Religions > Atheism > Re: Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of NS
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
21 Sep 2003 04:33:40 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of NS |
You are right, J. Pieret. In summarizing and recapitulating
Mayr, I did not know what I was talking about. You were very
perceptive in picking up on that.
Now I am not saying that I will do this, but would you like me to
present Mayr's original words, thereby revealing to one and all
just how badly I mangled what Mayr was saying?
I take it that my presentation of Mayr's definition of the phrase
"stabilizing selection" was not up to your high standards for
explication of terminology. What do you think of my handling of
Mayr's discussion of the concept of "genetic homeostasis"? As
you know from having read what I wrote about Mayr on genetic
homeostasis, you know that genetic homeostasis in observed
organisms was a central concept in what I wrote.
I am frequently accused of quote-mining, and am intrigued by your
approach of presenting links to entire articles as a means of
"rebutting" what I say. Your article-quote-mining is an
approach I just might emulate.
Berlinski's "The Deniable Darwin"
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=130
I also observe that you mentioned a lot of buzzwords from
population genetics. They are very impressive buzzwords, I must
admit. In your estimation, do they have anything to add to the
question of how tigers and fruit flies and moths arose via
neo-Darwinian natural selection?
One of the articles you article-quote-mined states that "10,000 -
100,000 years can be an instant in geological time (especially in
the context of some deposition rates) but is ample time for
evolutionary events in populations." Source:
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/37.Tempo&Mode.2.HTML
Another talk.origins denizen who has for the moment departed this
thread left unanswered a question of mine about the ample time
assertion. Perhaps you will answer the question, or quote an
article to answer the question for you:
It is incorrect that there were hundreds of millions of years
available for the non-intelligence-directed arrival of each new
structure having a new function. To pick one of the more
impressive counterexamples, ".... 543 million years ago, in the
early Cambrian, within the span of no more than 10 million years,
creatures with teeth and tentacles and claws and jaws
materialized with the suddenness of apparitions." See the 4
December 1995 issue of _Time_, "When Life Exploded," pages 66-74.
Tell me, do you think changing of allele frequencies and
populations that became non-interbreeding were responsible for
the appearance of the organisms that appeared during the Cambrian
explosion, a.k.a. biology's big bang?
Where do you come down on the question "is macroevolution
decoupled from microevolution?", a question mentioned in the same
article-quote-mined.
The article also speaks of "the shift from the peppered to the
dark form of Biston betularia [which] occured [sic] within the
span of 100 years by a completely 'Darwinian' mechanism." Do you
think the peppered moth case provides strong evidence for the
neo-Darwinian mechanism/ Darwin's theory of natural selection?
Oh, and Gould's first name is "Stephen," not "Steven" as the
article incorrectly stated.
As you know, many organisms in the fossil record exhibits
stasis-- they stay practically the same to all appearances from
their first arrival in the fossil record to when they leave the
fossil record (or, in the case of "living fossils," to when we
observe them strutting their stuff today). What do you think
accounts for numerous instances of stasis observed in fossil
record organisms? Genetic homeostasis?
I see that you chopped my "A Challenge" section. Here is the
challenge again, should you wish to reconsider declining
acceptance of it:
To summarize, the experimental evidence produced by lab
experiments with fruit flies and other organisms, and the
evidence from plant and animal breeders, is that:
a) organisms have limited capacities for the changing of their
phenotypes in the face of artificial/ human-intelligence-directed
selection
and that:
b) organisms' genotypes are cohesive, harmoniously interdependent
genotypes possessing genetic homeostasis.
A Challenge
I now ask believers in the theory of natural selection/ the
neo-Darwinian mechanism for their response to this summarizing
conclusion.
The Mayr article you article-quote-mined has two "[...]"s in it,
the second of which appeared just when things were getting quite
interesting:
"Recent discoveries in molecular biology have raised questions
about the meaning of stasis. The stasis found in morphological
characters in such old genera as Rana, Bufo, Plethodon, or even
Drosophila is not at all owing to the retention of an entirely
unchanged genotype. Through the electrophoresis method, countless
changes in quasi-neutral enzyme genes have been discovered, but
numerous other nonmorphological changes have also taken place in
these genera, such as the acquisition of new isolating
mechanisms, as well as of numerous adaptations to changing
environments. What has remained stable, however, is the
morphotype, the basic Bauplan. The species in some lineages that
can be inferred to have separated 30 to 60 million years ago are
morphologically still almost indistinguishable except in size,
coloration, and minor differences in skeletal dimensions. [...]"
Cited in:
<http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/mayr_punctuated.html>
I will try to get the book in question and see what if any
comments embarrassing to neo-Darwinism were suppressed by the
"[...]"s. Thank you for bringing this article on the Web to my
attention.
I find the juxtaposition of these 1992 and 1960 Mayr statements
interesting:
Mayr, Ernst. 1992. "Speciational Evolution or Punctuated
Equilibria" in Albert Somit and Steven Peterson, _The Dynamics of
Evolution_ (NY: Cornell University Press), 21-48. Cited in
<http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/mayr_punctuated.html>:
"Furthermore, enough mechanisms for the gradual acquisition of
evolutionary novelties are known (Mayr, 1960) to make the
occurrence of drastic mutations dispensable, at least as a normal
evolutionary process."
Mayr, Ernst. 1960. "The Emergence of Evolutionary Novelties" in
_The Evolution of Life: Its Origin, History and Future_, ed. Sol
Tax (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press), 349-80, 349, 350,
357:
"There are fashionable problems and there are neglected problems
in any field of research. The problem of the emergence of
evolutionary novelties has undoubtedly been greatly neglected
during the past two or three decades, in spite of its importance
in the theory of evolution. No more auspicious occasion can be
envisioned for a renewed consideration of this problem than the
centenary of the publication of Darwin's _Origin of Species_.
.....
As a result, the problem of the emergence of evolutionary
novelties has been almost completely neglected during the past
two or three decades. However, with the advances in evolutionary
theory that were being made during that same period, it is
profitable to consider this question once again. It is now
possible to give an answer not in conflict with the synthetic
theory of evolution and, more specifically, an answer not
requiring the occurrence of macromutations. The treatment in a
new attack on this problem will have to be somewhat exploratory
at this stage, in view of the recent neglect of this area. I hope
that my discussion will encourage more work and more thought on
the problem of the origin of evolutionary novelties, permitting
eventually a more balanced and definitive treatment.
.....
THE GRADUAL ACQUISITION OF NEW STRUCTURES
The evidence, whether genetic, morphological, or functional, is
so uniformly opposed to a saltationist origin of new structures
that no choice is left but to search for explanations in terms of
a gradual origin. The role of natural selection in evolution
would indeed be a very inferior one if, as was believed by the
saltationists, it did nothing but weed out "hopeless monsters" in
favor of "hopeful monsters.""
Final question: Is anyone aware of a post-1960 "definitive
treatment" of "the problem of the origin of evolutionary novelties"?
There must be someone in talk.origins that knows of such. I would
like to look at it, should it exist.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, catshark wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:32:41 +0000 (UTC), david ford
[snip Mayr, quoted but not understood]
Summary
To summarize, the experimental evidence produced by lab
experiments with fruit flies and other organisms, and the
evidence from plant and animal breeders, is that:
a) organisms have limited capacities for the changing of their
phenotypes in the face of artificial/ human-intelligence-directed
selection
and that:
b) organisms' genotypes are cohesive, harmoniously interdependent
genotypes possessing genetic homeostasis.
A better summary:
You don't know wtf you are talking about.
I admit I'm no expert but it only took about 15 minutes to find out that
that you haven't taken *any* time to find out what Mayr meant by
"stabilizing evolution". Either that or you expended a great deal of
dishonesty in putting this together. As I predicted earlier in this
thread, you have simply ignored what doesn't fit your preconceived ideas,
such as: "disruptive selection", "directed selection", "genetic drift",
"gene flow", "founder effect", "species selection", "recombination" and
many other facets of evolutionary theory, both Mayr's and others.
Anyone interested and unfamiliar can start by looking here:
<http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e40/40d.htm>
<http://www.cbc.yale.edu/old/cce/ccepapers/Inert2/node1.html>
<http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/mayr_punctuated.html>
<http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/37.Tempo&Mode.2.HTML>
A Challenge
[snip ridiculous list of strawmen demonstrating David's level of honesty]
Believers, the ball is in your court.
No, you just double faulted once again.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
We have done amazingly well in creating a cultural movement,
but we must not exaggerate ID's successes on the scientific front.
- William A. Dembski -
.
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of NS |
21 Sep 2003 05:30:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:33:40 +0000 (UTC), david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
You are right, J. Pieret. In summarizing and recapitulating
Mayr, I did not know what I was talking about. You were very
perceptive in picking up on that.
It didn't take much, given how obvious it was.
[snip]
I am frequently accused of quote-mining, and am intrigued by your
approach of presenting links to entire articles as a means of
"rebutting" what I say. Your article-quote-mining is an
approach I just might emulate.
They are called "references" and are common among educated people.
Berlinski's "The Deniable Darwin"
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=130
Old stuff:
"But Is It Deception? 'The Deniable Darwin' examined..."
<http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/biid/biidtdd.html>
I also observe that you mentioned a lot of buzzwords from
population genetics. They are very impressive buzzwords, I must
admit. In your estimation, do they have anything to add to the
question of how tigers and fruit flies and moths arose via
neo-Darwinian natural selection?
Only that, as you have agreed, *you* know nothing about it.
[snip rest of rambling]
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Some say "Ignorance is bliss."
In your case, it's merely chronic . . .
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
