Paradigm Shift: Holistic Darwinism VS the Selfish Gene

[joshua 1 9]

1) Describe exactly what you think 'The Selfish Gene' is.

I am quoting an article. The point is that there are evolutionists that think we have a new paradigm. If you disagree with them then who do you disagree with. Because the evolutionists disagree with each other on most everything. Who do we believe. Which side of the dispute is the correct side that represents true science? If you want to sell the theory of evolution then it may be a good idea to try to find two evolutionists that agree with each other.

To refresh your memory we are dealing with the selfish gene vs altruism. Now I understand that Dawkins claims that altruism allows the selfish gene to be selfish. But at some point in time that sort of reasoning becomes little more then double talk.

 

[joshua 1 9]

In your very first post of this thread:

"In Dawkins 1976 book: The Selfish Gene, it was never a question that Dawkins would be proven wrong. The only question was when and where would he be proven wrong.

Holistic Darwinism: the new evolutionary paradigm and some implications for political science. - PubMed - NCBI

Even this debate goes back to Harvard Professors: biologist Ernst Mayr and
Stephen Jay Gould who challenged the Modern Synthesis.

It all comes down to the battle between theistic and atheistic evolution."

Nowhere in the article you linked to is religion mentioned, referenced or even talked about, but for some reason you felt the need to cram it in.

Yes, I felt a need: "to cram it in" and bless your heart you felt a need to challenge me on it, so here we go. Yes I realize that we have people like Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Bill Nye “the Science Guy,” Neil deGrasse Tyson to deal with in this discussion. But according to Study: In science vs. religion debate, Francis Collins is more effective than Richard Dawkins the real debate is best represented by Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins. Do you want to take a look at that discussion between these leading authors on evolutionary theory? One theistic and one clearly anti theistic.

The debate between Dawkins and Collins becomes a learning tool for people that otherwise would not be interested in Science if there was not a debate - discussion and at least a little bit of conflict. Because when you say it is time to rumble lots of people come running to see the fight and it helps to sell books.

 

[joshua 1 9]

To refresh your memory we are dealing with two issues. The first has to do with a discussion between the group theory of evolution vs Dawkins selfish gene. Then the second discussion has to do with a new tree of life which evolutionary science says is a new paradigm.

In all fairness though there is a connection in that both paradigms has to do with synergy and co evolution. I have long had an issue with evolution theory in that there is very little discussion about co evolution. Because I just do not go along with Dawkins liberal selfish gene approach.

The selfish gene is based on a high school sport mentality where you have to have a winner and a loser. This is going to help you to sell books to people with a limited education. Dennis Waitley wrote a book called: "The Double Win". Co evolution is a double win, not a winner and a loser or a selfish gene.

SYMPHY: Researchers Propose New ‘Tree of Life’ Framework that Incorporates Symbiomes | Biology | Sci-News.com

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170607123823.htm

http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-...m/retrieve/pii/S0169534717301258?showall=true

 

[Willby]

Okay I thinks its pretty clear that you don't actually understand what 'The Selfish Gene' is about or you wouldn't have written.

'The selfish gene is based on a high school sport mentality where you have to have a winner and a loser.'

The whole premis of Dawkins book was to discus how altruism can result from genes acting as if they were selfish. If you had read it you would know this.

Try to understand 'The Selfish Gene' is not 'genes for selfishness'. I think that is where your misunderstanding mainly lies.


'The first has to do with a discussion between the group theory of evolution vs Dawkins selfish gene. Then the second discussion has to do with a new tree of life which evolutionary science says is a new paradigm.'

Yes there are scientific debates and disagreements about the details and mechanisms of evolution.
In another setting I would enjoy discussing them but it has become clear that you care little about understanding evolution but are just looking for something to try to manipulate and misrepresent as if it some how discredits the whole field.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The whole premis of Dawkins book was to discus how altruism can result from genes acting as if they were selfish. If you had read it you would know this.

First of all Dawkins quickly catches himself in his own net when he says: "We no longer have to resort to superstition" because Darwin: "made it possible for us to give sensible answers". Meaning we are going to trust in man, we are going to trust in ourselves. If I did that I would not even be alive having this conversation with you. I have go beyond man and what man can do. Whatever your terminology is for that. If you want to trust in man and what man is able to figure out then somewhere along the way your going to be in trouble.

Still to stay on track what Dawkin says once we get past his delusions of grandeur is that people make "the erroneous assumption that the important thing in evolution is the good of the species (or the group] rather then for the good of the individual (or the gene)". Clearly we have serpent talk.

Genesis 3 "4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! 5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Dawkins goes on to say: "I shall argue that a predominate quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. This gene selfishness will will usually give rise to selfishness in individual behaviour. However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals".

You claim about the premise is not accurate at all. Now it could be that selfishness is the fallen condition of man and all of creation as a result of unregenerate man being in a fallen state. Evolution under Dawkins does not even try to deal with man's fallen condition. But I am not here to promote my opinions and perspective because I am not qualified. Rather I am here to say there are people who are qualified like Corning and Edward Wilson that do not buy into this selfish gene concept. With a Phd from Harvard Wilson is much more qualified then I am and we need to take a look at what he has to contribute to this conversation in opposition to the Dawkins paradigm.

 

[Willby]

Have you even read Corinings article that you link to here are some quotes from the first 2 paragraphs.

'It should be stated at the outset that there can be no gainsaying the heuristic value of Richard Dawkins’s “selfish gene” metaphor'

'A gene-centered approach has led to many new insights...'

'Gene selfishness also provided the core assumption for inclusive fitness theory (Hamilton 1964a,b), as well as various game theoretic approaches to social life (Maynard Smith 1982, 1984a; Axelrod and Hamilton, 1981), which have spawned many testable and successfully tested hypotheses.'

Yes he then goes on to explain what he sees as the limitations of the 'Selfish Gene' concept but to say he doesn't 'buy it' is hardly acurate.

 

[Willby]

As to Wilson.

Yes he and Dawkins disagree about group vs kin selection, and unfortunatly both have at times behaved poorly in their argument. However if you were to sit down with the pair of them I willing to bet they would agree with each other far more than either would agree with you when it comes to evolutionary biology.

Also as to your comment that 'you [sic] claim about the premise is not accurate at all', here is a link to the first part of 'The Selfish Gene'

From The Selfish Gene

Please read it and you will see how significant explaining altuistic behaviour is to the arguments he intends to make.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, I felt a need: "to cram it in" and bless your heart you felt a need to challenge me on it, so here we go. Yes I realize that we have people like Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Bill Nye “the Science Guy,” Neil deGrasse Tyson to deal with in this discussion. But according to Study: In science vs. religion debate, Francis Collins is more effective than Richard Dawkins the real debate is best represented by Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins. Do you want to take a look at that discussion between these leading authors on evolutionary theory? One theistic and one clearly anti theistic.

The debate between Dawkins and Collins becomes a learning tool for people that otherwise would not be interested in Science if there was not a debate - discussion and at least a little bit of conflict. Because when you say it is time to rumble lots of people come running to see the fight and it helps to sell books.

And does that have to do with the idea that addition of symbiomes in to the Tree of Life is going to cause a shift in the paradigm for the Theory of Evolution?

 

[joshua 1 9]

And does that have to do with the idea that addition of symbiomes in to the Tree of Life is going to cause a shift in the paradigm for the Theory of Evolution?

That is a part of it. I have different evolutions that support the new paradigm. Currently I am looking at Harvard professor Edward Wilson. Scientists that support the very thing that Dawkins argues against that: "the important thing in evolution is the good of the species (or the group) rather than the good of the individual or the gene." Dawkins believe evolution is based on the individual or the gene not what benefits the group or the species or the eco system. Wilson calls this a shift of perception and reasoning.

"Wilson was asked about his current views on the concept of a selfish gene, to which he replied: “I have abandoned it and I think most serious scientists working on it have abandoned it. Some defenders may be out there, but they have been relatively or almost totally silenced since our major paper came out.” Biological warfare flares up again between EO Wilson and Richard Dawkins

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is a part of it. I have different evolutions that support the new paradigm. Currently I am looking at Harvard professor Edward Wilson. Scientists that support the very thing that Dawkins argues against that: "the important thing in evolution is the good of the species (or the group) rather than the good of the individual or the gene." Dawkins believe evolution is based on the individual or the gene not what benefits the group or the species or the eco system.

Except that's now what Dawkins said, as was pointed out to you, and also, you're still not saying how the inclusion of symbiomes in to the Tree of Life is a paradigm shift for evolution!

 

[joshua 1 9]

As to Wilson.

Yes he and Dawkins disagree about group vs kin selection

That is the discussion we are having. You're trying to defend Dawkins and I am taking the other side with the many scientists and leading experts that are opposed to Dawkins selfish gene concept or paradigm.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Except that's now what Dawkins said, as was pointed out to you, and also, you're still not saying how the inclusion of symbioses in to the Tree of Life is a paradigm shift for evolution!

Did you click on the link and read the article. This is not my claim it is the claim of the person that wrote the article. Co evolution or symphy is based on what is mutually beneficial for all the species involved.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170607123823.htm

 

[joshua 1 9]

Except that's now what Dawkins said

What is the exception?

 

[Willby]

That is the discussion we are having. You're trying to defend Dawkins and I am taking the other side with the many scientists and leading experts that are opposed to Dawkins selfish gene concept or paradigm.

Any response to one of your leading (opposed) experts stating:

'It should be stated at the outset that there can be no gainsaying the heuristic value of Richard Dawkins’s “selfish gene” metaphor'

Which is exactly the position I have been taking.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Did you click on the link and read the article. This is not my claim it is the claim of the person that wrote the article. Co evolution or symphy is based on what is mutually beneficial for all the species involved.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170607123823.htm

It's not sympathy, the word. It's SYMPHY, an acronym. Symbiome phylogenetics. SYMbiome PHYlogenetics.
You're tilting at a windmill that doesn't exist!

 

[joshua 1 9]

You're tilting at a windmill that doesn't exist!

Oh the windmill exists. I am just having trouble staying awake because the whole discussion is so boring. Wilson is right we need to properly manage the ecosystems. With Trump as president it does not look like that is going to happen. Everyone thinks that Al Gore is a joke but he did a lot more for the environment than people give him credit for.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Any response to one of your leading (opposed) experts stating:

'It should be stated at the outset that there can be no gainsaying the heuristic value of Richard Dawkins’s “selfish gene” metaphor'

Which is exactly the position I have been taking.

The point that Wilson is trying to make is that the earth is in the balance and the earth is going to go to hell in a handbasket if we continue to follow after Dawkins and his environmentally unbalanced approach to evolutionary theory.

This last storm season was a indication of that. California, Texas, Florida & Puerto Rico had the worst seasons ever. Puerto Rico may not recover. This maybe an indication of things to come. We need to at least give Wilson and his warnings a fair amount of attention.

The Bible is clear in Rev 11:18 that God is going to destroy those who destroy the earth. Which means he put man in charge and if we are derelict in our duty then we will suffer the consequences of that. luke 12 48 "From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and from him who has been entrusted with much, even more will be demanded."

Miami for example has changed their building codes so they are required to build three feet higher than before because of the increasing risk they have for flooding from storm surges. New York and New Orleans are just as much at risk from storm surge flooding due to global warming. Shanghai is just as much at risk because of poor management of their resources there. London would be an issue but they are confronting the problem there to protect themselves.

So if you want to continue to play around with Dawkins and his mal adapted theories then you should know the outcome may not be good.

I live fairly close to the Great Lakes. This was an issue here because the water level was rising. So they decided to drain off the lakes and lower the water level. In fact I have a friend that worked on building the 25 foot tunnel or sewer they use to drain and manage the lakes. They bought a used machine over in Europe that was built to make tunnels through the mountains for roads. They took it apart, brought it over here and reworked it for the job they had to do here.

So you can do whatever you want with your windmills. We are going to use our windmills in environmentally sound ways. Even in the city we have an ecosystem that needs to be balanced. More we need to be diligent in Wilson's designated areas for environmentally sound management.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Wilson was asked about his current views on the concept of a selfish gene, to which he replied: “I have abandoned it and I think most serious scientists working on it have abandoned it. Some defenders may be out there, but they have been relatively or almost totally silenced since our major paper came out.”

The paper he referred to was a 2010 study published in Nature entitled The evolution of eusociality.

Biological warfare flares up again between EO Wilson and Richard Dawkins

 

[bhsmte]

Except that's now what Dawkins said, as was pointed out to you, and also, you're still not saying how the inclusion of symbiomes in to the Tree of Life is a paradigm shift for evolution!

The poster in question, often has his own creative interpretation of the words of others.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The poster in question, often has his own creative interpretation of the words of others.

Do you prefer people with cookie cutter opinions produced by some shock jock somewhere? Does it present an issue for you if my opinions and beliefs are different then yours?