Orthogenesis

[George-ananda]

It is not mind boggling at all and explained very well in detail by science.

I have not heard that 'abiogenesis' has been explained very well in detail by science.

You still have not responded to my post considering your view of 'Scientism?' How do you define 'Scientism?'

Can you acknowledge and understand the difference between Methodological Naturalism, and Philosophical or Ontological Naturalism (scientism?).

I recall giving you the definition of 'scientism' from Wikipedia.

I saw no need to respond further because I did not see the relevance of your question. Start Over; What are you getting at as it relates to anything I posted??

 

[shunyadragon]

I have not heard that 'abiogenesis' has been explained very well in detail by science.

What you question in the post did not include the origins of life called 'abiogenesis.' What it refer to as you first stated would be to question evolution. Do you also question evolution? Nonetheless the scientific knowledge of 'abiogenesis' is increasing over time.

I recall giving you the definition of 'scientism' from Wikipedia.

I saw no need to respond further because I did not see the relevance of your question. Start Over; What are you getting at as it relates to anything I posted??

Well, further clarification is necessary, because 'Scientism?' does not include Methodological Naturalism, by definition.

By dodging answering these basic fundamental questions concerning science, puts any 'opinions you put forth as very questionable personal selective bias against science.

 

[Valjean]

what stops you re-writing this forum code using the text attribute options?
what stops classical physics from creating quantum mechanics?
You can't use the mechanics of a system to create that very system which underwrites it, it's an insurmountable logical paradox

What system are we talking about, here? I thought we were discussing the ToE, which you acknowledge is already at work making modifications. I thought our disagreement was the degree of modification possible, and why the process would suddenly stop so as to avoid speciation.
Why, after millions of years of descent with modification, do we not yet see any organisms where the genetic modification has actually stopped?

We have a good idea yes, but it's not pure blind accidents like ToE proposes

D'oh!
What is it with you? We keep telling you it's more than blind accidents driving the system, and it has no effect. The Toe is not a theory of blind chance. It's a theory of selection.You don't understand the theory you're commenting on.

following your link on Mutations
"A change in a DNA sequence, usually occurring because of errors in replication or repair....."
if you don't think these changes are accidents either, then we can stop arguing about it!

Mutations and genetic drift are random, yes, but the theory involves how the beneficial effects of these changes are retained, while the harmful ones are weeded out -- selection.

If you don't consider advanced life with all the complexity of all the different processes forming from the DNA of a sperm and egg and their origination mind-boggling, then you have a mind way beyond mine.
No, I do not believe in blind faith. I believe in the worldview that makes the most sense when all things are considered.

It may be mind boggling, but it's explicable. I don't feel any need to postulate magic as an "explanation."
Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki

 

[Valjean]

I have not heard that 'abiogenesis' has been explained very well in detail by science.

We were discussing evolution, not abiogenesis.

 

[George-ananda]

What you question in the post did not include the origins of life called 'abiogenesis.' What it refer to as you first stated would be to question evolution. Do you also question evolution? Nonetheless the scientific knowledge of 'abiogenesis' is increasing over time.



Well, further clarification is necessary, because 'Scientism?' does not include Methodological Naturalism, by definition.

By dodging answering these basic fundamental questions concerning science, puts any 'opinions you put forth as very questionable personal selective bias against science.

I believe science to be a fine institution but I believe there are advanced beings and souls whose knowledge goes far beyond where science can reach and they indicate that there was conscious intelligence involved in the advancement of life on earth.

Now, what or do you have an issue with my position?

 

[George-ananda]

It may be mind boggling, but it's explicable. I don't feel any need to postulate magic as an "explanation."

I believe advanced souls and beings have weighed in on the side of conscious intelligence being involved in the promotion of life on earth. I believe there are advanced souls and beings whose knowledge is beyond the physical sciences.

 

[George-ananda]

We were discussing evolution, not abiogenesis.

The repeating how/why questions about evolution will always get evolution back to the abiogenesis question.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe science to be a fine institution but I believe there are advanced beings and souls whose knowledge goes far beyond where science can reach and they indicate that there was conscious intelligence involved in the advancement of life on earth.

Now, what or do you have an issue with my position?

This is not the position I have a problem with. Just saying 'science is a fine institution' does not clarify your position on the science of evolution and Methodological Naturalism.

 

[George-ananda]

This is not the position I have a problem with. Just saying 'science is a fine institution' does not clarify your position on the science of evolution and Methodological Naturalism.

I don't understand what my position on 'evolution and Methodological Naturalism' has to do with anything I've been saying.

From Wikipedia:
Methodological naturalism is a strategy for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes-even as a remote possibility.

I think Methodological naturalism is the way physical science should progress but my opinion is that science has its place but it is a limited way of understanding reality. My personal worldview is not restricted to the understandings of Methodological naturalism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What system are we talking about, here? I thought we were discussing the ToE, which you acknowledge is already at work making modifications. I thought our disagreement was the degree of modification possible, and why the process would suddenly stop so as to avoid speciation.
Why, after millions of years of descent with modification, do we not yet see any organisms where the genetic modification has actually stopped?
D'oh!
What is it with you? We keep telling you it's more than blind accidents driving the system, and it has no effect. The Toe is not a theory of blind chance. It's a theory of selection.You don't understand the theory you're commenting on.

Mutations and genetic drift are random, yes, but the theory involves how the beneficial effects of these changes are retained, while the harmful ones are weeded out -- selection.
It may be mind boggling, but it's explicable. I don't feel any need to postulate magic as an "explanation."
Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki

Mutations and genetic drift are random, yes, but the theory involves how the beneficial effects of these changes are retained, while the harmful ones are weeded out -- selection.

There you go then, it all relies on superior design improvements appearing by pure blind chance.


Nobody is debating that a significantly superior design, once implemented, will be selected over an inferior one! Of course it will, that goes entirely without saying. It's why we still have Ford Mustangs but not Ford Pintos.

We can also go down the list of optional extras, color, engine, upholstery, check random boxes and end up with variation, the white car will be more often be selected over the black one in Arizona, and more of those will be reproduced. I get it. But we can't build the car supporting all those options the same way.

In short; the capacity for variation, customization, is a very useful design feature requiring specific support, not a comprehensive design method

As tempting as it always is to extrapolate simple superficial observations into comprehensive explanations, that's exactly the mistake classical physics made, and it fails for exactly the same reason.

And it's not just the cold hard math here, that merely corroborates what we see in the fossil record and direct experimentation- a strict limit on adaptation within specific parameters inherent to the design. Be it an animal, a car, a solar system or a software application- all rely by necessity on nested hierarchical information systems. The end functions of which cannot create the very systems that support them

Mind boggling but explicable, I don't believe designs for any of these materialized spontaneously- that would be magic!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nothing I have proposed remotely resembles Fred Hoyle's views.

I consider Fred Hoyle a controversial outlier and not representative of contemporary physicists and cosmologists, especialy His statements, like above, concerning contemporary theories concerning the origins of the universe.

The question remains: Can you provide an empirical hypothesis 'Intelligent Design' that can be falsified by the objective verifiable evidence by scientific methods?

'Intelligent Design' remains a philosophical/theological concept that cannot be empirically falsified in science?

He wasn't an outlier, the overwhelming majority of atheist cosmologists preferred static models for the same reason, "no creation = no creator'. They put up barriers to scientific progress explicitly because they didn't like what THEY saw as the overt theistic implications of such a creation event..

So too with modern cosmologists like Hawking who explicit present various models to make 'God redundant'

And on the topic here, the world's most prominent Darwinist's best selling book is called 'The God Delusion'

science v atheism.. if we remove the prequalifier that any theory should preferably refute God, then science is able to move ahead based on evidence- as Lemaitre and Planck did



On a method of falsifying intelligent design, I have a book on my desk covering this quite comprehesively- called 'origin of species'

Show that the cambrian explosion was merely an artifact of an incomplete record, fill in the gaps, show a gradual change with intermediates linking them all to a single cell,
reveal that the cell is a relatively simple object that can easily be explained by natural mechanisms, demonstrate the mathematical algorithms that can , unguided, morph a single cell into a human.

Had these predictions been validated, ID would be falsified for me certainly , it just never has been, quite the opposite over the last 150 years

 

[shunyadragon]

He wasn't an outlier, the overwhelming majority of atheist cosmologists preferred static models for the same reason, "no creation = no creator'. They put up barriers to scientific progress explicitly because they didn't like what THEY saw as the overt theistic implications of such a creation event..

False, today scientists do not believe in a static model of our physical existence. Einstein may have believed in a static model, and maybe a few outliers, but not today.

So too with modern cosmologists like Hawking who explicit present various models to make 'God redundant'

Nowhere in the current models of the cosmos is there any assumption, presupposition nor conclusion that 'God(s) are redundant.' Individual scientists may express their Ontological Naturalism philosophy in books, but that is not science.

And on the topic here, the world's most prominent Darwinist's best selling book is called 'The God Delusion'

This book is not Darwinist, it is not a science reference it is a philosophical work by a scientist.

science v atheism.. if we remove the prequalifier that any theory should preferably refute God,

There is no prequalifier in science that preferably refutes God. Scientist have many diverse religious beliefs. Please, document this prequalifier you refer to.

. . . then science is able to move ahead based on evidence- as Lemaitre and Planck did.

Max Planck in his life's works would never accept you view at any time, nor is their any published work by him that he endorsed ID. The only indication of religion in his life is he is rumored to converted to the Roman Church six months before he died. The only quote we have from him is follows: 'Six months before his death a rumor started that Planck had converted to Catholicism, but when questioned what had brought him to make this step, he declared that, "although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God."

I see no reference that Lemaitre rejected the Science of Evolution.

All Theists, of course, believe God Created our physical existence, but most realize that science is autonomous and cannot empericaly falsify ID, and I believe Lemaitre shares this view.

But Lemaître also felt that Catholic theology guarantees the autonomy of science:
From: Library : The Faith and Reason of Father George Lemaître

He (the Christian researcher) knows that not one thing in all creation has been done without God, but he knows also that God nowhere takes the place of his creatures. Omnipresent divine activity is everywhere essentially hidden. It never had to be a question of reducing the supreme Being to the rank of a scientific hypothesis."

On a method of falsifying intelligent design, I have a book on my desk covering this quite comprehensively- called 'origin of species'

. . . which book?

Show that the cambrian explosion was merely an artifact of an incomplete record, fill in the gaps, show a gradual change with intermediates linking them all to a single cell, reveal that the cell is a relatively simple object that can easily be explained by natural mechanisms, demonstrate the mathematical algorithms that can , unguided, morph a single cell into a human.

Had these predictions been validated, ID would be falsified for me certainly , it just never has been, quite the opposite over the last 150 years

Hamster on the perpetual wheel of the fallacy of 'appealing to ignorance.'

Still waiting for your response to your claim that 'Intelligent Design (ID)' can be empirically falsified (proven??)

Trashing the Science of Evolution and scientists with phony 'Red Herrings' and 'appeals to ignorance' does not get you there.

 

[Valjean]

The repeating how/why questions about evolution will always get evolution back to the abiogenesis question.

Yes, everything is interconnected, but it's a mistake to think every discipline needs to completely understand every related discipline. A chef need not understand the biology of wheat or the history of sugar cane cultivation in order to bake a cake. A metallurgist need not understand the cosmology of supernovae make steel.

There you go then, it all relies on superior design improvements appearing by pure blind chance.

There you go, unable to break out of this 'blind chance' meme.

And it's not just the cold hard math here, that merely corroborates what we see in the fossil record and direct experimentation- a strict limit on adaptation within specific parameters inherent to the design. Be it an animal, a car, a solar system or a software application- all rely by necessity on nested hierarchical information systems. The end functions of which cannot create the very systems that support them

What is this 'strict limit'? How does it work? Why can't a series of tweaks turn a Pinto into a Mustang? How did the "system" -- by which I think you mean organism -- get here in the first place?
Again, you're advocating magic as a reasonable alternative theory. You have no supporting evidence. You're only argument is a criticism of the ToE. You create a false dilemma.

 

[Valjean]

The repeating how/why questions about evolution will always get evolution back to the abiogenesis question.

Yes, everything is interconnected, but it's a mistake to think every discipline needs to completely understand every related discipline. A chef need not understand the biology of wheat or the history of sugar cane cultivation in order to bake a cake. A metallurgist need not understand the physics of supernovae make steel.

There you go then, it all relies on superior design improvements appearing by pure blind chance.

There you go, unable to break out of this 'blind chance' meme.

And it's not just the cold hard math here, that merely corroborates what we see in the fossil record and direct experimentation- a strict limit on adaptation within specific parameters inherent to the design. Be it an animal, a car, a solar system or a software application- all rely by necessity on nested hierarchical information systems. The end functions of which cannot create the very systems that support them

What is this 'strict limit'? How does it work? Why can't a series of tweaks turn a Pinto into a Mustang? How did the "system" -- by which I think you mean organism -- get hear in the first place?
Again, you're advocating magic as a reasonable alternative theory. You have no supporting evidence. You "defend" magic poofing by criticizing the ToE.
You're trying to create a false dilemma.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, everything is interconnected, but it's a mistake to think every discipline needs to completely understand every related discipline. A chef need not understand the biology of wheat or the history of sugar cane cultivation in order to bake a cake. A metallurgist need not understand the cosmology of supernovae make steel.

Agreed. I see the two sides as one side believing that conscious intelligence is involved in explaining why we are here, and the second side saying it is best explained without conscious intelligent involvement. For that discussion, we have to consider everything. I take the conscious intelligence side for reasons mainly beyond science but the debate will go on I am sure.

 

[Ponder This]

if the poker player plays 4 royal flushes in a row- we know he's cheating, it's not chance.

Likewise species developing entirely from chance mutations is not technically impossible, but that doesn't make random chance the best explanation!

Actually, 4 royal flushes in a row is not beyond the realm of chance! The exact probability of this occurring can be calculated and just because the chances of it occurring are very low does not mean it won't occur naturally (without cheating). Maybe you can argue that it is more likely that he was cheating, then that it occurred naturally, but to argue that way suggests that it is still a guessing game as to whether or not he cheated.

"Best explanation" means the same thing. It's basically the equivalent of saying "best guess".

But the point I was making is that regardless of how you think life evolved initially, life certainly doesn't evolve randomly right now and "survival of the fittest" is certainly not the predominant way life forms evolve currently.

The concept of "survival of the fittest" is that those not fit to survive die and therefore do not pass on their genes. But in reality how many organisms pass on their genes before they die? Let's examine the "most evolved" species on the planet: human beings. The average lifespan of a person is in the 70's last I checked and the ages during which sexual reproduction take place is predominantly the 20's and 30's. So basically, people pass their genetic material on to the next generation well before they die and it's actually unusual for people to die before they would do that. In fact, it is commonly the case that grandfathers and grandmothers are still alive when children are born. So human beings aren't really evolving according the principle of survival of the fittest. Was there a time when that may have been the case? Perhaps, but the point is that that is not really the case right now today.

Logically speaking if species are dying before they get a chance to reproduce, then they aren't evolving... They are anti-evolving. For example, if a meteor hit Earth and wiped out a bunch of dinosaurs, the ones that survived wouldn't be more "fit" then the ones that didn't. They would simply have been lucky.

Or for example, you might think that survival of the fittest would apply to the many human wars that have occurred over the years. It doesn't. Setting aside the complexities of the "most fit" being the most likely targets for an enemy to kill (which leads into a nightmare of logic about what it means to be fit for survival). We can simply look at the fact that the most common practice is to subjugate the defeated. Genocide isn't generally considered to be beneficial to the evolution of the human species.

Now maybe there is a random factor and maybe there are some ways here and there where survival of the fittest does apply, but generally speaking, does this really make sense? Is this really the predominant way things are moving forward?

There was an experiment in Russia where they took a species of wild fox and selectively bred them for compatibility with people and they turned into spotted dogs. This isn't survival of the fittest and it isn't random. It's deliberate. Dogs left to the wild eventually breed into wild dogs or feral dogs. The "evolution" can go both ways. It's adaptation and it isn't random and it isn't survival of the fittest.

Random mutation results in things like two-headed cows. These sorts of things can be traced to interferences in the natural processes.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Actually, 4 royal flushes in a row is not beyond the realm of chance! The exact probability of this occurring can be calculated and just because the chances of it occurring are very low does not mean it won't occur naturally (without cheating). Maybe you can argue that it is more likely that he was cheating, then that it occurred naturally, but to argue that way suggests that it is still a guessing game as to whether or not he cheated.

"Best explanation" means the same thing. It's basically the equivalent of saying "best guess".

But the point I was making is that regardless of how you think life evolved initially, life certainly doesn't evolve randomly right now and "survival of the fittest" is certainly not the predominant way life forms evolve currently.

The concept of "survival of the fittest" is that those not fit to survive die and therefore do not pass on their genes. But in reality how many organisms pass on their genes before they die? Let's examine the "most evolved" species on the planet: human beings. The average lifespan of a person is in the 70's last I checked and the ages during which sexual reproduction take place is predominantly the 20's and 30's. So basically, people pass their genetic material on to the next generation well before they die and it's actually unusual for people to die before they would do that. In fact, it is commonly the case that grandfathers and grandmothers are still alive when children are born. So human beings aren't really evolving according the principle of survival of the fittest. Was there a time when that may have been the case? Perhaps, but the point is that that is not really the case right now today.

Logically speaking if species are dying before they get a chance to reproduce, then they aren't evolving... They are anti-evolving. For example, if a meteor hit Earth and wiped out a bunch of dinosaurs, the ones that survived wouldn't be more "fit" then the ones that didn't. They would simply have been lucky.

Or for example, you might think that survival of the fittest would apply to the many human wars that have occurred over the years. It doesn't. Setting aside the complexities of the "most fit" being the most likely targets for an enemy to kill (which leads into a nightmare of logic about what it means to be fit for survival). We can simply look at the fact that the most common practice is to subjugate the defeated. Genocide isn't generally considered to be beneficial to the evolution of the human species.

Now maybe there is a random factor and maybe there are some ways here and there where survival of the fittest does apply, but generally speaking, does this really make sense? Is this really the predominant way things are moving forward?

There was an experiment in Russia where they took a species of wild fox and selectively bred them for compatibility with people and they turned into spotted dogs. This isn't survival of the fittest and it isn't random. It's deliberate. Dogs left to the wild eventually breed into wild dogs or feral dogs. The "evolution" can go both ways. It's adaptation and it isn't random and it isn't survival of the fittest.

Random mutation results in things like two-headed cows. These sorts of things can be traced to interferences in the natural processes.

Thanks for the thoughtful response! deserves a reply..

So yes that was my point, it's not technically impossible to play 4 royal flushes by chance, but that does not make it the best explanation.

The odds of 4 royal flushes back to back work out to 1 in a number larger than all the stars in the universe.- so if you work in the fraud dept at the Casino, you know that cheating is by far the more probable explanation right?, even if we can never technically prove it by math alone.

So I agree, we are all taking our best guesses here. there is no absolute proof either way.


Survival of the fittest goes without saying, that's why we still have Ford Mustangs but not Ford Pintos. How significantly superior designs are created in the first place.. that's the tricky part. i.e. arrival of the fittest versus merely survival of the fittest

One overlooked fallacy here - is that 'survival of the fittest' is very easy to mistake for 'survival of the fitter' : The former in no way demands the latter

If we take a line up of new car models and make random changes to each. The overwhelming probability is that the changes will be either detrimental to some degree, or neutral at best yes? I think we can agree that the odds of creating a significantly superior automobile by randomly corrupting the blueprints, is staggeringly unlikely.

But survival of the fittest still applies- the car with the malfunctioning seat warmer is selected over the car with the malfunctioning transmission- and by this algorithm of random change + survival of the fittest, the designs quickly devolve into the simplest possible functioning car- which eventually become entirely dysfunctional- aka entropy.

Without something to counter it, predetermined design goals, entropy wins in the end.

 

[Ponder This]

Thanks for the thoughtful response! deserves a reply..

So yes that was my point, it's not technically impossible to play 4 royal flushes by chance, but that does not make it the best explanation.

The odds of 4 royal flushes back to back work out to 1 in a number larger than all the stars in the universe.- so if you work in the fraud dept at the Casino, you know that cheating is by far the more probable explanation right?, even if we can never technically prove it by math alone.

So I agree, we are all taking our best guesses here. there is no absolute proof either way.


Survival of the fittest goes without saying, that's why we still have Ford Mustangs but not Ford Pintos. How significantly superior designs are created in the first place.. that's the tricky part. i.e. arrival of the fittest versus merely survival of the fittest

One overlooked fallacy here - is that 'survival of the fittest' is very easy to mistake for 'survival of the fitter' : The former in no way demands the latter

If we take a line up of new car models and make random changes to each. The overwhelming probability is that the changes will be either detrimental to some degree, or neutral at best yes? I think we can agree that the odds of creating a significantly superior automobile by randomly corrupting the blueprints, is staggeringly unlikely.

But survival of the fittest still applies- the car with the malfunctioning seat warmer is selected over the car with the malfunctioning transmission- and by this algorithm of random change + survival of the fittest, the designs quickly devolve into the simplest possible functioning car- which eventually become entirely dysfunctional- aka entropy.

Without something to counter it, predetermined design goals, entropy wins in the end.

I agree. I think that if mutations were completely random, then living creatures would devolve over time. Of course, it's entirely possible that we just happen to be getting dealt Royal Flushes, but it isn't likely.

I have to question if the mutations of evolution are simply described as being random because the people studying them are unable to explain the results. This doesn't rule out the possibility that life arose from random chemical interactions. It simple acknowledges that long-term consistent evolution cannot likely be attributed to random processes.

If mutations are truly random, then they have to occur very infrequently, but adaptations to environment in species occurs relatively quickly. I think it means that we have more to learn about evolutionary processes.

 

[Valjean]

I agree. I think that if mutations were completely random, then living creatures would devolve over time. Of course, it's entirely possible that we just happen to be getting dealt Royal Flushes, but it isn't likely.

I have to question if the mutations of evolution are simply described as being random because the people studying them are unable to explain the results. This doesn't rule out the possibility that life arose from random chemical interactions. It simple acknowledges that long-term consistent evolution cannot likely be attributed to random processes.

If mutations are truly random, then they have to occur very infrequently, but adaptations to environment in species occurs relatively quickly. I think it means that we have more to learn about evolutionary processes.

Random mutations occur all the time, most have no apparent effect. But the mutations don't accumulate randomly. The useful ones are retained and the harmful ones weeded out, that's why it's called natural selection.

 

[Ponder This]

Random mutations occur all the time, most have no apparent effect. But the mutations don't accumulate randomly. The useful ones are retained and the harmful ones weeded out, that's why it's called natural selection.

I'm not an expert by in the study of DNA or evolutionary processes or even biology as a general field.
Here's link that talks about mutations.
They talk abut neutral mutations, beneficial mutations, and harmful mutations.

In particular, it says that, "Many other mutations have no effect on the organism because they are repaired before protein synthesis occurs. Cells have multiple repair mechanisms to fix mutations in DNA."

So mutations in effect aren't really random because not all the mutations that could occur are permitted. That is a very good thing because random mutations would end up being destroying our bodies. The mutations that are allowed are those that fit into the design and the criteria of the design is not "survival of the fittest".

Natural Selection is the process by which organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. I agree that natural selection does occur, but how exactly is it occurring in people today? Are people dying before they pass on their DNA? I don't think so. But if it's true that people are not actually prevented from passing their DNA because of death, then how is the selection process actually taking place?

It's not happening the way that I was taught in school. Let's look at the example of the bright green beetles and the brown beetles. The birds come along and eat the bright green beetles and not the brown ones, so that results in more brown beetles and fewer green beetles. "Survival of the fittest" meant green beetles weren't reproducing. This is essentially how I was taught natural selection took place. The reality is that I was taught a model for evolution that was like trying to use a bulldozer to play Jenga!

But it turns out that completely different mechanisms are actually involved in the process. Scientists still call it natural selection, but it isn't the same natural selection that I learned in school. We have "negative selection" and "cell repair" and a whole lot of other things going on that show evolution isn't quite so random.

But let's take a step back. The OP states:

Orthogenesis also known as orthogenetic evolution is an obsolete biological hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a unilinear fashion due to some internal mechanism or "driving force".-wikipedia
Makes sense to me. As opposed to the theory that we are a random accident.

I agree: orthogenetic evolution is an obsolete biological hypothesis.
But does it make sense to me (as opposed to the theory that we are a random accident)? Yes.
Why?

1. I always found it difficult to believe that organisms around me are changing randomly.

In fact, random mutations would devolve us.​

2. It turns out that there are mechanisms that prevent random changes to our DNA.

And I am unconvinced that scientists fully understand these changes.​

3. Any system that is sufficiently complex appears random.

i.e. the weather, pseudo-random number generators, card shuffling, die rolling, etc.​

Conclusion: I can't accept orthogenesis without informative articles to support it but I am also not confident that scientists fully understand anything in the physical world that they have decided is "random". Doesn't "random" really just mean that they don't know (can't predict) it?