Criticizing neo-Darwinism

ah yes, I agree with you then. I believe it's more than just an "interesting wrinkle on the surface of neo-Darwinism theory," it's a major contribution (Mayr, Gould, and Eldridge) to neo-Darwinism and how we understand diversity and speciation.

quote:

---

Do you feel it isn't completely within the neo-Darwinian framework because Gould mentions Goldshmit work in the original PE paper?

---

I can't find any reference to Goldschmidt in Eldredge & Gould's 1972 paper. They do refer to one saltationist - de Vries - but state that his ideas "collapsed" when neo-Darwinism took over.Eldredge and Gould firmly state that their beliefs are based on Mayr's theory of allopatric speciation in the original paper.

I never did read the paper (as I probably should one of these days). I just guessed it was in the original paper because of some of his later statements like, but that was from a later paper I see.

An alternative theory to how neo-Darwinism is seen by non-biologists? What would that be like and why would you want it?Is your issue with neo-darwinism or how it is seen? All you seem to have done in this thread is re-iterate the usual ID/creationist canards, i.e. intermediates must be detrimental and that you are somehow magically gifted with being able to exactly calculate the precise probability of a trait arising and know when it is too improbable to be realistically considered.If you insist that strict neo-darwinism in the terms of the models formulated by Fisher, Haldane and Wright or simple derivatives of those models must explain the evolutionary history of life on earth then no biologist in his right mind is going to claim that that is the case. 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.But to leap from that to somehow taking as a priori givens some highly contentious assumptions is another thing entirely. One is a reasonable acknowledgements of the limitations of a specific set of models, the other is a set of straw men that suggest that you spend more time reading criticisms of evolution than you do reading about evolutionary biology. Perhaps if you plan to come up with an alternative you should spend some more time familiarising yourself with what it is you are developing an alternative to.TTFN,WK

If you want to know what will be in my alternative theory, why not wait for it, instead of prejudging.I'm not going to respond in detail to your post. To me, it comes across as ad hominem. You accuse me of things I have not said and do not believe.Creationists sometimes argue that evolution is a religion, a set of dogmas protected against criticism. In my estimation, you just provided them with ammunition for that argument.I suggest you take some time to read the criticisms of evolutionary psychology that holmes posts. For a recent thread, see Laws of Attraction: The seduction of Evolutionary Psychology?, and you can find links to other such threads in the OP. Evolutionary psychologists are not creationists. They are also not biologists. From reading those threads, you might get some idea as to what they take neo-Darwinism to be saying.

You may not believe them but I am sure you said them. You have clearly stated your problems with detrimental intermediates... Which incorporates within itself your own assessments of probabilities .You specifically mentioned Waddingtons 'strict' sense of neo-Darwinism and its ineffectiveness as an explanation for the evolution of life on Earth but the only specific criticisms you have used, and which you have not felt any need to support with evidence, have been the standard ID canards.You seem to have taken on Syamsu's mantle of trying to reinvent the wheel simply to make it more palatable for those who can't be bothered to actually find out what the current state of evolutionary biology is actually like. What should neo-Darwinism rely on the understanding of evolutionary psychologists? Should I take a quick survey of the opinions of pastry chefs at the same time? Now that sounds more like an ad hominem, don't address my criticisms but instead claim that my raising them somehow suggests I have a dogmatic set of views protected against criticism.Have you considered that the degree of protection from criticism is not conferred by an ironclad shell of dogma but because the specific criticisms with which you are trying to broach them are the equivalent of a couple of stale twinkies.TTFN,WK

Wow! You have lifted that out of context. It was from Message 11, where I was responding to a comment about IC (irreducible complexity). The "assessment" of probabilities comes from the definition of IC. It is not my assessment of probabilities.You raised the same issue in Message 17, in the form of a question. I already answered in Message 20, pointing out that this comes from the definition of IC. I really don't understand why you are bringing it up again in Message 49 and Message 51. Your charges against me are false and unwarranted. I'm not sure where you get that. I expect that creationists will find the current neo-Darwinian theory more palatable than any alternative I would suggest. I am not arguing palatability. I'm amazed that you are making such an argument. It is surely part of the responsibility of scientists to educate the public on their science. And if the public seriously misunderstands a scientific theory, that is surely a problem for science. Evolutionary psychologists ought to have some ability to read technical literature, and they are not creationists, so how they understand neo-Darwinism is an indicator of how the public sees it. I'm not sure where you are getting that analysis.Your criticism included false charges against me. That's ad hominem. I answered that criticism by stating that the charges were false.My comment was about your post, not about you as a person. I never suggested that you have dogmatic views. Rather, I said that your post will be seen as ammunition by those who do argue that evolution is based on dogma. I really don't see any ad hominem in my comment.This message has been edited by nwr, 03-24-2006 04:37 PM

quote:

---

Wow! You have lifted that out of context. It was from Message 11, where I was responding to a comment about IC (irreducible complexity). The "assessment" of probabilities comes from the definition of IC. It is not my assessment of probabilities

---

Which definition of IC ? Behe's original version, Dembski's modified version of that or Behe's later definition (which s almost completely different and never adequately quantified).And if the assessment of the probabilities is not yours, then whose is it ?e

I was going by the one RAZD posted recently at Message 101.

That was Behe's original version, and the one that most closely approaches a useful definiton. There is nothing in that definition that seems to pose a problem for neo-Darwinism, what is there that you consider problematic?TTFN,WK

Sigh!We have been through this before. Why not just read the thread, and see what I have already posted. It is only at 56 messages.The comments on IC appear to have resulted from my casual mention of it in Message 3.

quote:

---

Parasomnium writes:

​

A long cumulation of these changes naturally leads to extremely well adapted, very complex structures.

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.

---

This has since been taken way out of context.

Then contextualise it for us. You make a relatively specific claim and then say that we are taking you out of context when we ask for any basis for this claim rather than essentially personal incredulity, either your own or Michael Behe's if you prefer.Presumably we continue to take it out of context when you restate it practically verbatim in message 11 ... but for some reason you don't seem to feel there is any merit in actually finding out if you are right or not.TTFN,WK

If you think I made "a relatively specific claim" about IC, then you are taking it out of context.In Message 3, and requoted in Message 56 I was arguing that neo-Darwinism makes the evolving of complex structures seem implausible, and that's where creationists get their ideas on IC. To say it differently, I was talking about appearance - the impression that creationists get from neo-Darwinism.The text you quote from Message 11 was a continuation of the same discussion. The words "seem to be" should indicate that I was still talking about appearances. I have no particular interest in your opinion of the correctness or otherwise of claims that you falsely accuse me of making.

OK, so your claim does not directly follow from the definition.So, I must repeat the second question. If the probability assessment is not yours where did it come from ?From my own work in developing software (which could be considered a form of "descent with modification") I find that a sequence of simple changes, if continued, tends to produce complexity all too easily. Part of the discipline is attempting to forsee likely changes and preparing for them - and trying to avoid unnecessary complexity when changes are made. It can be hard work, as programs get extended and expanded. On older programs it is too often the case that an apparently reasonable change will have unforseen side-effects as a result.It seems to me that your claim about the probability reflects Behe's error of thinking about how designers work instead of thinking about about how evolution works. If a designer intended to achieve a particular result then they work directly towards it. But evolution is not working towards a particular goal and it does not care about taking a direct route. Thus, instead of looking at the direct route and arguing that since it is problematic evolution must have great difficulty producing this result - instead you must look at all the possible routes form your starting point and sum their probabilities.Worse still for your argument, even if that probability still comes out low, it wuld have to be a virtual impossiiblity for it to matter. There are many possible tracks for evolution. Some involve this species evolving diffeent mechanisms - which may well be irreducibly complex. Or the species might go extinct and a different species from a different lineage evolves to occupy the niche - and that, too, might include the development of irreducibly complex features. Looking at a single example is like looking at the result of 100 consecutive tosses of a coin - and arguing that since the sequence is improbable (p < 10^-30) it cannot be the case that it was produced by tossing coins. 

Which claim? Are you referring to the one I am falsely accused of making? Which probability assessment? Is that related to the claim I am falsely accused of making? I find it hilarious that you use a clear example of intelligent design as an analogy to demonstrate how complexity evolves. Which "claim about probability" are you talking about?The only thing I have said about IC, is that the people who use IC arguments get their idea from neo-Darwinism. I haven't suggested that the IC arguments are correct.