Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,227 Year: 5,484/9,624 Month: 509/323 Week: 6/143 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Criticizing neo-Darwinism
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17854
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 47 of 309 (297702)
03-24-2006 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by JustinC
03-23-2006 10:31 PM


Re: gould vs dawkins *ding ding*
quote:
Do you feel it isn't completely within the neo-Darwinian framework because Gould mentions Goldshmit work in the original PE paper?
I can't find any reference to Goldschmidt in Eldredge & Gould's 1972 paper. They do refer to one saltationist - de Vries - but state that his ideas "collapsed" when neo-Darwinism took over.
Eldredge and Gould firmly state that their beliefs are based on Mayr's theory of allopatric speciation in the original paper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by JustinC, posted 03-23-2006 10:31 PM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by JustinC, posted 03-24-2006 5:33 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17854
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 53 of 309 (297884)
03-24-2006 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by nwr
03-24-2006 5:36 PM


Re: Why prejudge?
quote:
Wow! You have lifted that out of context. It was from Message 11, where I was responding to a comment about IC (irreducible complexity). The "assessment" of probabilities comes from the definition of IC. It is not my assessment of probabilities
Which definition of IC ? Behe's original version, Dembski's modified version of that or Behe's later definition (which s almost completely different and never adequately quantified).
And if the assessment of the probabilities is not yours, then whose is it ?e

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by nwr, posted 03-24-2006 5:36 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by nwr, posted 03-24-2006 6:31 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17854
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 59 of 309 (298002)
03-25-2006 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by nwr
03-24-2006 6:31 PM


Re: Why prejudge?
OK, so your claim does not directly follow from the definition.
So, I must repeat the second question. If the probability assessment is not yours where did it come from ?
From my own work in developing software (which could be considered a form of "descent with modification") I find that a sequence of simple changes, if continued, tends to produce complexity all too easily. Part of the discipline is attempting to forsee likely changes and preparing for them - and trying to avoid unnecessary complexity when changes are made. It can be hard work, as programs get extended and expanded. On older programs it is too often the case that an apparently reasonable change will have unforseen side-effects as a result.
It seems to me that your claim about the probability reflects Behe's error of thinking about how designers work instead of thinking about about how evolution works. If a designer intended to achieve a particular result then they work directly towards it. But evolution is not working towards a particular goal and it does not care about taking a direct route. Thus, instead of looking at the direct route and arguing that since it is problematic evolution must have great difficulty producing this result - instead you must look at all the possible routes form your starting point and sum their probabilities.
Worse still for your argument, even if that probability still comes out low, it wuld have to be a virtual impossiiblity for it to matter. There are many possible tracks for evolution. Some involve this species evolving diffeent mechanisms - which may well be irreducibly complex. Or the species might go extinct and a different species from a different lineage evolves to occupy the niche - and that, too, might include the development of irreducibly complex features. Looking at a single example is like looking at the result of 100 consecutive tosses of a coin - and arguing that since the sequence is improbable (p < 10^-30) it cannot be the case that it was produced by tossing coins. 

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nwr, posted 03-24-2006 6:31 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by nwr, posted 03-25-2006 9:50 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17854
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 61 of 309 (298032)
03-25-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by nwr
03-25-2006 9:50 AM


Re: Why prejudge?
Th "assessment of pprobabilities" referred to is the one that you claimed was the result of the definition of IC in Message 52. You claim that is isn't yours but so far I have seen no source for it and this is the second time you have refused to give one.
And while you may consider my point "hilarious" that is because you are missigg the point that the complexity is an unwanted byproduvt of modifying the system - that it is produced in spite of the best efforts of the writer's intelligence. not as a dire ct result of them. If you accept that evolution can modify systems to work in different ways then why should it not produce complexity in an analagous way ?
And if you can't remember the context of the discussion you could always follow the links back t o see what you wrote. I shouldn't have to remind you of the content of your own posts.
And the IC argument is not based on neo-Darwinism for the reasons I gave. It implicitly relies on the fallacious assumption that evolution is goal-directed, an assumption that is directly contrary to neo-Darwinian theory.. As for your own view on the matter I remind you of Message 11
This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-25-2006 10:03 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nwr, posted 03-25-2006 9:50 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Brad McFall, posted 03-27-2006 1:11 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17854
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 69 of 309 (299198)
03-29-2006 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by nwr
03-28-2006 11:15 PM


Re: Muddled fantasies?
Your arguments are becoming increasingly bizarre.
quote:
Let's suppose that north America heats up with global warming. The deer can undergo genetic change to adapt to the warmer climate. Or the deer can just migrate north. Neo-Darwinism tends to imply the first of these, and ignore the second.
Neo-Darwinism doesn't assume that the second case doesn't or cannot happen. If it is ignored it is ignored because it does not result in evolutionary change and is irrelevant to the actual study in question.
quote:
Natural selection is supposed to be non-intentional. Once you introduce sexual selection, you introduce intentions.
But not a conscious decision to select for a trait. Rather a sexual preference appears in a population and spreads (without intention) and that this results in more selection (which can be no more intentional than the existence of the sexual preference). Only if you assume that the sexula preference itself is intentional - and indeed intended to produce a selective effect - could your objection make sense. But I see no reason to assume that peahens deliberately bred their species to foster showy tails in peacocks, because I see no reason to assume that they are mentally capable of making such a decision. But that is what your objection - if it were taken seriosuly - would entail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by nwr, posted 03-28-2006 11:15 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17854
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 78 of 309 (299516)
03-30-2006 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by nwr
03-30-2006 12:48 AM


Re: Holey fitness lanscapes Batman!!
Whether the deer move noeth or not is outside of the theory. On he behavioural side it mgight fall within the theory given sufficient information about the past - but whether it is geograpically possible for the deer to move north or not is clearyl outside of evolutionary theory.
quote:
I'm not looking for a grand unified theory. I am skeptical of such. But a theory that deals with adaptation should recognize that one
way of adapting is to move to an environment where the organism is already adapted.
Of course the theory does, but it simply isn't interested in that case, because so far as the theory is concerned it is the environment that is important, not the geographical location of that environment. This is not a "fudge factor" as you call it - it is a simple recognition that what you decribe is a null case so far as the theory is concerned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by nwr, posted 03-30-2006 12:48 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Brad McFall, posted 03-30-2006 6:47 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17854
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 122 of 309 (387271)
02-27-2007 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by MartinV
02-27-2007 1:52 PM


Shame on MartinV
I followed your link. I read your comments. You deserved to be banned.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
Take comments to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by MartinV, posted 02-27-2007 1:52 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by MartinV, posted 02-27-2007 5:51 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17854
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 126 of 309 (387305)
02-27-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by MartinV
02-27-2007 5:51 PM


Re: Shame on MartinV
No, it's against the rules to be an abusive twit. And that is exactly what you were doing.
It's not your opinions it's your behaviour.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
Take comments to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by MartinV, posted 02-27-2007 5:51 PM MartinV has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17854
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 155 of 309 (403243)
06-01-2007 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by MartinV
06-01-2007 1:05 PM


Re: "Empty niche" explanation is probably wrong
quote:
You obviously didn't follow discussion of mammalian evolution. The point is that no mammalian order arose after Eocene - evolution is finished. Darwinists here tried to explain the curious phenomenon by adaptive radiation after K/T extinction of dinosaurus. Considering my previous post such radiation occured before K/T and consequently such explanation is probably only another darwinian fancy.
You have missed - again - the nature of taxonomy. The origins of the orders are only a part of the story. We also need a significant degree of diversification for these groups to reach the level of orders. And you haven't dealt with that at all.
Indeed - as Quetzal points out - evolution did NOT end there - the paper shows that evolution continued. So we clearly see who is relying on fancies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by MartinV, posted 06-01-2007 1:05 PM MartinV has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17854
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 236 of 309 (463438)
04-17-2008 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Percy
04-16-2008 6:37 PM


Re: NWR's 'Invasive theory'
Looks to me as if the idea has similarities to transposons and "duplication and divergence".
The biggest issue to me is that the gene would have to be reactivated before it was hopelessly corrupted - and offer some benefit. I'd guess that the odds of that happening in any individual case are low so we would need a lot of pseudogenes for this to be a major contributor to evolutionary change.
My initial assessment is that it is something that might happen on rare occasions but it isn't of any great significance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Percy, posted 04-16-2008 6:37 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17854
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 238 of 309 (463462)
04-17-2008 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Wounded King
04-13-2008 7:05 PM


Re: NWR's 'Invasive theory'
The other part is also a bit dodgy. It seems to argue that species will tend to generalise. But as far as I can see there is no such tendency. Specialisation is common - as would be expected given conventional theory.
(As I understand it, specialists can be very successful in the short term - relatively speaking - but are more vulnerable to disasters or environmental change. So that there is, if anything, a tendency to specialise balanced by more frequent extinction of specialised species).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Wounded King, posted 04-13-2008 7:05 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024