Criticizing neo-Darwinism

I just want to say (before Percy finds another bullshit excuse for suspending me again) that this is one of the best posts I have ever read here from a evolutionist or anyone for that matter.I realize it was a long time ago, and a lot has changed here, but this is what I thought this forum originally was. Great post.

Well first, I am not very concerned with what name tag people choose to wear on their shirts all day long. If you like to be called an evolutionist, you can be called that, it is irrelevant to me. At least you understand that even while wearing your name tag, you still are allowed to think and question (the true definition of the skeptic, not the definition that has been hijacked by atheists.)Of course there are problems with the neo-Darwinian model of evolution for explaining the complexity of life and you articulated some of those problems quite well.The thing is, as soon as you start changing the paradigm, and loosen your grip on the classic neo-Darwinian model of randomness plus selection you allow all kinds of crows into your cellar that atheists adamantly do not want to let in-and that is why guys like Dawkins refuse to budge, and guys like PZ Myers are caught in a trap that they either don't realize or just don't want to admit. Because without this critical component of random mutations, this throwing out of the word "synthesis" can't keep the crows out. What is the synthesis? No one knows. No one can define it. How many aspects of change does it include? What are the origins of these mechanisms? Are some inherent? Does there become a point when we stop throwing in new elements into this stew we named synthesis? Or is it endless; can we just keep adding more and more complexity to development and just call it synthesis without taking a close hard look to what does this all mean? This is what honest scientists have to ask, and MacNeil and Moran are not the only ones.What if the modern model of evolutionary theory completely lost the random mutation aspect at its core or the selfish gene? What if all the evidence keeps piling up in the "synthesis" department, and keeps falling out of the classic Darwinian model. We are already halfway there, and it does not look like it is going to be going back the other way anytime soon. Every atheist on the planet needs that core in tact or there is nothing left to hang onto. You can't go any further without it. You can't just say synthesis and hope that no one notices.And let's be honest here, you can sense the near panic levels of discussion most of the people on this board and others have when approaching this subject. If you step back and look at some of the tone, do these people sound like they are seeking the truth, pondering the way, or do they just sound like people desperately attempting to save as many souls for their cause as they can? Do you think Wounded King is even aware of what he is saying when he writes: Wow, Do you think he almost wished he could figuratively grab those words and take them back after he wrote them, or is he just caught in the trap of someone with a science background but without a philosophical one? Do you think he is going to stick by those words, or will he try to run from them when confronted with what that means? And did you notice how he was trying to be critical of Behe for adapting his meaning of IC, but he sees no such problem with evolutionists rewriting their theory practically daily. If neo-Darwinism can't explain it, most atheists are smart enough to know that they have nowhere else to turn. That's why you can be darn sure they are not going to let it go, no matter what the evidence says.It even sounded to me like Wounded King was basically just trying to say to you, "Hey we don't need to explain ourselves, we are experts and you are an idiot" and not much else-but he pulled up just short of that, I guess because you wear the right name tag.You brought up some honest points. There are some huge fudge factors involved in some of these explanations (in all of them I contend). This fudge factor has now taken the ambiguous title of "synthesis"-as rubbery a scientific concept as one can find anywhere. It can explain everything because it means anything.So I don't mind which name tag you prefer-you can interpret the data yourself anyway you want. But I reject anyone trying to tell me what the data means. Especially when 7/8ths of the people here are not interested in what the data says, they are interested in selling a concept that gets harder and harder to sell every day.To me there are only a few people here whose posts are even worth reading if one wishes to be stimulated by thoughtful conversation (Wounded King is one despite his less than objective view in my opinion) I wasn't praising your point of view , but rather your ability to articulate it.Whatever you believe you believe, it doesn't matter to me.

If you want to run from your own remarks now, that's your choice. But if, as you said, traditional neo-Darwinism seems implausible to you, what do you have left?Its all well and good to say random mutations happen, and they are an important part. How important of a part are they? 20% of all the development of life as we see it? 30%? 10%? What's your preference? Now what do you want to do with the other 70%, 90%?You are in the same place PZ Myers is in. If it can't account for all, what accounts for the rest? Synthesis? Genetic drift? Or are you just willing to throw a whole bag of ideas out there and hope some of them seem more plausible-without saying where they came from?If you are a mathematician, do you want to give some percentages for what you believe in. If its not the selfish gene what is it? PZ Myers has a name, by virtue of his vitriol, and pig headed-ness. He doesn't have a theory for anything.Do you?

Sorry, but this is not one of your better posts. Parts are completely irrelevant to the discussion, and a lot of it is just nonsensical, and not really even coherent.I will start with your opening remarks. You say that NWR was using the neo-Darwiniism to refer to the mathematics of Sewall, Fisher and Haldane. That is simply not correct based on any reasonable reading of his text. He stated in the opening and subsequent posts quite a number of reasons why the ND theory is not a very strong theory to explain novel features, and the complex development of life. To read into this that he is only speaking of some mathematical formulas is not only inaccurate but hard to understand where you are getting this interpretation. He stately clearly that the modern ND theory simply doesn't look strong. if he has some other definition of what he meant by the ND theory or a version of an alternate theory that is stronger, I don't see anywhere that he has mentioned that. Here you have not even understood simple English curiously. Of course you didn't call him an idiot directly, which is exactly why I never said you called him that directly. I said you stopped short of that, and yet you even are repeating here that "I doubt anyone reading this thread could fail to see how idiotic I thought many of the things nwr was saying were however..." yes, this is precisely what I said!, so why did you waste time trying to refute what I said by confirming what I said? Nonsensical.To continue, do you believe in only gradual evolution, because you are now asking NWR if he believes the IC can coexist with gradual evolution? or do you accept that evolution may or may not be gradual, as the recent modern synthesis is suggesting, in which case it makes me wonder why you asked NWR this question which you yourself don't even necessarily believe in. Its not clear? I think its pretty dam clear, but you are struggling with sentences tonight for some reason. I will repeat exactly what it means. When someone says QUOTE: "Neo-darwinism can model a process of evolution and make predictions in line with that model, it has never claimed to be able to model or explain the entire evolutionary history of life on earth." the obvious question is what explains the rest of the evolutionary history of life on Earth for God's sake!And frankly WK you have gone on and on in these boards claiming people just don't understand what the modern synthesis says, without ever trying to actually say what the modern synthesis does say! If people aren't getting what it says, then its because you are unable to adequately explain what it does say. That is either your fault because you can't explain it, or because no one can explain what it says because it is undefinable and is as rubber as a ducky. This sentence makes no sense whatsoever. It is not even complete English. Evolutionary theory touches every aspect of what? Of evolutionary theory? You need an object for your subject if you expect to be understood.I also completely disagree with your attempts at explaining Behe's argument. What you have said is just false, but that's another topic.Overall, just not a good post by you at all I feel.

That's it? that's the best you are going to do?Aren't you even going to attempt to explain that if neo-Darwinism is in adequate to explain the development of novel features and the like, what is adequate to explain it?And if you are not even willing to quantify what role random mutations play in your mind, aren't you ate least going to explain what else you feel does play a role? Especially if it is somehow not included in your definition of the modern ND theory.The gist of your reply is simply that I am confused? Ok.As I said, go ahead and and believe what you want.

Its ok with me if you want to hang on to your beliefs even if the data said otherwise. But don't accuse me of being the one lacking an open mind. So I will put you down as one who supports wholeheartedly the teachings in school of both the strengths and the weaknesses, and the gaps of knowledge within the Darwinian evolutionary theory; along with the premise that at this current time, the ND theory can not explain the entire history of evolution. Glad to have you on board!

Oh, so this is what intellectualism looks like?Hmm...I'll take a pass then.

Well, don't go lacing up your slippers and pressing your tutu just yet there A.