Defining Evolution - essay for comment
John Wilkins
quibbles and criticism of any kind that is likely to engender bruising to
my fragile ego will be given the EdTed treatment... Bear in mind there's
only so much one can say in 5000 words, and it needs trimming as it is.
Seriously, I'd like to hear what lacunae and ambiguities there are. The
target audience is intelligent secondary school and upwards. Stylistic
criticisms may be attended to as well :-)
It's at: <http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins/defevolution.html>
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne,
Australia <mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
Dave Woetzel
John Wilkins wrote in message ...
>OK, the rough cut is done, and it's there for constructive comment. Messy
>quibbles and criticism of any kind that is likely to engender bruising to
>my fragile ego will be given the EdTed treatment... Bear in mind there's
>only so much one can say in 5000 words, and it needs trimming as it is.
>
>Seriously, I'd like to hear what lacunae and ambiguities there are. The
>target audience is intelligent secondary school and upwards. Stylistic
>criticisms may be attended to as well :-)
>
>It's at: <http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins/defevolution.html>
Nicely written, John. It is a slight improvement on what is currently in
the FAQ. While it contemplates actual usage (outside of the evolutionary
biology lab) it still comes to the same silly conclusion. To wit, every
time a baby is born, the human race evolves. Must we now water down
Darwin's great discovery to this? Gould has good reason to scoff. It is
defining away the creation vs evolution debate. You begin with the absurd
quote "The term ‘evolution’ as we now use it, commonly refers to change of
species over time and is usually associated with Darwin’s theory of the
descent of species by natural selection." (Richards 1992a, p.95) Nobody in
common usage understands evolution to mean this. Even scientific
dictionaries do not define it this way. If you want to make me an
evolutionist, you need to do more than change the definitions.
Dave
Tedd Hadley
|John Wilkins wrote in message ...
|>
|>It's at: <http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins/defevolution.html>
|Nicely written, John. It is a slight improvement on what is currently in
|the FAQ. While it contemplates actual usage (outside of the evolutionary
|biology lab) it still comes to the same silly conclusion. To wit, every
|time a baby is born, the human race evolves. Must we now water down
|Darwin's great discovery to this? Gould has good reason to scoff. It is
|defining away the creation vs evolution debate. You begin with the absurd
|quote "The term evolution as we now use it, commonly refers to change of
|species over time and is usually associated with Darwins theory of the
|descent of species by natural selection." (Richards 1992a, p.95) Nobody in
|common usage understands evolution to mean this. Even scientific
|dictionaries do not define it this way. If you want to make me an
|evolutionist, you need to do more than change the definitions.
Peeved at having your name associated with a pro-evolutionary
document, eh, Dave? :)
Dave Woetzel
Tedd Hadley wrote in message <7lc752$q...@athena.ics.uci.edu>...
God help me if I end up in that FAQ! :)
Seriously, my position is still the same as what I originally took with
John. Yes it is redefining is a pet peeve, along with multiverse, and
theistic evolution. But you probably already knew that.
Regards,
Dave
John Wilkins
<dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
While we have you on the line, can you give me the full bibliographic
information for that Huxley quote? I can't find it in any of the libraries
I have access to.
Thanks
Laurence A. Moran
>>quibbles and criticism of any kind that is likely to engender bruising to
>>my fragile ego will be given the EdTed treatment... Bear in mind there's
>>only so much one can say in 5000 words, and it needs trimming as it is.
>>
>>Seriously, I'd like to hear what lacunae and ambiguities there are. The
>>target audience is intelligent secondary school and upwards. Stylistic
>>criticisms may be attended to as well :-)
>>
>
>Nicely written, John. It is a slight improvement on what is currently in
>the FAQ.
The FAQ says that,
"Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics
of a population over time."
For more information consult the essay called "What Is Evolution" at,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
In this essay I say that,
"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a
population spread over many generations."
>While it contemplates actual usage (outside of the evolutionary
>biology lab) it still comes to the same silly conclusion. To wit, every
>time a baby is born, the human race evolves.
Your silly conclusion is not supported by the definition in the FAQ or in
the "What Is Evolution" essay.
>Must we now water down Darwin's great discovery to this?
Darwin died more than 100 years ago. His great discovery was natural
selection as a mechanism of evolution. What do either of these facts have
to do with the modern definition of evolution?
>Gould has good reason to scoff.
I don't see much scoffing from Gould. Could you provide a reference?
>It is defining away the creation vs evolution debate.
Precisely. Creationists oppose evolution but they really don't know what
they are talking about. More and more Creationists are admitting that
evolution occurs - they call it microevolution - so there isn't really a
creation vs. evolution debate any more. Creationists now have to admit
that what they oppose is something else, like descent of "kinds" from a
common ancestor. They also oppose much of chemistry, physics, geology,
and astronomy but for some reason that doesn't get much attention.
>You begin with the absurd
>quote "The term ‘evolution’ as we now use it, commonly refers to change of
>species over time and is usually associated with Darwin’s theory of the
>descent of species by natural selection." (Richards 1992a, p.95) Nobody in
>common usage understands evolution to mean this.
Actually, there are many people who think that evolution is defined as the
descent of species by natural selection. I think it's a silly definition
and that's why I argue that we need a better one.
>Even scientific dictionaries do not define it this way.
You are right about the scientific dictionaries. I just happen to have a
couple of them on my shelves.
evolution: any cumulative change in the characteristics of
organisms or populations from generation to generation
[The Cambridge Illustrated dictionary of Natural History]
evolution: (in biology) the process of cumulative change occurring
in the form and mode of existence of a population of
organisms in the course of successive generation related
by descent
[Oxford Dictionary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology]
Are you opposed to evolution as defined by these scientific dictionaries?
By the way, although John Wilkins opens his essay with the quotation from
Richards, he makes it very clear that this isn't his preferred definition.
The one he likes is,
"Anagenesis plus cladogenesis. Phylogeny and the changes in gene
frequencies that produce phylogenetic change."
[John, I'm not sure what you mean by "phylogenetic change". Are there any
changes in gene frequencies that do NOT produce phylogenetic change and
are therefore not examples of evolution?]
>If you want to make me an evolutionist, you need to do more than change
>the definitions.
We know that convincing you of evolution will take much more than a change
in definition. You will continue to define evolution as those things that
you don't believe in - just like all anti-evolutionists.
Larry Moran
Dave Woetzel
John Wilkins wrote in message ...
><dwoe...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> |Tedd Hadley wrote in message <7lc752$q...@athena.ics.uci.edu>...
> |>"Dave Woetzel" <dwoe...@juno.com> writes:
> |>
> |>|>
> |>
> |>|Nicely written, John. It is a slight improvement on what is currently
in
evolutionary
> |>|biology lab) it still comes to the same silly conclusion. To wit,
every
> |>|Darwin's great discovery to this? Gould has good reason to scoff. It
is
> |>|defining away the creation vs evolution debate. You begin with the
absurd
> |>|quote "The term evolution as we now use it, commonly refers to change
of
> |>|descent of species by natural selection." (Richards 1992a, p.95)
Nobody
> |in
> |>|dictionaries do not define it this way. If you want to make me an
> |>|evolutionist, you need to do more than change the definitions.
> |>
> |> document, eh, Dave? :)
> |
> |God help me if I end up in that FAQ! :)
> |
> |Seriously, my position is still the same as what I originally took with
> |John. Yes it is redefining is a pet peeve, along with multiverse, and
> |theistic evolution. But you probably already knew that.
> |
>While we have you on the line, can you give me the full bibliographic
>information for that Huxley quote? I can't find it in any of the libraries
>I have access to.
First of all, allow me to apologize for an inexcusable lapse. After I went
back to look up the source on this quote that I had jotted down, I
discovered that I had omitted an important ellipses. I have restored the
full quote below, and as penance given you another interesting statement
from a couple pages earlier.
Huxley, Julian, “Evolution and Genetics,” in _What is Science_? edited by
J. R. Newman (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955), pp. 256-289.
p. 272
“The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological
fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-history of stars and the
formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand
subjects like linguistics, social anthropology, and comparative law and
religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are
enabled to see evolution as a universal and all-pervading process.”
p. 278
“Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and
essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course
gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of
organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the
view that the whole of reality is evolution—a single process of
self-transformation.”
Regards,
Dave
John Wilkins
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
...
|By the way, although John Wilkins opens his essay with the quotation from
|Richards, he makes it very clear that this isn't his preferred definition.
|The one he likes is,
|
| "Anagenesis plus cladogenesis. Phylogeny and the changes in gene
| frequencies that produce phylogenetic change."
|
|[John, I'm not sure what you mean by "phylogenetic change". Are there any
|changes in gene frequencies that do NOT produce phylogenetic change and
|are therefore not examples of evolution?]
Richards is giving the lexicographical lay of the land, and so it was
appropriate to cite that at first. The Fisher quote makes it clear that
natural selection and evolution are two different things. Larry has the
right of it here.
Phylogenetic change (Ivar has suggested privately I need a glossary for
this - good idea) is to me not change within taxa or their populational
subparts but what Mishler, Brandon de Querioz and Donoghoe call
"multiplication of taxa" - in other words, cladistic branching. I
understood phylogeny to mean just that - multiplication of taxa.
Therefore, not just any allele frequency change will suffice to give
phylogenetic change, as in highly polytypic taxa.
Phylogeny is important to include because, as the essay says, it is a long
leap of inference from allelle frequency change to evolutionary trees,
even if it were adequate to characterise evolution in that way.
|
|>If you want to make me an evolutionist, you need to do more than change
|>the definitions.
|
|We know that convincing you of evolution will take much more than a change
|in definition. You will continue to define evolution as those things that
|you don't believe in - just like all anti-evolutionists.
Yes, Dave's (Dave Woetzel, whose comments I have snipped) attitude is to
find some problem, any problem, with evolution, and if he can do that by
redefining it to be problematic, he does. This essay (which is written to
assist those who have a role in educating people about what evolution is)
is not intended to convince you or anybody else, but to clear up the sorts
of confusions that sort of willynilly redefinition causes.
Dave Woetzel
John Wilkins wrote in message ...
>lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
<snip>
> |>If you want to make me an evolutionist, you need to do more than change
> |>the definitions.
> |
> |We know that convincing you of evolution will take much more than a
change
> |in definition. You will continue to define evolution as those things that
> |you don't believe in - just like all anti-evolutionists.
>
>Yes, Dave's (Dave Woetzel, whose comments I have snipped) attitude is to
>find some problem, any problem, with evolution, and if he can do that by
>redefining it to be problematic, he does. This essay (which is written to
>assist those who have a role in educating people about what evolution is)
>is not intended to convince you or anybody else, but to clear up the sorts
>of confusions that sort of willynilly redefinition causes.
Hogwash. I'm for the more traditional interpretation. Let's call a change
in allele frequency population genetics, Mendelism or genetic variation.
There are plenty of terms for that. We need a term to describe Darwin's
theory of Origin of Species, common descent, and I'd throw in naturalistic
origin of life as well (abiogenesis). If we don't call this naturalistic
explanation for biological complexity "evolution," what term will you coin
to describe it? I'm not for redefining anything. I'm for using terms
everyone understands (rather than "educating" them that evolution is
indisputable). BTW, I'm actually closer to Gould's definition than you are.
Do you accuse him of "redefining it to be problematic?" Get real!
Dave
david ford
DW First of all, allow me to apologize for an inexcusable lapse. After I
DW went back to look up the source on this quote that I had jotted down, I
DW discovered that I had omitted an important ellipses. I have restored
DW the full quote below, and as penance given you another interesting
DW statement from a couple pages earlier.
DW
DW Huxley, Julian, "Evolution and Genetics," in _What is Science?_ edited
DW by J. R. Newman (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955), pp. 256-289.
DW
DW p. 272 "The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than
DW biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-history of stars
DW and the formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the
DW other hand subjects like linguistics, social anthropology, and
DW comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary
DW angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and
DW all-pervading process."
Julian Huxley on "evolution"
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=261766420
DW p. 278 "Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional
DW and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its
DW course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high
DW level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed
DW forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution-- a single
DW process of self-transformation."
Laurence A. Moran
John Wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <7larv7$lem$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
>lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
> |By the way, although John Wilkins opens his essay with the quotation from
> |Richards, he makes it very clear that this isn't his preferred definition.
> |The one he likes is,
> |
> | "Anagenesis plus cladogenesis. Phylogeny and the changes in gene
> | frequencies that produce phylogenetic change."
> |
> |[John, I'm not sure what you mean by "phylogenetic change". Are there any
> |changes in gene frequencies that do NOT produce phylogenetic change and
> |are therefore not examples of evolution?]
[snip]
>Phylogenetic change (Ivar has suggested privately I need a glossary for
>this - good idea) is to me not change within taxa or their populational
>subparts but what Mishler, Brandon de Querioz and Donoghoe call
>"multiplication of taxa" - in other words, cladistic branching. I
>understood phylogeny to mean just that - multiplication of taxa.
>Therefore, not just any allele frequency change will suffice to give
>phylogenetic change, as in highly polytypic taxa.
Now I'm really confused about your definition. Do you intend to construct
a definition that specifically excludes things such as the prevalence of
different blood types in human populations? Or, is this included in
anagenesis?
You're right about the need for a glossary. Several people have criticised
the definition in the FAQ because it uses the word "population". They
claim that the word is not easily understood by lay people. These same
critics objected to "alleles" because it's too technical a term for a
usable definition of evolution. I shudder to think of what they will say
about your definition.
My own opinion, for what it's worth, is that the definition is way too
complicated to understand. I had to look up the words "anagenesis" and
"cladogenesis" to make sure I was interpreting them correctly. I'm not
sure what "phylogeny" is and yet the definition depends on the
interpretation of this word.
>Phylogeny is important to include because, as the essay says, it is a long
>leap of inference from allelle frequency change to evolutionary trees,
>even if it were adequate to characterise evolution in that way.
I understand your perspective. You don't see much of a distinction between
the history of life on this planet and evolution as a process. For
example, a phylogenetic tree is a representation of the history of life.
It's often a tentative conclusion based on our understanding of the data
and our knowledge of how evolution works. In my case, I assume that
evolution has played an important role in shaping that history but I still
distinguish between evolution as a process and what the process produces.
I agree with you that it's a "long leap of inference" between our
understanding of the observed process of evolution and phylogenetic trees.
This is what's fun about the science of evolutionary biology.
What *I* look for in a definition is a description of the minimal process
so that we can distinguish between evolution and some other things that
might be confused with evolution. What *you* look for in a definition of
evolution seems closer to a description of the end result of evolution on
this planet.
[snip]
>Yes, Dave's (Dave Woetzel, whose comments I have snipped) attitude is to
>find some problem, any problem, with evolution, and if he can do that by
>redefining it to be problematic, he does. This essay (which is written to
>assist those who have a role in educating people about what evolution is)
>is not intended to convince you or anybody else, but to clear up the sorts
>of confusions that sort of willynilly redefinition causes.
I'm anxious to hear from others about whether your preferred definition
clears up confusion. I think you know my position - I like my own
definition, which happens to be very similar to the ones preferred by many
of the biologists who address the issue. I find your definition very
confusing but I suppose that's to be expected because you don't like the
definitions in the FAQ, which you find confusing.
Larry Moran
Abiel...@aol.com
> >lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>
> > |>If you want to make me an evolutionist, you need to do more than
change
> > |>the definitions.
> > |
> > |We know that convincing you of evolution will take much more than a
> change
> > |in definition. You will continue to define evolution as those
things that
> > |you don't believe in - just like all anti-evolutionists.
> >
is to
> >find some problem, any problem, with evolution, and if he can do
that by
> >redefining it to be problematic, he does. This essay (which is
written to
> >assist those who have a role in educating people about what
evolution is)
> >is not intended to convince you or anybody else, but to clear up the
sorts
> >of confusions that sort of willynilly redefinition causes.
>
change
> in allele frequency population genetics, Mendelism or genetic
variation.
> There are plenty of terms for that. We need a term to describe
Darwin's
> theory of Origin of Species, common descent, and I'd throw in
naturalistic
> origin of life as well (abiogenesis). If we don't call this
naturalistic
> explanation for biological complexity "evolution," what term will you
coin
> to describe it? I'm not for redefining anything. I'm for using terms
> everyone understands (rather than "educating" them that evolution is
> indisputable). BTW, I'm actually closer to Gould's definition than
you are.
> Do you accuse him of "redefining it to be problematic?" Get real!
>
> Dave
Dave, you are absolutely correct and they are wrong!
As it is, they use the term "evolution" so broadly to mean
so many different things that it has become worthless as
a term to be used for anything, except deceit and propaganda.
Even using the terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution are
meaningless as the T.O. FAQ has defined Macro-evolution
as micro-evolution plus speciation. To boot, they have no
idea what a "species" is, much less clearly defining any
other so called higher order of classification. It all has
become pure gibberish.
If Mr. Wilkins or Mr. Moran were asked if they are evolutionists,
I'm sure they would answer afirmatively. But then I would reply.
"So am I. Being here on talk origins and reading the posts of
T.O. evolutionists has convinced me that evolution is indeed a
fact, a downright established scientific fact."
But before their joy fully sets in, I would quickly add,
"I am also a Creationist. Are you evolutionists Creatonists
also? or do you believe in something that has nothing to
do with evolution, namely, the theory offered by Darwin
and others before him that living creatures are mutable and
that they all share a common ancestor?"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Laurence A. Moran
[snip]
>If Mr. Wilkins or Mr. Moran were asked if they are evolutionists,
>I'm sure they would answer afirmatively.
Yes, I am an evolutionist.
>But then I would reply.
>"So am I. Being here on talk origins and reading the posts of
>T.O. evolutionists has convinced me that evolution is indeed a
>fact, a downright established scientific fact."
Excellent. I'm glad we were able to be of some help.
>But before their joy fully sets in, I would quickly add,
>"I am also a Creationist. Are you evolutionists Creatonists
>also?
I am not a Creationist but I know several evolutionists who believe that
God created life. Do you fall into this category?
>or do you believe in something that has nothing to
>do with evolution, namely, the theory offered by Darwin
>and others before him that living creatures are mutable and
>that they all share a common ancestor?"
Living creatures are mutable. They all share one or more common ancestors.
I think that both of these facts have something to do with evolution. Why
don't you?
Larry Moran
Dave Woetzel
Abiel...@aol.com wrote in message <7lnven$u94$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...<snip>
>But before their joy fully sets in, I would quickly add,
>"I am also a Creationist. Are you evolutionists Creatonists
>do with evolution, namely, the theory offered by Darwin
>and others before him that living creatures are mutable and
>that they all share a common ancestor?"
>
Well-spoken as always, Arthur. Besides, it is not up to a few evolutionists
in a biology lab to redefine a word that has been in common parlance all
these decades. Look at the word "gay" for example. I can try to redefine
it back to mean "happy." But it is a losing proposition. Society has
decided it means "homosexual." I might not like it. But if I want to
communicate and be understood, I must comply with common usage. The same
goes for "evolution." Wilkins and Moran aren't going to succeed in
convincing anybody that the fight at the Scopes Trial was all about
educating students to changes in allele frequency in a population!
Dave
Dave Woetzel
Laurence A. Moran wrote in message <7lnnvq$f32$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
>>lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>> |By the way, although John Wilkins opens his essay with the quotation
from
>> |Richards, he makes it very clear that this isn't his preferred
definition.
>> |The one he likes is,
>> |
>> | "Anagenesis plus cladogenesis. Phylogeny and the changes in gene
>> | frequencies that produce phylogenetic change."
>> |
>> |[John, I'm not sure what you mean by "phylogenetic change". Are there
any
>> |changes in gene frequencies that do NOT produce phylogenetic change and
>> |are therefore not examples of evolution?]
>
>[snip]
>
>>Phylogenetic change (Ivar has suggested privately I need a glossary for
>>this - good idea) is to me not change within taxa or their populational
>>subparts but what Mishler, Brandon de Querioz and Donoghoe call
>>"multiplication of taxa" - in other words, cladistic branching. I
>>understood phylogeny to mean just that - multiplication of taxa.
>>Therefore, not just any allele frequency change will suffice to give
>>phylogenetic change, as in highly polytypic taxa.
>
>Now I'm really confused about your definition.
Join the club! Is the intent to clarify here or further obfuscate?
>Do you intend to construct
>a definition that specifically excludes things such as the prevalence of
>different blood types in human populations? Or, is this included in
>anagenesis?
This is a good question. Perhaps I was too hard on John before I completely
understood where he was going with this. It seemed, in the earlier posts,
that he was moving my direction...closer to Gould's definition. Then the
end product was a big disappointment. But maybe we don't understand what he
means by these terms. Let's step out of cladistics into biological terms.
Where is John drawing the line here between evolution and genetic variation?
Dave
Paul J Gans
>Dave
Oh, but it was. The fact that nobody back then understood
evolution in those terms means nothing.
Facts have little to do with what folks believe. Most
folks believe that the 21st century will start on January
1, 1999. The fact that it will actually start on January
1, 2000 doesn't bother them at all. Nevertheless, it will
start on January 1, 2000 no matter what folks think.
Evolution is similar. What you think of it doesn't matter.
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Robert Kern
[snip]
<raging_pedantism>
>Facts have little to do with what folks believe. Most
>folks believe that the 21st century will start on January
>1, 1999. The fact that it will actually start on January
^^^^
2000
>1, 2000 doesn't bother them at all. Nevertheless, it will
^^^^
2001
>start on January 1, 2000 no matter what folks think.
^^^^
2001
>Evolution is similar. What you think of it doesn't matter.
</raging_pedantism>
Sorry.
> ---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
This space | Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
intentionally | - Richard Harter
left blank. |
WRowe0521
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
><raging_pedantism>
>
>>Facts have little to do with what folks believe. Most
>>folks believe that the 21st century will start on January
>>1, 1999. The fact that it will actually start on January
> ^^^^
> 2000
>>1, 2000 doesn't bother them at all. Nevertheless, it will
> ^^^^
> 2001
>>start on January 1, 2000 no matter what folks think.
> ^^^^
> 2001
>>Evolution is similar. What you think of it doesn't matter.
>
></raging_pedantism>
(corrections are provided by Robert Kern)
It doesn't matter when it starts because it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant
because:
1. The starting point 2000 years ago is historically dubious.
2. The decimal system is only one of many that could have been used. If the
hexadecimal system (base 16 rather than 10) were used we would not yet have
seen the end of the first (hexadecimal) millenium (the current year would be
7CF).
Celebrating any ‘new’ year as though something has actually happened is
ridiculous; year ends are human conventions and signify nothing. They merely
provide drunken nitwits with an excuse to misbehave in public, as if they
needed one.
Bill Rowe
WRowe0521
snip
>></raging_pedantism>
Actually the word is pedantry. Oops.
Bill Rowe
david ford
of Life_ (USA: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc.), 806pp.
Affiliated with MIT in 1981, Luria shared a 1969 Nobel in physiology for
his work on bacterial and viral genetics. On 572:
Either all species were created as we find them, and the
relationships among them reflect the creator's opinion about how
the world should be organized, or all species have descended
naturally [i.e. have evolved, i.e. have arisen via non-
intelligence-directed processes] from a common ancestor, and the
relationships among them reflect patterns of genealogical proximity
on an evolutionary tree.
Note the use of "evolution" as in "creation vs. evolution."
Raup, David M. fall 1981. In "Misquoted Scientists Respond," John R.
Cole, ed. _Creation/Evolution_, 34-44, 39. On 39:
To me, there are two basic questions: Has evolution occurred (in
the sense of change in the biological composition of the earth over
millions of years)? [2] By what mechanisms has evolution occurred?
.... On the question of whether or not evolution has occurred, I
would say that there are few things in the natural sciences about
which we can be more confident. The geologic time scale has been
checked and rechecked by many independent methods. Although
individual dates may be subject to error, the overall chronology
stands firm. It is used every day in petroleum and mineral
exploration, and, if there were basic problems with it, I am sure
that industrial geologists would have blown the whistle. The
fossil record is intimately tied in with this chronology and shows
a record of change in organisms through time.
Raup is making a pathetic attempt at winning a creation vs. evolution
debate through definitional legerdemain. By Raup's definition, both
myself and those who developed the chronology he referred to accept
"evolution." Raup's letter to _Science_
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=494308080
views of Cuvier, d'Orbigny, and Agassiz
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=382542429
Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1960. "Evolution and Environment" in _The
Evolution of Life_, Sol Tax, ed. (USA: The University of Chicago Press),
629pp., 403-28. On 409:
Evolution is change in the genetic constitution of the succeeding
generations of a species or a population.
I accept [Dobzhansky]"change in the genetic constitution of the
succeeding generations of a species or a population," in which case, I'm
an evolutionist.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius. March 1973. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense
Except in the Light of Evolution" _The American Biology Teacher_, 125-9.
On 127, 129:
But what if there was no evolution, and every one of the millions
of species was created by divine fiat? .... Antievolutionists
might perhaps suggest an alternative hypothesis: in a fit of
absentmindedness, the Creator.... Let me try to make crystal clear
what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further
study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always
gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those
who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence,
owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the
mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and
clarification.
Dobzhansky now characterizes me as ignorant of or resistant to the
evidence for blindwatchmaking being behind extant and extinct lifeforms.
Futumaya, Douglas J. 1979. _Evolutionary Biology_ (MA: Sinauer
Associates, Inc.), 565pp. On 7, a paragraph:
Evolution in the broadest sense is the observable or inferable fact
of change. Scoon (in Persons 1950) takes evolution to mean "a
continuous process of change in a temporal perspective long enough
to produce a series of transformations." Thus evolution is
all-pervasive. Galaxies, chemical elements, religions, languages,
and political systems all evolve. Biological (organic) evolution
transcends the lifetime of a single organism; the ontogeny of an
individual is not considered evolution. Evolutionary changes are
those that are inheritable from one generation to the next. The
hereditary factors are the genes; thus biological evolution can be
defined more precisely as any change from one generation to the
next in the proportion of different genes, of the carriers of
different hereditary information. Evolutionary changes can be
almost immeasurably slight, or they can be dramatic if genes with
large effects replace one another over long periods of time. I
consider biological evolution, then, to embrace everything from
slight changes in the proportions of different blood types (such as
the A, B, O system) in a single population to the successive
alterations that led from the earliest proto-organisms to snails,
bees, giraffes, and dandelions.
Note the very broad definitions of "evolution." A scam believers in
blindwatchmaking often perform is to demonstrate an innocuous rendition
of "evolution" (e.g. 'The galaxies evolved,' or 'The English moth
population evolved'), and then claim to have demonstrated the reality of
"evolution" (i.e. blindwatchmaking, e.g. 'Giraffes arose from snails via
evolution/ non-intelligence-directed-processes'). Claims based on
shifting definitions commit 'the fallacy of equivocation.'
Paul J Gans
>On 4 Jul 1999 14:31:40 -0400, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>[snip]
><raging_pedantism>
>>Facts have little to do with what folks believe. Most
>>folks believe that the 21st century will start on January
>>1, 1999. The fact that it will actually start on January
> ^^^^
> 2000
>>1, 2000 doesn't bother them at all. Nevertheless, it will
> ^^^^
> 2001
>>start on January 1, 2000 no matter what folks think.
> ^^^^
> 2001
>>Evolution is similar. What you think of it doesn't matter.
></raging_pedantism>
>Sorry.
>> ---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
When I screw up, I do it in public and with trumpets
sounding. ;-)
Nevertheless, the statement (as corrected) stands.
Dave Woetzel
david ford wrote in message ...
<snip>
The others are OK, but this last one is great.
Note: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
As you note, the debate is won by redefining terms. But the moth scenario
is *mild*, David. At least that illustration has a semblance of "fitness"
in some specific sense. The concept of a "shift in allele frequency in a
population" does not even take fitness in.
Note: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
A population on its way to genetic death because of a lethal mutation is
"evolving." Worse yet, in an argument with David Horn, he claimed that
evolution was merely biological change. Therefore, if I ate a chocolate
bar, I evolved. I guess I'm a believer. The logic is soooo compelling!!
Dave
Abiel...@aol.com
> folks believe that the 21st century will start on January
> 1, 1999. The fact that it will actually start on January
This is a pet peeve of mine Paul. I think you meant,
as I do, that most people think the 21st century will
start on January 1, 2,000, when it will actually start
on January 1, 2001.
>
> Evolution is similar. What you think of it doesn't matter.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
>
>
hrgr...@my-deja.com
Does this mean that when a mathematician writes about FIELD extensions
and ROOTS (including some arguments about STALKS in SHEAVES) he has to
include chapters on agriculture to comply with common usage ?
Regards,
HRG.
Robert Kern
wrote:
>>>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>><raging_pedantism>
>>>
>>>>Facts have little to do with what folks believe. etc etc
>snip
>>></raging_pedantism>
>
>Actually the word is pedantry. Oops.
Damn. Thanks.
>Bill Rowe
z@z
"Even geneticists sometimes hold the sneaking suspicion that
evolution is not genetically based, because they observe in
small scale a general resistance of organic development to
change from the 'norm' or 'wild type'. If any biologist is
going to be anti-evolutionist, it will be one who works at the
molecular level, such as a molecular geneticist or biochemist."
http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins/defevolution.html
Can anybody provide me with more information on this "general
resistance of organic development to change from the 'norm'
or 'wild type'".
This is exactly what is predicted by my panpsychist evolution
theory: http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
(Another prediction of this theory: mutations changing a gene
into an already existing allele are much more frequent than
equivalent mutations to non-existing alleles.)
By the way, last week I read that bacteria have been detected
below hundreds of meters of sediments on the seabed. This
finding was so unexpected that at first it was explained
by bacterial contamination. It was written in the article
that the replication cycle of these bacteria is assumed to
be many decades or maybe even hundreds of years, but no
explanation was given for this assumption. I suppose it is
because of 'food'. If bacteria can only survive by increasing
entropy, survival becomes impossible the sooner, the shorter
their replication cycles.
Cheers, Wolfgang
Relevant extracts from my posts of May:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja2.html
WRowe0521
>
> "Even geneticists sometimes hold the sneaking suspicion that
> evolution is not genetically based, because they observe in
> small scale a general resistance of organic development to
> change from the 'norm' or 'wild type'. If any biologist is
> going to be anti-evolutionist, it will be one who works at the
> molecular level, such as a molecular geneticist or biochemist."
> http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins/defevolution.html
--->Wolfgang asks:
>Can anybody provide me with more information on this "general
>resistance of organic development to change from the 'norm'
>or 'wild type'".
>This is exactly what is predicted by my panpsychist evolution
>theory: http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
Glad to oblige (my emphasis added):
http://www.pnas.org
--> Quote
Proceedings of the National Academy_ Vol. 95, Issue 7, 3949-3953, 1998
Virulence of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella typhimurium
Johanna Björkman*, Diarmaid Hughes, and Dan I. Andersson*,
Abstract:
We show that most Salmonella typhimurium mutants resistant to streptomycin,
rifampicin, and nalidixic acid are avirulent in mice. Of seven resistant
mutants examined, six were avirulent and one was similar to the wild type in
competition experiments in mice. The avirulent-resistant mutants rapidly
accumulated various types of compensatory mutations that restored virulence
without concomitant loss of resistance. ****Such second-site compensatory
mutations were more common then reversion to the sensitive wild type.*** We
infer from these results that a reduction in the use of antibiotics might not
result in the disappearance of the resistant bacteria already present in human
and environmental reservoirs. ***Thus, second-site compensatory mutations could
increase the fitness of resistant bacteria and allow them to persist and
compete successfully with sensitive strains even in an antibiotic-free
environment.****
--> End Quote
Looks like you need a new theory, Wolfgang. I'm sure some of the regulars here
could provide you with a good one.
Bill Rowe.
david ford
on 28 June 1999:
....geneticists... observe in small scale a general resistance of
organic development to change from the "norm" or "wild type".
Alberch, Pere. 1980. "Ontogenesis and Morphological Diversification"
_American Zoologist_ 20: 653-67. On 654-5:
_Bounded domains of continuous variation (steady states)._ If we
plot the distribution of some phenotypic trait, (_cf._ size or
shape measurements of an organ or tissue) some regions of
continuous variation randomly distributed around a mean can be
observed (Fig. 1). However, these regions of variation are bounded
as has been extensively shown by directional selection experiments
(Fig. 2) (see Lerner, 1954, for a review of the evidence). All
these experiments show the same pattern: after an initial period
of rapid response to selection pressure, a certain threshold is
reached and no further change can be attained despite the strong
selective pressures. These homeostatic properties of the phenotype
have been extensively studied and described under the names of
canalization (Waddington, 1957, 1962; Rendel, 1968, 1979),
developmental homeostasis (Lerner, 1954), and stabilizing selection
(Schmalhausen, 1949). This resistance of the phenotype against
external and genetic pressures is strong suggestion of regulatory
properties during development. Most studies of natural selection
refer to microevolutionary processes (_e.g._, changes in
coloration, small changes in body proportions, sexual dimorphism,
etc.). In such cases the limits of variation are usually not
recognized.
Experimental evidence for the theory of natural selection is lacking--
and not for want of trying-- yet the theory remains widely accepted.
Could anybody tell me the reasons the theory is accepted despite the
absence of experimental confirmation?
Donald C. Lindsay
In article <Pine.SGI.3.96A.990710...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>> after an initial period
>> of rapid response to selection pressure, a certain threshold is
>> reached and no further change can be attained despite the strong
>> selective pressures.
>Experimental evidence for the theory of natural selection is lacking--
>and not for want of trying--
One, it's the theory of evolution, not the theory of natural
selection. Darwin himself argued that natural selection was only one
of the mechanisms involved. Today, the list is longer.
Second, your conclusion does not follow. The quote simply shows
that a gene pool has a finite amount of variability, at any given
moment, That's obvious. In fact, the amount of variability of
some gene pools has been measured.
What you missed is that mutation introduces variability into gene
pools. You've read this article, right? So tell us what it said
about time. This pressure wa applied for how many generations?
>yet the theory remains widely accepted.
>Could anybody tell me the reasons the theory is accepted despite the
>absence of experimental confirmation?
Yes, I could. It's accepted because of the extensive experimental
confirmation.
--
Don
Donald C. Lindsay www.best.com/~dlindsay
z@z
> david ford wrote:
>> Alberch, Pere. 1980. "Ontogenesis and Morphological Diversification"
>> _American Zoologist_ 20: 653-67. On 654-5:
>> However, these regions of variation are bounded as has been
>> extensively shown by directional selection experiments. All
>> these experiments show the same pattern: after an initial period
>> of rapid response to selection pressure, a certain threshold is
>> reached and no further change can be attained despite the strong
>> selective pressures.
>> Experimental evidence for the theory of natural selection is lacking--
>> and not for want of trying--yet the theory remains widely accepted.
> One, it's the theory of evolution, not the theory of natural
> selection.
Darwins theory, also called the theory of natural selection, is
only one possible theory of evolution (or continuous creation) and
certainly not THE theory of evolution of the third millennium.
> Darwin himself argued that natural selection was only one
> of the mechanisms involved. Today, the list is longer.
What other mechanisms? Lamarckism?
And take into account that selection implies reproduction with
random mutations (and recombination), and that genetic drift
(to-FAQ: "a random change in allele frequencies") is essentially
the same as selection. Whereas natural selection is based on a
higher reproductive success, genetic drift is based on random
selection.
> Second, your conclusion does not follow. The quote simply shows
> that a gene pool has a finite amount of variability, at any given
> moment, That's obvious. In fact, the amount of variability of
> some gene pools has been measured.
>
> What you missed is that mutation introduces variability into gene
> pools. You've read this article, right? So tell us what it said
> about time. This pressure was applied for how many generations?
Lets talk about time. Do you know the results of McDougall's
Lamarckian experiments on training rats which were carried out
during decades? That these experiments (in the same way as several
adverse selection experiments) clearly refuted Darwinims, is
simply ignored by neo-Darwinian orthodoxy.
On McDougall's experiment:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aa1.html
"He found an improvement, irregularly progressive through 14
generations of an experiment in which training was combined with
adverse selection (breeding from the slowest learners in each
generation). The improvement in this stock was immediate and
its rate actually faster than in the main experiment in spite
of the adverse selection." (Agar, Drummond & Tiegs, 1935, Report
on a McDougall's Lamarckian Experiment on Training of Rats,
J. Exp. Biol. 12, p.209)
On adverse selection experiments:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/talkorigins.html#darwinism
"Darwin took it for granted that domestication traits such as big
udders have appeared because of selective breeding, but there is
no proof for conscious breeding in the beginning of domestication.
Big udders could also be the result of frequent milking over many
generations."
"Tryon has bred rats selectively according to their ability on the
California automatic maze, and, in a very carefully controlled
experiment, has shown clearly that the offspring of 'bright' parents
contain more 'brights' than 'dulls', and that the offspring of
'dulls' more 'dulls' than 'brights'. The interesting point here
in connection with Lamarckian inheritance, however, is that both
strains, 'dulls' as well as 'brights', became progressively better
at learning this maze." (Nature, Feb. 4, 1939, Vol. 143, p.190)
Wolfgang Gottfried G.
Donald C. Lindsay
In article <7m9vvi$2c2$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
>Donald C. Lindsay wrote:
>> One, it's the theory of evolution, not the theory of natural
>> selection.
>
>Darwins theory, also called the theory of natural selection,
It isn't called that in any recent text that I know of, and it isn't
called that in Simpson's "This View of Life", copyright 1947. If you
have recent books that say otherwise, I'd be interested in a
reference.
>> Darwin himself argued that natural selection was only one
>> of the mechanisms involved. Today, the list is longer.
>
>What other mechanisms? Lamarckism?
He argued (successfully) that human racial differences are due to
sexual selection. (The "we are what our parents were attracted by"
theory.)
<snip>
>"He found an improvement, irregularly progressive through 14
>generations of an experiment in which training was combined with
>adverse selection (breeding from the slowest learners in each
>generation). The improvement in this stock was immediate and
>its rate actually faster than in the main experiment in spite
>of the adverse selection." (Agar, Drummond & Tiegs, 1935, Report
>on a McDougall's Lamarckian Experiment on Training of Rats,
>J. Exp. Biol. 12, p.209)
1935 ?
This was before the double blind experimental technique came into use.
Were these experiments single blind or double blind?
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aa1.html
The first paragraph says an enzyme is an organism that can
reincarnate. I'm having trouble understanding this.
david ford
david ford:
df Experimental evidence for the theory of natural selection is
df lacking-- and not for want of trying--
DL One, it's the theory of evolution, not the theory of natural
DL selection. Darwin himself argued that natural selection was
DL only one of the mechanisms involved. Today, the list is longer.
By [df]"the theory of natural selection," I'm talking about the
neo-Darwinian mechanism, not [DL]"the theory of evolution."
DL Second, your conclusion does not follow. The quote simply shows
DL that a gene pool has a finite amount of variability, at any given
DL moment, That's obvious. In fact, the amount of variability of
DL some gene pools has been measured.
DL
DL What you missed is that mutation introduces variability into gene
DL pools. You've read this article, right? So tell us what it said
DL about time. This pressure was applied for how many generations?
The article doesn't say for how many generations pressure was applied
in the various experiments. I'll bet that the sources the article
referred do say.
df yet the theory remains widely accepted. Could anybody tell me
df the reasons the theory is accepted despite the absence of
df experimental confirmation?
DL Yes, I could. It's accepted because of the extensive experimental
DL confirmation.
Are you saying that the neo-Darwinian mechanism has [DL]"extensive
experimental confirmation"?
Grene, Marjorie. Nov 1959. "The Faith of Darwinism" _Encounter_,
48-56. On 54, with some dividing into paragraphs:
To such biologists-- such as A.M. Dalcq of Brussels, O.
Schindewolf of Tubingen, or A. Vandel of Toulouse-- there appear
in fact to be two divergent directions in the evolutionary story.
There are, indeed, all the minute specialised divergences like
those of the Galapagos finches which so fascinated Darwin; it is
their story that is told in the _Origin_ and elaborated by the
selectionists to-day. But these are dead ends, last minutiae of
development; it is not from them that the great massive novelties
of evolution could have sprung. For this, such dissenters feel,
is the major evolutionary theme: great new inventions, new ideas
of living, which arise with startling suddenness, proliferate in
a variety of directions, yet persist with fundamental constancy--
as in Darwinian terms they would have no reason in the world to
do. Neither the origin and persistence of great new modes of
life-- photosynthesis, breathing, thinking-- nor all the
intricate and co-ordinated changes needed to support them, are
explained or even made conceivable on the Darwinian view.
And if one returns to read the _Origin_ with these criticisms in
mind, one finds, indeed, that for all the brilliance of its
hypotheses piled on hypotheses, for all the splendid simplicity
of the "mechanism" by which it "explains" so many and so varied
phenomena, it simply is not about the origin of species, let
alone of the great orders and classes and phyla, at all. Its
argument moves in a different direction altogether, in the
direction of minute specialised adaptations, which lead, unless
to extinction, nowhere.
And the same is true of the whole immense and infinitely
ingenious mountain of work by present-day Darwinians: _c'est
magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre_! That the colour of
moths or snails or the bloom on the castor bean stem are
"explained" by mutation and natural selection is very likely; but
how from single-celled (and for that matter from inanimate)
ancestors there came to be castor beans and moths and snails, and
how from these there emerged llamas and hedgehogs and lions and
apes-- and men-- that is a question which neo-Darwinian theory
simply leaves unasked. With infinite ingenuity it elaborates the
microscopic conditions for such macroscopic occurrences; but it
provides no conceptual framework in terms of which they can be
admitted to exist, let alone an "explanation" of their descent
from "lower" forms.
In short, reflections on some of the problems of macroevolution
may well lead to remarks like that of Professor Waddington,
tucked away in the folds of his ingenious and "orthodox" argument
on _The Strategy of the Genes_.... Moreover, evolutionists
sceptical of the neo-Darwinian synthesis have themselves
empirical evidence to support their doubts. For despite the
neo-Darwinians' claims, two great biological disciplines,
paleontology and embryology, appear to lend their chief weight
against the selectionist dogma.
Grene influenced Eldredge
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=402684834.2
schuyler
>"z@z" wrote:
Donald C. Lindsay wrote:> david ford wrote:
>> Alberch, Pere. 1980. "Ontogenesis and Morphological Diversification"
>> _American Zoologist_ 20: 653-67. On 654-5:
>> However, these regions of variation are bounded as has been
>> extensively shown by directional selection experiments. All
>> these experiments show the same pattern: after an initial period
>> of rapid response to selection pressure, a certain threshold is
>> reached and no further change can be attained despite the strong
>> selective pressures.
>> Experimental evidence for the theory of natural selection is lacking--
>> and not for want of trying--yet the theory remains widely accepted.
> One, it's the theory of evolution, not the theory of natural
> selection.
Darwins theory, also called the theory of natural selection, is
only one possible theory of evolution (or continuous creation) and
certainly not THE theory of evolution of the third millennium.
> Darwin himself argued that natural selection was only one
> of the mechanisms involved. Today, the list is longer.
What are some possible mechanisms of evolution, as currently recognized by the scientific community? I'm not scientist, but here's some that I've read about in texts by leading anthropologists/biologists/geneticists:What other mechanisms? Lamarckism?
Natural selection (popularly known as "survival of the fittest". Dramatic or extreme environmental changes, e.g. in earth's climate, most certainly could favor the survival of one species over another, as well as organisms within a given species with relatively obscure, yet advantageous traits.)
Sexual selection
Artificial selection
Genetic drift
Genetic Migration (transferrence of genetic material from one gene pool to another...)
Genetic mutation (x-rays, cosmic rays, disease, physical trauma,
chemical changes...)
This is just off the top of my head, from what I read in a physical anthropology book; there may be more mechanisms which have been demonstrated, which are not listed.
Schuyler
John Wilkins
<schu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
|--------------6B431E9E1766250835FA6E08
|Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
|Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
IMO these two are subsets of natural selection (cue fight noises offstage left)
|
|Genetic drift
|
|Genetic Migration (transferrence of genetic material from one gene pool to
|another...)
Horizontal transfer is the preferred term, I believe, and includes
endosymbiosis. If it's just genes that are transferred, it's called
Lateral Gene Transfer.
Also, hybridisation (alloploidy included here). LGT is partial,
hybridisation is complete, horizontal transfer (ie, 50% from each
contributing lineage)
|
|Genetic mutation (x-rays, cosmic rays, disease, physical trauma, chemical
|changes...)
|
|
|This is just off the top of my head, from what I read in a physical
|anthropology book; there may be more mechanisms which have been demonstrated,
|which are not listed.
|
|Schuyler
Some others for the shopping list:
Allometry
Heterochrony
Sequential developmental stage replacement
Epistasis
Pleiotropy
These are taken from the book _Phenotypic Evolution: A developmental
reaction norm perspective_ by Carl Schlichting and Massimo Pigliucci,
Sinauer 1998
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne,
Australia <mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
david ford
Scientist_, 130-2, 130:
Darwin's theory [of natural selection] is now supported by all the
available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any
serious modern biologist.
Lima-de-Faria, A. 1988. _Evolution without Selection: Form and
Function by Autoevolution_ (NY: Elsevier), 349+pp. Lima-de-Faria is
with the Institute of Molecular Cytogenetics, University of Lund,
Sweden, and also wrote _Molecular Evolution and Organization of the
Chromosome_ (NY: Elsevier, 1983). On xx-xxi, 4-5:
I must confess that I went through long pains (lasting over 40
years) to find out where the pitfalls of the generally accepted
view of evolution lie. Nothing is more difficult to erase than the
concepts that one absorbs with one['s] mother's milk. Neo-
Darwinism [i.e. the theory of natural selection] is something that
we learned at a tender age and that has been hammered into our
minds as a truism. Psychologists know well how difficult it is to
erase, even to substitute, such early acquired ideas. For this
reason I expect opposition from not all, but a large group of my
colleagues. ....
Most biologists have accepted, for over one hundred years, the
existence of selection as the mechanism of evolution. Today, as in
the time of DARWIN, selection is conceived as a purely abstract
process, and as such it is used as an immediate solution for every
phenomenon for which there is no physico-chemical information. The
time of abstractions in biology is over. Such terms as 'selection'
can be forgotten since they tell us nothing about the exact
relationships, which must be described in pure chemical and
physical terms. The phlogiston, the ether and selection [--] all
three belong to the history of science.
Rosen's view of the theory of NS
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=390869990
david ford
Goldschmidt, "Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist" _American
Scientist_ (Jan 1952), 84-98, 135, 84:
....but if we all worked on the assumption that what is
accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope
of advance.
Boikat
david ford wrote in message ...
The good thing about this is that there is someone who may find come up with
a new theory or observation, that can challenge a basic assumption, and the
new observation or theory, even if resisted at first, *will not go away*.
Then the old base assumption will be have to integrate the new assumption,
or be tossed, to accomodate the new
That is why science does advance, and creationism has fallen away as
anything remotely resembling real science.
Boikat
>
Bill McHale
<Pine.SGI.3.96A.990804...@umbc9.umbc.edu>:
Distribution:
david ford (dfo...@gl.umbc.edu) wrote:
: Orville Wright in a 7 June 1903 letter. Cited by Richard
: Goldschmidt, "Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist" _American
: Scientist_ (Jan 1952), 84-98, 135, 84:
: ....but if we all worked on the assumption that what is
: accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope
: of advance.
And? Lets face it, just because major paradigm shifts can occur in the
way we view the universe, it does not mean that they are inevitable for
any given field.
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
Nostalgia is not what it use to be!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
***************************************************************************
Vreejack
wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) wrote:
> .3.96A.99072721150...@umbc9.umbc.edu>
> <Pine.SGI.3.96A.990804...@umbc9.umbc.edu>:
> Distribution:
>
> david ford (dfo...@gl.umbc.edu) wrote:
> : Orville Wright in a 7 June 1903 letter. Cited by Richard
> : Goldschmidt, "Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist" _American
> : Scientist_ (Jan 1952), 84-98, 135, 84:
> : ....but if we all worked on the assumption that what is
> : accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope
> : of advance.
>
> And? Lets face it, just because major paradigm shifts can occur in
the
> way we view the universe, it does not mean that they are inevitable
for
> any given field.
>
> --
> Bill
To put it more plainly, no-one is going to overturn Newton in such a
manner that they will build automobiles or aircraft any differently
than they do now.
-Vreejack
--
<<Send no unsolicited appeals or sales promotions.>>
"I will never agree with the theory, even if it's somehow proven
(beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100%) correct." - Paul Allen Panks,
spiritual camp follower.
Vreejack
-Vreejack
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: ...!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.tli.de!newsfeed.nacamar.de!newsfeed.icl.net!colt.net!news-x.support.nl!News-Service!gateway.cm.org!news.cm.org!cancelmoose
From: Vreejack <vree...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: uk.test,at.test,de.test,talk.atheism
Subject: cmsg cancel <7onsue$blq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Control: cancel <7onsue$blq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Date: 10 Aug 1999 22:04:16 GMT
Organization: Cancelmoose[tm] <mo...@cm.org>
Lines: 2
Sender: str...@203.197.194.219
Approved: mo...@cm.org
Message-ID: <6accxf$flj$6...@nnrp1.deja.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.197.194.219
X-No-Archive: n
X-Cancelled-By: Cancelmoose[tm] <mo...@cm.org>
X-Abuse-Reports-To: mo...@cm.org
This article was removed by the Usenet Censorship Cabal.
Peter Walker
<mathem...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote:
>Vreejack pounded silicon into:
>
>> In article <7on5pd$7g4$1...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill
>> McHale) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> To put it more plainly, no-one is going to overturn Newton in such a
>> manner that they will build automobiles or aircraft any differently
>> than they do now.
>
>Not the best example. Ask followers of the Bernoulli brothers about
>Newton and aircraft design. ;-)
Except of course that fluid dynamics (which drives aircraft design) is
perfectly Newtonian. I can derive all of said equations from
considerations of conservation of mass, momentum, and energy.
>Maybe you meant to say that no one was going to overturn Maxwell so
>that computers in the last quarter of the 20th century would be built
>differently than computers in the second quarter?
Even worse example - computer design and components require quantum
phenomena to be understood; something Maxwell didn't have.
--
Peter Wykoff Walker II | EMAIL: p...@spacsun.rice.edu
Rice University | WWW: http://spac-201.rice.edu/
Dept. of Space Physics & Astronomy | alt.atheist #3 (Oldtimer Division)
--------- QUI NOS RODUNT CONFUNDANTUR ET CUM IUSTIS NON SCRIBANTUR ---------
Peter Walker
<mathem...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote:
>Peter Walker pounded silicon into:
>
>> In article <wkyafk1...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com>, Marty Fouts
>> <mathem...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote:
>>>> To put it more plainly, no-one is going to overturn Newton in such
>>>> a manner that they will build automobiles or aircraft any
>>>> differently than they do now.
>>> Not the best example. Ask followers of the Bernoulli brothers
>>> about Newton and aircraft design. ;-)
>
>> Except of course that fluid dynamics (which drives aircraft design)
>> is perfectly Newtonian. I can derive all of said equations from
>> considerations of conservation of mass, momentum, and energy.
>
>Sure. And you'd get a different answer than Newton did when he
>tried. ;-)
Only because Newton didn't yet have the math - FD requires heavy
differental equations I suspect came after Newton, up to and including
those lovely little convective derivatives. You tell me the history of
math - I'm the physicist, and I assume by your tagline that you're the
mathematician.
But there is precious little (ie, no) physics involved in defiving
fluid dynamics that Newton didn't have.
And once I have the fluid dynamical expressions of Newton's laws, and
recombine the P and E equations into Bernoulli's, I can solve for the
physics of a thin wing, the fuselage, and with a big enough computer,
the whole danged aircraft (neglecting dissipative processes, of
course). And not once have I overturned Newton.