OK there's two quotes that say the same thing which add up to one bit of information.
Please, explain how I'm taking that out of context. It seems more like you want to try and run away from this quote and are complaining that I'm reminding everyone of the obvious mistake you made when making this claim in the first place.
No I have acknowledge the quote and have said that I dont dispute that Natural selection is a force. I stated we need to know what that force is because the quote you are using doesn't tell us what that is. The simple fact that you cant tell what the force is that the quote is referring to and that you are still using it for disputing what I am saying shows that you are using it out of context. How can you use a quote that is so general for something so specific which is natural selections ability to create the genetic networks and genomic architecture that is needed to produce features and species.
What does this have to do with the idea that selection is negligible in how life changes and develops?
Natural selection needs functional variations to be able to select the the slight modifications that build new
features and creatures. If the process that produces new variations is under question and actually does the opposite then there is no variation for natural selection to act on. So therefore natural selection plays a minor role in how life changes and develops. It may work on what has already been produced by other mechanisms and refines that but it is not the force that creates it.
Who says it needs to? Saying it once was enough to show your source contradicted you.
But you dont know what the specific force or role is that your quote is attributing to natural selection. Are you saying just because it mentions evolution is a general sense that it allies to having the ability to evolve all sorts of things and that it negates everything else the paper says and questions about natural selection.
You're putting us in a position where we have two choices.
No thats exactly what you have done by claiming that the quote you use is a coverall statemnet for natural selections role and ability. You are saying that because the quote mentions natural selection is a force then it means that it is a force for everything and no matter what is said in the paper or by anyone else it is wrong. So that makes it all or nothing.
I didn't ask you to make a choice of one thing or another I asked what do you think the statemnet that natural selection is negligible and insufficient when it comes to evolving gene networks, genomic architecture, developmental pathways ect.
1. You've manged to find a hidden meaning in a paper that even the authors and reviewers don't see. That is, trained professionals all missed the hidden message in the paper that refutes Darwinism. Even the person writing it was too clueless to see how his work will fundamentally change biology forever. Luckily enough you've come along to set us all straight here on an anonymous message board rather than publishing your extraordinary find and guaranteeing yourself a Nobel prize.
The author himself tells us that he is putting a challenge to supporters of mainstream evolution evolution when he says
Jacob (46) argues that “it is natural selection that gives direction to changes, orients chance, and slowly, progressively produces more complex structures, new organs, and new species.” The vast majority of biologists almost certainly agree with such statements. But where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes? No existing observations support such a claim, and given the massive global dominance of unicellular species over multicellular eukaryotes, both in terms of species richness and numbers of individuals, if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it.
So the author Michael Lynch is quoting another biologist Mr Jacobs who says that natural selection is what gives direction to changes and slowly produces more complex structures as well as new organs and species. The author goes on to say that this is what the majority of biologists agree with. So this is what the mainstream belief is what evolutionary biologists who support the Darwinian view of how evolution works with natural selection. The author Lynch goes on to state very clearly where is the evidence for this assumption. So here we can see that the author is questioning the mainstream view of natural selection and that is why he has made this paper. It doesn't mean he is discarding natural selection. he is questioning the role and ability of natural selection and that is what I am doing and the reason why I am using this particular paper for support.
There are many other statements in the paper such as Lynch referring to how some supporters of evolution such Dawkins himself who is a very prominent supporter of natural selection try to promote the myth that natural selection can do anything and is responsible for everything that happens in evolution.
the myth that all of evolution can be explained by adaptation continues to be perpetuated by our continued homage to Darwin's treatise (6) in the popular literature. For example, Dawkins' (7⇓–9) agenda to spread the word on the awesome power of natural selection has been quite successful, but it has come at the expense of reference to any other mechanisms
or
The literature is permeated with dogmatic statements that natural selection is the only guiding force of evolution, with mutation creating variation but never controlling the ultimate direction of evolutionary change
So we have many statements from the author himself which clearly tell us that he is writing this paper to dispel some of the beliefs about natural selections ability and role in evolution. Lynch is well known for his work and if anyone is going to get a reward it is him.
2. You're taking a half a sentence out of context.
No if you look at all I have posted now I have just about included the whole paper to give support for what I am saying. As I stated the entire paper has been written by Lynch to question the claims made about adaptive evolution (natural selection).
Guess which one seems more reasonable.
So if you think that the quote supports whatever it is your saying then you should be able to tell us what the exact force is that the quote is referring to. What the rest of the paper means when it questions natural selection being insufficient and negligible.
Except for the part talking about how selection is one of the fundamental forces driving evolution. Don't forget that part.
There that coverall use of one statemnet again. Do you know exactly what the force is that the quote is referring to. So your acknowledging that the rest of the paper is questioning natural selections ability to evolve complex gene networks and architecture.
Where did you see the word negligible in the quote I was talking about?
here
KCfromNC said
Same problem with the first quote-mine from this paper. This quote is specifically talking about the origins of complexity. It has nothing to do with the more general claim that "natural selection is negligible and/or minimal
What does "formal demonstration" mean in this context? n any case, this is another paper talking about the origins of a specific feature. It also has nothing to do with the more general claim that "natural selection is negligible and/or minimal".
You also seem to be making some awfully certain conclusions from a quote which used the word may quite a bit. Or do we now have to leave words out in the middle of sentences to get the paper to support your claims? Seems almost like, what's the word again? It rhymes with mote-whining, I think.
Thats funny
. Yes some of the references are saying may be the case and others are more straight forward. But At least now you are a step closer to acknowledging that they are at least maybe questioning the ability and role of natural selection. AS I have stated I may merely bring to the attention this paper that is questioning natural selection and I would rather people to acknowledge that this is the case and then dispute the conclusions rather than deny that the paper is even questioning natural selection in the first place.
That still wouldn't explain why the author identified selection as a fundamental force driving evolution, but if it makes you feel better go for it.
It all helps to clarify what exactly he is saying doesn't it. Afterall we want to find out what he means by force and what exactly is natural selections role or force is. The more we include the rest of the paper and understand and acknowledge all that is said the more we can have a clear understanding of what it is the paper is saying about natural selection.
So are the quotes which say the evolution is a fundamental force driving evolution, but you've come up with post after post of excuses trying to distract from the obvious meaning so you must not have that much issue with the tactic.
No so is the quote. One quote that says the same thing twice and doesn't give us any further understanding or clarification. The fact that you want to keep using that quote over and over again against the 10 plus statements or even the rest of the paper which is clearly telling us what force natural selection is in evolution then you are using it out of context and quote mining it. I have and are quite happy to acknowledge and use the entire paper to help us understand things.
!
