Dawkins on Evolution

@richrf,

Quote:

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.

Based on your post before last then, are you seeking to underline the difference between the teaching of evolution and the way it is often applied to natural history?

For example, I can watch something like, say, Walking with Dinosaurs, and think that the story presented within is a very convincing depiction of life in the cretaceous in comparison to alternative arguments, but I also know that it's based on a large ammount of supposition.

Yet I agree that in some classrooms and museums such a depiction is given as "as was", rather than "this is one depiction assembled from the arguments presented by such and such..."

And this almost certainly is misleading and a bad education on behalf of those institutions.

---------- Post added 09-21-2009 at 03:04 PM ----------

Mr. Fight the Power;92491 wrote:

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.

To be fair, I think that in threads like this one and others in the Philosophy of Religion forum LWSleeth has demonstrated a pretty comprehensive grasp of the theory.

Now I don't agree with his objections, as such, nor do I think he knows more on the subject than Aedes, say - but whilst I think Rich simply doesn't like it, doesn't understand it, and attempts to shoot holes in it anyway, I reckon LWSleeth does have a very decent grounding.

0 Replies

@richrf,

Quote:

CITE ADAPTIVE FACTORS LIKE GENETIC DRIFT, BOTTLENECK AND FOUNDER EFFECTS

Wait, are these actually adaptive factors?

Adaptation is directed toward evolutionary fitness, while genetic drift, bottlenecks, and founder effects are neutral in that respect. Am I wrong?

---------- Post added 09-21-2009 at 04:10 PM ----------

Dave Allen;92492 wrote:

To be fair, I think that in threads like this one and others in the Philosophy of Religion forum LWSleeth has demonstrated a pretty comprehensive grasp of the theory.

Now I don't agree with his objections, as such, nor do I think he knows more on the subject than Aedes, say - but whilst I think Rich simply doesn't like it, doesn't understand it, and attempts to shoot holes in it anyway, I reckon LWSleeth does have a decent grounding.

Never said he didn't. I merely made a comparison.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;92491 wrote:

I have not come here to harass persons of faith, but I have been supportive of the belief that persons of faith are delusional.

That's an interesting way to put it. Would you find it harassing if I came on here and 'supported the belief' that atheists/agnostics are delusional? I think you would.

Quote:

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.

Until now, where you again suggest that someone is 'delusional'.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss;92496 wrote:

That's an interesting way to put it. Would you find it harassing if I came on here and 'supported the belief' that atheists/agnostics are delusional? I think you would.

Until now, where you suggest again that someone is 'delusional'.

I believe that religious people generally accept certain plausible beliefs that, even if they are not certainly false, have no foundation, and are the result of a mind that is susceptible to suggestion.

That is a pretty reasonable definition of delusional in my book.

To return to my earlier comparison, I can believe that Ghengis Khan is giving me advice on how to pick up women at the bar, and that rests on the same epistemic requirements the religious generally hold for their own beliefs.

You would certainly call my belief delusional but would not refer to religious belief as delusional.

If you don't like being called delusional, refute my argument.

EDIT: I am entirely ready to defend my beliefs from such characterization and as an open agnostic/atheist I have had to on many times. At no point did I feel the need to "slap" those who have challenged me.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;92494 wrote:

Adaptation is directed toward evolutionary fitness, while genetic drift, bottlenecks, and founder effects are neutral in that respect. Am I wrong?

I would have a pedantic problem with saying that adaptation is directed toward evolutionary fitness. I think it's safer to say that the theory in general supports the idea that adaptations occur, and those that are best suited to their environment tend to be passed on in greater proportion to those which are not.

The only direction is that which appears as a benefit of hindsight.

As far as I understand it.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;92499 wrote:

I would have a pedantic problem with saying that adaptation is directed toward evolutionary fitness. I think it's safer to say that the theory in general supports the idea that adaptations occur, and those that are best suited to their environment tend to be passed on in greater proportion to those which are not.

The only direction is that which appears as a benefit of hindsight.

As far as I understand it.

The process as a whole moves in that direction. Otherwise it isn't adaptation. But there is no disagreement, just poor wording on my part.

0 Replies

@richrf,

Sure, it was pendantic - but not all adaptations are good ones. Some are trade offs. Some are detrimental (but they tend to be selected out of a population).

I think the issue of 'moving towards fitness' is also one that can cause problems if fitness is supposed to mean general improvement - rather than just an improvement in being able to exploit an available ecological niche.

For example, fiction such as Jurassic Park, whilst fantastical, does posit the very valid point that it is environmental circumstances that have conspired to make prehistoric animals extinct, rather than being ousted by "better" organisms, and that if they were reintroduced they might well reassert a paramount position in the food chain.

0 Replies

@richrf,

What I'd reiterate, again, is that evolution in its starkest terms is change over time of gene frequencies in populations. It's a population effect. Whether something is an "adaptation" or not is a retrospective judgement. Natural selection is an adaptation at a population level, but it's a "culling" at an individual level. A founder effect is just a sampling bias -- you bias the genetic frequencies in the new population by incompletely sampling the source population. That's not really "adaptive" at a population level, but it IS evolution.

---------- Post added 09-21-2009 at 05:02 PM ----------

LWSleeth;92471 wrote:

Well, I was preparing to show you a few dozen more science websites (obviously four wasn't enough... maybe you think natural selection is less important than other aspects, but you don't seem to be in the majority opinion.

I don't really get information on this from websites, I do try to stay up on primary literature or at least peer-reviewed systematic review material. I also don't agree that I'm in the minority in this opinion, but my message here is chiefly that people uneducated about evolution grossly overstate the exclusivity of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution. Of course it's important -- but it's indeed a matter of open discussion as to whether it's the most important or not, and if you're hung up on Darwin then you're missing the actual debate.

I'll say as a caveat that the relative importance of natural selection depends on the dynamics of a population. A stable population without many selective pressures will evolve without selection being a major factor. An unstable population WILL evolve in a selection-directed way.

Also remember that selection acts on a small number of genetic loci that are determinants of an advantageous (or disadvantageous) phenotype. It does not act on the genome as a whole. Genetic drift and founder effects can be ongoing, active mediators of evolution when there is no selection or in the face of selection, and these effects act on the entire genome.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;92491 wrote:

I have not come here to harass persons of faith, but I have been supportive of the belief that persons of faith are delusional.

And that is the issue. You have your faiths. You have articulated some in your post, and you don't even realize it. When, and if, you ever realize this, then you will better understand the nature of faith. You are but one example of one who holds. Look over your post and see if you can see it. To be able to see one's own beliefs (strong and otherwise) is the beginning of unbiased observations. Until then, you are no different than those that you seek to call delusional. In fact, this criticism is a great reflection of your own being.

The highest, as the lowest, form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.
[Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde]

Now, the question is, how should I respond to someone of faith? It is not easy. Dawkins is but one more example.

Rich

---------- Post added 09-21-2009 at 04:10 PM ----------

Dave Allen;92492 wrote:

Rich simply doesn't like it, doesn't understand it, and attempts to shoot holes in it anyway,

Let us just say that I know a snow job when I see it.

Rich

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;92497 wrote:

If you don't like being called delusional, refute my argument.

I'm not taking a personal offense, because I'm not religious myself. But you have just characterized all religious people as being 'delusional', and in my book, that amounts to nothing more than name-calling. Some of them are certainly as you describe, but you obviously haven't considered the full body of religious epistemology when making your rash judgments of others' views.

0 Replies

@richrf,

I have said previously in this thread, apparently without effect, that 'religion' does not necessarily constitute beliefs about the nature of the world. 'Religion' is not a bad form of science, a set of failed hypotheses that have now been superseded by various scientific specialisations. This is obviously how it is misreprented by vulgar creationism, and also understood by anti-religious ideologues. But the anti-religious show no ability to grasp the metaphorical, philosophical, and allegorical nature of much religious thinking or even to acknowledge that this is a perspective.

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;92513 wrote:

And that is the issue. You have your faiths. You have articulated some in your post, and you don't even realize it. When, and if, you ever realize this, then you will better understand the nature of faith. You are but one example of one who holds. Look over your post and see if you can see it. To be able to see one's own beliefs (strong and otherwise) is the beginning of unbiased observations. Until then, you are no different than those that you seek to call delusional. In fact, this criticism is a great reflection of your own being.

There is an uncrossable schism between believing without proof and believing without evidence.

---------- Post added 09-21-2009 at 06:11 PM ----------

Pangloss;92515 wrote:

I'm not taking a personal offense, because I'm not religious myself. But you have just characterized all religious people as being 'delusional', and in my book, that amounts to nothing more than name-calling. Some of them are certainly as you describe, but you obviously haven't considered the full body of religious epistemology when making your rash judgments of others' views.

Yes I have. It follows from my epistemological agnostic position.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;92533 wrote:

There is an uncrossable schism between believing without proof and believing without evidence.

---------- Post added 09-21-2009 at 06:11 PM ----------

Yes I have. It follows from my epistemological agnostic position.

There is plenty of evidence that you choose to ignore because of your strong beliefs and faith. It is no different than any other person that has a strong faith.

You have taken a position.

Rich

0 Replies

@richrf,

Can I say for the record that your respective positions on this question of epistemology are known, acknowledged by the other, and you have made the informed choice to agree to disagree? Works for me.

Yes, Rich, no human knowledge is absolute (including the wave function equation) and everything is reducible to reductio ad absurdum. Yes, MrFtP, empirical demonstration will give a rational person confidence in the observed phenomenon, and it will legitimize the notion that this phenomenon points towards truth. You guys are arguing about opposite ends of the same notion of epistemology.

I'd just exhort you both to not overstate the case either way. I think it's extremely damaging for scientists to oversell things that remain controversial, and it's similarly damaging for skeptics to reject things that are NOT controversial just out of cynicism.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;92574 wrote:

I'd just exhort you both to not overstate the case either way.

There is a reason that natural selection is the centerpiece of Dawkins' article and in school curriculum. It is there to rebuke religion. It is science's simple answer to Creation. So basically we have one article of faith being replaced by another. Scientists just happen to like their article of faith and they hold sway in public schools.

Rich

0 Replies

@richrf,

Rich -- even when I disagree with you I find many of your posts valuable and contributory. But the above is wild, baseless paranoia -- 'eavens to betsy that they should teach science instead of "Creation" in science class.

1 Reply

@richrf,

To say that evolution shows that there is no "god" is overstating the case and the science to a great extent.
To say that evolution is a fraud intended to demolish religion is paranoia.

At least we have moved from denying evolution to criticizing its over reliance on natural selection which is progress: except evolutionary science already did that years ago (population genetics, genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium, evolutionary convergence, etc.). Sort of beating a dead horse here?
.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;92510 wrote:

What I'd reiterate, again, is that evolution in its starkest terms is change over time of gene frequencies in populations. It's a population effect. Whether something is an "adaptation" or not is a retrospective judgement. Natural selection is an adaptation at a population level, but it's a "culling" at an individual level. A founder effect is just a sampling bias -- you bias the genetic frequencies in the new population by incompletely sampling the source population. That's not really "adaptive" at a population level, but it IS evolution.

[SIZE="3"]Sure, if you define evolution as adaption. You are assuming the truth of what we are debating, and then using it to make your case (i.e., begging the question). You are even contradicting your own stated hero, Gould who clearly distinguishes between the fact of evolution, and evolutive mechanism hypotheses. Why is it you refuse to acknowledge my point, that you don't know if adaptive process can ever result in an organ system (and therefore an organism)? Haven't you noticed that I don't dispute adaption?

You say it "IS" evolution, and right there I should rest my case. You are doing exactly what I am complaining about, exaggerating what you actually know. After all, isn't the BIG question about what created a whole organism? Who gives a hill of beans about the ability of life forms to adapt? All that is really in question among informed thinkers is if adaptive processes can create entire organisms.
[/SIZE]

Aedes;92510 wrote:

I don't really get information on this from websites, I do try to stay up on primary literature or at least peer-reviewed systematic review material. I also don't agree that I'm in the minority in this opinion, but my message here is chiefly that people uneducated about evolution grossly overstate the exclusivity of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution.

[SIZE="3"]But sir, how is peer-reviewed material relevant to my complaint that E-theory representations to the public do not accurately distinguish between what is known and what is still theory?[/SIZE]

Aedes;92510 wrote:

I'll say as a caveat that the relative importance of natural selection depends on the dynamics of a population. A stable population without many selective pressures will evolve without selection being a major factor. An unstable population WILL evolve in a selection-directed way.

Also remember that selection acts on a small number of genetic loci that are determinants of an advantageous (or disadvantageous) phenotype. It does not act on the genome as a whole. Genetic drift and founder effects can be ongoing, active mediators of evolution when there is no selection or in the face of selection, and these effects act on the entire genome.

[SIZE="3"]Forget natural selection, it isn't that important to my point. I only emphasized it because it comes up all the time in Dawkins' arguments, and I thought this thread was about his bias (and other public speakers on E-theory).

Look, if you don't want to participate in a discussion about how accurately evolution facts vs. theory are presented to the public, fine. Why not just say that and save us both a lot of time.

Actually, I'll just surrender. If it makes any difference, I wholly accept that life evolved, and I am even more convinced that supernaturalism is BS. If the universe is conscious, and if it has played a role in evolution, I think that such a consciousness must work as naturally as gravity and quantum mechanics.

But if you assert physicalness can self-organize itself into life, I'll never buy that either with the evidence we have. Trying to bury the lack of a proper self-organizing principle in the complexities of evolution is, to me, like those perpetual motion believers trying to get around the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics by complexifying Smile

their machinery . . . if the foundational principles aren't there, no amount of convoluting manipulations are going to make it work.[/SIZE]

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;92524 wrote:

I have said previously in this thread, apparently without effect, that 'religion' does not necessarily constitute beliefs about the nature of the world. 'Religion' is not a bad form of science, a set of failed hypotheses that have now been superseded by various scientific specialisations. This is obviously how it is misreprented by vulgar creationism, and also understood by anti-religious ideologues. But the anti-religious show no ability to grasp the metaphorical, philosophical, and allegorical nature of much religious thinking or even to acknowledge that this is a perspective.

I have been asking for an explanation into this for this entire thread.

Quote:

There is plenty of evidence that you choose to ignore because of your strong beliefs and faith. It is no different than any other person that has a strong faith.

You have taken a position.

Rich

I have also been asking for evidence. I have already addressed my opinion on acting as if there is any possible manner for interpreting any observation as evidence for religious truth.

What evidence is there that I have access to?

Aedes wrote:

Yes, MrFtP, empirical demonstration will give a rational person confidence in the observed phenomenon, and it will legitimize the notion that this phenomenon points towards truth. You guys are arguing about opposite ends of the same notion of epistemology..

My position goes deeper. It is not rooted in trust for observed phenomenon, but in the understanding that human faculties cannot observe and interpret metaphysical phenomenon. There is a fundamental disconnect between the two.

0 Replies

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth;92591 wrote:

Sure, if you define evolution as adaption.

Uh no. I define it as change in allele frequencies as a function of time. Leave all interpretation, like whether it's adaptive or not, out of the conversation.

LWSleeth;92591 wrote:

You are even contradicting your own stated hero, Gould

I didn't say he was my hero -- I just said I liked his books and I thought he was a better representative of evolutionary science than Dawkins.

LWSleeth;92591 wrote:

Why is it you refuse to acknowledge my point, that you don't know if adaptive process can ever result in an organ system

I don't really acknowledge "adaptive process" as a mechanism of evolution, so enough of this repetitive crap already. All, 100% of animals (or at least chordates), begin embryogenesis in highly similar ways. They all form similar early embryos with similar early germ layers. All gut-derived organs including the lungs are produced by modification of endoderm. The central nervous system is a modification of ectoderm. So at least at the level of early embryogenesis, the same organ systems exist in animals -- they're all just highly modified once development is complete. And thus the way an apparently new organ system comes into being is by modification of early developmental gene regulation -- and this can be studied fairly easily with gene knockouts, with transgenic embryos, and in humans who have a developmental defect.

But you told me already that you already knew all this.
Comparative Embryology - Medpedia

LWSleeth;92591 wrote:

You are doing exactly what I am complaining about, exaggerating what you actually know.

You're right, I'm guilty of elevating my case in response. Can you make the same admission?

LWSleeth;92591 wrote:

After all, isn't the BIG question about what created a whole organism?

The way you phrase this inherently evinces assumptions, such as the prospect that something did the creating, or that a whole organism somehow just came into being (as opposed to developing out of constituents). There are a LOT of incomplete organisms in this world -- mycoplasma, ureaplasma, and the entirety of viruses, for instance.

LWSleeth;92591 wrote:

how is peer-reviewed material relevant to my complaint that E-theory representations to the public do not accurately distinguish between what is known and what is still theory?

If you extend your complaint beyond one author, and if you systematically look at "representations to the public", and if you learn the meaning of the word "theory", and if you develop a credible knowledge base such that you KNOW the areas of controversy, then your argument may have a bit more meat on its bones.

LWSleeth;92591 wrote:

But if you assert physicalness can self-organize itself into life, I'll never buy that either with the evidence we have.

It's not proven -- but it's parsimony. Indulge the following reasonable assumptions:

1) life didn't always exist
2) at some point or after some interval it did exist
3) there is no evidence for supernatural forces
4) living things have the same chemical constituents as nonliving things
5) living things are fully susceptible to natural phenomena

Based on the above, it would be a work of fantasy to say that life came into being in any way other than by natural processes. So why should I even care about your "I'll never buy that"?

1 Reply

Dawkins on Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know