Criticizing neo-Darwinism

Can you give any examples where this scenario exists?Also, are you being sincere with this thread, or are you messing with us? This "detrimental intermediate" thing is a classic creationist strawman, as you must know.

Okay, maybe I'm just not understanding what you mean by "neo-Darwinism." This term is often used loosely to include, essentially, the whole of modern synthesis. How are you using it, exactly? I am not aware of any "neo-Darwinist" account such as this. I think you need to show that such an account actually exists (other than as a creationist strawman) before you present it as a problem.(edited to fix plural/singular disagreement)This message has been edited by Belfry, 03-22-2006 09:13 PM

Or maybe a better question is, what in evolutionary theory would you say falls outside of "neo-Darwinism?" How does it differ from the modern synthesis?

As usual, I find your postmodern writing style rather obfuscated. In any case, my question wasn't "is there any line of evolutionary theory outside of neo-Darwinism." I was simply trying to get nwr clarify how he was defining "neo-Darwinism" in this thread, and thought that my second question might offer a better way for him to clarify.For example, at one point (in Message 13) nwr suggests that his "preferred alternative theory" (apparently in contrast to neo-Darwinism) "predicts punctuated equilibria as a significant mode of speciation. It predicts that novelty will arise.". If neo-Darwinism, in nwr's thinking, excludes these concepts, then I don't know of any modern biologists who are neo-Darwinists. It is a concept built of straw.{edit: closed parentheses}This message has been edited by Belfry, 03-23-2006 08:34 AM

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?

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

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.

Thanks for the links, Brad, I'm always looking for more to read... or more to pile onto my "to read" stack, anyway.BTW, I grew up in Ithaca, as a "faculty brat." My dad taught Entomology at Cornell.