Stephen Jay Gould has a good essay on this topic. I would suggest you check it out:
I don’t see how “mutations” is a weasel word, and I don’t see how arguing over concepts in biology is a problem. It seems like you are just grasping at anything you can find and complaining about it.
It is up to Shapiro to demonstrate that any of the mechanisms he is pointing to are non-random in the way other biologists mean non-random. From what I have seen, all of the mechanisms Shapiro points to produce neutral, detrimental, and beneficial mutations which is what biologists consider random. Nowhere do we see an overarching mechanism that produces specific beneficial mutations in response to specific environmental cues, and Shapiro has yet to produce one.
That’s what anti-evolutionists do. They try to get away from having to deal with the evidence and instead focus on absurd claims about definitions and philosophy.
The chances of you actually discussing those differences are close to nil. This is the problem. When conversations start to talk about actual science you spew out this smokescreen of semantics and obfuscation. You take the word of a tiny minority of fringe theorists as gospel, and ignore the overwhelming consensus of equally or more qualified scientists.
So why the obsession with this tiny, tiny minority of contrarians? Why the obsession with credentialism? Why the obsession with such meaningless semantics?
Because if he accepts the science of the day, the value of the study of religion becomes pointless. @Eddie needs the tiny minority of contrarians to keep the debate going. Otherwise, religious study becomes pointless and meaningless in a ever more secular science-based society.
The idea that anyone would think that 50% of mutation is under selection is absurd, since even recessive mutations (the vast majority of harmful ones) are immune to selection until they become homozygous.
I’m pretty sure that any thoughtful evolutionary theorist knows that most selection primarily operates on existing polymorphism, so she would not use Eddie’s term “mutation,” she would refer to alleles and polymorphism.
It appears that you are still trying to pretend that there’s no selection or drift operating on the vast pools of existing heritable variation (without which populations are headed for extinction), and you’re still using the silly, straw man version of evolution Art asked you to address a mere day ago:
“A new species arises when a specific sort of mutation, essential for the attributes of the new species, occurs in an individual in a population of the ancestral species. This individual procreates, the mutation spreads, and eventually a new species arises.”
Is this view of evolution one that virtually every current evolutionary theorist subscribes to? Or is it an outrider, outside of the mainstream of evolutionary thought?
Let me know when some actual evolutionary biologists show up here. If and when they do, I am sure they will confirm my statement that there is lively disagreement within their field of study about evolutionary mechanisms.
T_aquaticus:
You take the word of a tiny minority of fringe theorists as gospel,
No, I merely point out that varying opinions (about mechanism, not about common descent) exist within the body of qualified scientists. Chris, and now seemingly Joshua, are denying that this variation even exists. They are saying that all evolutionary theorists teach exactly the same thing about evolutionary mechanism, except for some very minor and peripheral details. And that’s simply not an empirically true description of the state of the field. But since almost no one here is in the field, it doesn’t surprise me that no one here is describing the field accurately.
T_aquaticus:
The chances of you actually discussing those differences are close to nil.
When I do discuss the differences, I’m told I haven’t properly interpreted the statements of those who make them. I pointed out very clear statements by one of the founders of genetic barcoding, statements which had a plain and obvious meaning, but it was not admitted that they meant what they would mean to any honest and competent reader of the English language. Attempts were made to weasel out of their plain meaning. I pointed out that Wagner, Shapiro, and others do in fact use the term “Darwinian” and “Darwinism” the way I do, and my observations are brushed aside. I suggest that Turner has some interesting ideas which could benefit evolutionary theory, and nobody except glipsnort even bothered to read the free first chapter of his book online. I mention that Coyne explicitly states that the ideas of Shapiro and Turner are crap, but that is not allowed as a disagreement within evolutionary thought. (The implication is that Coyne and Shapiro are really saying exactly the same thing, except for a few “peripheral” details, is a suggestion that Coyne would angrily denounce, and that Shapiro would quietly smile at.)
What you are failing to perceive is the difference between saying: “There are differences among evolutionary theorists regarding mechanism” and “There are differences among evolutionary theorists regarding mechanism, and regarding these differences theorists X and Y are right, and the other guys are wrong.” My dispute with Chris is only over whether significant differences about mechanism exist, not over which of the theorists is right. You are misrepresenting that dispute, by responding as if I told Chris that Shapiro was right and the others were wrong. I said no such thing. I merely said that there was a range of views regarding evolutionary mechanism.
There is a range of views regarding mechanism in many scientific areas (cosmology, for starters). This is not news, but for some reason it is being strongly resisted. And the reason is the fear of creationism, which causes otherwise reasonable scientists to deny very obvious things they would never otherwise deny – like the fact that scientists in any field often strongly disagree with each other about important matters.
gbrooks9:
The differences that separate, say, 85% of mainstream Evolutionists do not materially get anywhere near the views of I.D. proponents.
And I never said to Chris, or to anyone else here, that they did. In fact, probably a hundred times here and on BioLogos, I have said explicitly that Shapiro, the Altenberg group, Turner, etc. are not ID proponents. (And not creationists, either, since most of them are atheists or agnostics.) And that’s precisely what gives my contention value. If qualified biologists who do not support ID or creationism think there are important differences in the field regarding mechanisms, their motive can’t be to give support to ID or creationism. This is so blindingly obvious that only the most entrenched of partisans would fail to grant it. But of course, a good number of the most entrenched of partisans hang out here on this site.
gbrooks9:
No non-ID evolutionist thinks a population of hippos can become a population of whales without additional mutations.
And yet, it would appear that YOU do.
George, you are being just plain obtuse now. I told you explicitly that I don’t think that, and I told you explicitly, in response to your comments on benkirk, that I think benkirk was wrong to suggest that (or to write so ambiguously as to leave it a possibility that he was suggesting that). Why are you now being deliberately obstructive, after you and I just came to a major agreement? Why are you misrepresenting my clear and explicit view? What is your motive for doing so? I’m one of the few allies you have here on some points, and you’re attempting to undermine me. What do you hope to gain by such erratic behavior?
Jonathan_Burke:
This is not how to do proper research, or how to do science.
Says the man who has never done a stitch of scientific research, and hasn’t taken a science course since high school. Probably not since early high school. At least I won a scholarship to study science at a major research university (and one that boasted some Nobel winners, to boot).
Jonathan_Burke:
and claim that their views give solid grounds on which to doubt and contest the validity of the consensus.
No, I have not done that in my discussion with Chris, which is what started all this. All I attempted to convince Chris of was that disputes over mechanism existed among specialists in evolutionary theory, and that they are sometimes significant disputes. That is a factual report about the field. But Chris still has not said, “OK, I admit that there are disputes about mechanism, and that some of them are important.” If he were reasonable, he would concede that. He could then go on to say, if he wished, that the majority view is more correct than the various dissenting views. But he is denying that serious disputes even exist. And the reason he denies it is that he takes people here as objective and impartial describers of what full-time, professional evolutionary theorists think; he has apparently read none of the books or authors I’ve mentioned. And since the view of evolution here is extremely skewed in the direction of population genetics, whereas the whole point of the dissenters in the field is that population genetics, while important and valid, misses some important things about evolutionary causality, Chris is never going to find out what’s really going on in the field by listening to the very slanted group of people here. He will only find out what’s going on by reading some evolutionary theorists whose focus is on other areas (evo-devo, physiology, physics constraints on biological form, etc.) and who don’t post 20 to 30 hours per week on blog sites about ID and creationism, but instead spend their scientific time going to serious conferences on evolution, publishing articles on evolutionary mechanism in journals, reading theoretical books about evolution, etc.
So tell us: What is the current consensus among evolutionary theorists regarding the percentage of mutations that are under selection? 10%? 20% More than 20%? Less than 10%? Since you claim to know so much about what current evolutionary theory says, you should have the number (plus or minus a few percent) at your fingertips. Will you share it with us? And will you provide sources in the literature for that particular number, whatever it is? Or are you just blowing smoke (again)?
Why would we look to theorists for an empirical value?
Why, if you understand anything about evolutionary theory, would you ever think that there would not be vast variation between species, and between populations within them? That assumption alone shows that you aren’t thinking clearly at all.
I claim that theories don’t say things. I claim that theories make predictions. I claim that your contempt for empiricism is blinding you to reality.
The number from empirical sources, for which you have so much contempt, or what someone merely says?
How would anyone have an answer for that question?
How do you know if a gene is in use or not? And how do you know if it is ultimately favorable or not?
A better question is, why would Eddie, given his alleged devotion to evolutionary THEORY, ask a question that even THEORETICALLY can’t have a single answer across every species and every population? If Eddie understands that evolution happens to populations, how can he not understand that the number would be a function of population size?
You’re not making either of those judgments. You’re looking at allele frequencies in populations.
Irrelevant. What I said is actually true. This is the irony. I haven’t studied science since high school, yet when I speak on this subject I state facts. I don’t speak on my own authority, and the people here who are qualified, make the same statements; no one here is telling me I don’t know how science is done, or that I’m making false claims about evolution.
In stark contrast, you claim all kinds of (most likely fictional), qualifications, yet you are repeatedly called out and corrected for making false claims about science and evolution. Frequently, the qualified individuals here identify your statements are the product of ignorance. Here’s an example from Joshua, emphasis mine.
Here’s another example from Joshua.
Here’s another example from Joshua.
Do you know why the experts here don’t make the same statements about what I post? Because I don’t talk nonsense based on my lack of knowledge, unlike you. I don’t try to speak authoritatively outside my knowledge boundaries. I’m very cautious about commenting on subjects concerning which I am not qualified, and I am always careful to identify my lack of qualifications and the limits of my knowledge.
You on the other hand claim a raft of qualifications and knowledge, but you keep making claims which are demonstrably false, and people who are qualified keep correcting you and saying you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re clearly suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
And again, the weasel words; “I have not done that in my discussion with Chris”. Even if this were true (which it isn’t), that is exactly why you are having this discussion. This is all you ever do. This has been noted by several people, including in this very thread. @T_aquaticus was the latest. Look at these comments.
It’s clear what you’re doing. As I mentioned previously, you’re just trying to “Teach the Controversy”, the typical cdesignproponentist tactic which deliberately avoids discussing the actual science, and tries to cast doubt on established facts by using rhetoric instead. Given all you have to offer is a kind of creationism (ID is like “creation – maybe through evolution and maybe not”; note, it’s about creation), you’re not going to get far in your opposition to established science.
You even acknowledge the fact that your opposition to evolution is theological. You oppose it for exactly the same reason as other fundamentalists.
But based on what you’ve told me here, you don’t work in that field, you don’t go to conferences in that field, you don’t read the leading books by the theorists in the field. Further I doubt you’ve ever had even five minutes of conversation with Wagner, Jablonka, Newman, Gould, Coyne, Orr, Ayala, etc. So I have no reason to take your word for anything to do with the field.
Of course, I have said repeatedly that I don’t reject evolution. If you are accusing me of lying about what I believe, then let’s end this discussion now, because I don’t want to partake in a discussion conducted under bad faith.
You continually confuse the question “Whether the differing views are valid” with the question “Whether there exist differing views.” Chris and I are arguing over “Whether there exist differing views” not over “Whether the differing views are valid.” Chris thinks that the amount of difference among evolutionary theorists is very small, and only over peripheral issues. I think there are some large differences about important issues.
Excellent questions, George! Yet these guys are often found saying things like: “Most mutations aren’t under selection.” Well, how do they know that most mutations aren’t under selection, unless they have a percentage in mind? You can’t justify “most” until you have 50%-plus. Where did they get the figure? By measurement? By theoretical calculations? From out of a hat? Pursue this line of thought, and you will find out if the emperor really has any clothes.
Weasel words? Why? This started as a discussion between myself and Chris, and then others jumped in, raising all kinds of points that Chris and I weren’t discussing.
The reason no discussion every gets anywhere here is that no matter what the subject is, everyone jumps in with their pet objections and complaints (often against me, when people get tired of bashing Greg or Ashwin or others) and deflects the topic. The question at hand is often very narrow and precise, and thus in principle capable of being settled, but by the time all the “piling on” is done, the question has become about the world, the universe, and everything. (The validity of ID, whether or not I’m a fundamentalist, climate change, etc., etc.).
In this case the question was: “Are the disagreements between full-time evolutionary theorists very few, and only over minor or peripheral matters, or is there sometimes substantial disagreement among them over significant matters?” And my answer was “The latter” whereas Chris’s answer was “The former.” And to make sure there could be no possible misunderstanding of what I was saying, I said from the beginning that there was no disagreement among evolutionary theorists regarding the reality of descent with modification. And Chris knew what I meant by that; he knew I was talking about mechanisms only. But now he seems to have bowed out of the discussion, and I can’t blame him. Why should he enter a free-for-all where he can barely discern the original discussion amidst all the clutter and personal flak?
Your own contribution to the conversation, as usual, has been destructive. Unable to control your personal dislike of me, and unable to refrain from speculating uncharitably about my motives, you have in effect repeatedly called me a liar and deceiver, someone who is hiding his motivations. In fact, I’ve been transparent about my motivations from the beginning. I’ve said that I accept common descent, that I’m not a creationist, that I don’t read Genesis literally, etc. You’ve chosen, whether out of malice or lack of ability to comprehend clear English (I can’t decide which), to campaign against me as a liar and deceiver. You seem to have a lot of anger in you where I’m concerned. I would suggest that you vent your anger by going out and playing a game of tackle football (or maybe rugger, given the part of the world you’re from), rather than making false accusations against me.
Eddie, again, if you have even a shallow understanding of evolutionary theory, you would know that the proportion must be different for different population and genome sizes!
Your insistence that there is a single value unequivocally demonstrates that you simply do not understand evolutionary theory.
Because you changed the context of what I wrote. I said this.
You replied “No” and claimed you hadn’t done this in your conversation with Chris. But my statement wasn’t made in the context of your conversation with Chris, I was talking about what you do habitually. You replied “No” (giving the impression that you were denying my statement), then followed up with the weasel words “I have not done that in my discussion with Chris”. You give the impression of having addressed what I wrote, while actually avoiding it. This is a tactic of yours which I’ve called out repeatedly.
The rest of your rant is another example; you didn’t address anything that I wrote, you just launched a spittle-flecked attack on me. You claim I’m posting out of some kind of fictional rage and personal bias against you, when in fact I am simply saying exactly the same things that @Mercer, and @T_aquaticus, and @Timothy_Horton have said, like this.
I note you didn’t want to address all the times that you’ve been called out for your ignorance, including in this very thread.
So I will repeat my points.
You claim all kinds of qualifications, yet you are repeatedly called out and corrected for making false claims about science and evolution. Frequently, the qualified individuals here identify your statements are the product of ignorance.
When presented with the overwhelming consensus of experts on these topics, you say that the consensus is irrelevant. You then appeal to fringe views, or a tiny handful of academics who disagree with the consensus for whatever reason, point to their degrees and other qualifications, and claim that their views give solid grounds on which to doubt and contest the validity of the consensus.
You are not addressing the science, you are just trying to “Teach the Controversy”, the typical cdesignproponentist tactic which deliberately avoids discussing the actual science, and tries to cast doubt on established facts by using rhetoric instead.
You try to deny you are a fundamentalist by using weasel words and even appealing to the judgment of another fundamentalist (“Ask this fundamentalist if I’ a fundamentalist, he’ll tell you I’m not!”), which is particularly odd.
You are a cdesignproponentist, which is just another kind of creationism, despite the fact that you deny you are a creationist, by using a particularly narrow definition of the word (in reality ID is like “creation – maybe through evolution and maybe not”; note, it’s about creation), and you use the same apologetic strategies that they do. Your opposition to evolution is based on your concerns over its possible impact on your theology, not on science.
T_aquaticus:
gbrooks9:
Jonathan_Burke: