Is that a claim that the "PE theory" actually makes? Or is it more a claim that axocanth makes?
Is the theory of punctuated equilibrium a gamechanger for evolutionary biology?
- Thread starter axocanth
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
As far as I can see, none of this casts any doubt on Darwin’s central insight, which was: variation and then natural selection causing differential rates of reproductive success, leading to inherited change. I presume this is what is meant by “remaining within the domain of Darwinian logic”.Is that fully implied in PE, or does it largely stem from views he added on later -- what he entertains in his last book, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory -- and various papers he published in the period in between the early '70s and the 2000s?
The Structure of Evolutionary Theory - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
According to Gould, classical Darwinism encompasses three essential core commitments: Agency, the unit of selection (which for Charles Darwin was the organism) upon which natural selection acts; efficacy, which encompasses the dominance of natural selection over all other forces—such as genetic drift, and biological constraints—in shaping the historical, ecological, and structural influences on evolution; and scope, the degree to which natural selection can be extrapolated to explain biodiversity at the macroevolutionary level, including the evolution of higher taxonomic groups. Gould described these three propositions as the "tripod" of Darwinian central logic, each being so essential to the structure that if any branch were cut it would either kill, revise, or superficially refurbish the whole structure—depending on the severity of the cut. According to Gould "substantial changes, introduced during the last half of the 20th century, have built a structure so expanded beyond the original Darwinian core, and so enlarged by new principles of macroevolutionary explanation, that the full exposition, while remaining within the domain of Darwinian logic, must be construed as basically different from the canonical theory of natural selection, rather than simply extended."In the arena of agency, Gould explores the concept of "hierarchy" in the action of evolution (the idea that evolution may act on more than one unit simultaneously, as opposed to only acting upon individual organisms).
Aside from a community of organisms becoming isolated from the main group, and thereby the new conditions allowing them to escape the "stasis" of the latter...
Environmental stability -- which includes reciprocal interactions of species (predator/prey and symbiotic relationships) -- could keep the potential developments of a species in check. Eventual disruptions in the ecological system (cataclysmic or not), along with extinctions, frees up microevolution with respect to the survivors, so that its "actual pace" might be revealed. In contrast to the illusion that it wallows around in stasis most of the time, due to prolonged environmental constraints.
_
But is there a suggestion that this basic logic is not, after all, largely responsible for speciation? (By the way, Pinball1970 , if you care to comment I’d be grateful for your more expert input.)
We can at least set aside any possibility that Gould was opening the door to miracles or whatever "interventions from the outside" that ID perhaps entertains. The idea that an entire population could be concurrently affected by dramatic changes or corralling circumstances doesn't seem far-fetched or making any astounding leap outside natural processes.
_
By focusing on group selection, Gould was apparently trying to get out of "gene-centrism". If the population of _X_ species itself can be considered a potential unit of selection, then that still seems to be working within the overarching conception Darwin started (at its primitive stage, anyway). I mean, later discoveries forced them to abstract a generic placeholder from Darwin's specific choice of the "individual organism" being the "unit" that natural selection acted upon. Other choices could thereby be optionally plugged into the generic slot or placeholder, as they did with genes.
Review of TSoET (2002): Nonetheless, he did manage to knot together in the final sections several of his lifelong themes in a very comprehensible way, among them his objection to "gene-centric" ideas of evolution. [...] The differences of style harden into greater substance when you ask what the entities are on which natural selection can operate. Are they genes, or bodies, or even whole species? For Darwin, working 50 years before the word "gene" was even coined, they were organisms - individual bodies. Individual giraffes had more descendants because they had longer necks. Once genetic inheritance was discovered, it seemed obvious that genes were the only thing that natural selection could act on. But this, while fascinating, has to be partly wrong...
_
Last edited:
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
Yes, it was added on later, not long after Gould and Eldredge's original paper I believe. Compare (post #8), red emphasis added:
As I said earlier, it's perhaps the greatest myth of evolutionary biology, perpetuated by those who have clearly not read the exponents themselves, namely, that PE is a theory only about the pattern or tempo of evolution.
And how did this addition come about? That's explained in post #1, the "mental masturbatory pause". When paleontologists finally stopped kowtowing to the expectations of traditional Darwinian gradualism -- i.e. blaming the fossil record as incomplete or misrepresentative rather than confronting the fact that stasis (i.e. no evolution) is the norm -- a reconceptualization of species as individuals and thus potential actors in the evolutionary drama resulted.
PE advocates weren't the first to suggest that species are individuals -- that honor, I believe, belongs to philosopher of biology David Hull -- but they quickly recognized the significance of Hull's suggestion and incorporated it into their theory.
Last edited:
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
I am hard put to find truly unique distinguishing processes in macro v micro evolution.
MICROEVOLUTION AND MACROEVOLUTION ARE GOVERNED BY THE
SAME PROCESSES
Michael R. Dietrich
Department of Biological Sciences
Dartmouth College
When Theodosius Dobzhansky discussed the distinction between micro
and macroevolution in his landmark book, Genetics and the Origin of Species
(1937), he accepted that evolution below and above the species level could be
distinguished, but that they were not produced by fundamentally different
processes. In doing so, Dobzhansky advocated a theory of evolution unified at
different levels by common processes, most notably gradual change over time
shaped by natural selection (Dobzhansky 1937, Smocovitis 1994, Provine 1988).
Dobzhanksy’s unification was quickly pulled into controversy as Richard
Goldschmidt argued for a “bridgeless gap” between micro and macroevolution
(Goldschmidt 1940). Today the divide between micro and macroevolution still
exists, but not as Goldschmidt imagined it. Most scientists would accept that
there are distinct phenomena that can be categorized as microevolutionary and
macroevolutionary. Patterns of variation within a species are classic examples of microevolutionary phenomena, while patterns of phyletic change associated
with either punctuated equilibrium or mass extinction are recognized as
examples of macroevolutionary phenomena. The question, however, is whether
there are also distinct processes that underlie these phenomena. Dobzhansky’s
answer and the answer from the evolutionary synthesis was that there is not.
In this essay, I will review the historic controversy over the distinction
between micro and macroevolution in order to clarify the terms of the dispute. I
will then turn to contemporary arguments for macroevolutionary processes.
Rather than cast this debate in strongly polarized terms that simply deny that
distinct macroevolutionary processes exist or could exist, I will reframe the
debate in terms of the relative significance of distinct micro and
macroevolutionary processes. I will argue that microevolutionary processes are
much more significant than uniquely macroevolutionary processes....
MICROEVOLUTION AND MACROEVOLUTION ARE GOVERNED BY THE
SAME PROCESSES
Michael R. Dietrich
Department of Biological Sciences
Dartmouth College
When Theodosius Dobzhansky discussed the distinction between micro
and macroevolution in his landmark book, Genetics and the Origin of Species
(1937), he accepted that evolution below and above the species level could be
distinguished, but that they were not produced by fundamentally different
processes. In doing so, Dobzhansky advocated a theory of evolution unified at
different levels by common processes, most notably gradual change over time
shaped by natural selection (Dobzhansky 1937, Smocovitis 1994, Provine 1988).
Dobzhanksy’s unification was quickly pulled into controversy as Richard
Goldschmidt argued for a “bridgeless gap” between micro and macroevolution
(Goldschmidt 1940). Today the divide between micro and macroevolution still
exists, but not as Goldschmidt imagined it. Most scientists would accept that
there are distinct phenomena that can be categorized as microevolutionary and
macroevolutionary. Patterns of variation within a species are classic examples of microevolutionary phenomena, while patterns of phyletic change associated
with either punctuated equilibrium or mass extinction are recognized as
examples of macroevolutionary phenomena. The question, however, is whether
there are also distinct processes that underlie these phenomena. Dobzhansky’s
answer and the answer from the evolutionary synthesis was that there is not.
In this essay, I will review the historic controversy over the distinction
between micro and macroevolution in order to clarify the terms of the dispute. I
will then turn to contemporary arguments for macroevolutionary processes.
Rather than cast this debate in strongly polarized terms that simply deny that
distinct macroevolutionary processes exist or could exist, I will reframe the
debate in terms of the relative significance of distinct micro and
macroevolutionary processes. I will argue that microevolutionary processes are
much more significant than uniquely macroevolutionary processes....
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
And when James suggests in post #21 . . .
"Is that a claim that the "PE theory" actually makes [i.e. macroevolution does not reduce to micro]? Or is it more a claim that axocanth makes?"
. . . one can only wonder if he has even read the various quotes from Gould, Eldredge, Stanley that I have already posted.
"Punctuated equilibrium suggests novel, and irreducibly macroevolutionary, explanations for both phenomena." (Gould)
"The difference is crucial: punctuated equilibria offers one line of evidence suggesting that perhaps the normal processes of natural selection (plus random genetic drift) that go on within species may not be appropriately extrapolated as a smooth extension to explain the existence of millions of species, in some 90-odd phyla, occupying the earth for some 3.5 billion years. Yet that is indeed the simple, central contention of the "modern synthesis": what goes on within species, especially natural selection modifying gene frequencies, is really all we need to know to explain and understand the history of life." (Eldredge)
"The decoupling of large-scale evolution from small-scale evolution led me to make the antireductionist statement that molecular genetics alone cannot explain large-scale evolution." (Stanley)
etc., etc.
"Is that a claim that the "PE theory" actually makes [i.e. macroevolution does not reduce to micro]? Or is it more a claim that axocanth makes?"
. . . one can only wonder if he has even read the various quotes from Gould, Eldredge, Stanley that I have already posted.
"Punctuated equilibrium suggests novel, and irreducibly macroevolutionary, explanations for both phenomena." (Gould)
"The difference is crucial: punctuated equilibria offers one line of evidence suggesting that perhaps the normal processes of natural selection (plus random genetic drift) that go on within species may not be appropriately extrapolated as a smooth extension to explain the existence of millions of species, in some 90-odd phyla, occupying the earth for some 3.5 billion years. Yet that is indeed the simple, central contention of the "modern synthesis": what goes on within species, especially natural selection modifying gene frequencies, is really all we need to know to explain and understand the history of life." (Eldredge)
"The decoupling of large-scale evolution from small-scale evolution led me to make the antireductionist statement that molecular genetics alone cannot explain large-scale evolution." (Stanley)
etc., etc.
Last edited:
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
(more from Dietrich)
Instead, Gould and his compatriots believed that “a common set of genetic principles produces different patterns of change at various levels of the evolutionary process, and that several bulkwarks of traditional microevolution – change by gradual and sequential allelic susbstitutions, each with small effect, and the adaptive nature of virtually all change, for example – do not always apply to macroevolution”
(Gould 1982b, xxiv) While Gould appreciated Goldschmidt’s argument for a
distinction between micro and macroevolution, he did not approve of
Goldschmidt’s proposed mechanism of macroevolution by systemic mutations
(Gould 1982a). If Gould had a real interest in the evolutionary processes
proposed by Goldschmidt, it was in the production of hopeful monsters by
mutations in developmental processes, not systemic mutations (Gould 2002, 68).
The distinction between micro and macroevolutionary processes has been
with evolutionary biology throughout the twentieth century, as has skepticism
that there are any causal processes unique to macroevolution. Goldschmidt’s
proposal of a mutational mechanism used only in macroevolution was quickly
rejected by leaders in the evolutionary synthesis. His proposed mechanism of
producing hopeful monsters fared better, but it is not a uniquely
macroevolutionary process.
(for those new to the hopeful monster jargon...In 1940, Goldschmidt argued for single-step speciation by macromutation, describing the organisms thus produced as "hopeful monsters")(a sort of return of one form of saltationism)
Instead, Gould and his compatriots believed that “a common set of genetic principles produces different patterns of change at various levels of the evolutionary process, and that several bulkwarks of traditional microevolution – change by gradual and sequential allelic susbstitutions, each with small effect, and the adaptive nature of virtually all change, for example – do not always apply to macroevolution”
(Gould 1982b, xxiv) While Gould appreciated Goldschmidt’s argument for a
distinction between micro and macroevolution, he did not approve of
Goldschmidt’s proposed mechanism of macroevolution by systemic mutations
(Gould 1982a). If Gould had a real interest in the evolutionary processes
proposed by Goldschmidt, it was in the production of hopeful monsters by
mutations in developmental processes, not systemic mutations (Gould 2002, 68).
The distinction between micro and macroevolutionary processes has been
with evolutionary biology throughout the twentieth century, as has skepticism
that there are any causal processes unique to macroevolution. Goldschmidt’s
proposal of a mutational mechanism used only in macroevolution was quickly
rejected by leaders in the evolutionary synthesis. His proposed mechanism of
producing hopeful monsters fared better, but it is not a uniquely
macroevolutionary process.
(for those new to the hopeful monster jargon...In 1940, Goldschmidt argued for single-step speciation by macromutation, describing the organisms thus produced as "hopeful monsters")(a sort of return of one form of saltationism)
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
Darwin held that individual organisms are selected, and all evolution can be explained in this way (noting other minor mechanisms).
PE holds that macroevolution -- i.e. the big important stuff -- cannot be explained in this manner. What is selected is not individual organisms but species, and perhaps higher taxa too.
Last edited:
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
Interesting article you linked, TheVat. I just scanned through it, and will examine it more closely later.
Point to note: PE was presented as challenging certain core tenets of traditional theory, not complementing it or extending it, as some would have us believe.
Gould and Eldredge's original paper was subtitled "an alternative to phyletic gradualism" after all.
Whether their views actually do constitute a challenge is another matter.
Point to note: PE was presented as challenging certain core tenets of traditional theory, not complementing it or extending it, as some would have us believe.
Gould and Eldredge's original paper was subtitled "an alternative to phyletic gradualism" after all.
Whether their views actually do constitute a challenge is another matter.
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
P.S. As I noted earlier, it's very hard to know what people mean when they talk of "The Theory of Evolution".
Gould does his best to reconstruct what The Theory is asserting -- quoting the proponents of orthodox neo-Darwinian theory -- and then sets about attacking (some parts of) it.
Gould does his best to reconstruct what The Theory is asserting -- quoting the proponents of orthodox neo-Darwinian theory -- and then sets about attacking (some parts of) it.
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
From the very informative article that you linked . . .
The writer could hardly be more clear. In his view, there do indeed exist cases of irreducibly macroevolutionary processes -- macroevolution does not reduce to microevolution -- but he feels such cases are currently rare. However . . .
Since we're here, dare I mention Kuhn and his dreaded incommensurability? I already get a sense of it in these exchanges, that the participants are, to some extent, at cross purposes, or talking past each other. E.g.
Does species selection count as natural selection? Proponents of PE, I think you'll find, tend to say no: that's not what is meant by the term natural selection. Species selection, though analogous (cf. natural selection vs. artificial selection), is a different process entirely, e.g., entire species do not shag each other and reproduce biologically as individual organisms do. Instead, they speciate.
By contrast, those seeking to maintain a "united front" may argue that species selection is just another kind of natural selection: the PE folks are saying nothing new; natural selection explains both micro- and macro-evolution.
All is well, then, in the neo-Darwinian synthesis . . . but only at the cost of a change in the meaning of a key term.
Last edited:
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
I'm not sure whether other members have fully grasped what Gould et al are saying when they speak of species selection. Analogous to, but not identical to natural selection, entire species -- conceived of as individuals (the zebra, the tiger, or whatever) -- compete with one another in the struggle for existence. Differences in fitness of entire species results in differential "reproduction" (i.e. speciation).
The fitness of an individual species derives from the traits of that species as a whole (e.g. wide geographic distribution) which are not possessed by any individual mem . . . oops I almost said member . . . er, I mean part (i.e. individual organism) of that species. Each individual zebra is part (not a member) of the species zebra (also an individual).
(I dunno if zebra is a species or a genus or whatever. No lawsuits please. Pick another species otherwise)
This leads to all kinds of interesting consequences, and completely different explanations of certain phenomena, e.g. so-called living fossils. Traditionally such cases might have been explained by the coelacanth (or whatever) being already very well adapted, or its environment not changing much through the millennia (Is this plausible?). With the new account of species selection available to us, we might explain such cases of prolonged survival by lack of speciation. Lack of competition from fellow coelacanth-like beasties bodes well for longevity. (And what happened to our Neanderthal cousins?)
One risk associated with being reproductively or "speciationally" successful, is that one of these bastard "offspring" might just steal all your coelacanth snacks and wipe you out.
The fitness of an individual species derives from the traits of that species as a whole (e.g. wide geographic distribution) which are not possessed by any individual mem . . . oops I almost said member . . . er, I mean part (i.e. individual organism) of that species. Each individual zebra is part (not a member) of the species zebra (also an individual).
(I dunno if zebra is a species or a genus or whatever. No lawsuits please. Pick another species otherwise)
This leads to all kinds of interesting consequences, and completely different explanations of certain phenomena, e.g. so-called living fossils. Traditionally such cases might have been explained by the coelacanth (or whatever) being already very well adapted, or its environment not changing much through the millennia (Is this plausible?). With the new account of species selection available to us, we might explain such cases of prolonged survival by lack of speciation. Lack of competition from fellow coelacanth-like beasties bodes well for longevity. (And what happened to our Neanderthal cousins?)
One risk associated with being reproductively or "speciationally" successful, is that one of these bastard "offspring" might just steal all your coelacanth snacks and wipe you out.
Last edited:
Yah, I meant "group" in a careless, umbrella sense of covering all possible selection levels (including species) above the individual organism (whereas other collective levels like cells and genes are below the latter). Without taking into account that "group" is a narrower term applied to one of the levels in the hierarchy.
Both are periodically controversial, though -- with "species selection" seemingly not garnering enough importance at times for the "gene centrists" to include it in their overarching criticism or wrath directed at that "upper" stratum.
- Species Selection: Why Should We Believe in It?
http://www.extinctblog.org/extinct/2016/11/20/artificial-species-selection
EXCERPTS: As an empirical matter, though, on either the broader or the narrower view, it can be very difficult to point to cases in evolutionary history where we really need to invoke species selection in order to explain some puzzling phenomenon. I’m not sure if there is a consensus view about this at all—everything about species selection is controversial—but it might be good to start with what I’ll call the Explanation of Last Resort View.
“Sure, species selection could happen in principle. But it’s hard to document in any clear way, and it seems like the usual population biological explanations, which invoke selection, drift, mutation, and migration, give us a lot of explanatory mileage. So as a rule, don’t invoke higher level mechanisms like species selection unless you absolutely have to.”
Perhaps many scientists would add that as a matter of fact, you hardly ever, if ever, really need to invoke species selection...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The demise of group selection (Coyne)
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2012/06/24/the-demise-of-group-selection/
EXCERPTS: The idea that adaptations in organisms result from “group selection” (selection among groups that differentially bud off subgroups, with those having good “group traits” becoming more numerous), rather than from selection among genes themselves, usually within individuals, has undergone a bit of resurgence in popular culture.
This is in stark contrast to the views of most evolutionary biologists, who see group selection as a logical possibility, but one that doesn’t easily work in theoretical models and, more important, has explained almost nothing about nature. In contrast, the gene-centered view of evolution worked out by biologists like W. D. Hamilton, Robert Trivers, and John Maynard Smith, and popularized by Richard Dawkins, has been immensely fruitful.
[...] Group selection is a fuzzy and nebulous concept that is far less coherent than is gene-level selection [...] So if group selection is so intellectually and scientifically unproductive, why do we hear so much about it? I think there are two reasons. First, its few proponents make a lot of noise...
The first in the above, however, featured a link to another blog entry that reflected on an interesting analogy by Steven Stanley. Even if vulnerable or flawed, it was an intriguing attempt slash way to frame a correspondence between the two levels of "individual" and "species".
- What is Species Selection all About?
http://www.extinctblog.org/extinct/2016/3/29/a-conversation-with-joyce-havstad
EXCERPT: . . . Steven Stanley, a paleontologist, described species selection in a paper he published in 1975 (A Theory of Evolution Above the Species Level):
"In this higher-level process species become analogous to individuals, and speciation replaces reproduction. The random aspects of speciation take the place of mutation. Whereas, natural selection operates upon individuals within populations, species selection operates upon species within higher taxa, determining statistical trends. In natural selection types of individuals are favored that tend to (A) survive to reproduction age and (B) exhibit high fecundity. The two comparable traits of species selection are (A) survival for long periods, which increases the chance of speciation, and (B) the tendency to speciate at high rates. Extinction, of course, replaces death in the analogy (p. 648)."
Notice how Stanley draws a parallel between the following two phenomena:
(A) An organism surviving to reproductive age.
(A*) A whole species surviving for a long period, “which increases the chance of speciation”
Joyce’s worry—the problem of expiration dates—is that there is a relevant difference between organisms and species that may cause trouble for Stanley’s analogy here...
Last edited:
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
Bear in mind also, it's not just the PE camp who deny that macroevolution reduces to micro. The "evo-devo" people say similar things too . . .
- "Evolution: A Developmental Approach", Wallace Arthur, pp282-284
-- "Bringing Fossils to Life", Donald R. Prothero
And perhaps most ominously of all for traditionalists, though the view I'm most in line with myself . . .
- "Evolution: A Developmental Approach", Wallace Arthur, 162
It's hard to think of a more striking example of Kuhnian "normal science" engaging in "expanding the paradigm". Everything is viewed through selectionist spectacles. And if you are confronted with an awkward case, or want to make a name for yourself, just invent a new "level of selection"!
Dawkins, as always, takes the show to new heights of absurdity with his "meme selection". (See David Stove's Darwinian Fairytales again for a devastating critique.)
My own guess, with no offence to anyone intended, is that vacuity of selection-type explanations will eventually become commonly recognized, and scoffed at in a few hundred years from now, much as we now scoff at Aristotelian-type explanations (things striving towards their "natural place"). It's not that it is wrong; it's just empty. But don't quote me.
- "Evolution: A Developmental Approach", Wallace Arthur, pp282-284
-- "Bringing Fossils to Life", Donald R. Prothero
And perhaps most ominously of all for traditionalists, though the view I'm most in line with myself . . .
- "Evolution: A Developmental Approach", Wallace Arthur, 162
It's hard to think of a more striking example of Kuhnian "normal science" engaging in "expanding the paradigm". Everything is viewed through selectionist spectacles. And if you are confronted with an awkward case, or want to make a name for yourself, just invent a new "level of selection"!
Dawkins, as always, takes the show to new heights of absurdity with his "meme selection". (See David Stove's Darwinian Fairytales again for a devastating critique.)
My own guess, with no offence to anyone intended, is that vacuity of selection-type explanations will eventually become commonly recognized, and scoffed at in a few hundred years from now, much as we now scoff at Aristotelian-type explanations (things striving towards their "natural place"). It's not that it is wrong; it's just empty. But don't quote me.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
OK, so natural selection can operate on populations as well as on individuals. Seems fair enough. But if that is all it is, I don't see what the brouhaha is about. None of this challenges Darwin's essential principle of variation followed by natural selection. So why would anyone claim Gould somehow throws Darwin's conception of evolution into disarray? Surely he's just building more on the foundations, isn't he?
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
On a slightly different note, I've been quite harsh throughout these forums -- and I think deservedly so -- towards the three Youtube gods of science education, or what I would personally describe, rather, as scientistic propaganda: Professor Dave, Forrest Valkai, and Aron Ra.
The problem, at least as I see things and as I've tried to emphasize, is not that they criticize and correct views that they regard as incorrect (almost invariably Creationism or ID), neither is it that they make a few blunders along the way (usually due to ignorance of the philosophy of science). That's not it at all.
The problem is this: the haughty arrogance and cocksure certainty (even as they disseminate absurdities of their own), the nastiness and viciousness that unfortunately comes as part and parcel of hysterical scientism (militant Islam too!), and most of all the dehumanization of their adversaries who are not only wrong, but liars, cheats, and charlatans, every single one of them.
In short it's hate speech; they're promoting hatred which their Red Guard followers dutifully emulate often with a savagery that beggars belief - just peep at the comments section! I personally consider all three to be a disgrace to science and science education, and while the Red Guards no doubt relish with sadistic pleasure the humiliation of fellow humans, I submit that the result is a polarization, erosion of trust in science, and the public perception of science educators as little more than vulgar thugs -- not to mention the abnegation of basic moral values and obligations to our fellows!
Oh, and the very same thing can, not infrequently, be seen being played out in our little microcosm here. The Red Guards of scientism have been conditioned to believe that it is acceptable to treat fellow humans this way. To the Red Guards, opponents are never just wrong, but dishonest, less than fully human, a vermin to be eradicated, and they're just the force to do it. Onward scientistic soldiers!
With that out the way, you know how Youtube offers suggestions to watch based on what you've already been viewing? Well, this guy was brought to my attention today, I'd never seen him before:
What a difference! A civil, intelligent gentlemen goes about correcting perceived errors in opposing views without a trace of the arrogance, viciousness, propaganda, and dehumanization of an Aron Ra, say. Wasn't this this how it was before? Isn't this what we should expect from science educators, rather than being shocked, as I am, to to finally find a gentleman among the Youtube hooligan hordes?
Bravo, Clint!
The problem, at least as I see things and as I've tried to emphasize, is not that they criticize and correct views that they regard as incorrect (almost invariably Creationism or ID), neither is it that they make a few blunders along the way (usually due to ignorance of the philosophy of science). That's not it at all.
The problem is this: the haughty arrogance and cocksure certainty (even as they disseminate absurdities of their own), the nastiness and viciousness that unfortunately comes as part and parcel of hysterical scientism (militant Islam too!), and most of all the dehumanization of their adversaries who are not only wrong, but liars, cheats, and charlatans, every single one of them.
In short it's hate speech; they're promoting hatred which their Red Guard followers dutifully emulate often with a savagery that beggars belief - just peep at the comments section! I personally consider all three to be a disgrace to science and science education, and while the Red Guards no doubt relish with sadistic pleasure the humiliation of fellow humans, I submit that the result is a polarization, erosion of trust in science, and the public perception of science educators as little more than vulgar thugs -- not to mention the abnegation of basic moral values and obligations to our fellows!
Oh, and the very same thing can, not infrequently, be seen being played out in our little microcosm here. The Red Guards of scientism have been conditioned to believe that it is acceptable to treat fellow humans this way. To the Red Guards, opponents are never just wrong, but dishonest, less than fully human, a vermin to be eradicated, and they're just the force to do it. Onward scientistic soldiers!
With that out the way, you know how Youtube offers suggestions to watch based on what you've already been viewing? Well, this guy was brought to my attention today, I'd never seen him before:
What a difference! A civil, intelligent gentlemen goes about correcting perceived errors in opposing views without a trace of the arrogance, viciousness, propaganda, and dehumanization of an Aron Ra, say. Wasn't this this how it was before? Isn't this what we should expect from science educators, rather than being shocked, as I am, to to finally find a gentleman among the Youtube hooligan hordes?
Bravo, Clint!
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Darwin published Origin in 1859 and Gould published 113 years later. So it makes little sense to pitch "Darwinism" against PE in this way. (I am not saying you are doing this)
For instance, Darwin WAS wrong about how traits were passed on, he had an idea about it but it was wrong.
THEREFORE "Darwinism" is wrong??? Well yes, on that!
Also, note that Origin had more than one edition, just a wiki search will outline what he thought about "rates" and "stasis."
I am pretty certain we did not cover PE at all in A level biology, that was ten years after PE publication. Perhaps a little bit at Uni? It certainly was not portrayed as Darwin's extreme gradualism (which is not correct) verses PE or in a challenge to modern Theory as it was (1980s)
Dawkins gives a more measured and nuanced treatment in Watch Maker (1986)
I certainly agree that certain events can kick start evolution, my favourite Croatian Lizards is a good example. Would the wild type population have evolved the same way as their Island cousins? In decades?
There is no reason to think they should have, same diet same habitat so why would their skull and jaw change?
The kick start here geography and all that comes with it but all "Darwinian" process were also at work.
Environment, variation in species, Change in Environment, certain traits more suited than others to new environment (selected) those traits passed on as the parents carrying them have offspring, those traits become dominant.