How much of Evolution is shaped by history vs underlying constraints?

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@RTBsupporter

@Argon

It’s an interesting contrast that Michael Denton (formerly of the ID sphere), also posits a model of generative laws behind biological forms (similar to forms / archetypes of Owen), but also maintains that common descent is correct and well supported. So, Denton’s idea is that evolution (common descent with modification) and constraints built into the basic condition of physics lead to the forms observed today; A non-saltationist approach to the emergence of particular forms.

Yeah but, I don’t see where he argues this in his article:

M. J. Denton, The types: A persistent structuralist challenge to Darwinian pan-selectionism. BIOComplexity, 1–18 (2013

Am I imagining it, or did RTBsupporter^[1] just assume that that is the only thing Denton ever published?

---

1. I have so far resisted referring to him as RTBsuppository, but his current habit of responding with nothing but sections from that preprint is making it a more and more appropriate monicker. ↩︎

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@RTBsupporter

@St.Roymond

That doesn’t even address the issue.

You’re right. Here is a different source that does:

Walker SI, Davies PC (2013) The algorithmic origins of life. J R Soc Interface 10(79): 20120869. doi:10.1098/rsif.2012.0869

I suspect it doesn’t.

[RTBsupporter]

@rsewell

Evolutionary theory is employed to chart the development of morphology all the time, so an alternative framework should be able to provide such exact explanations. Not stability basins or hierarchical organization or other vagaries, something real in nature.

I have decided to send this to you as well to reinforce how there is a measurable causal chain for Owen’s theory that is backed by theoretical and experimental evidence…….

USCWF Step	Best Supporting Mechanism/Paper	Strength
Entanglement	Kurtev quantum/quantum-like brain-scale organizational study + speculative coherence studies	weak/moderate speculative
Coherence	DNA CT + Kurtev macro-scale quantum-like organization	moderate/strong
Tunneling	Slocombe proton tunneling	strong
Decoherence	DNA CT disruption dynamics	moderate
Collapse	Kastner collapse/thermodynamic irreversibility framework	conceptual/theoretical

Kurtev, Wave-like patterns in parameter space interpreted as evidence for macroscopic effects resulting from quantum or quantum-like processes in the brain. Sci. Rep. 12, 18938 (2022).

A. Tai, Quantum well model for charge transfer in aperiodic DNA and superlattice sequences. Biophysica. 4, 411 441 (2024).

L. Slocombe, M. Winokan, J. Al-Khalili, M. Sacchi, Quantum tunnelling effects in the guanine-thymine wobble misincorporation via tautomerism. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 14, 9–15 (2023)

R. E. Kastner, On quantum collapse as a basis for the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy, 19, 106 (2017).

[Argon]

@Roy

Am I imagining it, or did RTBsupporter just assume that that is the only thing Denton ever published?

On reflection, I think one could classify Denton as a Saltationist. He is definitely an evolutionist and states that the sequence steps in evolution are bridgeable in tiny, natural, incremental steps, as one would read in his book Nature’s Destiny, but I suppose that he may believe transitions happen rapidly. So, lesser, small and natural sequence shifts to great morphological change. Gert Korthoff summarized some of the muddle in his review.

[St.Roymond]

@RTBsupporter

Ok, can you tell me or show me exactly which claim I made that still needs to be supported?

“the earliest biological systems lacked the complexity required for Darwinian mechanisms,”

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@St.Roymond

@RTBsupporter

Ok, can you tell me or show me exactly which claim I made that still needs to be supported?

“the earliest biological systems lacked the complexity required for Darwinian mechanisms,”

The issue isn’t really how much complexity early biological systems had, it’s how little complexity is needed for evolution to be possible.

[RTBsupporter]

@St.Roymond

the earliest biological systems lacked the complexity required for Darwinian mechanisms,”

I am pretty sure this claim is directed towards what is now viewed as Neo-Darwinian theory, which involves a purely gradualistic interpretation of animal body plans emerging NOT a modern evolutionary theory involving punctuated equilibrium. Do you still want me to support it ?

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

Since neither animal body plans nor punctuated equilibrium is remotely relevant to whether “the earliest biological systems lacked the complexity required for Darwinian mechanisms” it doesn’t make the slightest difference whether it’s directed towards Darwin’s ideas, Neo-Darwinism or modern evolutionary theory, and since the claim explicitly refers to Darwinian mechanisms, pondering whether it’s directed at neo-Darwinian or modern evolution is clearly avoidance.

[RTBsupporter]

@Roy

Since neither animal body plans nor punctuated equilibrium is remotely relevant to whether “the earliest biological systems lacked the complexity required for Darwinian mechanisms” it doesn’t make the slightest difference whether it’s directed towards Darwin’s ideas, Neo-Darwinism or modern evolutionary theory, and since the claim explicitly refers to Darwinian mechanisms, pondering whether it’s directed at neo-Darwinian or modern evolution is clearly avoidance.

I think the distinction does matter because the core issue is whether Richard Owen himself treated the origin of life and the emergence of species as governed by the same underlying formative principles, rather than whether he was responding to later Darwinian mechanisms in the modern sense. In retrospect, the wording “lacked the complexity required for Darwinian mechanisms” probably projects later terminology back onto Owen too strongly.

As the text suggests, Owen did not view the origin of life as adequately explainable through purely gradual material processes alone. Instead, he interpreted both the origin of life and later biological diversification through the operation of formative structural principles or archetypal constraints.

[rsewell (All Truth is God's Truth)]

@RTBsupporter

the core issue is whether Richard Owen himself treated the origin of life and the emergence of species as governed by the same underlying formative principles

It does not matter what some confused old dead guy of no consequence thought.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@rsewell

It does not matter what some confused old dead guy of no consequence thought.

Or what some confused alive guy of no integrity thinks about what some confused old dead guy^[1] thought.

---

1. Owen did have some consequence, unlike RTB. ↩︎

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@RTBsupporter

I think the distinction does matter because the core issue is whether Richard Owen himself treated the origin of life and the emergence of species as governed by the same underlying formative principles, …

What Owen thought is irrelevant to supporting the claim that “the earliest biological systems lacked the complexity required for Darwinian mechanisms”, since that claim was not made by Owen.

@RTBsupporter

As the text suggests, Owen did not view the origin of life as adequately explainable through purely gradual material processes alone.

What Owen wrote is irrelevant to supporting the claim that “the earliest biological systems lacked the complexity required for Darwinian mechanisms”, since that claim was not only not made by Owen, it was made about what was known before Owen wrote anything.

As expected, no support for that claim will ever be forthcoming, only endless obfuscation and excuses.