I decided to move the bulk of the post to the comments.
aintnuthin,
Before a detailed response, let me see if I can correctly summarize our disagreement. You seem to be claiming that the Modern Synthesis of population genetics with natural selection is defunct, out of favor, discredit, or something similar. I have been saying that the many additional mechanisms we are seeing recently are things that will be incorporated into the Modern Synthesis, and that complement it rather than replace it.
On that topic, consider this link (with a hat tip to Panda’s Thumb).
LH: What are the most exciting recent developments in systematics / comparative methods?
JF: The availability of genome-scale information is certainly one. The arrival of a generation of young researchers who are comfortable with statistical and computational approaches is another. But the most important development is reflected in recent work on coalescent trees of gene copies within trees of species. What this does is tie together between-species molecular evolution and within-species population genetics. Those two lines of work have been developing almost independently since the 1960s. But now, with population samples of sequences at multiple loci in multiple related species, they are coming back together. This is not another Modern Synthesis, but it is a major event that needs a name. How about the "Family Reunion"? Long-estranged relatives who have not been in touch are getting together.
Posts
211 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 211 of 211Eric, I kinda been waitin for you to go wild with a "quote-mining" charge, ya know?
Let's talk about "quote-mining" and the allegations thereof, for a second, whaddaya say?
Check out this article here, eh?: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Quote_mining
Here we are informed that "Quote mining is the dubious art of using deliberate selection of quotes, normally out of context, and using them to refute the original author's point.[1] This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists to attempt to discredit evolution." Want a "prime example?" The Ridley quote I relayed is it!! Here ya go:
"The following quote has been used to attempt to discredit evolution:[3]
In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."[4]
However, the quote leaves out the very next sentence:
This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."
Can you, or anyone, show me how this qualifies as the "prime example" of "using deliberate selection of quotes, normally out of context, and using them to refute the original author's point.[1]"
Ridley's point is clear: The fossil record does not provide a good basis for arguing against creation, and no "real evolutionist" (I guess he's sayin you aint no "real evolutionist," eh, Eric) would use it as such.
This quote does not represent any purported "refutation" of Ridley's point, it IS Ridley's point (about use of the fossil record).
It's seems that the allegations of "quote-mining" often rely on the imputation of disingenous attempts to "imply" sumthin which "attempts" are created, whole cloth, by the accuser in order to create a strawman through which he can level at unwarranted and unsubstantiated charge of dishonesty.
Here the author of the quote-mining entry claims that the quote has been used in an attempt to "discredit evolution." Where does the evidence of that "attempt" come from? Ridley is sayin the fossil record aint where it's at if one wants to argue for evolution, and that's all he bein quoted as sayin. What's the problem?
Mebbe we can quit beatin round the bush here, a little, eh, Eric? An article I cited above summarizes some views of Yale biologist Keith Thomson as follows:
"[Thomson] indicates three commonly employed meanings of evolution:
1. Change over time
2. Relationships of organisms by descent through common ancestry
3. A particular explanatory mechanism for the pattern and process of (1.) and (2.), such as natural selection.
Thomson notes that factual patterns of change over time, particularly as seen in the fossil record, can be studied in the absence of theories of how these patterns came to be. Thomson also emphasizes that the second meaning, descent through common ancestry, is a hypothesis, not a fact, and that it is derived from the twin premises that life arose only once on Earth and that all life proceeds from preexisting life. Cladistic analysis, championed currently by a number of biologists, has sought to eva1uate relationships among organisms without regard to the twin premises cited above. In regard to the third meaning, a particular explanatory mechanism, there are currently many alternative hypotheses. Darwin insisted that changes had to be small and gradual. However, Gould and his associates (1980) have proposed static intervals (stasis), followed by periods of rapid change (punctuated equilibrium).
The authors then state that: The biology texts, in general, do a poor job of distinguishing between these three different meanings of evolution. They generally fail to note that it is possible to accept the factual evidence for change over time, while having a more restricted view of descent through common ancestry. For example, to speak of ancestral descent in regard to the relationship of an ancestral horse to a modern horse would be a very restricted use when compared to the relationship of an ancestral one-celled organism to a modern mammal. Likewise, accepting the factual evidence for change over time does not require the acceptance of a particular explanatory mechanism for these changes.
On another level, many scientists prefer to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution: the former being the relatively small changes noted in the diversification of species, and the latter being the changes required in the development of new phyla, or possibly of new orders or classes. The term macroevolution has also been used in regard to development of new functions, such as vision or hearing.
Many proponents of Darwinian natural selection have argued that processes demonstrated for microevolution may be extrapolated to account for macroevolution as well. When this type of extrapolation is used in an attempt to validate a theory, we have moved beyond the reasonable bounds of science. Scientifically, we should simply state that at present, there is no satisfactory scientific explanation for macroevolutionary events. Those explanations that have been presented lie in the realm of philosophy."
ttp://www.arn.org/docs/mills/gm_originoflifeandevolution.htm
These observations strike me as sound. (1) is a simple fact, (2) is a hypothesis, one which entails certain (unproven) assumptions, and only with (3) do we enter into the realm of "theory."
Of course not all which parades as "theory" is actually scientific in nature. The attempt to "validate" by projected extrapolation, rather than empirical evidence, is not, in itself, a "scientific" form of validation. It may be part of the theory, which I claim is independent from empirical validation, but it is not any kind of "evidence."
Do you have any major disagreement with Thomson's summary? Are you using the term "theory" in the same sense Thomson does, or are you perhaps calling (1) and/or (2) THE theory?
With regard to the issue of how much ideology is an inherent part of "evolutionary theory," I found the following report interesting. I am taking it as accurate:
"...in 1995 the NABT issued the following statement:
The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments...
Two years later the NABT deleted the words unsupervised and impersonal after two
distinguished scholars, Alvin Plantinga and Huston Smith, wrote the NABT about the
inappropriateness of the words unsupervised and impersonal:
"Science presumably doesn’t address such theological questions, and isn’t equipped
to deal with them. How could an empirical inquiry possibly show that God was not guiding and directing evolution?"
The NABT Board of Directors took up that matter on October 8, 1997, voting unanimously to
retain the objectionable wording...On the last day of the October 8-11, 1997 annual NABT meeting, the board met again and votedto remove the two objectionable words, "unsupervised" and "impersonal"...
But most prominent evolutionary biologists do not see the blind watchmaker thesis (as defined above) as an optional ideological add-on to neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Rather, they see it as a central part of the propositional content of neo-Darwinian theory, as indeed Darwin himself did.
Massimo Pigliucci, Assistant Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, drafted "Defining Evolution: An Open Letter"... Pigliucci enlisted the signatures of an impressive array of scientists, including Harvard’s Richard Lewontin, to support his rebuff of the NABT for their watering down of evolution. The letter urges the NABT to reconsider its change to the classroom definition of evolution in the
name of scientific and educational principles. It argues that the NABT’s two-word alteration to the definition of evolution betrays the core of high ideals such as rationalism and open inquiry.
Leading sociologist of science Steve Fuller, in web-posted e-mail Why I won’t sign the Open
Letter of 10 February 1998, wrote: I found the Open Letter from the besieged biology teachers embarrassing. I’m sure
there are some nasty things going on in Knoxville, but a petition of the sort circulating here is not the way to handle matters...Fuller explained his embarrassment in these words:
To describe evolution as impersonal and unsupervised is indeed ideological...
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/Meanings2000.pdf
Is their a side on this matter which you agree with, Eric? Should the two words have remained? Is Pigliucci right that "NABT’s two-word alteration to the definition of evolution betrays the core...?"
Does it imply anything to you about how high school biogology teachers may generally approach the teaching of evolution to know that:"
1."...in 1995 the NABT issued the following statement:
The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process...., and
2. The NABT Board of Directors took up that matter on October 8, 1997, voting unanimously to
retain the objectionable wording...?"
It seems that the website with Pigliucci's "open letter" to the National Association of Biology Teachers is no longer functional. A few excerpts appear here, though:
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199803/0011.html
Such as:
"Science is based on a fundamental assumption: that the world can be explained by recurring only to natural, mechanistic forces. [Phillip] Johnson is right that this is a philosophical position. He is wrong when he suggests that it is an unreasonable and unproven one. In fact, every single experiment conducted by any laboratory in any place on earth represents a daily test of that assumption."
Jones goes on to comment:
"I find much to praise in the Open Letter. Unfortunately, the Letter contains a logical flaw that is common among scientific materialists: the
writers do not understand the difference between what they *assume* and what they *test.* It is contradictory to say both that (1) materialism (or naturalism) is afundamental assumption on which all science is based; and that (2) scientists daily subject that same assumption to experimental testing. No,
scientific materialists don't test materialism. They treat it as an unfalsifiable premise, and promote as "scientific knowledge" whatever materialistic theory of evolution is least implausible. That is why they
are so easily convinced that the Darwinian blind watchmaker mechanism can design highly complex organisms, when the evidence (e.g. peppered moth andfinch-beak variation) seems so unconvincing to the rest of us. That is also why they dismiss out of hand as "religion" any suggestion that unintelligent material forces were *not* adequate to do the work of biological creation."
====
Eric, you often suggest that you believe most, if not all, opposition to neo-darwinism is motivated by religious motivations. At the same time, you deny that "scientists" (with the exception of a few, like Dawkins) have any ideological agenda.
I think this letter (apparently signed by a number of high profile "scientists")and the position of the high school biology teachers
indicates otherwise. While they may confess that naturalistic fundamentalism is "philosophy," that doesn't temper their certainty that is is ontologoically correct in the least.
It is philosophy, sure, but, for them, it is unquestionably it is also the true, correct, and "proven" philosophy (just as Marxism is for it's adherents).
I have come to view both theism and atheism as equally "religious" doctrines. What's ironic about it is that the atheists come out looking worse than those they oppose in this view. This look like total hypocrites with little or insight or thoughtfulness because they deny their religious faith, and accuse their opponents of being "soft-minded" and "stupid" for openly admitting their religious faith.
I did find the contents of Pigliucci's open letter after lookin a little more:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/openletter.htm
I think I like this part the best, ya know?:
"NABT leaves open the possibility that evolution is in fact supervised in a personal manner. This is a prospect that every evolutionary biologist should vigorously and positively deny."
Heh.
"Thomson also emphasizes that the second meaning, descent through common ancestry, is a hypothesis, not a fact, and that it is derived from the twin premises that life arose only once on Earth and that all life proceeds from preexisting life."
As I have noted, read literally premise 2 implies that premise 1 also required "pre-existing" life, but presumably not life "on earth."
I am still unable to give meaning to your dual assertions that (1) Life could have independently arisen on earth a million times without in any way contradicting premise 1 from above, and (2) that anyone who even questions the the "factual" status of the doctrine of common descent is a "denialist."
So, then, anyways, what's happenin with the NABT in the near future, I wonder? Well, seems that the annual NABT conference schedule later this month will feature a symposium co-sponsered by The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) and NESCent (National Evolutionary Synthesis Center).
According to the NEScent website, this "workshop for educators" is "designed to provide an overview of key evolutionary concepts and explore cutting-edge topics in evolutionary biology for instructors at the high school and introductory college level."
http://www.nescent.org/eog/eognews.php?id=92
Cuttin edge, eh!? Sounds interestin, sho nuff! Like what, I wonder? Lemme see here....OK, like these here, it says:
1. "Tree thinking: Key Concepts: All organisms share a common ancestor, and relationships between organisms can be depicted in phylogenetic trees." (Cuttin edge if ever there was one, I spect, eh? What next?)
2. "Selective pressures
Key concept: Selective pressures, which include natural, artificial, and sexual selection, drive evolution. Individual organisms within a population vary, and these variations make certain individuals more successful than others." (So, then, "selection" "drives evolution," eh? What an innovative concept. What next?)
3. "Molecular Evolution Key concept Variation and inheritance occur at the molecular level, and this is the level at which random processes influence evolution." (Processes which influence evolution are "random," eh? Like, whooda thunk, I ax ya!?).
Well, there ya have it then, eh, Eric, state-of-the-art evolutionary doctrine bein passed on to high school educators, June & July, 2009. Can't git no more "current" than that, can ya?
Arlin Stoltz, a research biologist in working in the CAMEL (Computational and Analyitical Molecular Evolution) lab at CARB (Center for Advanced Research in Biotechnology) does a good job of articulating some of my general thoughts about both theory and the neo-darwinistic axiom of random mutation as the source of genetic variation, eh, Eric?
With respect to theory, he says, for example:
"Sometimes one hears the claim that, in science, "theory" refers to hypotheses that have been repeatedly confirmed and that are widely accepted by the scientific community, but (not to put too fine a point on it) this is a ridiculous position. One only hears of this interpretation of "theory" in discussions of evolution, because it arises from the ulterior motive of a definition of "theory" to defend Darwinism as a "theory". In general, this dubious and transparent attempt to associate "theory" with Truth ignores the well established double duty of "theory" for both abstract and concrete senses, as well as the subtle and often imperceptible difference in usage between "theory" (theory_C) and "hypothesis" (the latter of which doesn't work well in arguments with creationists, who have their own ulterior motives for interpreting "hypothesis" as "guess").
As theory C, neo-Darwinism must make certain claims that apply to the world (i.e., they are not merely theory A statements of principles), and that do not simply repeat well known observations. We cannot simply say "selection occurs, selection must occur", and call this theory C, because it is not. One must make significant and non-obvious claims about the world."
http://www.molevol.org/camel/projects/synthesis/theory.html
Elsewhere he claims, with respect to the importance of variation to any evolutionary theory, that:
"Today, evolutionary biology is once again in a state of discord. Superficially, at least, it appears that several fundamentally different views of evolution are competing or co-existing in different fields: an "evo-devo" view, a "molecular" view, a "classical" view, maybe even a "systems" view or an "a-life" view. Some authorities tell us that molecular evolution is different from non-molecular evolution. What is the unified theory that provides for both. The view argued here is that these apparent differences are real, and that the contemporary discord in evolutionary theory hearkens back to the earlier dispute over mutation and the role of variation in evolution...
Evolutionary biology is in a state of transition, based on a new perception of how the process of variation influences evolutionary change. The view that subsequently emerged, in 1930-1950, is what we now know as "neo-Darwinism", and is less ambiguously called the "New Synthesis" or "Modern Synthesis" or "Synthetic Theory". The New Synthesis retained Darwin's assumption of abundant "random" variation, but on a mechanistic basis that was more consistent with modern genetics: rampant recombination in a diverse "gene pool" that would produce abundant slight variations every generation...
Nevertheless, science advances in ways that are not easily anticipated...We now understand that...the non-randomness of variation (long recognized by geneticists) is expected to have a crucial influence on the course of evolution. Indeed, for several decades, molecular evolutionists have relied on an evolutionary view that abandons the Darwinian presumption of abundant pre-existing variation...Thus, while there are clearly common threads linking past and present thought in evolutionary biology, the evolutionary theory of today is not that of Darwin, nor even that of Darwin's mid-20th-century successors. This yet-to-be-named new view, with its empirical emphasis on rates and patterns of divergence, and its reliance on, not only natural selection, but also mutation biases and developmental constraints as causes of non-randomness in evolution, has already enjoyed considerable success."
http://www.molevol.org/camel/projects/synthesis/
"Contempory discord" with "competing views," eh? A "yet to be named" new view which abandons neo-darwinistic assumptions and acknowledges "non-randomness in evolution," eh? Is this now THE Theory of Evoluton, I wonder? If so, I wonder when they will tell the high school teachers, ya know?
You commented at some length on Thomson's 3 meanings (change, common descent, and a particular mechanism) of evolutiono, above, claiming 1 and 2 are facts, and that 3 is a confusion.
Part of my comment was that I didn't even know they were Thompson's meanings.
2. You claim that "common descent" is a fact, and we have already discussed that quite a bit. Woese (and others) claim that biology must move beyond the doctrine of common descent.
I have already agreed to use the narrower notion of common descent that Woese says we must move beyond, and that this notion is probably not true. Feel free to alter thestatement to say "shared ancestry" is a fact.
How could a fish changing into a frog possibly be evidence "against" either change over time or common descent? Obviously, this author equates the term "evolution" with the neo-darwinistic theory thereof.
Changed over time and shared ancestry are two aspects of evolution, but there is much more in it, including mechanisms of how and why changes occur. Such rapic change would throw the whole system into disorder. Change over time and shared ancestry might survive, but the theory would be a different as general relativity was from Newton's gravitational work.
Another of your talkorigin homeys, Theobald, also freely uses the term "macroevolution," and undertakes to provide evidence for it, but he is careful to divorce his analysis from any particular theory of evolution. He does, however, make it clear that the case for macroevolution depends on, and is merely an implication of, the presumption of common descent:.
Theobald defined common descent in the boader sense we have agreed not to use. His arguments work equally well with shared ancestry.
Talkorigins, quoting Lewontin, obediently repeats that: "It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms."
This is not a "fact." It is a premise. If it is true, there is no need for any speculation or hypothesizing about abiogenesis, because, by "factual" definition and implication, there could be no such thing. If biogenesis is a fact, then abiogensis must be false..
It is a fact, in that every currently living thing whose origin is know has a biological origin. Abiognesis would then become the sutdy of how a system that was not alive became 1% alive, then 2% alive, then ..., then 99% alive, then fully alive. At no point does it require something alive to come directly from something not alive.
Some may take the unabashed assertion of fact by some blustering advocte to be sufficient to settle the issue in question. I don't.
Do you have a counterexample?
Post a Comment