Which came first, the fang or the poison?

[Van]

Still waiting to see if anyone will step up to the plate. Apparently not one person finding fault with my views knows that Darwin did not "contradict" Haeckel because Darwin published first. LOL Next, a completely erroneous understanding of what Darwin published around 1859 has been presented twice, yet not one of you has pointed out the obvious.

Next, lets discuss "natural selection." What did Darwin mean by that term. A variation occurs that is either beneficial or is not beneficial, and therefore that variation lives to procreate or not. Not at all how the process is thought to work under neo-Darwinism.

Lets consider pigmy mamoths. Becoming smaller over several generations, they would not be selected to procreate, and so would seem to be on the way to extinction. But, then an ice age occurs, and food becomes scarce. Now the very veriation that had been unbenefitial according to Darwin's idea becomes benefitial because they can live on less food. He was without a clue. We have evolved our understanding of "natural selection" to become "nature's selection." And it is this concept, nature's selection, that is part of the new engine. Natural selection as understood by Darwin would select for what is instinctively thought to be benefitial, such as the largests strongest male fathering the group, but this process does not act to diversify, so it actually opposes the real process of change. But the new genetic theory of natual selection has replaced Darwin's idea, only the term remains. A 32 Ford with a new engine.

 

[shernren]

I'm staying out of the main debate since it seems quite pointless to me, but a comment:

Note that we do not call the theory of gravity Newtonianism or Einsteinism. We do not call the basic rules of genetics Mendelism. We do not call the study of fossil anatomy Cuvierism, the geological study of glaciation, Agassiism or the study of the expanding universe Hubbleism. So why call Darwin's theory Darwinism?

The use of "Darwinism" in the place of "evolution" or "theory of evolution" is almost always pejorative and used to imply that evolution is a philosophy or faith rather than science.

It is true the theory of evolution has changed considerably since Darwin, but not in a manner that would suggest his principle ideas have been discarded. Mostly, what has happened is that Darwin's work still forms the basic skeleton of the theory, but it has been fleshed out with a lot more detail about aspects Darwin himself could have known nothing about.

Physics is chock-full of eponymous scientific achievements. There are Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's equations, the Planck constant, the Carnot engine, Fraunhofer and Fresnel diffraction, Fermi-Dirac and Einstein-Bose thermal distributions, and a whole lot more. Every other theorem in mathematics has a name attached to it - about one in five of them belong either to Gauss or Fermat respectively. (A book on analysis I once had with me made a little jibe about how hard it is in France to teach math - every other theorem is attributed to Fermat.)

The real problem I have with "Darwinism" is the use of the suffix "ism" (and perhaps that was your real beef with it as well gluadys), which normally denotes a belief system far more encompassing than a scientific idea - witness the difference between relativity and relativism. (Even then the linguistic boundaries seem a little blurred - postmodernity and postmodernism don't carry very different connotations.)

But I don't see why I should be too concerned about calling it Darwinian evolution. Darwin after all came up with the kernel of the idea, even if he didn't have much to go by given the then-state of his science. Maxwell's equations were originally formulated using the mathematically horrendous formalism known as quarternions; the man who actually arranged them into the beautifully elegant form encountered in most undergraduate courses today was the almost universally neglected Heaviside. Not that either of them are around to care any more.

 

[Van]

Exactly, Darwinian "science" has been overturned and replaced, but Darwinism is alive and well. So sad.

 

[Van]

Lets say I refer to a room, a window and a chair. You all picture what I am talking about and we discuss it using the names or labels I provided. But what you pictured and what I was referring to are very different. My room is a jail cell, my window is the food slit in a solid door, and my chair is a toilet. Darwin provided and names or labels for the theory, but the theory is actually totally different today. Darwin's contribution is therefore eponymous, rather than material.

 

[Mallon]

What is your agenda, Van?

 

[gluadys]

Next, a completely erroneous understanding of what Darwin published around 1859 has been presented twice, yet not one of you has pointed out the obvious.

Next, lets discuss "natural selection." What did Darwin mean by that term. A variation occurs that is either beneficial or is not beneficial, and therefore that variation lives to procreate or not. Not at all how the process is thought to work under neo-Darwinism.

Lets consider pigmy mamoths. Becoming smaller over several generations, they would not be selected to procreate, and so would seem to be on the way to extinction. But, then an ice age occurs, and food becomes scarce. Now the very veriation that had been unbenefitial according to Darwin's idea becomes benefitial because they can live on less food. He was without a clue. We have evolved our understanding of "natural selection" to become "nature's selection." And it is this concept, nature's selection, that is part of the new engine. Natural selection as understood by Darwin would select for what is instinctively thought to be benefitial, such as the largests strongest male fathering the group, but this process does not act to diversify, so it actually opposes the real process of change.

Where are you getting this from? Don't tell me you are getting it from Darwin, because you are not.


Darwin called his proposal "natural selection" to indicate that it was "nature's selection". Darwin certainly understood that "beneficial" meant "beneficial in the current environment". He most emphatically did not claim that "beneficial" was what we would instinctively think was beneficial, but rather that which was actually beneficial to the organism. He discouraged attempts to see the "struggle for life" as a violent battle necessarily favoring large size or great strength. And he described the process of diversification in some detail.

I think the erroneous understanding of Darwin is yours.

But the new genetic theory of natual selection has replaced Darwin's idea, only the term remains. A 32 Ford with a new engine.

Certainly the whole underlying genetic mechanism of producing variation was added to Darwin's theory. But until you produce an actual different mode of natural selection, you are not referring to the replacement of Darwin's idea.

 

[gluadys]

The real problem I have with "Darwinism" is the use of the suffix "ism" (and perhaps that was your real beef with it as well gluadys), which normally denotes a belief system far more encompassing than a scientific idea - witness the difference between relativity and relativism.

Yes. Normally a name attached to a scientific term is either possessive (Hubble's constant) or adjectival (Newtonian mechanics). It is not a noun such as Hubbleism or Newtonianism. And you are right about the suffix "-ism" denoting a system of thought or belief. So in philosophy we often see this suffix e.g Platonism, Cartesianism, Hegelianism).

So I have no problem with "Darwin's finches" or "Darwinian mechanisms", but I do have a problem with "Darwinism."

 

[Van]

Hi Mallon, what is my agenda? To demonstrate the truth. To illustrate critical thinking rather than accepting the mythology of today. The other posters do not even know that Darwin referred to his "natural selection" as "natural preservation." And the selection process was seen as driven by animal instinct to seek what was beneficial on an individual basis. They seem to have no clue as to the new theory of evolution and how it differs from Darwin's bogus thesis.

 

[gluadys]

The other posters do not even know that Darwin referred to his "natural selection" as "natural preservation." And the selection process was seen as driven by animal instinct to seek what was beneficial on an individual basis.

Why are you making this assumption? And why do you see this as being incorrect?

They seem to have no clue as to the new theory of evolution and how it differs from Darwin's bogus thesis.

What, precisely, is the difference you are referring to?

Darwin: some variations provide more benefit than others in the struggle for life. Such variations are more likely to be preserved in the next generation.

Neo-Darwinism: changes in genes are the source of inheritable variations. Selection of favorable variations is essentially the selection of the genes which produce them. Hence evolution can be defined as changes in the distribution of alleles in the species gene pool transcending generations.

Genetic changes which produce variations that provide more benefit to their possessors in the struggle for life are more likely to be preserved in the next generation.

Let's grant that Darwin did not know the information in the non-bolded section under neo-Darwinism. What is so different about the two bolded sections?

 

[Assyrian]

Still waiting to see if anyone will step up to the plate. Apparently not one person finding fault with my views knows that Darwin did not "contradict" Haeckel because Darwin published first. LOL

The only references to contradicting Haeckel in the thread have been 1) pointing out that you were contradicting Haeckel when you thought you were contradicting Darwin, and 2) a fact Darwin realised contradicted Haeckel. Not that Darwin contradicted Haeckel in Origin of Species, but a detail of embryonic development that Darwin mentioned in Origin undercut Haeckel's Recapitulation Theory. Saying Darwin could not contradict Haeckel in a book he wrote before Haeckel came up with his theory is true, but trivial. But reality can contradict a clever theory too, and that can exist long before the theory is dreamt up. Darwin realised new variations can take effect at different stages in embryonic development. Haeckel's recapitulation needed variations to be sequential. If is the facts of embryonic development that contradicted Haeckel, a fact that was mentioned in Origin.

Given that you now realise Darwin published Origin before Haeckel's recapitulation theory, do you still think Darwin taught recapitulation?

Next, a completely erroneous understanding of what Darwin published around 1859 has been presented twice, yet not one of you has pointed out the obvious.

This is just rhetoric Van. How about addressing the points we make and actually deal with them rather than make vague claims about them being completely erroneous?

 

[Assyrian]

Hi Mallon, what is my agenda? To demonstrate the truth. To illustrate critical thinking rather than accepting the mythology of today. The other posters do not even know that Darwin referred to his "natural selection" as "natural preservation." And the selection process was seen as driven by animal instinct to seek what was beneficial on an individual basis. They seem to have no clue as to the new theory of evolution and how it differs from Darwin's bogus thesis.

Darwin used the phrase once in later editions of Origin in an attemp to explain natural selection through a personification of the process. The phrases natural selection and natural preservation should give a clue as to what is doing the selection. It is nature itself that selects and preserves beneficial variation.

If natural selection is driven by instinct, what did Darwin think selected the instincts? How did he think plants evolved? Where do you get this stuff Van?

 

[Van]

I read the chapter on Natural Selection.

 

[Assyrian]

I think I see where you are going wrong there. That chapter deals a lot with sexual selection which is controlled by instinct. But as he says in the chapter, Among many animals sexual selection will have given its aid to ordinary selection by assuring to the most vigorous and best adapted males the greatest number of offspring.
1) Sexual selection and instinct can only operate among animals, yet natural selections occurs with plants too.
2) He only says many animals. In other words there are plenty of species where sexual selection does not take place.
3) He does not see sexual selection as all there is to natural selection, instead it is a form of selection that works alongside 'ordinary selection'.

 

[USincognito]

{whoops, just noticed I'm no longer allowed to post here}

 

[Van]

The process of natural selection as described by Darwin is not the process currently accepted as the process of natural selection. Thus Darwin actually only supplied the name. Again I say, read the "genetic theory of natural selection" and compare it to what Darwin actually claimed in his book, and you will see we are talking apples and eggs.

See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

 

[Assyrian]

...populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection...

This is the same natural selection Darwin described 150 years ago, only now it is discussed in terms of genetics and phenotypes and there are other forms of selection alongside it like genetic drift.

 

[Van]

Just read the link folks, all I have done is make very conservative statements and have been met with lots of "taint so" responses. Any one who claims the "natural selection" envisioned by Darwin is the "natural selection" of the modern synthesis, is paddling up that river in Egypt, de nile. The "natural selection" referred to in the quote is not the natural selection of Darwin. Natural selection has become natures selection referring to the process by which the gene population is altered. Darwin would have only recognized the name, not the process.

 

[gluadys]

Just read the link folks, all I have done is make very conservative statements and have been met with lots of "taint so" responses. Any one who claims the "natural selection" envisioned by Darwin is the "natural selection" of the modern synthesis, is paddling up that river in Egypt, de nile. The "natural selection" referred to in the quote is not the natural selection of Darwin. Natural selection has become natures selection referring to the process by which the gene population is altered. Darwin would have only recognized the name, not the process.

No, you have not made very conservative statements. You have made radical statements like this:

Darwin provided and names or labels for the theory, but the theory is actually totally different today. Darwin's contribution is therefore eponymous, rather than material.

What is "totally different"--especially in regard to natural selection? You continue to ignore this question.

Neo-Darwinism is certainly more comprehensive in regard to the mechanisms of variation. But, in so far as it still relies on selection of the variation so produced, it is still quite close to Darwin's thesis.

We also know that natural selection (i.e. selection of fitness) is not the only form of selection that acts on genetic variation. But Darwin himself discussed sexual selection. What makes you think he would have seen founder's effect or genetic drift as rendering neo-Darwinism "totally different" from his concept?

The theory of evolution today is not Darwin's original theory. It has been modified and expanded in various ways. Everyone agrees to that. But you have not made a case that it is "totally different" either.

 

[Assyrian]

Just read the link folks, all I have done is make very conservative statements and have been met with lots of "taint so" responses. Any one who claims the "natural selection" envisioned by Darwin is the "natural selection" of the modern synthesis, is paddling up that river in Egypt, de nile. The "natural selection" referred to in the quote is not the natural selection of Darwin. Natural selection has become natures selection referring to the process by which the gene population is altered. Darwin would have only recognized the name, not the process.

Darwin would not have know what a gene population is, but the way it is altered includes modern concepts like genetic drift, but also the very traditional methods Darwin would have recognised, the organisms with those genes having more babies and not getting eaten.

Enough of the rhetoric, if you think I don't understand the process, (which may well be the case), then show us what natural selection really means today. Simply giving a tautologous "Natural selection has become natures selection referring to the process by which the gene population is altered" tells us nothing, unless you say what the processes are that alter gene population, and how they differ from Darwin's view.

 

[Van]

Folks, I am done. Read the link in post 95. The case is made. The theory of evolution has evolved so far from Darwin's idea that he would not recognize it. Goodbye and God Bless.