Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Criticizing neo-Darwinism
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 61 of 309 (298032)
03-25-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by nwr
03-25-2006 9:50 AM


Re: Why prejudge?
Th "assessment of pprobabilities" referred to is the one that you claimed was the result of the definition of IC in Message 52. You claim that is isn't yours but so far I have seen no source for it and this is the second time you have refused to give one.
And while you may consider my point "hilarious" that is because you are missigg the point that the complexity is an unwanted byproduvt of modifying the system - that it is produced in spite of the best efforts of the writer's intelligence. not as a dire ct result of them. If you accept that evolution can modify systems to work in different ways then why should it not produce complexity in an analagous way ?
And if you can't remember the context of the discussion you could always follow the links back t o see what you wrote. I shouldn't have to remind you of the content of your own posts.
And the IC argument is not based on neo-Darwinism for the reasons I gave. It implicitly relies on the fallacious assumption that evolution is goal-directed, an assumption that is directly contrary to neo-Darwinian theory.. As for your own view on the matter I remind you of Message 11
This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-25-2006 10:03 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nwr, posted 03-25-2006 9:50 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Brad McFall, posted 03-27-2006 1:11 PM PaulK has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 62 of 309 (298419)
03-26-2006 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by nwr
03-21-2006 2:06 PM


More muddled thoughts.
nwr, msg 12 writes:
In my opinion, neodarwinism explain extinction rather well. But it doesn't do so well at accounting for novelty.
I don't quite see it that way. To my mind "neo-Darwinism" explains the gradual accumulation of genetic diversity within a population, so there is (all else being equal) more diversity the longer a species is around, and the more spread out it is, which can easily lead to {genetic novelty} changes occurring in pockets within the population as a whole.
But genetics doesn't explain the mechanism of selection beyond basic organism viability -- basically, if the organism is alive then the genes have done what they can for it. At this point they wait for the organism to do its job (of surviving to reproduce) while they prepare for the next generation. They are not involved in the action of selection, because the genes are the same whether the selection event(s) happen or not.
A selection event could go one way and select one subgroup of organisms, or it could go another way and select an entirely different subgroup. A drought selects finches with big beaks to eat tougher (dried) seeds, while lush weather selects finches with finer beaks.
(Just a moment...).
You need to consider ecology (the relation of species to other species and to the {local} environment) to explain {eliminations of individuals (or groups of individuals)}. When conditions within an ecosystem (species can inhabit more than one) reach levels outside the experience of {past ecology} for a species (ancestors), conditions for which the individuals are, or are not, (genetically\physiologically) equipped, and those individuals that aren't sufficiently equipped are eliminated.
Such eliminations may result in only sub-groups with novelty features - selecting the novelty, but not making it - even if the novelty feature has nothing to do with the {group} survival.
What makes the feature "novel" is the elimination of the other groups - and the novelty is in the eye of the observer that sees one genetic variation stand out as more novel than any other.
If we consider the Asian greenish warblers ring species:
http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~irwin/Greenish%20warblers.html
In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, and therefore these forms can be considered distinct species. The two forms are connected by a long chain of populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south, and traits change gradually through this ring of populations. There is no place where there is an obvious species boundary along the southern side of the ring.
In Siberia one form is {novel} compared to the other, but around the ring there is no such {novel} distinction, although there are (gradual) changes around the ring.
To then create the species differentiating novelty, it takes the elimination of intermediate forms, which can happen by the elimination of habitat for some intermediate form - or just for a path of interbreeding.
(Ibid)
Map of Asia showing the six subspecies of the greenish warbler described by Ticehurst in 1938. The crosshatched blue and red area in central Siberia shows the contact zone between viridanus and plumbeitarsus, which do not interbreed. Colors grade together where Ticehurst described gradual morphological change. The gap in northern China is most likely the result of habitat destruction.
Thus habitat destruction in one area can cause speciation in another area by breaking a genetic link, but the novelty of differences between the groups existed genetically before this happened.
Enough muddled rambling for now ...
Enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 03*26*2006 08:11 PM

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nwr, posted 03-21-2006 2:06 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by nwr, posted 03-27-2006 12:30 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 63 of 309 (298499)
03-27-2006 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by RAZD
03-26-2006 8:10 PM


Re: More muddled thoughts.
You need to consider ecology (the relation of species to other species and to the {local} environment) to explain {eliminations of individuals (or groups of individuals)}. When conditions within an ecosystem (species can inhabit more than one) reach levels outside the experience of {past ecology} for a species (ancestors), conditions for which the individuals are, or are not, (genetically\physiologically) equipped, and those individuals that aren't sufficiently equipped are eliminated.
That's one of the problems I see in neo-Darwinism. For it is usually stated on the assumption of a fixed ecology, with the species adapting to a fixed niche. IMO you need to model what happens with change of niche in order to account for the amount of novelty that we see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2006 8:10 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Wounded King, posted 03-27-2006 7:58 AM nwr has replied
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2006 9:37 PM nwr has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 64 of 309 (298561)
03-27-2006 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by nwr
03-27-2006 12:30 AM


Holey fitness lanscapes Batman!!
If you think about Sewall Wright's conceptualisation of the fitness landscape it is clear that neo-darwinism can easily acept changes in niches. In a limited system, such as a predator prey interaction, it might even be able to predict such changes and their repercussions.
Given a specific set of rules for 'hill - climbing' behaviour, which is essentially what models of selective factors are, on a fitness landscape then any change in the environment can be modelled by a change in that landscape and the subsequent modelling of the evolution will merely follow the 'hill - climbing' rules once again.
Of course you can't do this first unless you know exactly what the resultant selective pressures of your change are going to be.
Considering fitness landscapes might also obviate deviation into considerations of ID arguments based on IC.
As I see it your objection is essentially the issue of how a species, or a population, can move from one adaptive peak in a fitness landscape to another without passing 'downards' through an adaptive trough? Do you think that your objection could be characterised in this way?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by nwr, posted 03-27-2006 12:30 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by nwr, posted 03-28-2006 11:10 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 65 of 309 (298690)
03-27-2006 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by PaulK
03-25-2006 10:02 AM


prejudice vs error
PAUL I clearly UNDERSTAND finally what you represent. I think it was mistaken now. I do not have time to prepare this response in text net time so this will have to do till the weekend as I wish that NWR was, not... getting the wrong end of the discussion I know so well. All quotes are from the single source out of the UK at the bottom.
Where probability against religious asservation comes from
“We have still to consider the arguments from the association of particular probabilities with events and from the Uncertainty principle.
“Secondly, Born and the other statistical physicists consider themselves perfectly justified in associating definite probabilities with events while denying any causal basis for their occurrence. Is this legitimate?”
This is the same commitment biolgist’s justify contentiously that it was legit for physics it is legit for them.
“Secondly, apart from the legitimacy of associaiongn particular probabilities with events in the asbsece of assumption of causation, it seems to me that the whole theory of probability is ultimately founded on causal ideas- e.g. that white and red balls placed in a bag and shaken up shall continue to exist, shall remain red and white, shall collide with one abother according to rigid mechanical rules. If, instead of theorms about the sampling of balls in a bag he theory of probabiolity were founded on the samolign of electrons I an interference fringe, with a view to saying which came thought one slit and which through the toher, we should be unable to perfom the =task of distinguing them and ubnable therefore we should be unable to perform the task of distinguishing them and ubnable to derive any theory of probability at all.
The only way such a second”” can exist is if the measure in question contain the difference in the notion of cardinal and ordinal but the reconstruction of the author text with the philosophy of math requires that the membrane and electrolyte be replaced with the insulator and wire “electrotonically” no matter what the feedback through the supposed nich notion is was or will be. I have tried somewhat rather unsucceffully to convey how I think about this interference with impentribility under the octopus eye see other pic below. One has to go BACK from a thought such as Feynman’s or the interference in general to the THEORMS as they probably apply in biology to reach the nexus where ritual replaces asservation but then there IS some psychological fundament if not element involved etc.
This is wehere the suffiency of possible ID naming comes in and where NWR is being read beyond. But to get here on must undersand more than a parady of me for instance as Percy relayed etc. We MUST determine the probability. Therefore I questioned if ID had already such probability, ICR said no. AND THIS is what youall at EVC don’t understand. I don’t know why. NWR now has sustained the same difficulty I have over the years to get others to simply not transit across the cve divided but rather the show the evc leads sufficiently while not neceesarily to cve (and without necessary opposite polarization of the positions (in debate).
The third aspect of this is victum ization- I am a victim of a movement in academia coming to fuition in the early 1940s (twenty years before I was born) , “ A religious belief may have objective truth behind it; but at least we can say that few if any religious men realise that their own assertion of their convictions is closely parralled by neurotic behavior wher it has been clearly prooved that ritual and asservation are no proof of objective truth or of real motive”
In interview I had merely asserted that by reading the Federal papers the interviewee “could not say anything that might affect benefits”. I believe I did so. It was SSI rather, in letter and dollar value that determined what these so-called “benefits” were.
I, myself was in the process of explaining how (examined now in retrospect) the relation between disorder or disability had been applied to me clinically through such direct questioning of my person or me with “Have you ever thought that you were Jesus” etc. These medical records existed on me.
The records however originated involuntarily in fact and without proper distribution I contend evaluationally such that any finding beyond that of an extant disability, as occurred in the case, must be based on a REAL DISABILITY, not a ritual or an asservation. I do not dispute that indeed and indeeds done that some disability occurred because of failure to organize or order apparent truths in this case but in LEGAL FACT this action has already victimized me (my brother retains a family, a house and a sizable income despite there being little difference in education between the two of us). If I had gone to a less elite school OR had had the decision made in my state of residence it is unlikely that the series of events that entailed would not have occurred as they did as it was not the case that I needed to be where I was when I was still working on the ideas I will publish later.
Now for that part that was elide by the elite over I show somewhat sketchyliy below:
Fact or Value Speech by Brad McFall
A Persuasive Argument that the form of the content of Intelligent Design is a secular purpose thus potentially useful in developing the understanding of both Creation and Evolution.
Introduction-
Intelligent Design is the most recent wrinkle in the on-going social controversy between evolution and creation supporters. It grew out of a religious response, in part, to a Supreme Court Ruling in 1987 that the attempts of the Louisiana Legislature to add information to the curriculum so as to permit equal time for the teaching of evolution and creation in the schools was unconstitutional. This new movement in creationism does not say that God created as the older creationisms have done explicitly, but simply says that life is too complex to have arisen by chance/random processes and instead must have been designed. The presumption is that it is some God that did the design, but it might as well be a family of aliens outside our Galaxy. Anyway, the Courts in the US have heard this version of post60s revival of creationism but have not ruled in favor of the change from the older creationist thought, instead affirming in line with the Supreme Court that Intelligent Design known by internet enthusiats as ID is principally religious, the state courts have ruled no secular purpose for ID and thus Intelligent Desgin can not be taught in Public Schools. I will show that the process of naming that secular evolutionar theories themselves require provides at least the motivation for a secular purpose in the very form of any design complex enough to overdetermine life.
Body.
I. Positive Argument-The notion of design (describe) provides a basis for naming different than a purely chance random experimental process can provide. The motivation of ID may be applied to the secular context (protein naming) when it comes to the USE of naming to differentiate various boundaries in the change of one kind of creature after the other.
A. Bob Dylan’s Song- Man Gave Names to All the Animals- Give a few lines (first animal that man did name, second, animal that man did name . in the beginning long time ago . ) Granted this song is based on a religious concept from Adam and Eve but just think about the naming process. Say you see an evergreen and a deciduous tree (show Picture), what do you think to say on seeing them? What sounds would you make. If someone said “deciduous” then you associate that sound with the difference between that form and the other forms you might be seeing at the same time (the evergreens””).
B. Evolution has an order to names of creatures like this {Fish changed into Frogs into Turtles into Birds into Mammals}(show slides)
C. Biology has been a process of more and more detailed naming(show slides)
1.) THE CELL -gave us the concept of sex
2.) MITOCHODRIA - gave us the concept of
metabolism.
3.)AXON-DENDRITE -gave us the concept of communication among cells .
4)Current biology struggles to NAME protein complexes-
II.Negative Argument-
A.Materialist position - KW Craik wrote”A religious belief may have objective truth behind it; but at lest we can say that few if any religious men realize that their own assertion of their conviction is closely parralled by neurotic behavior where it has been clearly proved that ritual and asserveration are no proof of objective truth or real motive.”(Craik 97)
B.Criak’s real motive in calling attention to mental disability appears to hamstring the intelligent believers organization of thought but can be obviated if the “religious man” DOES realize as near as is scientifically possible how close his own conviction is to disabled behaviors. Intelligent design of the nervous system provides just this.
C.I am not going to go into the details but Criak had thought that it was better to think of the communication in the brain between the axons and dendrites I showed above, (show slide again) was closer to the truth if thought in terms of membranes and electrolytes rather than insulators and wires but I think I can show that scientifically this is mistaken. Criak goes into a long discussion of verbal accuracy like in the deciduous tree example comparing that to the sound on the telephone. If I proved that, There is a better science. I have written 3-4 times a day on a web site called EVCFORUM just this and have received positive feedback from a professor in Moscov of physical chemistry , then the the motive for ID is open, religious or not to assist the secular process of naming the proteins involved and being genetically engineered.
III. This attempt to show that one may determinatively adjust current scientific discourse such that the negative position against truth behind religious belief if let free and so the positive process of preliminary naming (is a frog different than a toad?) can go forward without potentially prejudicial constraints (by limiting to only naturalistic naming and necessity) is an improvement of this over current use of philosophy to support the culturally the exportaion of ID beyond separated church and state instutuionalizations.
I agree with self-proclaimed converted atheist Will Provine of Cornell (and teacher of Evolution) that the ID explanation giving the same depth of naming to each and every molecular combination in an organism to be a very BORING science of biochemistry. The latest test of ID was in Dover PA where Behe, author of Black Box was primarily on testimony but the aspect of his approach was that has been questioned that all protein complexes simply get “named” as “irreducibly complex” without degrees of namable differentiations in the complexity. It was not advanced beyond , as I have suggested here and thus the judge, a Christian did could only conclude that the notion itself must only be religious thus it was ruled against. I find that by attempting to name these integrable components necessarily and definitively to be an advance even though the names might be suffiently no different than the names man gave to the animals themselves as in the way Dylan memorialized Genesis.
Conclusion - Naming After The Kinds can be applied to the causality of the effect before the species is named populationally in its kind. Thus ID can be available outside of religious declinations to assist if not in the motivation actually in a legitimate motive for the linguistic connection that associates the symbol the name reifies where current genetic engineering has its object of protein complexes and the systems that express them. The aesthetic considerations of design and form, whether god given or not are thus available for discourse in experimental philosophy and the only impediment (formerly the association of pathology with religious belief) is removed as an inaccurate portrayal of the development of language use in man. I recommend that IDers move proactively in this direction rather than remain defensive and strong in the principle and powers of their own righteousness.
Works Cited
Craik K.W. The Nature of Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943.
If an admin finds this premature, then delete. This is not my custard pie.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-27-2006 01:12 PM
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-27-2006 01:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 03-25-2006 10:02 AM PaulK has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 66 of 309 (299137)
03-28-2006 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by nwr
03-27-2006 12:30 AM


Muddled fantasies?
...in order to account for the amount of novelty that we see.
BUT
Fitness selection is only part of the equation. The challenge (mr phelps, should you choose to take it) is not only to survive but to reproduce.
Sexual selection is responsible for {some? most? all?} of the really remarkable features seen in species. Sexual selection can be caught in a feedback loop that emphasises certain characteristics that may have little or no (or negative) survival value - the peacock tail.
Personally I think normal sexual selection tends to select for stasis - picking most average individuals for most reproduction interactions - but the average values only apply to immediate population boundaries. Thus each of the main niches with the greenish warbler populations tend to be fairly hoomogeneous and thus make up the 6 varieties (subspecies) with the final two populations not recognizing the other as potential mates - sexually deselected.
Sexual selection is not dependent on ecology or periodic survival challenges to change a species over time.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by nwr, posted 03-27-2006 12:30 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by nwr, posted 03-28-2006 11:15 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 67 of 309 (299152)
03-28-2006 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Wounded King
03-27-2006 7:58 AM


Re: Holey fitness lanscapes Batman!!
As I see it your objection is essentially the issue of how a species, or a population, can move from one adaptive peak in a fitness landscape to another without passing 'downards' through an adaptive trough? Do you think that your objection could be characterised in this way?
Not really.
Let's suppose that north America heats up with global warming. The deer can undergo genetic change to adapt to the warmer climate. Or the deer can just migrate north. Neo-Darwinism tends to imply the first of these, and ignore the second.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Wounded King, posted 03-27-2006 7:58 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Wounded King, posted 03-29-2006 3:51 AM nwr has replied

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


Message 68 of 309 (299153)
03-28-2006 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by RAZD
03-28-2006 9:37 PM


Re: Muddled fantasies?
Sexual selection is responsible for {some? most? all?} of the really remarkable features seen in species.
I have never found these "sexual selection" accounts to be persuasive.
Natural selection is supposed to be non-intentional. Once you introduce sexual selection, you introduce intentions. If you want to avoid talking of intentions, you have to say that the apparent intentions have a purely biological cause, but then you should be finding that cause and not pointing to the sexual selection.
I think you would do better to say that the peacock tail is a spandrel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2006 9:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2006 2:03 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 03-29-2006 9:17 PM nwr has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 69 of 309 (299198)
03-29-2006 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by nwr
03-28-2006 11:15 PM


Re: Muddled fantasies?
Your arguments are becoming increasingly bizarre.
quote:
Let's suppose that north America heats up with global warming. The deer can undergo genetic change to adapt to the warmer climate. Or the deer can just migrate north. Neo-Darwinism tends to imply the first of these, and ignore the second.
Neo-Darwinism doesn't assume that the second case doesn't or cannot happen. If it is ignored it is ignored because it does not result in evolutionary change and is irrelevant to the actual study in question.
quote:
Natural selection is supposed to be non-intentional. Once you introduce sexual selection, you introduce intentions.
But not a conscious decision to select for a trait. Rather a sexual preference appears in a population and spreads (without intention) and that this results in more selection (which can be no more intentional than the existence of the sexual preference). Only if you assume that the sexula preference itself is intentional - and indeed intended to produce a selective effect - could your objection make sense. But I see no reason to assume that peahens deliberately bred their species to foster showy tails in peacocks, because I see no reason to assume that they are mentally capable of making such a decision. But that is what your objection - if it were taken seriosuly - would entail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by nwr, posted 03-28-2006 11:15 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 70 of 309 (299209)
03-29-2006 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by nwr
03-28-2006 11:10 PM


Re: Holey fitness lanscapes Batman!!
You seem to have suddenly decided to discuss a completely different topic entirely.
As PaulK so cogently points out, if the only change that is going on is in the location of the deer then there is no evolution going on. If you want to model the genetic changes in respose to differing selective pressures on the deer population as they migrate then you can do that as I described previously.
As the geography and local environment contain many factors which will affect selection there must be some clear mappings between features of a true local landscape and environment with those of the fitness landscape. Your proposal seems to be that the deer are moving over the actual landscape in such a way as to maintain the same position in the fitness landscape as they currently hold.
You seem to want neo-darwinism to do much more than it has ever claimed to be able to. In fact you seem more to want some sort of grand unified theory of biology.
TTFN,
WK
*edited to change environment to landscape sice I am talking about fitness landscapes, I think I automatically changed it to evironment while typing due to some ingrained reluctance to use the word twice in the one sentence.*
This message has been edited by Wounded King, 29-Mar-2006 01:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by nwr, posted 03-28-2006 11:10 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 03-29-2006 7:41 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 72 by Brad McFall, posted 03-29-2006 7:48 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 77 by nwr, posted 03-30-2006 12:48 AM Wounded King has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 71 of 309 (299252)
03-29-2006 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Wounded King
03-29-2006 3:51 AM


Re: Holy Hyperventilating Hotties, Batman!!
(there's an image to give sexually selected human males a bit of a rise)
nwr is just saying that evolution to match a changing environment is one option, death is another and
Your proposal seems to be that the deer are moving over the actual landscape in such a way as to maintain the same position in the fitness environment as they currently hold.
is another.
If global warming is slow enough then wouldn't the environment "migrate" north so the deer could just follow it? Certainly we can see this occurring.
The basic issue of nwr's post to me was that evolution was not always the response to stimulii. If other options are available some populations will take advantage of them, and this is particularly true if the species has diversified into a number of environments where one is impacted and another isn't.
Now I have to go review some images ...

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Wounded King, posted 03-29-2006 3:51 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 72 of 309 (299255)
03-29-2006 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Wounded King
03-29-2006 3:51 AM


Re: Holey fitness lanscapes Batman!!
While NWR may not be seeking a GUTofBiology, I do not think it would be a suprise that I, BSM, do seek to remove the Haekelian stomach ache that biology has suffered, even into the current 2000s...In truth I do understand the point that you make to NWR but if NWR was more than sarcastically suggesting a spandrel for the tail of peacock then I think the particular words he is choosing do require a bit more discussion.
There is no doubt that PaulK's reframing of sexual selection (we must recall that NWR is responding to RAZD etc) is on subject but it seems to me that there IS some real problem (look at how DS Wilson thinks of religion and evolution)that is more or less "masked" between the issues of group selection and sexual selection that could indicate that NWR and PAULK were simply speaking past each other. This, that indeed IF (the artifical selection of the deer to turn a different direction locomotionally north is not simply an apparent matching of fitness and geography(which you correctly called for a point of order on) but IS because girl deer happen to always be down sent from males which happens to point north regardless of warming etc. The scenario for intention still seems to apply if natural selection is supposed to be absent of intention itself.
The whole and real difficulty in discussing this any further than where the thread is just now, becomes now less about where cve might have overstepped evc but whether we can all agree on what level of brain power equivalence certain creatures posses and that is something all of us (RAZD and ME, You and NWR, PaulK and who knows who) all differ somewhat on. Agassiz differed from Darwin or Gould etc. But yes it would be "a different topic" than from where it started, but can you blame NWR from getting more particular or specific?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Wounded King, posted 03-29-2006 3:51 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
CCXC
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 309 (299385)
03-29-2006 3:03 PM


might be of interest...
here is an interesting debate that includes criticisms of the modern theory of Evolution/Neo-Darwinism.
it is the top link in the External Links
"Video of Dr. Wells debating Evolution and Intelligent Design."
http://www.discovery.org/...dia/Uncommon_Knowledge_Wells.wmv
there we go, sorry about that
This message has been edited by CCXC, 03-29-2006 03:21 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 03-29-2006 3:09 PM CCXC has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 74 of 309 (299387)
03-29-2006 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by CCXC
03-29-2006 3:03 PM


Re: might be of interest...
I'm wondering why you didn't link the link, instead of a link to a wiki article that has the link.
You know, people change wiki articles. Anybody at all can just rewrite the article. Maybe the next time you visit the article the link you tried to point us to won't even be there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by CCXC, posted 03-29-2006 3:03 PM CCXC has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 03-29-2006 5:45 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 75 of 309 (299429)
03-29-2006 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by crashfrog
03-29-2006 3:09 PM


Re: might be of interest...
Discovery.org changes it's links too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 03-29-2006 3:09 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024