Dawkins on Evolution

I agree with Prothero. I think to either try to prove, or disprove, the presence or nature of a deity according to scientic evidence does an injustice to both sides of the argument. This is one of the major points of Karen Armstrong's essay and also her current book, The Case for God.

I would also like to point out the work of Simon Conway Morris, a British paleontologist and strong opponent of both materialism and intelligent design creationism.





His current title is Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe.

Neither is anyone in evolutionary biology.

Natural selection is NOT the only mechanism of population genetic change as a function of time (i.e. genetic evolution)-- I cannot stress this enough. Natural selection was the only mechanism that Darwin identified. But some argue that it's not even the most important.

[SIZE="3"]Is natural selection important to E-theory? Depends on who you ask:[/SIZE]

Natural Selection - Biology Encyclopedia - Mechanism of Natural Selection, Consequences of Natural Selection

[SIZE="4"]Consequences of Natural Selection[/SIZE]

[SIZE="3"]Natural selection is truly the ultimate inventor. A short list of some of its many "inventions" includes flight, celestial navigation, echolocation, insulation, infrared sensors, hypodermic needles, plus all sorts of useful biologically active chemicals such as antibiotics, analgesics, emetics, diuretics, laxatives, tranquilizers, contraceptives, hallucinogens, pain killers, and many, many more. Each of these has been fashioned by natural selection to meet the needs of particular organisms in specific environments.[/SIZE]


Factors Influencing Allele Frequency or Deviations from Hardy- Weinberg Equilibrium, Hardy-Weinberg Theorem, Allele Frequencies, Gene Frequencies, Darwin-Wallace Theory, Mutation, Meiotic Drive and Migration Pressure

[SIZE="4"]Natural selection - [/SIZE][SIZE="3"]Natural selection is generally believed to be the prominent agent for determining the relative frequency of alleles in a population. Natural selection differentiates between phenotypes in a population with respect to their ability to produce offspring. One phenotype may better survive endemic onslaughts of parasities or predators than another, one may penetrate new habitats more effectively than another; one may mate more efficiently than other; one may even prey on the other.[/SIZE]


Theory of Natural Selection

[SIZE="4"]How does Darwin's theory of natural selection explain the origin of species? [/SIZE]

[SIZE="3"]If evolution was a car, the theory of natural selection would be the engine. The basic ideas of evolution were discussed long before there was any scientific research done to support them. The evolutionary concept was never able to gain any real steam because it lacked a mechanism. That is, scientists wanted to believe that species evolved from one form to another, but had no plausible process to make it happen. The theory of natural selection provides that reasonable method of evolution. [/SIZE]


Synthetic Theory of Evolution: Recombination

[SIZE="3"][SIZE="4"]Natural selection[/SIZE] is usually the most powerful mechanism or process causing evolution to occur, however, it only selects among the existing variation already in a population. It does not create new genetic varieties or new combinations of varieties. One of the sources of those new combinations of genes is recombination. It is responsible for producing genetic combinations not found in earlier generations.[/SIZE]


[SIZE="3"]Finally, from this most interesting TalkOrigins article: [/SIZE]

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

[SIZE="4"]Evolution is a Fact and a Theory[/SIZE]

[SIZE="3"]When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? [my emphasis] . . . Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

". . . Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution. - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981[/SIZE]


[SIZE="3"]Now this thread's OP included a complaint about Dawkins presentation of evolution. "[Dawkins] then goes on to speculate that evolution is randomly varying coded information. How does he arrive at the fact that evolution is the result of random information? He does not say. He doesn't even suggest that it may possibly be the other way around because his own biases."

Unlike the careful distinction Gould makes above between the fact of gradual development over time/common descent (AKA, evolution) and the theories regarding the mechanisms that may have caused that evolution, Dawkins makes no such distinctions; and notice the first four links above indicate little or no distinction as well. If we refer to the related complaint of this thread, that Dawkins (and other apologists) do not present objective science, but a biased presentation of science to push their atheistic beliefs, then it seems to me there is a legitimate reason to criticize Dawkins and others who practice such sophistry.[/SIZE]

I'm with you 100%. This is POP PHI at it's finest (read worst)

The article is amateur writing, completely preposterous philosophy, totally inconclusive, mainly false, and utterly redundant.

The real shame is that thousands... millions I'd guess... will read that article and say "wow, this guy's smart. what interesting facts!"

shameful.

T

I absolutely love it when someone on this forum openly challenges a statement on biology coming from Aedes.

Complete agreement with Aedes coming in 5....4...3...

well personally I find Aedes' attitude to the question very balanced, for what it is worth.

Yes, this was the basis of the complaint. Dawkins relies exclusively on Darwins' evolution not only for life on this planet but other planets as well! An absolutely incredible stretch of one's imagination. Paul seems to suggest in his post that scientists embrace his viewpoint. This may or may not be the case. I have not seen any evidence one way or another. In this article Dawkins does not.

Rich

To be fair, as a critic of Dawkins, I do not think he is using Darwin. As Aedes has said many times before, except for his historic place, Darwin is essentially irrelevant when the conversation hits modern evolutionary theory.

These are quotes from the article. He clearly makes Darwin the lynch pin of evolution:

"And if life is elsewhere, it is something stronger than a haunch to say that it will turn out to be Darwinian life."

"The argument in favor of alien life's existing at all is weaker than the argument that-if it exists at all-it will be Darwinian life. But it is also possible that we really are alone in the universe, in which case Earth, with its greatest show, is the most remarkable planet in the universe."

"Never once are the laws of physics violated, yet life emerges into uncharted territory. And how is the trick done? The answer is a process that, although variable in its wondrous detail, is sufficiently uniform to deserve one single name: Darwinian evolution, the nonrandom survival of randomly varying coded information. We know, as certainly as we know anything in science, that this is the process that has generated life on our own planet."

"To midwife such emergence is the singular achievement of Darwinian evolution. It starts with primeval simplicity and fosters, by slow, explicable degrees, the emergence of complexity: seemingly limitless complexity-certainly up to our human level of complexity and very probably way beyond."

"Darwinian evolution may not be the only such generative process in the universe. There may be other "cranes" (Daniel Dennett's term, which he opposes to "skyhooks") that we have not yet discovered or imagined. But, however wonderful and however different from Darwinian evolution those putative cranes may be, they cannot be magic. They will share with Darwinian evolution the facility to raise up complexity, as an emergent property, out of simplicity, while never violating natural law."

Rich

[SIZE="3"]Well, I say that is just plain false. Every single student I have debated and still debate reflects what professors have taught them, and that is the PRIMARY evolutive mechanism is the combination of natural selection and mutation. Every single biology text book I examine emphasizes that, the majority of articles online meant for the public states that, and science specials on PBS, Science Channel, National Geographic, etc. are presented that way.

Dawkins was the subject of this OP, so I have been arguing what he and other public figures representing what science considers "fact" is a distortion made for no other reason than to eliminate creationism/intelligent design, and to push atheistism/mechanistic philosophy. Dawkins may no longer be Oxford's Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, but at one time he was chosen to represent evolution theory to the public for one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

So I continue to contend that there is not an objective picture of E-theory presented to the public, and that Dawkins well represents the faction that is manipulating public perception by using the sophist tactic of conflating the fact that evolution has occurred with the mechanistic theories of just what has propelled life from a single cell to humanity.

Why is that important? Because physicalism is being prevaricatively substituted for that creativity where the vast majority of humans feel a creative consciousness has been at work. The minority physicalist crowd think they can do away with God, just as Dawkins openly admits. It is infuriating that he and others attempt it by deceptive means.[/SIZE]

---------- Post added 09-21-2009 at 08:21 AM ----------



[SIZE="3"]Yes, but Aedes attitude is not the subject of this thread is it? I at least have only been opposing what seems like his (and others) casual dismissal of the concern this thread's author found disturbing. Objective research by the most devoted scientists wasn't the issue, but that is what Aedes keeps offering up as though it somehow excuses the behavior of what's going on with that part of the science community responsible for presenting what is known, and what is theory, to the public. Only an occasional remote little voice ever makes it through the roar of the public science presenters to say "well, we really don't know yet what the mechanisms that evolved life forms are."

And to hope anyone might admit "it might very well be that some type of creative consciousness is behind evolution" is futile. Ideas suggested like, say, "morphic fields" by British scientist Rupert Sheldrake are resisted mightily, not just because they are unavailable for scientific scrutiny, but because they are not sufficiently mechanistic and leave the door open for God. The reaction of Nature editor John Maddox is typical, "Sheldrake's argument is an exercise in pseudo-science. - Many readers will be left with the impression that Sheldrake has succeeded in finding a place for magic within scientific discussion - and this, indeed, may have been a part of the objective of writing such a book."

So because of a war between religion and atheists/physicalists, the public is fed exaggerations, spin, and evidence carefully selected that shows only what is known, and hides what isn't -- and then that is represented as "science." It seems to me that any true science lover would be outraged by that, instead of trying to defend it.[/SIZE]

---------- Post added 09-21-2009 at 08:27 AM ----------



[SIZE="3"]You might want to get your nose a little further up his behind, I think there might still be a chance of an original thought getting through to your brain.[/SIZE]

When it comes to factual statements about the current status of evolutionary biology research, I will defer to the expert.

I have no doubt that my opposition to religion is far more vehement than Aedes, and we will find disagreement there. But I see little to gain in arguing issues that Aedes is far, far more versed in than me.

EDIT: And since you have called me out on this, you sound much more like an amateur cherry picking according to what he wants to be true, while Aedes strikes me as being far more balanced in his opinions. You have an agenda, Aedes has never struck me as having an agenda.

I have no doubt you have original thoughts, but I have extreme doubts as to your objectivity and inquiry into those thoughts.

I would much rather parrot an expert than pursue my agenda in spite of what he says.

It is quite ironic that your gripe about this is that science is misrepresenting theories as facts, but then when somebody who knows his **** presents facts (not opinions on whether evolution is true, but rather where evolutionary research is today), you dispute that as well.

I like a lot of Aedes' posts too. Can I be insulted about it as well please?

That is not true, I'm afraid. Anyone who is taught natural selection as THE mechanism of evolution needs to get their money back.

Evolution, at its bare bones, is population-based genetic change as a function of time. This is true of traits necessary for survival, but it's also true of those that are not.

Natural selection is a mechanism by which genetic change at a single genetic locus can happen quickly, depending on the strength of the selection.

However, it is NOT the primary mechanism of evolutionary change in populations. Genetic drift is more important. Founder effects are more important. Bottlenecks are more important. Nonrandom mating is more important. And with the latter 3 having finite populations is important.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Iceland is a genetically homogeneous population (by world standards). There are what like 350,000 people there. If I take 5000 Icelanders and stick them on an uninhabited island off the coast of Greenland, where the selective factors are basically the same as in Iceland, and I wait 50,000 years, the ancestral population and the isolated population will be genetically different than one another -- they will have evolved apart -- even in the complete absence of natural selection.

Why? Because the isolated population is not 100% representative of the ancestral population, which means that its population gene frequencies are different. Secondly, the "random" genetic variability that happens from one generation to the next will be different in one population versus the other -- so the separated populations will accumulate different genetic innovations. These may have a phenotypic effect, like some difference in the size of their nose or the color of their hair, which will be preserved so long as they're not deleterious.

THAT is a more important explanation for Darwin's findings in the Galapagos than even Darwin's own explanation. He observed differences in finches from island to island. Natural selection, i.e. the exploitation of novel niches for survival, is fine and dandy but the point is that the finches diversified because they became isolated from one another.

A founder effect is what happened with human evolution in two major instances: 1) the diaspora of humans from Africa, and 2) the entry of humans into the Americas. In both cases the new land became inhabited by a very small subpopulation of the ancestral group. And it should come as no surprise then that the baseline genetic diversity within Africa (and linguistic diversity as well) is FAR greater than anything and everything outside of Africa, which comes from a small 'bottleneck' population.

Same with the evolution of terrestrial green plants, which are all descendents of green algae -- everything from peat moss to giant sequoias to jalapenos. A small founding population leads to a massive diversification when it becomes isolated from its ancestral group and occupies a new niche.

Paul,

I did a quick google on "natural selection curriculum high school". The teaching of natural selection is ubiquitous to say the least, and possibly even core. This is just one of many, many examples. Les, has a point that natural selection is far more core than I think you would like to believe.

Lesson Plans: Natural Selection (all, )

Following a lecture and subsequent activity on natural selection, general biology students will be able to list the key points of Darwin's theory of natural selection and explain the peppered moth as an example of natural selection with 100% accuracy.
Specific Student Learning Objectives
1.Students should be able to construct a simple definition of evolution.
2.Students will list the key points of Darwin's theory of natural selection.
3.Students should be able to cite the peppered moth as an example of natural selection as a result of environmental change.

This is from Wikipedia, which pretty much represents mainstream views:

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Two major mechanisms determine which variants will become more common or rare in a population. One is natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce, meaning that more individuals in the next generation will inherit these traits.[2][3] Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of the variants best-suited for their environment.[4] The other major mechanism driving evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population."

Rich

It's indeed a core principle of it, but high school science isn't the state of the scientific consensus. [ And Les mentioned "professors", so I was assuming he meant evolution as taught at a higher level ]

I've got no problem with natural selection being taught as a core of evolutionary biology at a high school level. Natural selection is EASY for people to grasp, but state of the art evolution requires facility with much less tangible sciences (for young people), like population genetics and molecular genetics.

High school subjects of ANY sort are going to be some limited distillation of the academic state of the art in that field. You'd find that true for chemistry and quantum physics as well.

So I guess we need to ask the following questions:

1) are we debating the state of the art of evolutionary theory?
2) are we debating high school level evolutionary biology studies?
3) are we debating what the high school curriculum should be?

If we're talking about 3, then we first need to agree about 1. And if we're talking about 2, then we need to realize that there IS a 1.

Well, I was preparing to show you a few dozen more science websites (obviously four wasn't enough) that explain evolution as primarily 1) the various means of genetic variation, and 2) the various ways nature decides who passes on genes and who doesn't. Genetic drift, founder and bottleneck effects, etc. . . . all are on the side of genetic variation, while the mechanisms behind what ends up preserving a change can be lumped into natural selection (such as coevolution, for example). Maybe you think natural selection is less important than other aspects, but you don't seem to be in the majority opinion.

However, your questions above are more the issue because none of them are what I interpreted as the point of this thread; my comments, at least, have been restricted to trying to show why those representing science to the public are presenting evolution in ways to manipulate public beliefs of what is known and what is theory.

You have yet to answer my main points, but instead take up side issues, which even if true, don't reflect one way or another on the real topic. It seems like you want to draw me into a false dilemma or keep me occupied with irrelevant issues, especially since I thought in my previous post I made it clear as a bell that it is how evolution is represented to the public which is the issue.

One of your favorite authors, Gould, summed it up perfectly, ". . . Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."

Well, maybe Gould and some inner circle of researchers are clear about the distinctions, but that's not how it is presented to the public. You yourself, in fact, just presented a misleading argument when you said, "If I take 5000 Icelanders and stick them on an uninhabited island off the coast of Greenland, where the selective factors are basically the same as in Iceland, and I wait 50,000 years, the ancestral population and the isolated population will be genetically different than one another -- they will have evolved apart -- even in the complete absence of natural selection."

What you referred to as "evolved apart" was actually mere simple adaption of an existing organ system. It is the most common deception the evolution presenters pull on the public, to act like that simple adaption is the same force that produced the complex organ systems in the first place. We never observe that, we don't know that . . . it is a mere assumption that E-theorists make to maintain their belief.

Let me state it more clearly:

WE DON'T KNOW IF ADAPTION AND SPECIATION IS ANYTHING MORE THAN SUPERFICIAL ADJUSTMENTS to EXISTING SYSTEMS; WE DON'T KNOW IF ADAPTION AND SPECIATION CREATED ORGAN SYSTEMS

THEREFORE, TO CITE ADAPTIVE FACTORS LIKE GENETIC DRIFT, BOTTLENECK AND FOUNDER EFFECTS, AND/OR NATURAL SELECTION AS "EVOLUTION" IS AN OUTRIGHT DECEPTION . . . IT IS EVIDENCE OF [SIZE="5"]ADAPTION[/SIZE], NOT EVOLUTION

Gould is clear there is a difference between knowing that life gradually evolved over time/common descent, and knowing the mechanisms that caused that evolution. When you list mere adaption or speciation as "evolution" you imply they are facts of the same class as gradual development/common descent.

Check out UC Berkeley's website, for example, to catch a reputable institution of higher education speaking of theoretical mechanisms as though they are facts:

[SIZE="4"]Mutations are Random[/SIZE]

The mechanisms of evolution-like natural selection and genetic drift-work with the random variation generated by mutation.

Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random-whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

Evolution 101: Mutation Is Not "Directed"

Do they know mutations that evolved organisms were random? No. Do they say, imply, hint, or otherwise give the slightest indication that they do not know that, that it's mere theory. No. They make a direct, purposeful statement that mutation is not directed in the manner a fact is stated, not the way a hypothesis is stated.

Is it true that mutation is undirected and random? Is it true that God created by "directing" gene change? In either case, I don't know, it isn't my point. My point is E-theory believers presenting what is known and what is theory exactly the same . . . as "fact." And specifically for this thread, I continue to say that Dawkins is one of the worst offender.

I hope I've made my objections clear. If you want to debate anything else, please don't answer me because I don't need an education in evolution theory. I don't object to evolution theory, I don't say it is not true, even if I don't believe it. I only care about a fair and objective presentation to the public that carefully distinguishes between actual fact and the theoretical aspects. Since bias is what this thread was about, I don't see why I can't insist on sticking to the subject!

---------- Post added 09-21-2009 at 11:46 AM ----------



What does liking Aedes' posts have to do with anything? And what does my criticism of Mr. Fight the Power have to do with you? I slapped him for sitting on the sidelines offering little more ridicule and slander. He essentially admits he's here to harass persons of faith. How is that productive to an exchange of ideas?

Do you fit that category? If not, then why do you invite me to insult you?

Well it was cheerleading of Aedes that provoked your comment.

I don't see how telling someone to insert their nose up someone elses backside is really criticism or a slap - it looks more like a temper tantrum.

What has it to do with me? Seeing as MFtP's comment about Aedes wasn't directed at you, but that you felt the need to "slap" him - I think it's fair that I remark on it even if the "slap" wasn't directed at me.

I think you do your more valid and interesting contributions a disservice by peppering them with angry and childish invective.


Why not learn to relax?

Cheerleading is akin to mob rule, what place does it have in the search for truth? If he has something constructive to add, then do that. If he is here to ridicule or gleefully wait around with snide remarks to see someone beaten in a debate, then I want to call him on it.




But it was directed at me, it was his little prayer to see me put down. It was cowardly, in my opinion. As for your comment, it too seems mob rule-like . . . I'd think you would be as disdainful of MFTP trying to gain off of Aedes' abilities as I was.




You are right of course, there's no real defense; but an explanation might be how many debates like this I've been in, how it virtually never goes any differently, and how frustrating it can be to hope for objectivity and arguments that are on topic only to get one irrelevant or insulting response after another.

Right so. Sorry for my own choler.

So basically what you are saying is that until we have accounted for all possible ontological states and eliminated all but one, we should refrain from discussing facts?

Experimentation has isolated many environmental factors, beneficial and harmful to evolutionary fitness, and shown that mutation does not occur in direct relation to these factors. Therefore we can assume that mutation does not occur in a direction towards enhanced survival in regards to the environment.

At this point you wish for us to rule out a completely arbitrary and unscientific hypothesis in order to state it as truth or factual.

At the point you start forcing scientists to rule out completely unobservable forces and entities that you insist may be a factor, you have made science a completely pointless endeavor.

There are nearly limitless possible metaphysical states that the human mind can fathom. The one you insist science should exist in isn't one of them.

My statement was a shot at you and Rich for continuing to but heads with someone who obviously knows the specific topic far better than you. I don't worship or blindly follow anyone, but anyone who doesn't respect expertise is in for a long ignorant life.

I have not come here to harass persons of faith, but I have been supportive of the belief that persons of faith are delusional. A great deal of my discussion in this thread dealt with that particular conclusion, and I backed it up without slander or harassment. In fact the discussion, if I remember correctly was between me and Dave Allen.

Slapping is a rather delusional recourse to my comments, by the way, as at no point was there any fabrication or assault made on my part.