Criticizing neo-Darwinism

Message 28, to which I am responding, might be one of the clearest posts that Brad has made (not counting really short ones such as Message 29). Very well stated. And Waddington is clear on what "neo-Darwinism" ought to mean in his first paragraph (what he calls its strict sense). I'm not sure why this is confusing to other participants in the thread. This repeated need to call on biology for a fudge factor should be the indication that neo-Darwinism (strict sense) is not an adequate account of evolution.

I am referring to what is summarized in the quote box of Message 1, as quoted from Parasomnium. This can be put into a mathematical form, allowing one to describe and and deductively analyze the evolving of the gene pool over time.

Heredity isn't the problem. That's included as part of the neo-Darwinian theory, in the form of the stochastic process whereby one derives the gene distribution of the next generation from the gene distribution of the current generation. In the strict sense, neo-Darwinism is an explanation for changes in the gene pool.The general idea of using mathematical models in science, is that you feed data into the model. Then you make deductions purely from the model, without reference back to the real world source. This leads to predictions from the model. Finally, you interpret those predictions, in terms of how the model represents real world data.

Okay, now can you show how the concepts in Para's summary lead (or have lead) to neo-Darwinist accounts which include this problem:

quote:

---

They have to do with whether a sequence of steps is required, such that intermediate steps should be impossible or very unlikely due to negative selection against them.

---

And again, are you saying that neo-Darwinism explicitly or implicitly precludes punctuated equilibria or the evolution of novel forms? If so, how? You say this:

quote:

---

That's where it becomes downright implausible. The neo-Darwinistic account is one of gradual change. The arguments about irreducible complexity arise because gradual change does not plausibly lead to very complex structures. The biology shows how complex structures can arise, but the gradualism of the neo-Darwinist model seems to argue against it.

---

I don't see how you arrive at this assessment, and would request that you walk me through your reasoning. How does stepwise progression (I'm using this term to avoid the term "gradual," which often carries the false connotation of "slow") argue against an increase in complexity?

This is an example of what randman might call "total evo dishonesty".I'm sure it wasn't intentionally dishonest. But there is a huge flaw in the reasoning.I used "predicts punctuated equilibria". You used "excludes" as the alternative to predicts. Those are not alternatives. A theory can fail to predict X, while also not excluding X. In fact it seems to me that neo-Darwinism neither predicts nor excludes punk-eek. It explains punk-eek only by means of appealing to reproductive isolation. That's an example of an appeal to the biology as a fudge factor. The statement of neo-Darwinism in Message 1 nowhere mentions reproductive isolation as a necessary or important requirement for evolution.

Okay, I think I'm starting to catch on now. No, I wasn't being intentionally dishonest (let alone -gasp!- evo dishonest). {edit: While you did specifically state that ND "argues against" an increase in complexity, I acknowledge that you did not say this about PE, which you argue it simply fails to predict. It was sloppy on my part, I apologize.}You're saying that neo-Darwinism, as summarized by Para, neither includes nor predicts all known evolutionary mechanisms. Apparently you're also saying that some biologists (such as Dawkins) think that it does?Okay, I have no quarrel with that on its face, and I will step aside and watch the discussion.{fixed smiley, marked addition}This message has been edited by Belfry, 03-23-2006 02:33 PMThis message has been edited by Belfry, 03-23-2006 02:45 PM

I have already commented on this, with respect to punk-eek (Message 35). I will just say that the same applies to novelty. That is, neo-Darwinism neither predicts or precludes novelty. It explains novelty by appealing to possible eventualities that are not predictable from neo-Darwinist assumptions. Hmm, randman might refer to that as evo deception. Replacing "gradual" by "stepwise" comes across as an evasion.The molecules of air in my office can be described statistically. It is theoretically possible that the molecules could all happen to gather in one corner of the room, while I suffocate. One can come up with a stepwise sequence of events that would have such a result. Nobody worries about this, because it is highly improbable.The important thing about "gradual" isn't the speed. Rather, it is that the steps are part of a stochastic process. That you can come up with a stepwise solution to explain a particular novelty does not alter the fact that the arising of such a novelty depends on a highly improbable sequence of steps. That neo-Darwinism does not predict novelty is because of the improbability of such occurrences. That it does not preclude novelty, is because such a sequence of steps is not impossible, even though it is highly improbable.

That's about it, except that I don't claim to be able to read what are Dawkins' thoughts. I'll note, however, that when Gould argued for punk-eek, he suggested that this required more than could be found in neo-Darwinism. It is my understanding that Dawkins, Maynard Smith and several others objected to that claim by Gould.

quote:

---

I have already commented on this, with respect to punk-eek (Message 35). I will just say that the same applies to novelty. That is, neo-Darwinism neither predicts or precludes novelty. It explains novelty by appealing to possible eventualities that are not predictable from neo-Darwinist assumptions.

---

I accept my error as I said before. We're crossing posts, I'm afraid.

quote:

---

Hmm, randman might refer to that as evo deception.

​

Replacing "gradual" by "stepwise" comes across as an evasion.

---

Except that I pointed out what I was doing and explained why. You yourself seem to agree with me when you go on to say, "The important thing about "gradual" isn't the speed."Since when did Randman's favorite false accusations become de rigueur? It's only dishonesty if one is being intentionally deceptive. I don't know why you chose to set that tone, but I am stepping aside as I previously indicated.

I was going to bore you with mindless drivel - I've changed my mind so let me sum it up: I think I understand you. To pad this out, let's look what Dawkins and Gould have to say: sourceSource: The Blind WatchmakerI like Gould the most (but Dawkins is growing on me), so I'll let him have the last say here: That said, at this time I am more inclined to go with Dawkins' explanation, but I am currently reading his book so that might be why. I think Gould is upset that some respected evolutionists have said that his major contribution to evolutionary scientists is 'interesting but not as important as it has been made out.'

I should have added a smiley to indicate that I wasn't being completely serious. I was well aware that you were not intentionally dishonest.I was being half-serious. I wasn't meaning to accuse you of any actual deception. But I was trying to point out that a creationist such as randman probably would see that as deceptive.Anyway, apologies if it came across as an accusation.

Thanks.

quote:

---

Dawkins writes:

​

The fact is that, in the fullest and most serious sense, Eldredge and Gould are really just as gradualist as Darwin or any of his followers. It is just that they would compress all the gradual change into brief bursts, rather than having it go on all the time; ..

---

I agree with Dawkins there. But I'm inclined to disagree with his last paragraph (which I did not requote).

This has been a good discussion.I think I made my point, even if some did not agree. That point being that there are problems in neo-Darwinism as it is seen by non-biologists.At this stage, maybe I should take a month or three to write up my alternative theory. Then I can bring that back for discussion, either here or in a new thread.

quote:

---

I agree with Dawkins there. But I'm inclined to disagree with his last paragraph (which I did not requote).

---

I believe Dawkins is correct in asserting that it is firmly based in neo-Darwinism. PE wasn't even a new concept, it was basically Mayr's theory of peripatric speciation (1954), which was wholly situated in neo-Darwinism.Mayr writes Now, I'm not too sure if Eldridge actually read the paper, but the above seems to suggest he did.Do you feel it isn't completely within the neo-Darwinian framework because Gould mentions Goldshmit work in the original PE paper? If so, this seems to be a misinterpretation of Goldshmit's work. To quote from Mayr once again (no point in trying to translate): The article these are taken from is Speciational Evolution or Punctuated EquilibriaThis message has been edited by JustinC, 03-23-2006 10:32 PM

Gould's mention of Goldschmidt was probably a mistake. In any case, I am not arguing that Gould has everything correct.My disagreement with the last Dawkins paragraph was particularly disagreement with: