Why Did Darwinism Emerge?

[gentlegreen]

Got to feel sorry for people who struggle to rationalise their "beliefs" with what is more and more simply common sense.

By all accounts the sexy science these days is all about fixing the gaps in what Einstein came up with..

 

[bi0boy]

You have misread my post--in a very interesting and symptomatic way. This is what I said:

No, you have misread my response.

So: would you dispute it?

As I said, "yes".

 

[phildwyer]

No, you have misread my response.

No. You asked if I denied natural selection. I said I denied that natural selection was the only, or even the main cause of evolution.

Obviously (I would have thought) saying that natural selection is not the only, or even the main cause of evolution is not the same as denying natural selection.

Is it?

Now: are you disputing that natural selection is the not only, or even the main cause of evolution?

 

[TruXta]

What do you think it is then, dwyer?

 

[bi0boy]

No. You asked if I denied natural selection. I said I denied that natural selection was the only, or even the main cause of evolution.

Obviously (I would have thought) saying that natural selection is not the only, or even the main cause of evolution is not the same as denying natural selection.

Is it?

Now: are you disputing that natural selection is the not only, or even the main cause of evolution?

As I have said twice, "yes". That means I do dispute your statement that it "is not the only, or even the main cause of evolution".

 

[Crispy]

Whether our new knowledge is sufficient to constitute as post-Darwinist phase in scientific history is a matter of debate. Personally I think it is.

First establish what a "Darwinist Phase" of science is.

Second, any biologist will tell you that evolutionary theory has moved on a great deal. Simple heredity and natural selection are still major factors in evolution, but many other methods and mechanisms have been found since. Genetic cross-contamination between different species. Environmental feedback. External events. etc. etc. Biology is "post-darwinist" in as much as physics is "post-newtonian". Their basic theories and discoveries remain as excellent explanations for the data, and have only been built apon and nuanced ever since.

 

[phildwyer]

As I have said twice, "yes". That means I do dispute your statement that it "is not the only, or even the main cause of evolution".

So do you deny the existence of asteroid impacts, for example, or their influence on evolution?

 

[TruXta]

First establish what a "Darwinist Phase" of science is.

Second, any biologist will tell you that evolutionary theory has moved on a great deal. Simple heredity and natural selection are still major factors in evolution, but many other methods and mechanisms have been found since. Genetic cross-contamination between different species. Environmental feedback. External events. etc. etc. Biology is "post-darwinist" in as much as physics is "post-newtonian". Their basic theories and discoveries remain as excellent explanations for the data, and have only been built apon and nuanced ever since.

This is phil, why are you even bothering trying to make sense of his ramblings?

 

[TruXta]

So do you deny the existence of asteroid impacts, for example, or their influence on evolution?

They are selection events. They do the work of natural selection.

 

[bi0boy]

So do you deny the existence of asteroid impacts, for example, or their influence on evolution?

 

[phildwyer]

First establish what a "Darwinist Phase" of science is.

Second, any biologist will tell you that evolutionary theory has moved on a great deal. Simple heredity and natural selection are still major factors in evolution, but many other methods and mechanisms have been found since. Genetic cross-contamination between different species. Environmental feedback. External events. etc. etc. Biology is "post-darwinist" in as much as physics is "post-newtonian". Their basic theories and discoveries remain as excellent explanations for the data, and have only been built apon and nuanced ever since.

I'm with you until the very last phrase.

The question is: when do all the additions and subtractions and qualifications that have been made to Darwinism become so cumulatively significant that we can no longer accurately refer to evolutionary theory as "Darwinist?"

I think we reached that point with the discovery of the K-T event in 1980. So, to go back to your first sentence, I'd argue that the "Darwinist Phase" of evolutionary science can be dated circa 1880--1980.

 

[TruXta]

 

[toggle]

 

[phildwyer]

They are selection events. They do the work of natural selection.

Do they?

I thought they just basically slammed into the earth for no apparent reason, destroying millions of species in the process.

In what sense are they doing any "work," or "selecting" anything? And who is using the language of intentionality now?

 

[gentlegreen]

Here you go, Phil :-

 

[bi0boy]

Do they?

I thought they just basically slammed into the earth for no apparent reason, destroying millions of species in the process.

In what sense are they doing any "work," or "selecting" anything? And who is using the language of intentionality now?

Do you realise the theory of natural selection incorporates changes to the environment?

 

[TruXta]

Do they?

I thought they just basically slammed into the earth for no apparent reason, destroying millions of species in the process.

In what sense are they doing any "work," or "selecting" anything? And who is using the language of intentionality now?

Are you dense or something?

 

[toggle]

only when he chooses to be.

 

[phildwyer]

Do you realise the theory of natural selection incorporates changes to the environment?

Darwin's theory doesn't. Darwin's theory is monocausal and unidirectional. Darwin believed that the competitive adaptation of individual organisms to their environment was the sole cause of evolution.

 

[toggle]

oh ffs.

 

[bi0boy]

Darwin's theory doesn't. Darwin's theory is monocausal and unidirectional. Darwin believed that the competitive adaptation of individual organisms to their environment was the sole cause of evolution.

There we go. A planet occasionally bombarded with asteroids is "their environment" is it not? Some insects survive getting wet when it rains.

 

[toggle]

i think it is, i'm awaiting how, by phillogic that we are in fact all terribly wrong

 

[phildwyer]

There we go. A planet occasionally bombarded with asteroids is "their environment" is it not?

Aye. But what causes evolution? Is it:

(a) the competitive adaptation of individual organisms to an environment that is bombarded with asteroids, or:

(b) the bombardment with asteroids itself.

Now that is a very profound question indeed. Darwinists would answer (a). I would answer (b). These different answers define the difference between the Darwinian and the post-Darwinian phases of evolutionary science.

 

[gentlegreen]

 

[toggle]

Aye. But what causes evolution? Is it:

(a) the competitive adaptation of individual organisms to an environment that is bombarded with asteroids, or:

(b) the bombardment with asteroids itself.

Now that is a very profound question indeed. Darwinists would answer (a). I would answer (b). .

why?

 

[bi0boy]

Aye. But what causes evolution? Is it:

(a) the competitive adaptation of individual organisms to an environment that is bombarded with asteroids, or:

(b) the bombardment with asteroids itself.

Now that is a very profound question indeed.

No, it's really not.

Darwinists would answer (a).

Really? Where's the a+b option?

I would answer (b).

There should be a lot of evolution on the moon then.

These different answers define the difference between the Darwinian and the post-Darwinian phases of evolutionary science.

I don't think so

 

[toggle]

I don't think so

nor do i. but this might actually get amusing enough to be interesting

 

[phildwyer]

why?

You think about it for a bit.

I'm not being patronizing here: many, perhaps most, professional scientists have been unable to get their heads round this question. And if they can, they generally don't like what they find. For the influence of asteroid impacts on evolution is entirely incompatible with Darwinism, which is why many leading Darwinists continue to deny it. Some Darwinists were still denying that the K-T event had even occurred well into the 1990s.

 

[toggle]

You think about it for a bit.

I'm not being patronizing here: many, perhaps most, professional scientists have been unable to get their heads round this question. And if they can, they generally don't like what they find. For the influence of asteroid impacts on evolution is entirely incompatible with Darwinism, which is why many leading Darwinists continue to deny it. Some Darwinists were still denying that the K-T event had even occurred well into the 1990s.

what a crock of utter shit.

 

[phildwyer]

you perhaps would care to explain how any of this addresses your own OP.

That's a fair question, which I missed before. Let me sum up my case.

My argument is that (A) Darwin's theory of natural selection is, in essence, Adam Smith's economics transferred to nature.

From this it follows that (B) anyone who disagrees with Adam Smith's economics must also disagree with Darwin's theory of natural selection.

I take it that (A) is relatively uncontroversial. (B) is certainly controversial, but I have never shied away from controversy.