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", â€œobservations about nature thatâ€, â€œis thenâ€,â€ becauseâ€) needed to be replaced with (extended, post-synthesis, evolutionary theory) where Organisms construct Environments and Environments â€˜constructâ€™ 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, â€œ
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 â€“ â€œspace and timeâ€ themselves.
What was *really* the background of evolutionary theory discussions IN THE 80s %was not% simply the content of the new then â€œBradford Booksâ€ publishing attempts and the simple separation of â€œmolecular evidence for evolutionâ€ but the internalization that â€œTertiaryâ€ rather than â€œPleistoceneâ€ time coordinated the â€œspace and timeâ€ 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 â€œpurposeâ€ 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 â€œlieâ€ in the sense that any use of â€œconfidenceâ€ 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 â€œconditionsâ€ of the environment from the â€œbehaviorâ€ 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 butâ€¦.Gladyshevâ€™s thermostat portends to displace this narration as the â€œconditionsâ€ in some generalized sense DO constrain the smooth (non catastrophic) O-E match. This is where I start to writeâ€¦
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 Clintonâ€™s â€œis-isâ€ without USING the actual locations and minimal times given by fossils.
So while the Standard Theory â€œcan never be falsifiedâ€ 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 discussingâ€¦.
If as I suspect there is â€œlimitâ€ to forms here thenâ€¦.. One only need â€œlookâ€ for some general conditionsâ€¦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 boxâ€¦
What did I say?
Well, if one thinks that Lewontinâ€™s quote shows that there is a â€œDarwinian Deityâ€ this is simply to miss by amelioration â€œstandardâ€ and â€œextendedâ€ 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.
Well, I guess I had meant to have said, that "Darwinism", popularisms of Darwianian biology, and evolutionary theory as it "was" taught (in the 50s say or earlier if I needed to have said) isnt really "a religion" (unless anything said with statistical certianity as it's rasion d etre is..) but the funny thing is that pretty much ALL OF the lingo of religious speech needs be comprehended JUST to understand what the best and brightest evos are saying...
To the extent that elite evos darken the students' prospects for a better generation of thinkers then, yea, there is not really a problem leveling them with the same social contraint they have tried IN RESPONSE to ply towards creationists etc., but this is mere psychology beyond the "confidence limited" decision on what counted as 'knowledge' etc that may be passed sematically among generations of scholars whether scholastic or popular.
Now if instead evos accepted religious instruction alongside evolutonary speculating for the expository benefit of students then there really would be better evolutionists and better believers but silly U.S., we think that seperation of Church and State implies that this can not "encroach" on the university but must remain in the couch as crumb left behind. This would eliminate, in time, the comparision of Darwinism TO religion and c/e saying that "it takes more faith to believe in evolution than Jesus..." Exact refrences TO SPACE AND TIME may also accomplish this less socially and this is trail I am exploring BETWEEN my two sites http://axiompanbiog.com/default.aspx http://aexion.org/default.aspx but I do not know what would happen if debates worked their ideas ONLY from information eminating out of acutal collection locals rather than local "envirnoments" generatlized.
You are aware of "standard" evolutionary theory (variation, mutation and selection) that is the foil of Dick's pen, yes?? Well, he simply is trying to show how "the differentiation" is constructivist. The problem is that evos are not really doing the "constructing" and all that there really is out here instead is "design" but then again there is structural OR functional design and this is different bit wise where the semantics are yet to be full differentiatied between concepts and intuitions....
It looks like Augray already explained this to you. The Lewontin paragraph you quoted was followed by a paragraph that begins, "The trouble with this analysis is..." That paragraph explains why the analysis presented in your quote doesn't hold up.
I think there must be some more global context that we're missing, because Lewontin's eventual point seems both dumb and poorly made, and Lewontin was neither dumb nor a poor logician. But I can't even guess what that global context might be.
You are asking what is the â€œlargerâ€ perspective that Richard Lewontin may be included within? Where Auguray transitions to â€¦.
quote: Let's first take a look at what comes before your quote: The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments. In particular, a species of bird with a small bill may evolve a larger bill size, because some aspect of the environment has changed so that large billed birds now have more offspring. Or the species may split into two new contemporaneous species with different bill sizes, because geographically separated populations of the original species lived in different environments in one of which large-billed birds were more fecund, while in the other small-billed birds left more offspring.
Well the obvious and simple answer is that that was the place of value in world of fact where a detailed consideration of the philosophy of probability exists. Such a sentence however hails from a past time that is likely extripated although I would not guess that it is not not true for Dick. There are plenty of ideas (just trying showing that there is some â€˜ontologyâ€™ left out of the quote before the quote, this I do just about every time I post on EvC) which value Popperâ€™s falsifiability less than statistical confidence in data sitting just in front of oneself or the observation itselff. So getting to Gouldâ€™s â€œbad old daysâ€ of creationism would be premature, at least in my mind.
Another possible context has to do with the claim made by niche constructors:
Lewontin could have said â€œcasualâ€ where â€œcausalâ€ is thought in place and setting. Just listen to what Jesse Jackson said today in the Washington D.C. peace march. Jackson could have easily meant â€œcausalâ€ when said â€œcasualâ€ because similarly for Richard if the idea in â€œniche Cosntructionâ€ Bit wise or â€œoff by a letter wiseâ€ the Niche Constructors intending a â€œsystemâ€ to survive the cartoon version
no matter the epistemology is really a â€œlandmarkâ€ in Lewontin's thought and thus have truth for some place/location re-marked on the planet, the larger perspective could be --while the Niche Contructors attempt to say this:
and yet the Constructors use the word â€œa prioriâ€ throughout when trying to say just what the â€œsemantic informationâ€ is that is not captured by â€œbitsâ€ but by Richard's O-E match in differential equations.
Richard, in his book, "Triple Helix"
tried to admonish molecular bit biologists, so he probably IS sensitive to all of this including the â€œcasualâ€ use of Causality that Kitcher used:
And the careful reader of Kant will NOTICE that whatever this â€œdifferent causality of Darwinâ€ is in the first thumbnail above for any SHAPE of the theory from niche construction so lauded by Dick, it is not, the different Causality judged by Einstein nor in my estimation being hoped for by IDists as written by Kant. So evos have to extend the discussion as well as creationists.
How many evos can really do this is probably equal to those that can see â€œthe alternativesâ€ as NOT EQUAL. It would be nice if this number was more than that supposed to have understood Einsteinâ€™s implication before 1919 but this probably a wish that even if willed will not come true soon.