Long ago, long before I joined the evc bb, nwr started this thread, thusly--
quote:
Parasomnium nicely summarized the neo-Darwinian position I was criticizing, with
"Not wishing to blow my own horn, I must say I find nothing more plausible than the fact that, if hereditary information randomly changes, which is a fact, and if the environment can only sustain the better adapted, which is also a fact, then the environment can only sustain the better adapted, which is also a fact. A long cumulation of these changes naturally leads to extremely well adapted, very complex structures."
That's the account I find problematic. It is roughly the same as the "Selfish Gene" account popularized by Dawkins. While I find that account problematic, I do not question that evolution occurred. I just want a better formulation than that of traditional neo-Darwinism.
This topic is for discussing the problems with that particular neo-Darwinian account. It is not for arguing whether evolution happened or is happening.
This has since become a semi-dead thread, and 'nwr' has become inactive. I would like to revive it, if I may, with my take on the issue.
There is, of course, no requirement that anybody respond to my points, but I personally require that any responses that are directed at me be civil, courteous, and informative [i.e., more than vacuous gainsaying or falsified opinion repeated as if repetition would make it fact], else I'll simply ignore them. Indeed, I will follow my usual practice wrt to 'trolls' and 'flamers', and simply refuse to so much to read any subsequent posts with their monikers on them. There are already several in this forums who have earned this distinction in another thread. I will not read or respond to their stuff in this thread either, although I'm sure that at least some will post their characteristic replies to just about anything I say. Of course, others are free to respond to them, but if, in doing so, these others refer to me in insulting and disparaging ways, then I will ignore any further posts that they subsequently address to me.
To repeat what 'nwr' said, this thread is about critiqueing 'neo-darwinian theory', [more accurately 'fisherism' than 'darwinism'], something usually labelled 'the modern synthesis', or "RM+NS", or just plain, 'darwinism', and which was laid out by 'parasomnium [who is also listed as 'inactive'], above. Yes, modern evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond this 'neo-darwinian' stage, but the issue is not all modern evolutionary concepts, hypotheses, and understandings, but only those entailed by the forementioned hypotheseis, ['darwinism', also known as 'selectionism'], as defined by parasomnium.
My critique of the notion that 'parasomnium' finds "plausible" begins with his statement, " hereditary information randomly changes, which is a fact". There are two main 'sins of omission' in that statement. The fist is, that by failing to mention it, he implies that there are no 'no-random', i.e., intentional and systematic, teleological changes in genetic information. But that is not necessarily the case, and it is very important to any theory of evolutionary causation. I would assume that he did failed to mention non-random, non-accidental, organism-directed genetic information change, not through carelessness, but because he assumed that no such thing exists, at least insofaras neo-darwinian 'theory' is concerned. He also failed to take note that when speaking of changing information within a system, [such as a genome or organism], that information can be changed in any one of three ways--1/brand new information can be added to the total. 2/ old information can be totally lost, and 3/old information can be damaged and rendered partial and incomplete. Moreover, by making the cause of any of these changes a random, anomalous, irregulat, and unpredictably accidental one, he implies that change 1/ and change 3/ are identical; which is illogical, since less can never be more.
He then adds--"the environment can only sustain the better adapted, which is also a fact", but isn't. Not unless you play games with the words 'environment' and 'adapted', making them so general and all-encompssing as to become nebulous, meaningless and absurd. At which point his statement becomes the vacuous tautology that those that the enviroment sustains are the better adapted, and vice-versa. Which is perfectly "plausible", but silly. And rendered even sillier, unfortunately, by the inane ( but accidental, I'm sure) redundancy of the entire phrase, "if the environment can only sustain the better adapted, which is also a fact, then the environment can only sustain the better adapted, which is also a fact".
And finally, he says, "A long cumulation of these changes naturally leads to extremely well adapted, very complex structures." I belive that when he says, "naturally", he intends, "mechanically, deterministically", since that is the customary sense in which Materialists, Mechanists, Physicalists, Naturalists, and Positivists [i.e., Darwinists], use that word. But the notion that a series of accidental genetic changes confronted by a meaningless tautology is the cause and explanation for, "extremely well adapted, very complex structures", is at best dubious. It does not strike me as the least bit plausible.
More later.
™ Version 4.2
