Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Is 'genetic determinism' empirically valid, and is it essential to the "Modern Synth
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 16 of 49 (442961)
12-23-2007 8:19 AM


Another study showing that selection, in this case true and actual selection [thoroughbred racehorse breeding] based on supposed genetic superiority/fitness, has a negative correlation to actual phenotypic fitness [race winners], even though race winners, 'champions', exemplify neo-darwinian 'fitness', that is, they have more [offspring since they are artificially bred more often than 'losers']. IOW, the production of racehorse is based upon the genetic assumption of "The Modern Synthesis", i.e., genetic 'fitness' by means of 'selection', i.e., breeding, but the production of results, 'winners', 'the fittest', is not. Development trumps genetics. Genetic determinism is a 'non-starter'. See--
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/...content/full/2007/1219/3
P.S.-- I see a parallel here and the debate about human 'differential IQ', which is seen by some to be a genetic, even racial, effect--as opposed to home and neighborhood environment, parental care, diet, schooling,etc. Also the actual negative correlation between 'IQ' and financial success.
Edited by Elmer, : add postscript

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Granny Magda, posted 12-24-2007 12:35 PM Elmer has replied
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2007 9:03 PM Elmer has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 17 of 49 (443315)
12-24-2007 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Elmer
12-23-2007 8:19 AM


Hi Elmer,
You seem to be saying that, because environment also influences phenotype, genes don't. This is simply wrong. Let's take an example.
I kick a football. It flies off, into the goal. But, I have a strong wind behind me, also affecting the distance the football travels. The wind was part of the cause of the football moving forward, but this does not mean that my kick was not a cause, only that a mixture of causal effects is at play.
As for your racehorse example, the article mentions that;
quote:
Coltman adds that previous research had shown that stud fees correlate with the speed of the offspring, but the new findings indicate that the correlation doesn't necessarily translate into winning.
So genetics is having a causal effect here, namely passing on the ability to run fast. The problem for breeders is that straightforward speed does not directly translate into wins. Environmental factors are at play here, effects in later life, like training and care regime. None of this poses a problem for the modern synthesis, and I have a feeling that the folks who conducted this study would be surprised to hear you say that it did.
Merry Christmas!

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Elmer, posted 12-23-2007 8:19 AM Elmer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Elmer, posted 12-24-2007 4:23 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 18 of 49 (443344)
12-24-2007 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Granny Magda
12-24-2007 12:35 PM


Hi granny;
You say--
Hi Elmer,
You seem to be saying that, because environment also influences phenotype, genes don't. This is simply wrong.
Yes, that is wrong, but the mistakes is yours, because I have never said any such thing. What I have said is that 'genes'do not DETERMINE phenotype. Of course they contribute to phenotype, although exactly what that contribution consists of we have not yet discussed in this thread. Surely you will concede that there is a meaningful differnce between _determing_ an outcome, and contributing to it, leading up to it, aiding it, enabling it, and least of all, influencing it?
This thread is about examining the notion of 'genetic determinism', not that of, 'genetic influence'. If it proves to be purely notional, that it, lacking in empirical support, [as most people now concede to be the case], then in that case, what justification remains for the notion that evolution is fundamentally driven [caused] by a "mechanism" called 'random genetic mutation'? If random genetic mutation is not the determining factor in the origins of novel bioforms and their behaviours, then let's get on with it and discover or recognise just exactly what that factor actually is. Meaning, it's time to dump RMNS darwinism as THE explanatory mechanism for the fact, the phenomenon, the empirically recognised historical process we call biological evolution.
[qs] Let's take an example.
I kick a football. It flies off, into the goal. But, I have a strong wind behind me, also affecting the distance the football travels. The wind was part of the cause of the football moving forward, but this does not mean that my kick was not a cause, only that a mixture of causal effects is at play.[/quote]
Using your example, the actual question being examined here would be, did your kick determine that the ball had to fly in such a direction and at such an elevation and for such a distance that it could only fly between the the uprights, all other outcomes impossible?
As for your racehorse example, the article mentions that;
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coltman adds that previous research had shown that stud fees correlate with the speed of the offspring, but the new findings indicate that the correlation doesn't necessarily translate into winning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So genetics is having a causal effect here, namely passing on the ability to run fast.
All racehorses run fast, that's why they are called racehorses. They are also called racehorses because the only time their speed differential matters is when they are in races against other horses, where the fastest horse wins. In neo-darwinian theory that's called 'natural selection'. It's winning, not speed, that decides neo-darwinian, 'differential _fitness_', i.e., the relative number of offspring produced, and the quantity of any specified 'allele' or 'gene' in the thoroughbred racehorse population is a matter of stud popularity, [as are the dollar value stud fees] which is turn are decided by wins in races, not time trials [with or without a rider in the saddle].
Long story short, genetics [breeding] are not what determines selection [winning/losing], even though selection [winning/losing] determines 'fitness' [differential offspring rate], which in turn determines 'breeding' [genotype], which may or may not increase individual 'speed'. In short, genes do not determine selection or fitness--infact, they do not have much influence on either, since genes do not correlate to winning. The correlation that supposedly exists between a trait [differential speeds], as a , "genetic effect", and 'differential stud fees', is irrelevent to the only thing that matters in RMNS darwinian terms--winning purses.
The problem for breeders is that straightforward speed does not directly translate into wins.
My point exactly. To which you may add, despite the assumption built into your cited material, genes do not necessarily determine relative speed, either. It may or may not be that 'most of the colts' from one sire are a tad faster in the field than 'most of the colts' sired by another, but nowhere is it a genetically determined outcome that all offspring of one thoroughbred, sire or dam, will always be faster than all of the offspring of some other sire/dam. The fact of the matter is that the genetic component at play here is a matter for the bookies and the odds-makers, and is more a matter of luck than genetic determinism. Horsemen can bet as much as they like when it comes to stud fees. That's just as much a gamble as any race, and it sure is no foundation for a scientific principle--such as RMNS is held out to be. Even though Darwin, the horse-breeder, thought it was.
Environmental factors are at play here, effects in later life, like training and care regime.
Now you are trying to say that genes are still determinist; just that their determinism stops at birth, when external environmenat factors take over. Most scientists today would say that developmental factors begin shaping the offspring long before birth. Epigenetic factors [illness, starvation] in the parent can set the 'developmental stage' even before conception. Which again contradicts genetic determinism.
None of this poses a problem for the modern synthesis,
You are entitled to voice this opinion, but it flies in the face of fact and reason.
and I have a feeling that the folks who conducted this study would be surprised to hear you say that it did.
It wouldn't surprise me to hear that they were suprised, either. It never surprise me any more to hear just how oblivious to the implications imbedded in their own work some scientists turn out to be.
Merry Christmas!
Same to you,-- and a happy and healthy and prosperous new year to go with it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Granny Magda, posted 12-24-2007 12:35 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Granny Magda, posted 12-26-2007 11:55 AM Elmer has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 19 of 49 (443675)
12-26-2007 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Elmer
12-24-2007 4:23 PM


Elmer,
Elmer writes:
What I have said is that 'genes'do not DETERMINE phenotype.
Yes, and it is a wholly absurd statement. In message 3, Dr Adequate gave you the example of blue eyes being determined by genetics, and you chose to ignore him. Your "no determinism" claim is just wrong.
You talk about the difference between "determination" and influence" as though every single phenotypic trait was affected by epigenetics, and this is something that you have not demonstrated.
Elmer writes:
All racehorses run fast, that's why they are called racehorses. They are also called racehorses because the only time their speed differential matters is when they are in races against other horses, where the fastest horse wins.
No, that's not right. The article you cited suggests that other factors are at work, namely training.
Elmer writes:
Long story short, genetics [breeding] are not what determines selection [winning/losing]
Did you even read the article? It says;
quote:
Based on the lifetime earnings of those foals, they concluded that genetic links to previous champions had only a small effect on the amount of prize money--less than a 10% correlation.
So genetics still seem to determine a <10% advantage. That is determinism. Selective advantages in nature don't have to be large to have an effect. The only thing that your article proves is that artificial selection is not perfect.
Elmer writes:
Now you are trying to say that genes are still determinist; just that their determinism stops at birth, when external environmenat factors take over. Most scientists today would say that developmental factors begin shaping the offspring long before birth. Epigenetic factors [illness, starvation] in the parent can set the 'developmental stage' even before conception. Which again contradicts genetic determinism.
How do you propose to tell the difference between epigentic effects and post-birth environmental effects? Your article gives us only this to go on;
quote:
such as the farms where the horses were raised and the trainers employed to teach them how to race, exerted a considerably bigger influence--as much as a 90% correlation.
This suggests that both might be at work. If only post-birth training is involved, this whole horse race article is completely irrelevant.
To be sure, the revelation of epigenetics has been a bit of an upset, but it has only altered the synthesis, not destroyed it, as you seem to want.
Elmer writes:
It never surprise me any more to hear just how oblivious to the implications imbedded [sic] in their own work some scientists turn out to be.
Yeah, it must be comforting to be so much smarter than those dumb scientists. If you are so much better at science than professional scientists, why don't you take it up yourself?

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Elmer, posted 12-24-2007 4:23 PM Elmer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 49 (443817)
12-26-2007 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Elmer
12-23-2007 8:19 AM


Another study showing that selection, in this case true and actual selection [thoroughbred racehorse breeding] based on supposed genetic superiority/fitness, has a negative correlation to actual phenotypic fitness ...
It shows no such thing. The correlation is small, but it is positive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Elmer, posted 12-23-2007 8:19 AM Elmer has not replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 21 of 49 (444233)
12-28-2007 6:12 PM


I'm finding it impossible to continue this thread, mostly because most responses show no understanding whatsoever of the concept of determinism, how it applies in biology [as genetic determinism/biological determinism] , or even the difference between determinism in evolution and determinism in inheritance. So, unless and until some member posts an informed, well-supported, well-reasoned, response to my opinions, I guess I'll just let this one slide.
In parting- [supposing that I never receive such a response]- I will leave with a few introductory remarks wrt "Determinism", "Genetic Determinism", "Biological Determinism"[sometimes considered synonymous with 'genetic' determinism, but often limited to determinism of behaviours, rather than morphology], " Determinist Evolution", "Determinist Heredity", and the specific senses of the word, 'to determine', that apply in the above cases.
To begin with the latter--
"to determine"-- from wordwebonline.com
"Verb: determine di'turmin
1/Establish after a calculation, investigation, experiment, survey, or study
- find, find out, ascertain
2/Shape or influence; give direction to
"experience often determines ability"
- shape, mold [N. Amer], influence, regulate, mould [Brit, Cdn]
3/Fix conclusively or authoritatively
- set
4/Decide upon or fix definitely
- specify, set, define, fix, limit
5/Reach, make, or come to a decision about something
- decide, make up one's mind
6/Fix in scope; fix the boundaries of
"the tree determines the border of the property"
7/Settle conclusively; come to terms
- settle, square off, square up
8/Find out, learn, or determine with certainty, usually by making an inquiry or other effort
- check, find out, see, ascertain, watch, learn
Derived forms: determined, determines, determining
Of the above, the senses that apply to 'genetic determinism' are numbers 3 [principally], with 4 and 6 as well. Numbers 8, 7, 5, and 1 have no application to genetic determinism, and number 2, which does apply to the role of genes, at least in heredity, does not apply to the notion of 'genetic determinism'. A source of terrible confusion for many.
Now let's look at the metaphysical concept, "Determinism". This concept is an inevitable conlusion proceeding from a belief in "Mechanism", which itself is inevitably entailed by a belief in the metaphysics of "Materialism". So let's start with Materialism.
In short, 'materialism is the metaphysical belief system that postulates, a priori, that "matter is the only reality". Matter originally meant, 'that which is corporeal, tangible, apprehensible by the senses'. At about Newton's time that definition was re-written to include 'forces', like 'gravity. These phenomena,although themselves intangible, can be indirectly apprehended, [that is, inferred], from the observable effects they have on matter itself. This revised metaphysic is sometimes called, 'physicalism', because it makes such a great big hole in traditional Materialism.
Now Mechanism is an corollary of Materialism that states that "all phenomena are 'natural',[by which is meant, 'physical', as above] and so everything can always be explained fully in terms of physical/material causes. In short, everything that exists is the product of 'bits of stuff' moving about, banging into one another, and clinging to one another, because of inexplicable- [in materialist terms]- 'forces'.
Now, this is the 'pool table' approach to causatiuon, i.e., that 'force', once unleashed upon a material object , and that 'energy', upon direct and immediate [mechanical] contact one such object, [say a cue stick], with another object-[say a cue ball]-is immediately and directly transferred to that object, and possibly from that 'cue' ball to another ball, and so on. Such that where on the table every ball involved in the shot ends up, is really a direct, immutable, inflexible linear [one to one] result of how much force was applied by the cue directly to the cue ball, and in what manner [angle, whatever] the cue made contact with the ball. And that is called material, mechanical, 'Determinism'. The idea that every outcome is the inevitable and inescapable product of set of intial physical conditions. [aside--see 'quantum indeterminacy' and 'chaos theory' for a contrasting view]
Works very well wrt to passive, inanimate bits of stuff, so long as you don't think about the actual nature and origins of 'force', etc. But biosystems, live organisms, contrary to materialist metaphysics, are not the passive, inanimate bits of stuff that billiard balls and planets and 'genes' are. Thinking that they are no more than that is called 'genetic and/or behavioural determinism'. It is that notion for which we have to thank for everything from social darwinism, through eugenics and 'ethnic cleansing', racism, and on through Behaviourism, Social Biology, and Evolutionary Psychology. The belief that every specified organismic trait may be directly, linearly, mechanically, and inevitably traced back to a particular dna macromolecule as its overriding and essential cause. Which, incidentally, is the reason why we are always hearing how scientists [meaning geneticists] have discovered, 'the gene for',-- whatever. Blue eyes, for instance.
I won't go into detail on the complexity of inheritance mechanisms involved in the production of the dozens of different eye shades and tones to be found on the human palette. Suffice it to say that, like so many other traits that do not require a paticular gene for a particular trait [see 'human genome project], I will simply point out that a/eye colour can change long after birth. Many blue-eyed babies become hazel, etc, at about aged three. Less regularly, other eye colours change as some people grow older, sometimes repeatedly. Some people are born with one brownish eye, and one bluish eye,-- all from the same 'gene'? Or do you think that each eye's distinct colour is 'determined' by a separate gene from that of the other eye?! I could go on, but the empiricism of eye colour is definitely no friend to 'genetic determinism'.
Finally, if I haven't already said so, 'evolution' is a change in the set of traits that define and categorise a certain taxa, by either adding to or subtracting fom that established set of phenotypic traits'.
OTH, 'heredity' is the perpetuation of the 'status quo' wrt the set of traits that demarcate the possible variations that may be passed on over the course of generations by members of a specific taxon. IOW, evolution is about making changes, heredity is about preventing changes.
Which reminds me of a recent article, so let me digress for a second.
It seems that geneticists have invented something new. Something called, 'cryptic species'. A 'cryptic species'is defined as a species that is morphologically indistinguishable from another species, but which cannot reproduce viable off-spring thanks to supposed genetic factors. That is--several organisms that are morphologically identical with one another in terms of phenotypic traits, but are substantially different and decidedly distinct genetically. In this case geneticists have recently uncovered no less than six[6] 'cryptic species' [genetically speaking] of giraffes, all hiding behind a single phenotype [species, taxon]. Where's the genetic determinism in that, I wonder?
Sadly, I didn't bookmark the the article, but you can google, 'cryptic species', if you don't believe me.
Well, that's that. So long for now.
Edited by Elmer, : typoes, clean-up

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by MartinV, posted 12-29-2007 4:28 AM Elmer has replied
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2007 11:03 AM Elmer has not replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 22 of 49 (444369)
12-29-2007 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by molbiogirl
12-20-2007 3:28 PM


molbiogirl
Many diseases, including hemophilia and cystic fibrosis, result when a single defective gene causes the production of a non-functional protein.
If you carry the defective gene, you suffer the consequences.
How is this not a causal relationship?
Yet according the article Elmer posted elsewhere (prof. Strohman about epigenetics) these rare genetic diseases are responsible for "less than 2% of out total disease load". So these casual relationiships are perhaps more rare exceptions which should be extrapolated - as causes - to other diseases very carefully.
http://www.thecomplementarynature.com/...nomics~dynamics.pdf

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by molbiogirl, posted 12-20-2007 3:28 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 23 of 49 (444370)
12-29-2007 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Elmer
12-28-2007 6:12 PM


Elmer, you forgott quantum mechanics. The determinism is dead more then 100 years in physics. Oddly enough it survives still in neodarwinism, I agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Elmer, posted 12-28-2007 6:12 PM Elmer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Elmer, posted 12-29-2007 4:09 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 24 of 49 (444487)
12-29-2007 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by MartinV
12-29-2007 4:28 AM


Hi martin--
Elmer, you forgott quantum mechanics. The determinism is dead more then 100 years in physics. Oddly enough it survives still in neodarwinism, I agree.
Well, I sort of referred to it when I said, " And that is called material, mechanical, 'Determinism'. The idea that every outcome is the inevitable and inescapable product of initial physical conditions. [aside--see 'quantum indeterminacy' and 'chaos theory' for a contrasting view]".
Never mind, it bears repeating, and expanding. Thanks for the input.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by MartinV, posted 12-29-2007 4:28 AM MartinV has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 25 of 49 (444508)
12-29-2007 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Elmer
12-19-2007 7:09 PM


I think that just about everybody has now denied and distanced themselves from the old, 'genetic determinism' model
I'm sure some people have distanced themselves away from genetic determinism, but only because of the awkward philosophical/social/political issues it raises.
I'm finding it impossible to continue this thread, mostly because most responses show no understanding whatsoever of the concept of determinism, how it applies in biology [as genetic determinism/biological determinism] , or even the difference between determinism in evolution and determinism in inheritance. So, unless and until some member posts an informed, well-supported, well-reasoned, response to my opinions, I guess I'll just let this one slide.
Not wanting to be accused of this, I thought I'd include the thoughts of someone who could be said to be informed:
quote:
I recognise that philosophically speaking determinism is a difficult issue, which philosophers have been talking about for centuries. My point was that genetics has nothing to contribute to that philosophical argument. The argument will go on, and it is an interesting and important argument, but if you are a determinist you are a determinist, and adding the word genetic doesn’t make it any more deterministic. There is nothing peculiar about genetic determinism which makes it particularly sinister.
Also, when somebody announces that they have discovered a gene for let’s say aggression or religion, this does not have a deterministic force in the sense of irrevocable determinism, any more than discovering that a particular chemical in a diet has an effect. You might find that people who eat red peppers are more aggressive than those who don’t. I have no evidence for that, but you could find some such thing, and that’s not deterministic either. That too will be a statistical effect that will be added in with all the other effects. Genes are to be thought of like that. They are statistical contributors to a complex, causal web - and that’s all that matters for natural selection. The only reason that Darwinians talk about genes so much is that in order to do Darwinism they have to be looking at those aspects of individual variation in populations which are genetically influenced. So we’re not talking determinism, we’re talking statistics, we’re talking analysis of variance, we’re talking heritability.
--Richard Dawkins
Phenotypical traits of a population can change through non-genetic factors...but this is not evolution. For example the height of mankind has varied through (recent) time - mostly due to health and dietary changes in the population over time rather than because of gene frequency changes.
If 'genes' are only the 'dry timber' wrt evolution and development, then what is the 'flame'?
I'm a minor insurance geek - so your analogy appealed to me. When seeking proximate cause to decide if a party is liable there are some interesting things to keep in mind.
Let us say that there were two small flames and both fires would have caused the same amount of damage. In this case we'd probably hold both flame starters liable for the fire. These are sufficient combined causes.
Also there could be a situation where two acts of negligence were needed to happen for the injury to result. Courtesy of wiki, imagine a situation where a workman leaves a manhole cover off and a driver then bumps into a pedestrian who then falls down the manhole. Both situations were required to cause the accident. These are concurrent causes.
Without environmental influence, genes could not be expressed. Without genes, there would be nothing to express. They are both needed and are both important - they are concurrent causes. Different environmental factors will have influence that varies with magnitude, as will different genes. Some scientists have offered the view that the other genes that any given gene interacts with to create bodies are also part of its environment.
Interesting stuff.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Elmer, posted 12-19-2007 7:09 PM Elmer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Elmer, posted 12-29-2007 9:41 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 32 by Elmer, posted 12-30-2007 6:02 PM Modulous has replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 26 of 49 (444565)
12-29-2007 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Modulous
12-29-2007 5:36 PM


Hi modulous;
Welcome to the debate. I wrote a long response to Dawkins' sophistry, tore him a new one, as they say, then hit the wrong button, and lost it. So forget about him. His stuff adds up to an admission that 'genetic determinism' is false, and that is all that really matters.
I'm a tad frustrated right now, after losing all that work. I won't do it over, but I'll get back to your own contribution ASAP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2007 5:36 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2007 9:20 AM Elmer has replied
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-30-2007 9:36 AM Elmer has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 27 of 49 (444666)
12-30-2007 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Elmer
12-29-2007 9:41 PM


So forget about him. His stuff adds up to an admission that 'genetic determinism' is false, and that is all that really matters.
Actually, it seems to indicate that your concept of 'genetic determinism' is wrong. I look forward to seeing what you have to say regarding my assertion on this matter and the explanation I gave in my post.
Welcome to the debate. I wrote a long response to Dawkins' sophistry, tore him a new one, as they say, then hit the wrong button, and lost it.
You'll excuse me if I don't take your word for the efficacy of your argument. However, I sympathize with your frustration. Maybe you are interested in a post I wrote a while ago: Save your posts, plugin?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Elmer, posted 12-29-2007 9:41 PM Elmer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Elmer, posted 12-30-2007 4:32 PM Modulous has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 49 (444669)
12-30-2007 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Elmer
12-29-2007 9:41 PM


His stuff adds up to an admission that 'genetic determinism' is false, and that is all that really matters.
Funny way you use the word "admission".
OF COURSE genetic determinism is false. Every biologist will be happy to "admit" that. This is taught in any textbook covering genetics.
If Dawkins' "sophistry" adds up to saying "that genetic determinism is false", in what way is it "sophistry"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Elmer, posted 12-29-2007 9:41 PM Elmer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 49 (444678)
12-30-2007 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Elmer
12-28-2007 6:12 PM


Sibling Species
It seems that geneticists have invented ...
... discovered ...
something new ...
... which biologists have known about for centuries ...
Something called, 'cryptic species' ... Where's the genetic determinism in that, I wonder?
The genes determine which species in a cryptic species complex an organism belongs to. Since you ask.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Elmer, posted 12-28-2007 6:12 PM Elmer has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 30 of 49 (444685)
12-30-2007 11:39 AM


An observation
The OP uses the expression "direct, immediate and compelling efficient cause." That's a seriously outdated notion, inconsistent with what we know from modern science (or even from classical Newtonian science).
As best I can tell, the thread originator is trying to demonstrate what can be proved from faulty premises (i.e. premises based on that outdated notion of causation). The responders are not accepting the faulty premises.
The overall result is that people are talking past one another. No real discussion is going on.
Edited by nwr, : spelling

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024