tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post7854688938973719056..comments2024-02-29T04:15:06.480-06:00Comments on Life, the Universe, and One Brow: Discussion on evolution, part 2One Browhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comBlogger230125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-86764399677898443832009-08-09T23:18:02.287-05:002009-08-09T23:18:02.287-05:00"I show how the best currently available desc..."I show how the best currently available descriptions of the principle of natural selection come at the too high cost of making evolutionary theory merely schematic (e.g., propensity view of fitness) or incapable of identifying real evolutionary processes (e.g., central tendencies account). I then provide<br />an argument to justify the rehabilitation of a design-problem view of fitness."<br /><br />http://www.ishpssb.org/oldmeetings/2003/ishfinalprog2003.pdf<br /><br />This guy is supposed to be from Duke U., but it sounds like he aint even read the NAS's brochure, ya know? Natural selection incapable of identifying real evolutionary processes!? A "design-problem view of fitness?" Sounds like some kinda crackpot IDer to me. I bet he doesn't even do research and that is opinion is of little significance to those who do, eh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-81235089569246285342009-08-09T23:03:19.633-05:002009-08-09T23:03:19.633-05:00"...Niels Bohr expected that purposive and fu..."...Niels Bohr expected that purposive and functional aspects of biological phenomena could not be made intelligible on a strictly mechanistic approach. BOHR envisioned an analysis employing teleological notions as basic explanatory concepts and predicted that mutually exclusive teleological and mechanistic approaches would be jointly necessary for an exhaustive understanding of life."<br /><br />http://www.ishpssb.org/oldmeetings/2003/ishfinalprog2003.pdf<br /><br />This crackpot seems to be suggesting that Niels Bohr was some kinda idiot, eh? A teleological approach is necessary to understand life!? Not possible...he's tryin to make Bohr's look like some kinda IDer. Utterly slanderous, I tellya!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-49964172233706734052009-08-09T22:17:27.306-05:002009-08-09T22:17:27.306-05:00"...the actuality, and even possibility, of t..."...the actuality, and even possibility, of this synthesis [between evolution and development] is far from obvious given the severe differences between (1) macroevolution and mechanistic developmental biology, and (2) microevolutionary mathematical evolutionary genetics theory, including levels of selection theory. This is a tension whose roots can be seen already in DARWIN's and WEISMANN's work... Before the serious difficulties involved are resolved, no synthesis is actual, or even possible. There is no guarantee for such a resolution—intimations of a failed synthesis are real."<br />http://www.ishpssb.org/oldmeetings/2003/ishfinalprog2003.pdf<br /><br />What!? No synthesis? A possible failure? Where do these crackpots even come from, I wonder?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-74213548357645900762009-08-09T21:58:44.003-05:002009-08-09T21:58:44.003-05:00"A decreased proportion of filled possible
co..."A decreased proportion of filled possible<br />configurations at levels of organization of increasing complexity is accompanied by an increasing difficulty to discover general patterns. This is the fundamental reason why we already have the well formulated 'Atomic Theory' but not yet a comparable 'Living Systems Theory.'"<br />http://www.ishpssb.org/oldmeetings/2003/ishfinalprog2003.pdf<br /><br />No "theory" because it's all just too complex, eh? Like, whooda thunk, I ax ya?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-21833059518115579642009-08-09T21:52:50.409-05:002009-08-09T21:52:50.409-05:00"Many philosophers of biology have come to be..."Many philosophers of biology have come to believe that biological explanations involve appeals to mechanisms rather than laws...it is<br />unclear whether one can appeal to mechanisms in providing explanations of singular events (e.g.,<br />speciation or extinction events) that are causal consequences of chance or contingent occurrences" http://www.ishpssb.org/oldmeetings/2003/ishfinalprog2003.pdf<br /><br />Sumthin *special* about biological explanations, this guy seems to think, eh? Like, "that's all we got, cuz we aint got no more," mebbe? Hey, I thought this was like gravity! Zup wit dat?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-69947404842093567882009-08-09T21:42:52.400-05:002009-08-09T21:42:52.400-05:00"Standard evolutionary theory affords niche c..."Standard evolutionary theory affords niche construction the sole status of product of evolution, but short-circuits its fundamental role in the evolutionary process. A complete understanding of the impact of niche construction in evolution requires an<br />Extended Evolutionary Theory...We<br />support this argument with empirical data, theoretical population genetics and conceptual models, and describe new research methods that could be employed to put it to the test"<br />http://www.ishpssb.org/oldmeetings/2003/ishfinalprog2003.pdf<br /><br />Despite the claims of empirical support, this is probably just another of those "few" critics who don't do research, ya know?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-60310652553668769652009-08-09T20:19:33.753-05:002009-08-09T20:19:33.753-05:00I wonder if the authors of these pedagogical broch...I wonder if the authors of these pedagogical brochures, which stress natural selection as the virtually proven theory of evolution (remember, it's not even a theory unless it is doubtful that any new evidence could alter it), are familiar with the works of Masatochi Nei who wrote, just for example, a research paper called "The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution."<br /><br />http://www.pnas.org/content/104/30/12235.abstract<br /><br />According to the abstract of that paper, "It appears that the driving force of phenotypic evolution is mutation, and natural selection is of secondary importance." The mutationists were utterly refuted by the neo-darwinists in the 30's and 40's, weren't they? Evolution by neutral mutation aint even possible, ya know?<br /><br />Futuyma states that "mutation is quite ineffective because of its low rate of occurrence, whereas even the slightest intensity of natural selection can bring about substantial change in a realistic amount of time."<br /><br />Nei must be one of those "few" scientists who are critical of modern evolutionary theory and whose opinion holds little significance for scientists who do reseach, eh? After all, there is NO evidence against modern evolutionary theory (where natural selection drives evolution per the brochures in question), according to the AAAS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-37851466157745969502009-08-09T19:36:58.423-05:002009-08-09T19:36:58.423-05:00Is it a "non-scientific," supernatural b...Is it a "non-scientific," supernatural belief (like in the Frankenstein movies) that life can be created by "mad scientists," I wonder? Scientists have been doin abiogenesis experiments for decades, but is this "science?"<br /><br />OF COURSE IT IS(!), according to the NAS: "For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells." (Science and Creationism, 1999). The onliest question is how, not if, see? Any day now we might expect some "mad scientist" to create life in a test tube if NAS is right, I spoze.<br /><br />Is "genetic engineering" some crazy psuedo-science, or can humans actually "engineer" genetic traits, ya figure? How about the SETI program which is seeking other intelligent life in the universe? Is this just some supernatural "pseudo-science" which is not based on naturalism? Or is it "natural" to think that other intelligent life is possible?<br /><br />If you say that attempts to discover other intelligent life in the universe, to produce lab-created life from non-living chemicals, and to effectly "engineer" genes are all legitimate "natural," scientific pursuits, with no reason to predict failure, a priori, for such attempts, then where does that leave you? <br /><br />On what basis could one rule out the possibility that the life on earth which we study was designed by highly advanced civilizations on other planets, then imported here? Why say that ID theory is "not science" if naturalistic processes could provide a basis for it, hmmmmm?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-82849032836267844662009-08-09T16:48:19.636-05:002009-08-09T16:48:19.636-05:00Read this brochure critically, Eric. Look at this...Read this brochure critically, Eric. Look at this sentence and then tell me that the "creationists" who said the term "evolution" was used in multiple, confusingly unspecified manners, are not worth trusting. "Evolution stands on an equally solid foundation of observation, experiment, and confirming evidence." <br /><br />Didn't you claim that nobody would use the word "evolution" to mean the theoretical elements thereof in a teaching setting? Are you ready to retract that claim, I wonder? I mean, I've already demonstrated that the "scientists" at talkorigins so the same, haven't I.<br /><br />The equivocal use of terms to "explain" the topic of evolution as used here is simply a method of misleading students into an extremely mushy, uncritical "understanding" of the theoretical issues, as I see it? Is it intentional? Well, either that, or totally incompetent, as far as "teaching" methods go.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-5972036833429101132009-08-09T16:39:20.122-05:002009-08-09T16:39:20.122-05:00This same brochure purports to explain what a scie...This same brochure purports to explain what a scientific theory is, in much the same wording as I have already quoted from wiki, to wit"<br /><br /><br />"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena. A good example is the theory of gravity. After hundreds of<br />years of observation and experiment, the basic facts of gravity are understood. The theory of gravity is an explanation of those basic facts. Scientists then use the theory to make predictions about how gravity will function in different circumstances. Such predictions have been verified in countless experiments, further<br />confirming the theory. Evolution stands on an equally solid foundation of observation, experiment, and confirming evidence."<br /><br />Hmmm, so what do we have here?<br /><br />Well, first, that a "scientific theory" is an "explantion." Just any old explanation? Naw, apparently only those that "are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them." [In the entire history of science has there been a single case of such an explanation?]. As a side attribute, a scientific theory also allows us to make predictions, they say.<br /><br />Do they have an example? Well, yeah, they have two, actually. " A good example is the theory of gravity." Hmm, and you say that Newton's explanation of "gravity" is simply a law, not a theory--I wonder who's right here, you, or them? Whichever, they say "Scientists then use the theory to make predictions about how gravity will function in different circumstances" (as Newtonians did for the "hundreds of years" this brochure brings up). Of course, you also keep saying that Einstein's relativistic view of Newton's mathematical formula was a mere "refinement" of Newton, so let's not quibble here, OK? (having made that request, I expect you to quibble, but I will wait and see about that). <br /><br />Of course their second example is evolutionary theory: "Evolution stands on an equally solid foundation of observation, experiment, and confirming evidence." I mean, like, really now, is this a joke? Are they really trying to compare the predictive power and confirming evidence for "explanantions" advanced by evolutionary theory to that afforded by the strict mathematical formulaes used for gravity?<br /><br />Only a straight-up chump would fall for that claim, I figure, but that's not to say I haven't found many darwinist cheerleaders swallowin it hook, line, and sinker.<br /><br />NAS must indeed presume that their readers are chumps. It could be that, in most cases, at least, they are 100% right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-19450425921724658062009-08-09T14:58:38.489-05:002009-08-09T14:58:38.489-05:00Ironically, this brochure has the gall to say (add...Ironically, this brochure has the gall to say (addressing ID theory, of course): "Teaching<br />non-scientific concepts in science class will only confuse students about the processes,<br />nature, and limits of science."<br /><br />The opposite is probably true. Perhaps teaching ID theory would be one way of unconfusing students who are exposed to such "non-scientific" concepts as are contained in this brochure and help them understand the true "nature and limits" of science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-30952249731337948002009-08-09T14:49:08.991-05:002009-08-09T14:49:08.991-05:00With respect to that last post, Eric, I would anti...With respect to that last post, Eric, I would anticipate your response (if you made one) to the errors I have noted be along one or more of these lines--the alleged errors are:<br /><br />1. Probably the result of hasty publishication and/or that the task was probably assigned to a menial clerk, who understood neither the philosophy or evolutionary theory.<br /><br />2. Simply results of editing errors.<br /><br />3. not true errors, all apperances to the contrary notwithstanding, because the same words have different meanings in different sentences.<br /><br />4. insignificant, with the substance of the message being "true."<br /><br />5. not the least bit misleading, even if erroeous<br /><br />I might agree with you on 3, but, if so, those equivocations could hardly have been unintentional and not designed to be misleading.<br /><br />This brochure is simply a shortened version of an entire book ["Science, Evolution, and Creationism" (2008)] and considerable effort must have been put into it's production by NAS. The authoring committee is composed of 15 academics from prestigious institutions from all over the country [including Robert Pennock, who has written several books, some over 1000 pages in lenth, defending neo-darwinism and attacking ID--he is also the one who wants to (disingenously, if you ask me) that the "naturalism" is science is strictly methodological].<br /><br />The care and authority which went into this dubious publication makes it all the more appalling to a disintered observer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-142045745854027662009-08-08T10:07:49.354-05:002009-08-08T10:07:49.354-05:00From a NAS brochure opposing ID theory:
"Nat...From a NAS brochure opposing ID theory:<br /><br />"Natural selection is the process by which some traits succeed and others fail in the environment where the organism lives... Scientists no longer question the basic facts of evolution as a process...The fossil record, DNA research, the evidence that species have common ancestors, and other findings add up to overwhelming evidence that evolution by natural selection is how life on Earth arose and became diverse."<br /><br />http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf<br /><br />Hmm, where to even start trying to intrepret and assess this curious brochure, eh? Well, in passing, one might note that the last sentence quoted claims that "that evolution by natural selection is how life on Earth arose."<br /><br />Does ANY scientist argue this? That life "arose" by natural selection? Natural selection requires the pre-existence of life to "select" from, don't it? Apparently the faith which NAS has in the "creative power" of natural selection is unbounded.<br /><br />What you, Eric, have called a "mechanism," this brochure calls "process" [they say "Natural selection is the process by which some traits succeed and others fail..."], so let's use that as a substitute synonmyn is the next sentence, which would then read: "Scientists no longer question the basic facts of evolution as a mechanism."<br /><br />So the "mechanism" (which Gould said was the theoretical part) is now a "basic fact," eh? T<br /><br />No wonder that those exposed to evolutionary teaching have a very confused notion about the distinction between theory and fact, eh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-4323713420647095322009-08-07T23:53:24.612-05:002009-08-07T23:53:24.612-05:00More "pedagogical information," from the...More "pedagogical information," from the AAAS, eh?<br /><br />"What is evolution? Evolution is a broad, well-tested description of how Earth's present-day life forms arose from common ancestors["description," eh?]...Evolution occurs in populations when heritable changes are passed from one generation to the next. Genetic variation, whether through random mutations or the gene shuffling that occurs during sexual reproduction, sets the stage for evolutionary change. That change is driven by forces such as natural selection, in which organisms with advantageous traits, such as color variations in insects that cloak some of them from predators, are better enabled to survive and pass their genes on to future generations.<br /><br />Ultimately, evolution explains both small-scale changes within populations and large-scale changes in which new species diverge from a common ancestor over many generations."<br /><br />Well, they pack all the theory in there, eh, and simply call the theory "evolution" which is "described," not hypothesized, interpreted, or deduced. Random mutation (why not just say "mutation," I wonder?--Why does "random" ALWAYS have to be inserted as a qualifying adjective?). Common descent, natural selection, macro-evolution = micro-evolution, the whole 10 yards.<br /><br />I wonder if anyone who aint plumb stupid doubts any of this, eh? Lemme see here....<br /><br />"Is there "evidence against" contemporary evolutionary theory? No.<br /><br />Is there a growing body of scientists who doubt that evolution happened? No...Of the few scientists who criticize contemporary evolutionary theory, most do no research in the field, and so their opinions have little significance for scientists who do."<br /><br />Well, there ya have it, then, eh? All wrapped up in a ribbon.<br /><br />http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-80012474758494922082009-08-07T22:49:43.414-05:002009-08-07T22:49:43.414-05:00It has occurred to me before that there are parall...It has occurred to me before that there are parallels between the Newtonian explanations and Einstein's.<br /><br />Newtonians claimed gravity was a "force." If I'm not mistaken, it's still referred to as one of the four "fundamental forces."<br /><br />But it had to be almost an "intelligent" force, with advanced powers of discernment. If you drop a baseball and a cannonball from a building they will hit the ground at the same time. But the cannon ball is much more massive, and should therefore require a stronger force to accelerate it just as rapidly as a baseball. How does gravity "know" just how much more force to apply to get them to always tie in "races" to the ground, I wonder?<br /><br />Likewise, Einstein merely appropriated the curious, but theretofore seemingly meaningless, lorentz contractions to "explain" the observable fact that we always measure the speed of light to be the same, regardless of the relative motions of the sender and receiver. Somehow, light must be pretty smart to know just how to shrink distances, slow time, etc., just so it always appear to be consistent in its speed, eh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-2764263785704484382009-08-07T22:36:37.071-05:002009-08-07T22:36:37.071-05:00One Brow said: "But the warping of space is ...One Brow said: "But the warping of space is a mechanism for the attrction of bodies. There is no more "spooky action at a distance", just local effects."<br /><br />Heh, as if the "warping of space" isn't spooky? Seriously, what exactly is "space, and how can it "warp" as a practical matter? Of course, for Einstein, there is no "space" per se. Only space/time. Now, tell me, what is "space/time," apart from a verbalization of the mathematics involved (as was the Newtonian use of the concept of "attaction of matter to matter" to verbalize the mathematical relationship detected)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-56570938713740753892009-08-07T22:25:52.784-05:002009-08-07T22:25:52.784-05:00Edit: I said: "Maynard Smith (I think it was...Edit: I said: "Maynard Smith (I think it was) said that, despite the multiplicity of labels, there are really only two basic types of evolutionary theory, i.e., darwinism and lamarckism."<br /><br />On reflection, I think this is where he used "wiesmannism," as the basic contrast, not darwinism (although Weismann was, at that time, a fervent devotee of natural selection as the sole "driver" of evolutionary change.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-13754164853165789952009-08-07T21:29:53.934-05:002009-08-07T21:29:53.934-05:00Again, as I have said before, I can assume (or inf...Again, as I have said before, I can assume (or infer) that an object has been designed without that assumption in any way affecting the way I try to analyze it or explain it. Such an assumption may assist my investigation, but it does not change my methodolgy. If I know nothing about the workings of machines motivated by internal combustion engines, for example, I still will not "understand" one until I know how all the parts interact with each other and what function they serve, which requires investigation (for me). I do not purport to "explain" anything by simply saying: "this machine was designed." Science is ultimately about explanations, not metaphyscial presumptions, although the latter may inform the former. An assumption of "vitalism" would not change that. We would never have, or even be expected to, explain the ultimate nature of the "vital force" to simply investigate the phenomena.<br /><br />The trillions of cells in the human body, and their constituent components, do in fact "serve purposes" in highly complex ways that we do not even begin to fully understand. If, at the outset, I start with the presumption that "all reality is simply mindless matter in motion" then I must conclude that all phenomena, all understanding thereof, and all explanations therefor, must result from and be reducible to mindless matter in motion.<br /><br />But we could not even begin to formulate such notions as materialism or vitalism if we did not ourselves have some form of "intelligence." We are living proof that there is intelligence in nature and that "natural things" (like us) can have intentions, purposes, and the capacity to both conceive of designs and also thereafter implement the ends previously designed.<br /><br />The point I'm making is this: Whether one ultimately believes in or presupposes vitalism (lamarckism in evolutionary terms) or materialsim (darwinism) has nothing to do with science as such. The vociferious outcry that materialism must be taught as an underlying presupposition, but that any notion of vitalism cannot even be discussed as an alternative presupposition, is not "scientific" either.<br /><br />Lamarckism, whether true or not, whether ever irrefutably demonstrated or not, is NOT off limits to either scientific investigation nor is it inherently outside the realm of "scientific thinking." Of course, neo-darwinists have always thought otherwise, but, still....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-29158102327328211272009-08-07T21:29:23.827-05:002009-08-07T21:29:23.827-05:00Maynard Smith (I think it was) said that, despite ...Maynard Smith (I think it was) said that, despite the multiplicity of labels, there are really only two basic types of evolutionary theory, i.e., darwinism and lamarckism.<br /><br />It seems obvious that both views feel compelled to deny that all evolution is (was) random, sensing intuitively that would be prohibitively improbable. Both insist that evolution is NOT random, but disagree on the reasons why this is so. Philosophically speaking, these two viewpoints, as they relate to living matter, seem come down to "vitalism" vs. "materialism."<br /><br />1. Vitalism: (a) a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining. (b) a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from biochemical reactions.<br /><br />2. Materialism: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter. <br /><br />http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialism<br /><br />Any theory (such as ID, but including many others) of evolution which posits any kind of "directionality," purpose, intelligence, self-direction, etc. as a factor "guiding" evolution is basically a lamarckian or vitalistic one if Maynard Smith's simplificaton is correct.<br /><br />Any theory (Such as darwinism, but including many others) which denies the existence of any purpose, direction, intelligence, etc. as a guiding factor is a materialistic one.<br /><br />Both views are fundamentally metaphysical, and they fundamentally oppose each other with respect to the affirmation or denial of the claim that "matter in motion" is the one and only ultimate reality.<br /><br />One or the other may be right, but presumably not both. It would seem that neither is logically impossible or susceptible to ultimate proof or disproof.<br /><br />As I have said before, this difference is completely independent of any chosen methodology. Both can use a employ a "naturalistic" or "supernatualistic" methodology. Indeed, much talk by evolutionists about natural selection is phrased in language which implies purposeful activity by an active "agent." As someone (I forget who) said, "Mother Nature" is no more or less "supernaturalistic" than is "God."<br /><br />As the ID theorists have noted, many "sciences" use the inference of design to explain phenomena, with the point being that such inferences are not inherently "unscientific" or based in mysticism. Dawkins, and indeed most biologists, freely acknowledge the existence of a phethora of phenomena that tempt (require, almost) one to explain by inferring some design.<br /><br />It is in no means self-evident that such inferences are "unreasonable" or "unscientific" unless one merely defines them as such. One can, for example, say: "I define any inference of design to be both unreasonable and unscientific." But, of course, definitions are arbitrary, and do not dictate the reality of the matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-86608585267647740462009-08-07T19:18:45.624-05:002009-08-07T19:18:45.624-05:00I said: We have already agreed that the notion of...I said: We have already agreed that the notion of "random mutation" is at bottom a metaphyisical one that cannot be proved or disproved. So why is not neo-darwinism, like ID theory, untestable and hence "not scientific," I wonder.<br /><br />You responded: We did? I must have been off my feed that day/week/month<br /><br />Musta been, yeah. This is was you said on April 27: Me: You repeatedly say that all heritable genetic variation has been shown to be random.<br />You: I certainly hope I have not, because such a statement would be unprovable<br /><br />April 28: You: "As we have agreed (I think), there is no known test for randomness/design per se.<br /><br />Your current (and former) ongoing assertions that the "randomness" of mutations can be, and has been, confirmed, seems to relax on occasion, such as on May 3 when you said: "Even if Dawkins is uncomfortable with it, adaptive mutation (which is not classical Lamarckism by any means) happens, and we know this because we have tested mechanisms to demonstrate it."<br /><br />Are "adaptive mutations" consistent with the claim that all mutations are random? Doesn't seem to be.<br /><br />Ya know, going through some of these old posts, I realize that you must, as is typical, I guess, have entirely different definitions for "ontological" and "epistemological" than I do. I really can't make a lick of sense of a statement like this: "Neo-Darwinism is dead, remember? Even when it was alive, the biological version relied on epistomological randomness, specifically of the type where mutations are not controlled by the organsim, not ontological randomness."<br /><br />This all gets quite tedious, eh, Eric? The question was this: "So why is not neo-darwinism, like ID theory, untestable and hence "not scientific," I wonder."<br /><br />Do you have a direct answer to that question, or not?<br /><br />Is your answer that neo-darwinism makes no claims about reality? If so, does ID make claims about reality, or is such a hypothesis merely "methodological." If they are different in this respect, HOW are they different. You seem to agree that it is not in the "testability" of the two, insofar as their basic premises go.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-27470499721239313992009-08-07T17:46:52.089-05:002009-08-07T17:46:52.089-05:00To elaborate on what Williams sees as an absolutel...To elaborate on what Williams sees as an absolutely indispenable prerequisite to clear thought about evolution, let me quote him directly:<br /><br />"The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the message. Maintaining this distinction between the medium and the message is absolutely indispensable to clarity of thought about evolution...<br /><br />[Dawkins]was misled by the fact that genes are always identified with DNA. Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter...These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term "reductionism." You can speak of galaxies and particles of dust in the same terms, because they both have mass and charge and length and width. You can't do that with information and matter."<br /><br />Same cite as before, eh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-53460330113324233882009-08-07T17:35:41.159-05:002009-08-07T17:35:41.159-05:00One Brow said: "I don't think he would a...One Brow said: "I don't think he would argue that statement even after acknowledging the importance of development, for which he used the term "selected through their effect on development", as opposed to varying because of their development."<br /><br />He might or might not argue it, I don't know (but, first, remember that Mayr is not Maynard Smith). I get the feeling that both you, Mayr, and possibly Maynard Smith are confusing genes with some kinda physical objects, as opposed to simply "packets of information," as they seen by George C. Williams (who is highly praised by Dawkins, Gould, Elridge, Maynard Smith (via Eldrige) and others here: http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/h-Ch.1.html<br /><br />As noted by Magulis, "The neo-Darwinists say that variation originates from random mutation, defining mutation as any genetic change." The close association, if not virtual identity, that the neo-darwinists once tried to make between "genes" and dna has vanished, but many still seem to think in those terms.<br /><br />If "genes" are simply the message, irrespective of the medium; if, indeed, genes are ONLY information, then certainly the "epigentic" means by which regulatory genes "choose" to express the dna is at bottom a form of "genetic mutation." This would seems to imply that, in Williams' view, genes vary "because of their development," to use your words.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-22911236752630826832009-08-07T17:06:38.916-05:002009-08-07T17:06:38.916-05:00One Brow said: "of the various ways mutation...One Brow said: "of the various ways mutations are known to happen, none of them take the actual needs of the organism into account."<br /><br />This appears to be claim of fact, eh, Eric? Or do you say that strictly as a "methodist," with no ontological intentions at all? If the latter, you might want to study the english language a little more, because that sho nuff aint the meaning you're conveying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-22017882211054531562009-08-07T17:00:14.029-05:002009-08-07T17:00:14.029-05:00One Brow said: "I don't see anything in ...One Brow said: "I don't see anything in this quote that equates to "unfortunate and misleading". I'm sure you had anopther quote in mind."<br /><br />Then you are just as blind as every other devoted apologist I ever ran into, I guess. No doubt you missed the word "sadly." If you can't see where it was misleading (suggesting that development was irrelevant to evolution) then I really don't think there's anything you could see, unless mebbe you wanted to, ya know?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-72834981305703026612009-08-07T16:45:59.565-05:002009-08-07T16:45:59.565-05:00This is really just incredible, ya know? Anyone w...This is really just incredible, ya know? Anyone with the least bit of sophisication with respect to the philosophy of science, or even used the least bit of critcal thought, would see the NAS claims as completely over the top on the propaganda scale.<br /><br />An explantion becomes a theory when "no new evidence is likely to alter" it, at which point it is a "factual explanation" which serves as a "reliable account of the real world."<br /><br />Simply incredible that NAS would promulgate that view. Are they actually retarded, I wonder?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com