Philosophy Discussion Forums

I would like to initiate an organized discussion about the limits of the Theory of Evolution (ToE). I really believe that is is a good biology theory but with a limited scope that most biologists fail to recognize.

First of all I will start by stating that the mechanism of evolution via mutations does exist. We have all seen viruses becoming more and more resistant to antibiotics and this is something no one can deny. But the "good news" stop there.

The main questions I would like to pose are the following:

• 1. The mechanism described by ToE is probably not the only one! Humans strive to design things and to design new forms of like (call me gennetics). Design is an inherent part of the cosmos. Moreover, many people try to help the weak survive, something obviously against the main idea behind the theory of evolution.

• 2. Many philosophers think ToE is a tautology. All it "says" is that the fitetst for survival... survive! And who is fittest for survival? Who else? The ones who survive! (those who adapt better to changes).

• 3. ToE is based on the definition of species. But how is a species defined? Darwin himself thought that with his theory had solved the great problem of "species", because the idea of an ever changing species does not leave room for... "species" (!) The problem of definition of species is a fundamentaly philosophical one and many think that species as categories do not even exist!

• 4. Many people have tried to capitalize on ToE and use it for their own purposes. Theory of Evolition is a purely scientific theory! Not a philosophical one! Stating that "God does not exist" because we have found that viruses evolve is not a valid argument.

I have written a related article at harmonia-philosophica.blogspot.gr/2010/ ... ay-to.html.

What do you think?

-- Updated December 9th, 2012, 10:32 am to add the following --

I would add that the true founder of the Theory of Evolution, Rusell Wallace, thought that his theory could not be applied to humans. Just food for thought...

To my mind, your OP paints a puritanical picture of ToE, as though Origin of Species is sacrosanct and cannot condone the integration of subsequent research with it. I'm sure you accept that molecular biology is consistent with ToE, even though Darwin knew nothing of the specifics of genetics. So why stop there?

1. The mechanism described by ToE is probably not the only one! Humans strive to design things and to design new forms of like (call me gennetics). Design is an inherent part of the cosmos. Moreover, many people try to help the weak survive, something obviously against the main idea behind the theory of evolution.

I once attented a lecture by the late science fiction writer Ray Bradbury, where he called himself a "Neo-Lamarckian" for his belief in human's ability to shape their own evolution. To me, the idea that this is against ToE is invalid. If humans are an expression of nature, then what is "unnatural" about human participation in directing evolution? Alpha-male lions kill the cubs of their newly-conquered pride, eliminating traits of weaker males from the pride's next generation. Natural selection, right? So when the efforts of applied science eliminated the smallpox virus, how was that not "survival of the fittest?" Aren't both the alpha lion and the World Health Organization field worker directing the evolution of their respective species?

2. Many philosophers think ToE is a tautology. All it "says" is that the fitetst for survival... survive! And who is fittest for survival? Who else? The ones who survive! (those who adapt better to changes).

Thanks to modern science, insulin and kidney dialysis allow Type 1 diabetics to survive, allowing diabetes to flourish in the gene pool where once upon a time, early death reduced their contribution. I've read that by 2050, a quarter of the U.S. population could carry the allele for diabetes. Hardly survival of the fittest, eh?

3. ToE is based on the definition of species. But how is a species defined? Darwin himself thought that with his theory had solved the great problem of "species", because the idea of an ever changing species does not leave room for... "species" (!) The problem of definition of species is a fundamentaly philosophical one and many think that species as categories do not even exist!

So species is a dynamic phenomenon. Maybe that frustrates taxonomists and the Intelligent Design crowd, but what actual impact does it have on the ToE in practical terms?

4. Many people have tried to capitalize on ToE and use it for their own purposes. Theory of Evolition is a purely scientific theory! Not a philosophical one! Stating that "God does not exist" because we have found that viruses evolve is not a valid argument.

The day that scientific theory does not lend itself to philosophical interpretation will be a day to mourn. Sure there is always oportunism that caters to ignorance and dogmatic agenda. But science can also serve the evolution of philosophy. I once read a reinterpretation of Darwinian Evolution as the principle long-term mechanism of an emergent self-sustaining biosphere. That reinterpretation still influences my thought to this day.

Thanks to modern science, insulin and kidney dialysis allow Type 1 diabetics to survive, allowing diabetes to flourish in the gene pool where once upon a time, early death reduced their contribution. I've read that by 2050, a quarter of the U.S. population could carry the allele for diabetes. Hardly survival of the fittest, eh?

I think the point you're making here doesn't just apply to the problems of modern life. I think it's an extension of the whole idea of cost/benefit trade-offs in evolution which have always been there. A more "natural" example might be the downside of sickle-cell anaemia in Africa conferring a certain amount of protection from malaria. The anaemia is bad, but the malaria is worse, so the sickle-cell gene persists.

As you've suggested, from a population survival point of view, so far at least, the cost to the human race of the development of modern medicine is the survival of genetic defects. The benefit is the survival! So, taken as a whole, it could be argued, the US population is "fit" in the evolutionary sense of the word.

As you've suggested, from a population survival point of view, so far at least, the cost to the human race of the development of modern medicine is the survival of genetic defects. The benefit is the survival! So, taken as a whole, it could be argued, the US population is "fit" in the evolutionary sense of the word.

What is interesting about this is how continued survival of the fittest becomes dependent on a new relationship with technology (namely, the continued availability of both commercially-produced insulin and strategically located dialysis centers).

I'm reminded of how modern-day corn -- a grain humans have manipulated out of all recognition from its pre-agricultural state -- has no means to disseminate its seeds except via human-initiated action. It is now symbiotically tied to us for its survival, and the economics of the American food processing industry are dependent on it (for both feed and high-fructose sweetener). Is this interdependency a weakness or a long-term recipe for survival through interconnectivity with the environment? Darwin had little to say about symbiosis and nothing about co-evolution.

A Poster He or I wrote:To my mind, your OP paints a puritanical picture of ToE, as though Origin of Species is sacrosanct and cannot condone the integration of subsequent research with it. I'm sure you accept that molecular biology is consistent with ToE, even though Darwin knew nothing of the specifics of genetics. So why stop there?

I once attented a lecture by the late science fiction writer Ray Bradbury, where he called himself a "Neo-Lamarckian" for his belief in human's ability to shape their own evolution. To me, the idea that this is against ToE is invalid. If humans are an expression of nature, then what is "unnatural" about human participation in directing evolution? Alpha-male lions kill the cubs of their newly-conquered pride, eliminating traits of weaker males from the pride's next generation. Natural selection, right? So when the efforts of applied science eliminated the smallpox virus, how was that not "survival of the fittest?" Aren't both the alpha lion and the World Health Organization field worker directing the evolution of their respective species?

Thanks to modern science, insulin and kidney dialysis allow Type 1 diabetics to survive, allowing diabetes to flourish in the gene pool where once upon a time, early death reduced their contribution. I've read that by 2050, a quarter of the U.S. population could carry the allele for diabetes. Hardly survival of the fittest, eh?

So species is a dynamic phenomenon. Maybe that frustrates taxonomists and the Intelligent Design crowd, but what actual impact does it have on the ToE in practical terms?

So you talk about the Theory of Evolution which...

• ... could be dictated by us instead of random mutations.

• ...could serve not only the fittest but also the weak.

• ...could not see the difference between a frog and a dinosaur since the "species" notion is abstract.

Don't you see how much different is that picture from the picture displayed by e.g. Dawkins?

-- Updated December 15th, 2012, 4:31 pm to add the following --

A Poster He or I wrote: I'm reminded of how modern-day corn -- a grain humans have manipulated out of all recognition from its pre-agricultural state -- has no means to disseminate its seeds except via human-initiated action. It is now symbiotically tied to us for its survival, and the economics of the American food processing industry are dependent on it (for both feed and high-fructose sweetener). Is this interdependency a weakness or a long-term recipe for survival through interconnectivity with the environment? Darwin had little to say about symbiosis and nothing about co-evolution.

Very interesting point.

So you talk about the Theory of Evolution which...

... could be dictated by us instead of random mutations....

Mutation remains paramount. That such mutation has historically been random is incidental to the theory per se (Darwin didn't know the mechanisms of mutation). If such mutation is directed in the future rather than exclusively random, the theory remains intact. One can quibble about whether this still constitutes natural selection (I claim that it does) but the base mechanism of mutation is still in effect.

...could serve not only the fittest but also the weak....

Let's keep in mind that (1) evolution has no goal in ToE and (2) the survival value of any mutation is not an innate feature of the mutation but a consequence of its effects in a specific environmental niche. As Steve3007 illustrated with the sickle-cell mutation, any given mutation that benefits a species' survival can also be detrimental at the same time. A native sub-Saharan population benefitted as a whole by becoming more resistant to malaria, but at the cost of their individual members dying an early death should they be unfortunate enough to inherit the allele through both parents. Descendents of that original population are now scattered across the world. If those descendents are no longer in malarial environments, the mutation they carry, once so beneficial, is now nothing but a detriment to the survival of their offspring.

...could not see the difference between a frog and a dinosaur since the "species" notion is abstract.

That's a ridiculous conclusion. All theories are abstract; that doesn't make them dysfunctional. I said the species concept is dynamic; that does not mean individual species are interchangeable. The dynamism of the species concept results from the very premises of the theory: if species remained eternally unchanged, there would be no means whereby new species could arise, which would make evolution a merely academic concept at best.

Don't you see how much different is that picture from the picture displayed by e.g. Dawkins?

On the contrary, I think Dawkins' gene-centric view of evolution supports my viewpoint even better than Darwin's species-centric approach. I suggest that gene therapy and genetic surgery constitute mutation every bit as much as random mutation. A gene-centric view of evolution supports my contention that human intervention in our own evolution (and therefore the evolution of our environment) is both a natural process (a nod to Darwin) and an expression of our own genetic preferences (a nod to Dawkins).

A Poster He or I wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Mutation remains paramount. That such mutation has historically been random is incidental to the theory per se (Darwin didn't know the mechanisms of mutation). If such mutation is directed in the future rather than exclusively random, the theory remains intact. One can quibble about whether this still constitutes natural selection (I claim that it does) but the base mechanism of mutation is still in effect. (Nested quote removed.)

Let's keep in mind that (1) evolution has no goal in ToE and (2) the survival value of any mutation is not an innate feature of the mutation but a consequence of its effects in a specific environmental niche. As Steve3007 illustrated with the sickle-cell mutation, any given mutation that benefits a species' survival can also be detrimental at the same time. A native sub-Saharan population benefitted as a whole by becoming more resistant to malaria, but at the cost of their individual members dying an early death should they be unfortunate enough to inherit the allele through both parents. Descendents of that original population are now scattered across the world. If those descendents are no longer in malarial environments, the mutation they carry, once so beneficial, is now nothing but a detriment to the survival of their offspring.


(Nested quote removed.)

That's a ridiculous conclusion. All theories are abstract; that doesn't make them dysfunctional. I said the species concept is dynamic; that does not mean individual species are interchangeable. The dynamism of the species concept results from the very premises of the theory: if species remained eternally unchanged, there would be no means whereby new species could arise, which would make evolution a merely academic concept at best.


(Nested quote removed.)

On the contrary, I think Dawkins' gene-centric view of evolution supports my viewpoint even better than Darwin's species-centric approach. I suggest that gene therapy and genetic surgery constitute mutation every bit as much as random mutation. A gene-centric view of evolution supports my contention that human intervention in our own evolution (and therefore the evolution of our environment) is both a natural process (a nod to Darwin) and an expression of our own genetic preferences (a nod to Dawkins).

But mutations are bad, for all we know. Would you go to a doctor and be happy when he told you that you have a mutation? Would I? I do not think so. So how can something with no purpose, which happens by chance and which is inherently bad on its own, drive the evolution of life from the simpler to more complex systems?

How can a mutation generate MORE information? For all we know, chance creates nothing but "noise" in a system.

And if the species definition is abstract, how do you know when you have a new species? Because the very notion of macroevolution is based on that. Now I see that with great ease you can admit that the defintion of species in "not specific" and try to get away with it because "other theories are abstract too". Well, if other theories are abstract too, then they too have the problems Theory of Evolution has.

But mutations are bad, for all we know. Would you go to a doctor and be happy when he told you that you have a mutation? Would I? I do not think so. So how can something with no purpose, which happens by chance and which is inherently bad on its own, drive the evolution of life from the simpler to more complex systems?

Your assessment of mutation being bad is, of course, individual-centric. ToE isn't really focused on individuals but on species. From a species-centric viewpoint, mutation is more than good, it can be critical to long-term survival. In the short-term, however, mutation is bad almost all of the time because it most often leaves an individual less effective at coping with its environment. Its (historically) random nature allows it to be good once in a great while. As to how this infrequent beneficence can drive evolution from the simple to the complex, all you need is an environment that functions as an open system (access to an external energy source) and a heck of a lot of TIME. The rest is pretty well covered by complexity theory.

How can a mutation generate MORE information? For all we know, chance creates nothing but "noise" in a system.

Any assessment of whether a given mutation generates more (or less) information is necessarily an ad hoc perspective that is judging the results relative to some implicit (or explicit) standard for what constitutes recognizable information. To my mind, any such standard is merely the hubris of an analytical framework, useful for modeling some things, but connoting nothing about any objective relation of the mutation to information, noise, or any other artefact of the analytical framework.

Besides, classical reductionist modeling is not adequate for discussing the potential for information in this context. One should look to more holistic models of biology (and ultimately physics) where the model recognizes the whole genome and ultimately the whole biosphere in which the genome operates; where the biosphere itself is a (partial) cause of mutation and also self-regulates via the genome's capacity to accommodate such mutations.

And if the species definition is abstract, how do you know when you have a new species? Because the very notion of macroevolution is based on that.

Technically, new species arise when offspring with gametes that are incompatible for meiosis with the parent stock are themselves able to propagate among each other. Practically speaking, however, such propagation of the mutant offspring isn't going to occur until a community long segregated from the original stock has had time to evolve without interaction with the original stock. (Note: this is the case for species who reproduce sexually. I am not as familiar with asexually reproducing species so I'll decline from commenting on that scenario).

An example of this process in action can be seen in polar bears and grizzly bears. These are generally regarded as separate species since they are isolated from each other geographically in two very different environments, with very different features and behaviors. Yet technically speaking they have compatible gametes with the same number of chromosomes and can interbreed, producing sexually-viable offspring. (Indeed there are at least 3 documented cases of "grolar" bears, or "pizzly" bears if you prefer). ToE strongly suggests that polar bears and grizzly bears were originally one community who diverged geographically and then genetically, each to suit their respective environments. It can be posited that it is only a matter of time before continued genetic divergence renders their respective gametes incompatible (though polar bears will probably be extinct before that happens due to destruction of their environment from global warming).

Now I see that with great ease you can admit that the defintion of species in "not specific" and try to get away with it because "other theories are abstract too". Well, if other theories are abstract too, then they too have the problems Theory of Evolution has.

I don't understand your criticism. Did I say species are "not specific?" They seem pretty specific to me, given the tenets of ToE. I've already explained why the dynamic nature of species is incidental to ToE. If you're charging me with saying that ALL theories have problems due to their abstract nature, then I agree with that statement, though I don't really see the significance. Theorizing is modeling. Models capture some aspects of what they systematize but not other aspects. So what?

A Poster He or I wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Your assessment of mutation being bad is, of course, individual-centric. ToE isn't really focused on individuals but on species. From a species-centric viewpoint, mutation is more than good, it can be critical to long-term survival. In the short-term, however, mutation is bad almost all of the time because it most often leaves an individual less effective at coping with its environment. Its (historically) random nature allows it to be good once in a great while. As to how this infrequent beneficence can drive evolution from the simple to the complex, all you need is an environment that functions as an open system (access to an external energy source) and a heck of a lot of TIME. The rest is pretty well covered by complexity theory.

I see an antiphasis in what you say. Mutations are bad when they happen for the individual. But they are good for the general population of the species? But that cannot happen. When a mutation kills the individuals, then it can in no way be beneficial for the species as a whole.

-- Updated December 23rd, 2012, 2:49 pm to add the following --

A Poster He or I wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Any assessment of whether a given mutation generates more (or less) information is necessarily an ad hoc perspective that is judging the results relative to some implicit (or explicit) standard for what constitutes recognizable information. To my mind, any such standard is merely the hubris of an analytical framework, useful for modeling some things, but connoting nothing about any objective relation of the mutation to information, noise, or any other artefact of the analytical framework.

Besides, classical reductionist modeling is not adequate for discussing the potential for information in this context. One should look to more holistic models of biology (and ultimately physics) where the model recognizes the whole genome and ultimately the whole biosphere in which the genome operates; where the biosphere itself is a (partial) cause of mutation and also self-regulates via the genome's capacity to accommodate such mutations.

I do not agree. It is not a matter of modeling. It is a matter of essence. A random mutation cannot create new information that "makes sense". DNA is full of useful information - encoded data that are used to do a lot of things. How can that information be created by a "noise-generating" process like a mutation?

I see an antiphasis in what you say. Mutations are bad when they happen for the individual. But they are good for the general population of the species? But that cannot happen. When a mutation kills the individuals, then it can in no way be beneficial for the species as a whole.

I'm sure any breeder of livestock or prize-winning flowering plants will be happy to elaborate on how wrong your statement is.

A Poster He or I wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Technically, new species arise when offspring with gametes that are incompatible for meiosis with the parent stock are themselves able to propagate among each other. Practically speaking, however, such propagation of the mutant offspring isn't going to occur until a community long segregated from the original stock has had time to evolve without interaction with the original stock. (Note: this is the case for species who reproduce sexually. I am not as familiar with asexually reproducing species so I'll decline from commenting on that scenario).

An example of this process in action can be seen in polar bears and grizzly bears. These are generally regarded as separate species since they are isolated from each other geographically in two very different environments, with very different features and behaviors. Yet technically speaking they have compatible gametes with the same number of chromosomes and can interbreed, producing sexually-viable offspring. (Indeed there are at least 3 documented cases of "grolar" bears, or "pizzly" bears if you prefer). ToE strongly suggests that polar bears and grizzly bears were originally one community who diverged geographically and then genetically, each to suit their respective environments. It can be posited that it is only a matter of time before continued genetic divergence renders their respective gametes incompatible (though polar bears will probably be extinct before that happens due to destruction of their environment from global warming).

So do you really agree that polar bears and grizzly bears are different species?!?!?

So do you really agree that polar bears and grizzly bears are different species?!?!?

Name your context. If we're talking a strict analysis of the tenets of ToE, even with the modern extention of molecular biology, then no, grizzlies and polar bears are no more different species than Great Danes are from Toy Poodles. But if practical taxonomic classifications call them separate species, then I'd be foolish to insist otherwise when practical taxonomy is applicable to the situation.

I do not agree. It is not a matter of modeling. It is a matter of essence. A random mutation cannot create new information that "makes sense". DNA is full of useful information - encoded data that are used to do a lot of things. How can that information be created by a "noise-generating" process like a mutation?

Your assessment of the mutation as a noise-generating event presupposes a standard for assessing what is noise (opposed to what is information). But the only standard is the organism's environmetal niche. If that environment is changing and those changes are inimical to the organism's survival, how exactly will the organism's current genome "make sense" by remaining static and unchanged (pristine from any "noisy" mutation)? I doubt that under those circumstances you will claim that it "makes sense" for the genome to maintain its integrity while the organism goes extinct.

I don't believe in essences myself, and so I don't believe in INHERENT information. If I have a DVD-R full of MP3 files backed up from my portable music player, and I time-travelled back to 1950 with it, my DVD-R would be nothing but a polymer disc with an embedded layer of random microscopic pits. Data without interpretation is NOT information. You cannot separate the DVD-R from a concomitant DVD player and expect the DVD-R to have any meaning. In similar fashion, you cannot separate the genome from its environment. It is an expression of that environment, and mutation is an expression of that environment's dynamic nature.

Skakos wrote: 1. The mechanism described by ToE is probably not the only one! Humans strive to design things and to design new forms of like (call me gennetics). Design is an inherent part of the cosmos. Moreover, many people try to help the weak survive, something obviously against the main idea behind the theory of evolution.[/list]

A Poster He or I has been pretty thorough with his answers, so I just want to adress this point. First of all, it is entirely possible that random mutations aren't the only mechanism of evolution. There is some evidence that the genome actively changes itself when certain parts are "used" more than others, allowing for a quicker adaptation.

However, I have a problem with "design is an inherent part of the cosmos". Design is a Human term, and refers to purposefull creation. Hence, design requires purpose, and when we talk of the cosmos as a whole, that has to be some a priori purpose. Purpose, in turn, is something relative, it is purpose "for something". But something relative cannot be a priori, that is an analytical contradiction.

A Poster He or I wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Name your context. If we're talking a strict analysis of the tenets of ToE, even with the modern extention of molecular biology, then no, grizzlies and polar bears are no more different species than Great Danes are from Toy Poodles. But if practical taxonomic classifications call them separate species, then I'd be foolish to insist otherwise when practical taxonomy is applicable to the situation.

I just ask. The context is Nature in which we live in. I kind of get the gist of what you are saying, but I sure you are getting the gist of what I am saying too...

A Poster He or I wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Your assessment of the mutation as a noise-generating event presupposes a standard for assessing what is noise (opposed to what is information). But the only standard is the organism's environmetal niche. If that environment is changing and those changes are inimical to the organism's survival, how exactly will the organism's current genome "make sense" by remaining static and unchanged (pristine from any "noisy" mutation)? I doubt that under those circumstances you will claim that it "makes sense" for the genome to maintain its integrity while the organism goes extinct.

I don't believe in essences myself, and so I don't believe in INHERENT information. If I have a DVD-R full of MP3 files backed up from my portable music player, and I time-travelled back to 1950 with it, my DVD-R would be nothing but a polymer disc with an embedded layer of random microscopic pits. Data without interpretation is NOT information. You cannot separate the DVD-R from a concomitant DVD player and expect the DVD-R to have any meaning. In similar fashion, you cannot separate the genome from its environment. It is an expression of that environment, and mutation is an expression of that environment's dynamic nature.

Yes it is difficult (if not impossible) to say what is noise and what is information. It all comes down to perception. I would say that in thics "noise" is what is not usefull in creating molecules that are playing some kind of role into the well being of the organism. Like a DVD you mentioned: it may have noise or "data". It all comes down to the user of the DVD. But we are talking in specific context each time. What if I gave you a DVD with a movie? And a DVD with noise. Wouldn't you be able to tell the difference? Surely you would. The same happens with organisms. Give them a random process that changes their DNA. And a designed process that changes their DNA. Which one would you think has the best chance of creating something useful?

I just ask. The context is Nature in which we live in. I kind of get the gist of what you are saying, but I sure you are getting the gist of what I am saying too...

Well, as far as I can tell, you are questioning the absolutism of ToE as a description of how evolution actually occurs, or possibly what evolution actually is if we cannot pin down an exact definition for species. If that is your gist, then I completely agree with you but my agreement probably has little bearing on your position because, philosophically, I am not a believer in absolutes in any context.

To me, "species" is a label in a theory for a certain gestalt that can function as an analytical unit in that theory. In that context, species has meaning, is useful as a concept, and makes the theory productive scientifically (namely, allows self-consistent correlation of experience and subsequent prediction).

But in a less-scientific context, species is more arbitrary to me. Species is more analagous to threads interweaving in an ever-growing tapestry. The junctures where threads branch off or run together or come to an end are probably much more fluid then ToE's description of them. (Which is why it becomes appropriate for polar and grizzly bears to be discussed as different species outside the strict ToE context). It is also clear to me that there is more than just natural selection as the "driver" of evolution. However, this does not cause inconsistency for ToE, in my opinion. Newer knowledge (e.g., Dawkins' genetic expression, neo-Lamarkianism, co-evolution, etc.) sits as a "superset" upon ToE, extending it, not invalidating it.

That is why my argument (in post #2) was merely that your criticism (in post #1) does not invalidate ToE. I do not claim that ToE is a full description of evolution; but it is a description that has scientifically-circumscribed consistency with our experience.

Yes it is difficult (if not impossible) to say what is noise and what is information. It all comes down to perception. I would say that in thics "noise" is what is not usefull in creating molecules that are playing some kind of role into the well being of the organism. Like a DVD you mentioned: it may have noise or "data". It all comes down to the user of the DVD. But we are talking in specific context each time.

Yes, context is critical for interpretation to be meaningful as valid or invalid. And when the context for validation is "the well being of the organism" one has to consider the long-term well being of the species even though the information (and the arising of noise) which ultimately determines the species' well-being manifests in the individual--a unit whose immediate well being is short-term.

What if I gave you a DVD with a movie? And a DVD with noise. Wouldn't you be able to tell the difference? Surely you would.

Yes I would IF I have access to a DVD player. The player is the interpreter that gives the DVD's data meaning via an interpretive schema. Without the player, a DVD has no information.

The same happens with organisms. Give them a random process that changes their DNA. And a designed process that changes their DNA. Which one would you think has the best chance of creating something useful?

Here I agree with Cronos998's post. "Design" is a human projection upon nature. I see no evidence for any inherent design in nature because a design implies a designer which lies outside of science's purview to recognize. The best practice of scientific epistemology has yielded a theory that (1) is highly functional at describing a process consistent with our experience of evolutionary change and (2) has remained viable with newer knowledge about evolutionary mechanisms. And it does it without any designer. You said yourself that ToE per se is a scientific theory, not a philosophical one, so let's evaluate it as such.

Next, I want to point out that humans have been manipulating evolution since prehistoric times, first unconsciously (we elimated various species such as mastodons with our migratory hunting) then later by conscious design (agriculture, hybridization of plants, domestication and breeding of animals). Judging whether our creation of a teacup-poodle -- from something that looked like a wolf 12,000 years ago -- represents "something useful" is again a matter of an interpretative schema. I'm sure a teacup-poodle is very useful to its owner who values fussing over its particular needs. But from a perspective of surviving a night in an owl-infested winter forest away from its ancestral pack, our efforts at "design" have created a being whose survival chances are very low.