genetic damage. So any two cells assayed (say, a skin cell and a kidney cell) may well produce quite different DNA profiles. And of course, expression is significantly different between skin cells and kidney cells. Some cells can continue to operate without any DNA at all. Genetic damage to cells in your body from environmental/life causes may cause disease, but that in no way means the mutations were present in your original genome or that they will be present in your offspring.

That's ludicrous. That's ridiculous. Mutation is random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process.

"I'm not interested in their 'definitions.' I'm interested in their descriptions." - Rock

O.k. then, that works too. I'm interested in both.

"Evolution is a guided process and occurs according to a plan." - Rock

Can you get together a group of scientists (i.e. recognized authority, but not a priesthood) who agree to that description?

"Evolution is a process that produces 'intelligent agents' and by 'intelligent agents' we mean life forms that act to control, guide and plan, their own evolution." - Rock

As you well know, its a tough sell to explain how life came from non-life. Likewise, how intelligence came from non-intelligence seems to be no simple matter. 'Emergence' is its own messy source of clarity within philosophy of mind and consciousness is a purple stew. The complexity argument is one thing, but where agency comes from a theory that doesn't admit agency (i.e. evolution negates or avoids the notion of choice) is something else. And do people really 'plan' their own evolutions, i.e. intentionally?

"Certainly Darwin couldn't see a 'purpose' to the 'plan' of life?" - Arago

"Who cares what Darwin thought?! This ain't the mid-19th century! Check the calendar. Time to update, wouldn't ya say?" - Rock

Amen, to that! Shall we synchronize the update, Rock?

"Which is it Rock: evolution is about processes or about origins, or about both?" - Arago

"It's about both. Duh." - Rock

Well, yes, didn't you know - evolution's about everything! TOE = TOE.

"C'mon, g, you are smarter than these prize winners."

Shucks Rock, you're generous with credit sometimes. I'll try harder then…

In snowy Finland,
Gregory

"Evolution itself (a change in the gene pool of a population over time) is - as far as we can tell - not operating to a plan."

"Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain the same genes throughout their life…each individual organism within a population does not change." - Odd Digit

Does this mean that I-me personally, who lives within a population (actually several populations), don't 'evolve' in my lifetime?

g. arago