I can 'speak' "to" the quote somewhat.
In THE DIALECTICAL BIOLOGIST (with Levin
http://dannyreviews.com/h/The_Dialectical_Biologist.html) and elsewhere Richard set up differential equations that showed how "standard" evolutionary theory (probably what is denotable via words used, "Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular"," that not exactly the situation ","created the conditions for natural selection ", "quantified so", “observations about nature that”, “is then”,” because”) needed to be replaced with (extended, post-synthesis, evolutionary theory) where Organisms construct Environments and Environments ”construct’ Organisms creating what has come to be discussed as the O-E(organism-environment) match among niche contructivits(see NICHE CONSTRUCTION
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~seal/niche/).
That is how Lewontin can be skeptical but be confident with the phrases, “
Now I tried to figure out just what this notion materializes to in the one converstation I ever had with Richard Lewontin. It is clear to me that he may have understood by now that the way he responded to me in the mid80s was inadequate and THE REASON - “space and time” themselves.
What was *really* the background of evolutionary theory discussions IN THE 80s %was not% simply the content of the new then “Bradford Books” publishing attempts and the simple separation of “molecular evidence for evolution” but the internalization that “Tertiary” rather than “Pleistocene” time coordinated the “space and time” of form-making in its best spatial evolution internalization.
This problem continues precisely at the juncture that I struggle to express my own opinions. Less because of metaphysics but more because the “purpose” is never made as obvious as it was mistakenly so thought in the past. THAT is an issue for both creationists and evolutionists and not one that be written for a consensus or horizon of all scientists. Lewontin may not “lie” in the sense that any use of “confidence” in a theory lies to some statistical extant (hence arguments about IQ etc.). I trust the thread is not about a simple split end or the hairy interpolation but much of EvC trailing discussions can often not be cut off by the local barber.
So, WHERE THE DIFFERENTIATION or dovetail IS, and in A PARTICULAR case of frequency and/or density dependent selection the SHAPE of the theoretical path through the space and time of evolutionary changes one struggles to separate the “conditions” of the environment from the “behavior” of organisms themselves via the semantic information across generations that divides differnently biotically from abiotically, exists.
Until this is completed, Lewontin seems correct to call afoul of the whipping boy of bad creationism but . .Gladyshev’s thermostat portends to displace this narration as the “conditions” in some generalized sense DO constrain the smooth (non catastrophic) O-E match. This is where I start to write .
I am not privy any longer to the inside workings of the elite establishment of biology but it is no secret that Richard was upset that many of the paths of 60s biology were never constructively pursued and part of the reason seems to not merely that molecular biology was too economically powerful but that evolutionists have failed to pass on a proper intuition to the next EVOLVING generation. Because there is no consensus that the Darwinian algorithm can not be measured in bits as to the difference of selection and information, we are still stuck with Bill Clinton’s “is-is” without USING the actual locations and minimal times given by fossils.
So while the Standard Theory “can never be falsified” what current thinkers think, may be. I do not see any deep enough institutional efforts being made however move the advances in theoretical conceptions displacing the popular imagination and part of the problem here IS (the) English used to do the discussing . .
If as I suspect there is “limit” to forms here then . ..
One only need “look” for some general conditions . etc.
I feel there is an undlaying issue with chemistry rather than the automatable association of gene trees and species trees that is at work but now I get off the topic and onto my own soap box .
What did I say?
Well, if one thinks that Lewontin’s quote shows that there is a “Darwinian Deity” this is simply to miss by amelioration “standard” and “extended” evolutionary theory. But because there ARE these problems for the evolutionary elite this then is no reason to confuse popular Lamarckianism with popular Darwinism and THIS Richard avoided with his writing.
Edited by Brad McFall, : comprehension
Edited by Brad McFall, : existentialisms