Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

@Leadfoot,

An interesting talk about adaptation that explains why we don't necessarily have to find a benefit to the species of belief in God:

2 Replies

@Tuna,

Quote:

An interesting talk about adaptation that explains why we don't necessarily have to find a benefit to the species of belief in God:

I haven't watched the video. But from the title alone it would appear that he is accusing Dawkins of "corrupting" science, since he (Dawkins) is a virtual "panadaptionist." Myers is suggesting what I did, at the outset, i.e., perhaps natural selection DOESN'T "explain everything."

2 Replies

@layman,

He explains that natural selection and evolution aren't synonymous.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

Quote:

He explains that natural selection and evolution aren't synonymous.

Right, they aint--at least for most thinking people.

I tried to make that distinction, at least implicitly, in my original comment:

Quote:

Of course the easiest, and in my view the most reasonable, answer to that is that "evolution" (whatever that is, but let's just say it refers to Neo-Darwinism) does NOT explain everything

1 Reply

@layman,

one is merely a component of the other. 99% of real thinking people understand that

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

one is merely a component of the other. 99% of real thinking people understand that

Right, Farmer.

"Evolution," in it's most basic sense, simply means something like "change over time." Virtually no one, not even those damn (gasp) hard-core, bible-thumping creationists, deny that "evolution," in that sense has occurred.

The problems arise when one undertakes to "explain" how and why that happened the way it did. Neo-Darwinism, as a theory of evolution, is more that "just" natural selection, of course. But it allocates a special place and function to natural selection, asserting that it is a "creative force" and the principal "driver" of evolution.

That assertion is problematical, to say the least. But from it, you can derive sub-sects, such as the hard-core dogmatists on the panadaptionist stripe. You might call them Darwinistic "fundies."

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I haven't watched the video. But from the title alone it would appear that he is accusing Dawkins of "corrupting" science, since he (Dawkins) is a virtual "panadaptionist." Myers is suggesting what I did, at the outset, i.e., perhaps natural selection DOESN'T "explain everything."

The video isn't directed at Dawkins, but you're right. As of 2014, Dawkins' scientific views were outdated. He defends evolutionary psychology by suggesting that it offends people as opposed to presenting scientific research to support it.

Farmerman's points are correct. He was an influential scientist. His present outlook is out of step with what we know about genetics and evolution, that is, unless his views changed in 2015. If they did, I haven't come across that.

3 Replies

@Tuna,

Quote:

His present outlook is out of step with what we know about genetics and evolution

Like other fundies, on either side of he issue, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

Yea, but as I mentioned earlier, Chris Stringer's book Lone Survivors explains that adaptationism is fairly prevalent. One scientist went around with a hat mimicking the eye-brow ridges of Neanderthals to try to understand their purpose. In the video I posted, Myers explains that the cutting edge evolutionary biologists tend to be quiet and unknown. So it's not clear to everybody that those ridges don't have to provide any survival advantage. They could just be there because **** happens.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

Quote:

The video isn't directed at Dawkins

I wasn't trying to imply that it was. I was just commenting that he would be indirectly attacking Dawkins. I didn't mean he was singling Dawkins out by name.

Quote:

it would appear that he is accusing Dawkins of "corrupting" science, since he (Dawkins) is a virtual "panadaptionist."

1 Reply

@Tuna,

Quote:

Yea, but as I mentioned earlier, Chris Stringer's book Lone Survivors explains that adaptationism is fairly prevalent. One scientist went around with a hat mimicking the eye-brow ridges of Neanderthals to try to understand their purpose. In the video I posted, Myers explains that the cutting edge evolutionary biologists tend to be quiet and unknown

. The main point of the video you posted (which was excellent BTW) was that Adaptation was WAY over-rated and does NOT explain the majority of 'evolution'.
The primary driver according to Myers was Mutation, which is completely random, and I agree. That's just not enough to explain 'life as we know it'. You don't get 'here' by random chance.

@Farmerman You poo pooed mutation earlier in favor of natural selection. Do you agree with Myers ?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I wasn't trying to imply that it was. I was just commenting that he would be indirectly attacking Dawkins. I didn't mean he was singling Dawkins out by name.

Absolutely.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I don't get what your position is.. The main point of the video you posted (which was excellent BTW) was that Adaptation was WAY over-rated and does NOT explain the majority of 'evolution'.
The primary driver according to Myers was Mutation, which is completely random, and I agree. That's just not enough to explain 'life as we know it'. You don't get 'here' by random chance.

Myers agrees that humans exhibit adaptive features. The view he criticized assumes that all or most features of an organism result from adaptation. So for instance:

I offer you a theory about how morality is beneficial to the survival of humans. I point out that my theory is the best at explaining that benefit. Therefore, I tell you that my theory is the best explanation for morality. The general form of this argument is something Dawkins would agree with.

You, being up to date on evolutionary biology say: "No. One of your initial premises is wrong. It isn't necessary for me to assume that morality endows any survival advantage."

1 Reply

@Tuna,

I've listened to some of your video now. Myers is, of course, joking when he expresses concerns about being hunted down and burned at the stake by "hard-core" Darwinians. On the other hand, there is an underlying basis for the joke. Some of these neo-Darwinians get EXTREMELY upset at, and intolerant of, any suggestion which might tend to play down the role of "natural selection." Of course I won't mention Richard Dawkins by name in this regard, eh?

Dawkins had an ongoing, and often very acrimonious, running "feud" with Harvard Professor Stephen Gould (of punctuated equilibrium theory fame), for about 10 years. Among other things, Gould ridiculed what he called the "just-so" stories (after Kipling) offered by Dawkins (who he called a panadaptionist) as "explanations" for evolution by natural selection.

1 Reply

@layman,

I don't really know who he was talking about. He mentioned that his position is attacked on both sides. More worrying than Dawkins is the sort of Neo-Nazi community which mobilizes adaptationism to support racism, sexism, and religious intolerance. I agree that if Dawkins wanted to be an inspiration to young people, he would take a loud, explicit stand in defense of tolerance.

0 Replies

@layman,

when the mutationists have a way to explain away the retention of "fossil genes" that memorialize the mother species (say in geographically isolated species or those that adapt to extreme environments or those that have d'descended" from dinosaurs), Ill be first in line to listen and discuss.
Fossil genes tell their own stories and there is a whole dicipline of paleogenetics interested in the long strings of "turned off" nucleotidal chains that lie adjacent or near the new. EVolution is usually a one way street (Dollo's Law). If the conditions that conferred "fitness" (and are recorded in new DNA as well as "fossil gened that are turned off") go south, and no other adaptable species is in that cladistic crowd, we see the species go extinct.
Extinction, is that anti-adaptational too?

We have entire orders and classes that have gone extinct. I would say that ALL of these clades have demonstrated a MINUS 0.1 adaptation coefficient as a minimum.

The anti Darwinists ignore several components of a good working hypothesis, dealing with species extinction and mass extinctions are such components.

4 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

We have entire orders and classes that have gone extinct. I would say that ALL of these clades have demonstrated a MINUS 0.1 adaptation coefficient as a minimum.

Well, Farmer, this strikes me as the kind of thing Popper (and others) thought was tautological. If natural selection is summarized by the notion of "survival of the fittest," then the question can still be asked: "what is the fittest?" The answer, of course, it that it is that which has survived. It's a self-proving proposition, and really "explains" nothing.

1 Reply

@layman,

nice bit of approach avoidance.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

nice bit of approach avoidance

Sorry, Farmer, I have trouble following your first paragraph. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, or what premises you are basing it on. Maybe I'm just not familiar with the concepts you're talking about.

0 Replies

@Tuna,

Oops, you grabbed my post before I got done editing it. I do get what your position is as shown in the final version.

There are many ways to interpret data about evolution. But are you saying morality is a result of evolution, just not due to adaptation? If so, which of the 4 drivers that Myers talks about would you guess is responsible?

1 Reply

Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know