Forum: Darwnist Ideology

If you're talking about Raup's popular press book Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck (WW Norton & Co, 1991), then you've completely missed the point of the whole book. Raup spends the bulk of the book discussing in very general terms what extinction is and what causes it. He then argues (very superficially IMO) against various theories (especially something of a strawman of Darwinian evolution ==> competition ==> extinction of the species that is less competitive), to finally argue in favor of his pet idea that species that go extinct are basically "unlucky". Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad theory - and is certainly not anti-ToE. On the contrary, although he tries (as usual with Raup) to make it sound like what he's writing is extraordinary in some way, his conclusions are pretty much mainstream evolutionary ecology (see especially his concluding chapter 11 "How to become extinct", ppg 181-193 in the 1992 paperback edition).Extinction is a well-studied phenomenon. Causes may not be unequivocal, but the various ideas have at least some support.BTW: Raup isn't "of the dinosaur meteor theory". That would be Alvarez et al. In fact, Raup argues that meteors and other cataclysms are simply rare events that MAY mark the "first strike" (his term) that causes extinction in either widely distributed species OR cause cross-ecosystem collapse of numerous species. Again, he's arguing against a strawman of Darwinian selection. For some reason, he's gotten it into his head that Darwinian gradualism REQUIRES competition as the only means of species extinction. Which of course nobody but Raup apparently thinks is the case.

Heh. Yeah, that was rather painfully obvious. The only way our Sy could have completely missed Raup's point was not to have read the book. Worse yet - I was actually really disappointed in the book and the way Raup cavalierly dismisses modern theories of extinction or hand waves away various bits of evidence supporting other theories (he HATES hyperdisease, btw ). Even for a popular press book, this one was pretty bad - superficial, obviously slanted, and presenting a straw man to make his theory look better. I honestly expected more from Raup. Maybe it was ghost-written?

You must really be losing it to expect to tackle me on my own turf successfully.Here is a very small sampling of relatively recent peer-reviwed articles. You can probably find these on line, and certainly in any decent library.Dunham J, Peacock M, Tracy CR, Nielsen J, Vinyard G, 1999, "Assessing Extinction Risk: Integrating Genetic Information" , Conservation Ecology vol 1Hanski A, Ovanskainen O, 2002, "Extinction debt at extinction threshold", Conservation Biology 3:666-673 (Hanski also wrote a book. Unfortunately not as "popular" as Raup's. His was titled "Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, evolution", 1996 Academic Press. It contains a number of articles by scientists on extinction. I especially liked Foley P, "Extinction models for local populations". A must read...)Lande R, 1993, "Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes" American Naturalist 142:911-927Pimm AL, Jones HL, Diamond J, 1988, "On the risk of extinction" American Naturalist 132:757-785.Myers N, Knoll AH, 2001, "The biotic crisis and the future of evolution" PNAS 98:5389-5392 (about the human impacts on species extinction - I'm pretty sure this one is on line).Jablonski D, 2002, "Survival without recovery after mass extinctions", PNAS, 99:8139-8144.Beissinger SR, 2000, "Ecological mechanisms of extinction", PNAS, 97:11688-11689 (you really should look this one up even if you ignore the others. It is directly contrary to Raup's organism/species level approach. IMO the systems-level approach is a much better treatment.)In short Syamasu, there are a lot of scientists doing a lot of work on extinction - regardless of how you've misinterpreted Raup. The simple equation is: if you want to conserve species, you have to understand metapopulation and community/ecosystem dynamics AND you have to understand extinction. So the best work is being done by ecologists and pop geneticists. Maybe you should read some sometime.

Oh good grief. Your assertion was that extinction was neglected by science. I gave you half a dozen references that showed you were wrong. Now you want an "assessment of the study of extinction" that you can access on-line?I don't know why I bother - you're not going to read it anyway. But here goes:One of the best on-line books on the subject of ecology and biodiversity is EO Wilson et al eds. 1996 Biodiversity II. This book provides a readable "grand tour" of the current biodiversity crisis.A bit more technical discussion is Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Problem Solving, National Research Council 1986. Practical solutions and case studies for extinction and biodiversity loss.A more general scientific viewpoint on extinction - but still an interesting read, is the National Research Council's 1995 report on the Endangered Species Act Science and the Endangered Species Act. It contains a general overview of extinction.For those who want to know what Raup is REALLY talking about, rather than what Syamasu thinks he's talking about, try Raup's 1995 The Role of Extinction in Evolution. He reprises his argument from his popular press book that the role of extinction in driving evolution has been neglected - not that the study of extinction itself has been neglected as Sy would have us believe. Even here, I think Raup is over-stating the case. After all, the role of adaptive radiation, ecological release, founder effect etc after extinctions are well-studied and well-referenced in the technical literature. For anyone interested in the subject, pick up copies of "Conservation Biology", "Ecology", or "Oecologia[/i] at their local libraries.Sy is out to lunch once again. What a surprise.

I should have known better than to think you were capable of engaging in anything remotely resembling rational discussion. You've moved the goal posts so many times I'm getting dizzy trying to follow you. To recap:You asserted that extinction was ignored by biologists. I provided references from the literature showing that extinction was in fact an on-going area of research. Next you demanded on-line evaluations of the field, which I provided (and you manifestly haven't read past the intro to Wilson's book). You then claim that the references aren't "outside sources giving an appraisal of the field". What outside sources are you suggesting might be in a position or qualified to give such an appraisal? Nganjuk laundromat managers? You remain a complete waste of time.However, for anyone interested in the actual questions you pose here: Re "biologists scrambling": No. In the first place, few conservation biologists or ecologists think that ecosystems are "essentially in stasis". This was the fundamental flaw in the MacArthur/Wilson Equilibrium Theory, or Lack's biological determinism hypothesis, for instance. The argument today revolves around whether dynamic or static disequilibrium is the primary condition. Those few ESS (static, evolutionary stable strategies) systems that have been identified in the field have been shown to be inherently unstable over ecological time scales.Re "Evolutionism / Darwinism provide a frame of reference": Of course? How else are you going to approach conservation, for example, without understanding how both the component organisms and the community/ecosystem itself evolved? Ecology is an attempt to understand the dynamics of individual populations, metapopulations, communities, and whole ecosystems, as well as the emergent properties that arise from these interactions. I personally can't even begin to imagine how someone would approach the subject outside of the neo-Darwinian framework. Extinction is part and parcel of the dynamic involved - whether caused by competition (and if you don't think extinction can be caused by competition, I invite you to explain how ~28 of 72 native mollusc species in the US Great Lakes watershed vanished following the accidental introduction of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) from the Caspian Sea) or ecosystem degradation or cosmic cataclysm. I'm not the only one who thinks this, either - I can look over my right shoulder at the bookshelves along the wall of my home office, and see titles such as Landweber and Dobson, Genetics and the Extinction of Species (1999, Princeton Uni Press), Rosenzweig's Species Diversity in Space and Time (1995, Cambridge Uni Press), Brown’s Macroecology (1995, Uni Chicago Press), EO Wilson’s Diversity of Life (1992, WW Norton), Whitaker's "Island Biogeography" (2002, Oxford Uni Press), and Ehrlich's superlative Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species (1985, Ballentine Books) not to mention "popular" works like Barlow's "The Ghosts of Evolution" (2000, Basic Books) and of course Raup's book among others. Every single one of these books devotes considerable space to extinction and its results. Try looking up keywords like "ecological release", "adaptive radiation", "competitive exclusion", "extinction vortex", "trophic cascade", etc. Wrong as usual. Extinction doesn't result from "a cooperative or mutually beneficial relationship between variants", unless you consider eliminating the competition to be mutually beneficial. Maybe you'd care to explain how you arrive at the "underdeveloped" characterization - without reference to Raup who's just pissed off that nobody really takes his extinction periodicity ideas seriously (the "Nemesis Hypothesis"), given the number of references I've provided? If you mean that "underdeveloped" equals "an on-going science", then you're right - no one has all the answers. That's what makes the science so interesting. If you are implying that "underdeveloped" in this context means "ignored because of dogmatic rejection", then I think I've conclusively shown (once again) that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

Once again you've shifted the goalposts. You really do have reading comprehension problems, even in the little bit that you actually read of the references I provided. Worse, you're guilty of selective quoting. To complete the bit you quoted from Wilson in a previous post:

quote:

---

The present volume is a 10-year report on the state of the art in biodiversity studies, with an emphasis on concept formation and technique. Overall, it makes a striking contrast with the original BioDiversity, showing how extraordinarily far we have come and at the same time mapping how far scientists yet must travel in their reinvigorated exploration of the biosphere. (emphasis added)

---

. Gee, you must have missed the part where Wilson talks about much has been done. Try rereading page 2 (since you won't read anything past the introduction), for instance, where he waxes enthusiastic about the progress that has been made:

quote:

---

Scientists who once had devoted their careers to bits and pieces of biodiversity now became holists, or at least more approving of the holistic approach, and they were energized by a new sense of mission. For the good of society as a whole, they now realized that the classification of such organisms as braconid wasps and lauraceous shrubs mattered. Moreover, the ecologists also were included: the processes by which natural communities are assembled and their constituent species maintained have central importance in both science and the real world. The study of diversity subsumed old problems in systematics and ecology, and specialists in these and in related fields of biology began to talk in common parlance as never before.

---

Doesn't appear that Wilson thinks the field is "underdeveloped" - although he is advocating for increased funding and emphasis, especially on vanishing biodiversity. Wilson's entire approach has ALWAYS been "we don't even know what we're losing". He's also one of those that believes the current level of extinctions is equivalent to the "big five" mass extinction events. He (I think) coined the termn "Holocene Mass Extinction". He may or may not be overstating the case (I tend to agree with him, btw). However, he is certainly someone who can be considered an "expert" in the field - which is what you asked for in the first place. However, as shown in the quote you modified, he is quite plainly happy with the amount of attention that has been drawn to the subject - and wants even more attention paid to it (as it should, and is occurring). Really? Why haven't you referenced them? And you still have failed to define what you mean by "underdeveloped". Given the number of references Mammuthus and I have provided, it appears we have a very different idea of what the term means than you do. As does Raup. What part of "our present understanding of its role in evolution is weak" (pg 123 of Raup's article "The Role of Extinction in Evolution" from the NatAcadSci book I referenced above) don't you understand? Interestingly, that is the rest of the sentence you selectively quoted here. In any case, I disagree with the statement. As do most of the book references I provided - our understanding is growing, and continues to grow - whatever you think Raup is trying to claim.Again, I suggest you look up terms like "faunal turnover", "extinction pulse", etc, and see what various authors are saying about the consequences of extinction. Your statement is wrong. Ecological release is a well-documented evolutionary mechanism. Faunal turnover is well-documented. Character displacement (a survival tactic occasionally observed as a mechanism of species avoiding extinction under competition) is well-documented. Etc. Of course, you'd know all that have read so extensively on the subject. What are you babbling about now? What does this have to do with your claim that extinction is ignored? As far as evolution not providing explanations for mutualistic and symbiotic or competitive relationships - what the hell do you think the study of ecology IS? It is precisely the examination of the interrelationship of organism and environment (at multiple hierachical levels, no less). And it is a fairly mature science overall. Just because you don't understand it, have never read a word on the subject, and continually filter the tiny bits you do read through a wholly individual and idiosyncratic lens doesn't mean the rest of the planet doesn't understand what's going on. Grow up, Syamasu.

Then answer the question I asked. What do you consider an "undeveloped field" and how long does it take to make it "developed" (i.e., acceptable in your view)? 10 years, 20 years, 500 years, what? Not that it matters - no matter how you slice it, biological diversity has grown into a mature science over several hundred years - from the days of the Victorian naturalists cataloging species to the modern study of metapopulation dyanmics and landscape ecology. It's been one long process. It's not a "new" field. It HAS changed over the decades, as more people thought about it, more observations were made, and more technology and techniques were brought to bear. It is, with the exception of the name "biodiversity" that Wilson coined for it, quite a mature field. At the same time, new insights beginning with Dobzhanski and Simpson, passing through Simberloff, Wilson and MacArthur (all hail!), Diamond, Ehrlich and the other greats in the field, have allowed us to start understanding the fundamental principles (if not the "laws") of ecology - making the field fascinating and ever-fresh. Coupled with the more recent awareness of the fragility and importance of natural ecosystems, the field is advancing in leaps and bounds. However, even Darwin wrote about extinction. Lyell wrote about extinction. Hundreds of scientists over decades of time have written about it, speculated on it, and studied it. Of course, since you've read so extensively in the field, you're aware of this. At best, Raup is guilty of overstating the case. Really? Then what were we supposed to understand from this statement of yours:"I see nothing but references to the field having been neglected on the web." (your post #99)Quite obviously, the field isn't even remotely "neglected". Utter and total nonsense. We understand a hell of a lot about it: from the assembly rules for ecosystems to the subtleties of the energy and nutrient web interactions in the microscopic aquatic communities formed from rainwater collected in the axil sheaths of rainforest epiphytes. We don't know everything - and arguments over explanations for the myriad details are on-going and vocal. However, not one single ecologist or biologist working in the field ignores the foundational framework of evolutionary theory - because NONE of it makes any sense otherwise. The only thing this last bit suggests is your complete ignorance of the subject.

The book you're looking for is "Evolution and the Diversity of Life" by Ernst Mayr (Belknap/Harvard 1997). Enjoy.

Half of the books I've referenced for you in this thread and others do precisely that! Note that you're right on one thing: the larger the scale (i.e., the "bigger biosystems" meaning global) the more speculative the proposed relationships - primarily because of the exponential increase in possible variables. This isn't the only science to have that problem either. Consider physics: physicists will confidently discuss the interactions between two masses in a vacuum, for instance. However, add another mass, and they start to get edgy and less sure of the possibilities. Throw in a fourth or fifth, and they sidle away from you and won't meet your eyes. Demand that they show the interactions of six or more bodies, and they start having nervous breakdowns. It's the same with ecology, biology, etc.However, we DO understand a lot of the smaller scale interactions quite well. And better yet, in spite of the patchiness of the fossil record, etc, we see traces of the same or similar patterns written in the rocks that we see in the living world. Ain't life grand?Edited to change a really strange word insertion - what my kids call a "brain burp".[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-25-2004]

Umm, you asked for a book on evolution that started from a basic concept, then built layers of conceptual framework around it. I gave you that. It's up to you to actually READ the thing. Did you drink a couple liters of tuak before you wrote that? The above quoted sentence is nearly incomprehensible. As I and numerous others have explained to you in multiple threads repeatedly over many months in many different ways (despairingly seeking some way of getting you to comprehend your errors), selection operates at the level of the individual organism, evolution operates at the level of the population or lineage. Populations persist because individuals within it reproduce. Competition MAY be one of the factors that determine reproductive success. Other factors, whether environmental factors (other than competition - which is considered part of the environment in which the organism lives) or the sheer luck of the draw, can ALSO determine reproductive success. Your continued insistence that there's something else going on is tiresome. Read the book I recommended. Then get back to me. If I already answered it, then why are you continuing to bring it up? If I objected to anything you wrote (which would be unsurprising given your history), it was likely because you utterly and deliberately misinterpreted or misrepresented what was written. In any case, I have NEVER stated that "selection is reproduction...". I know I never said that because it would indicate I completely misunderstand what selection is all about, and to my knowledge I haven't been that far out in left field in any post I've made in this forum.[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 02-27-2004]

Now what? I showed you where you had taken Raup out of context. I even provided a link to an article written by Raup himself that shows how wrong your misquote was. I've also patiently explained and provided numerous references to both primary literature (which you refuse to read) as well as several books which directly and completely refute your statements. Since you haven't even read one of them - and it is becoming doubtful that you read even Raup's book on extinction - then I can't see how you can continue to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about or that I'm dogmatically insisting that I'm right simply because I know a bit about the subject (i.e., "an authority" - which I'm not). On the contrary, I have based the entire argument with you on the carefully detailed and peer-reviewed writings of others. Writings which you have consistently failed to address or even acknowledge.Like your utter and complete failure to understand the first thing about natural selection, your understanding of extinction, ecology, or anything else scientific is pitifully and willfully lacking.

You took one small phrase out of one sentence from a 200-page book and proclaim you know what you're talking about? This is beyond absurd. I referenced you numerous papers and books on the field. Raup's entire BOOK rests on his claim that the role of extinction in driving evolution is little studied. It is a grand tour of the field. It is, for what it's worth, a reasonable primer on extinction (if you can get past Raup's own ideas). It is by far NOT the last word on the subject - or even the second last. As the other references I cited quite clearly state, in numerous places: extinction IS understood to drive evolution through the opening of vacant niches allowing adaptive radiation, etc. - an idea that was originally proposed 50 years ago.

I gave you a dozen references. That's sufficient to show your position is wrong - or at least questionable. End of story. Lost references hunh? And the dog ate my homework... Last refuge of the desperate - inventing unverifiable references that "just prove I'm right if I could only find them". Nice try. I agree that it's difficult to find any references that support your contention on google. The reason being they don't exist: there IS no support for your assertions. All the references you'll find are going to be contrary. Why do you think that might be? Finally, as previously noted, the theory of evolution completely underpins the science of ecology - without it nothing in the science makes sense. Nice topic shift. Was that before or after he died? And considering the idea of group selection has been around (and argued about) for quite a while (since at least the 1960's) - Wilson wrote an entire chapter about group selection in his textbook on sociobiology in 1975 - means you're wrong again. The idea may or may not be valid - depends on what the person using the term means by it. Of course, you'd know that since you've read all about it.

Yeah, I know. About every couple months I vow to never engage him again because he's such an idiot. Must be like worrying a loose tooth, or something...

Hi Stephen,This would be an interesting topic I'd like to persue. Especially your take on the community assembly principles that were developed by Simberloff, Connor, Gilpin, Diamond, et al back in the 70's. I'm curious about how food-chain dynamics are related in the context of the "why" of nanism and giantism on islands, particularly. Also, how your "central theory of ecology" conflicts with evolutionary theory. However, we'll get our fingers slapped by Mighty Moose if we try and pursue it here. Maybe if you have time you could open a new thread with a precis of your ideas? If not, I understand time constraints, etc.