Eddie, Evolution, and Consensus

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

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.

That is wrong. Evolution of virulence in bacteria and viruses is right up my alley. I have attended conferences where I have sat through multiple presentations on the evolution of pathogenicity islands and other aspects of bacterial and viral evolution. I read the primary literature on this topic all of the time.

@Eddie

I doubt you’ve ever had even five minutes of conversation with Wagner, Jablonka, Newman, Gould, Coyne, Orr, Ayala, etc.

Your obsession with credentialism is noted.

@Eddie

So I have no reason to take your word for anything to do with the field.

You ignore 99% of the biologists in the field, so that it isn’t surprising.

@Eddie

Of course, I have said repeatedly that I don’t reject evolution.

Just to make sure, you accept that all species descended from a universal common ancestor and that the mechanisms involved are the same ones that 99% of the biologists in the field have put forward?

@Eddie

“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.”

Then your point isn’t worth anything. There are wrong scientists in every field. Pointing to scientists who are wrong is a waste of time.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@T_aquaticus

That is wrong. Evolution of virulence in bacteria and viruses is right up my alley.

You think that because you know something about “the evolution of bacteria and viruses” that this makes you an “evolutionary theorist” or an “evolutionary biologist” in the sense that I mean the term? It doesn’t, not by a long way.

I am talking about the larger movements of macroevolutionary change, that go well beyond the one-celled world. You don’t work in that field. Wagner, Newman, etc. work in that field.

Darwin didn’t even know that bacteria and viruses existed. When most people talk about “evolution,” they are talking about the transformations from simple ancestors to all the fungi, plants, animals, etc. They have in mind the picture that Darwin did. You are looking at the bricks of the southwest corner of the transept of a Gothic cathedral, and claiming you understand the whole plan of the cathedral and all the engineering techniques that were used to erect it.

@T_aquaticus

Just to make sure, you accept that all species descended from a universal common ancestor

Whoa! Whoa! Last time we discussed “universal common ancestor,” I was chided for my “misuse” of the term by some people here (whether or not you were one of them, I don’t recall). So unless you define “universal common ancestor” clearly, I can’t answer even the first part of your question. Do you mean one, single, living creature (presumably unicellular) from which all subsequent living creatures descended? As in, a single amoeba that hasn’t split for the first time yet, a single bacterium that hasn’t split for the first time yet, etc.? Do you mean that somehow one of those individuals came into being, and all subsequent life-forms have descended from it? Or do you mean something else?

@T_aquaticus

There are wrong scientists in every field.

So when there is scientific dispute, there aren’t scientists with legitimate different interpretations of the facts, but only a majority group of scientists who are right and a minority group of scientists who are wrong? There’s a recipe for tyranny, in science or in any other human endeavor.

@T_aquaticus

Your obsession with credentialism is noted.

As is your almost complete lack of big-picture thinking. You can’t see the forest for the trees.

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

You think that because you know something about “the evolution of bacteria and viruses” that this makes you an “evolutionary theorist” or an “evolutionary biologist” in the sense that I mean the term? It doesn’t, not by a long way.

Just admit it. There is nothing that would ever change your mind. All you have is rhetoric and you aren’t interested in the science at all.

@Eddie

Whoa! Whoa! Last time we discussed “universal common ancestor,” I was chided for my “misuse” of the term by some people here (whether or not you were one of them, I don’t recall). So unless you define “universal common ancestor” clearly, I can’t answer even the first part of your question.

Once again, we see the use of semantics and obfuscation.

@Eddie

So when there is scientific dispute, there aren’t scientists with legitimate different interpretations of the facts, but only a majority group of scientists who are right and a minority group of scientists who are wrong? There’s a recipe for tyranny, in science or in any other human endeavor.

Do you really think every scientist is infallible? None of them can be wrong?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@T_aquaticus

Just admit it. There is nothing that would ever change your mind. All you have is rhetoric and you aren’t interested in the science at all.

Just admit it. You have a very, very narrow band of knowledge regarding evolutionary theory, based almost entirely on your work with viruses and bacteria. That leaves out at least three whole kingdoms of life. Serious evolutionary theorists have a much broader acquaintance with the whole range of living things.

@T_aquaticus

Once again, we see the use of semantics and obfuscation.

Not at all. You demanded to know whether I accepted something. I have the right for your definition of the term you are demanding that I accept. Don’t you know enough about the term “universal common ancestor” to define it for a layman?

@T_aquaticus

Do you really think every scientist is infallible? None of them can be wrong?

Of course I never made any such claim. The point is that they are not automatically wrong just because they disagree with the current majority view. So debate must be allowed. And debate in fact exists. You just like to pretend it doesn’t, for pure culture-war reasons. If creationism didn’t exist, you’d gladly admit that evolutionary theorists fight about all kinds of things among themselves. But you don’t want to admit that in the presence of creationists or ID proponents, lest they use it to undermine evolution itself. But I’m not doing that. I’m not saying that, since there is disagreement about evolutionary theorists regarding mechanisms, therefore evolution is not true. So stop arguing with me as if I’m a fundamentalist. Respond to what I actually argue, not what you think is my hidden agenda. What I actually argue is quite reasonable, and factually true, i.e., that evolutionary theorists, like theorists in every branch of science, sometimes have strong disagreements with their peers about the way nature works. If you can’t grant that, you are clearly arguing just for the sake of opposing me, not for any rational reason.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

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!

So specify a species, a population, and a genome size and GIVE ME A NUMBER.

And then what? You’ve already established your lack of understanding by referring to it as a single number.

You’re also highlighting your lack of ability to construct effective searches.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Eddie

Darwin didn’t even know that bacteria and viruses existed . When most people talk about “evolution,” they are talking about the transformations from simple ancestors to all the fungi, plants, animals, etc. They have in mind the picture that Darwin did. You are looking at the bricks of the southwest corner of the transept of a Gothic cathedral, and claiming you understand the whole plan of the cathedral and all the engineering techniques that were used to erect it.

@Eddie

So even with God’s engagement of Evolutionary forces, you don’t think God is interested in “speciation by natural processes”?

There’s not a lot of options here. If you reject “speciation by natural processes - but still designed and executed (directly or indirectly by God’s control over Evolutionary processes”…

… then you must affirm that God engaged in a long series of miraculous or super-natural creations… even for species that never existed long enough for humans to encounter them…

@Eddie, which is closer to your position?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

So when there is scientific dispute, there aren’t scientists with legitimate different interpretations of the facts, but only a majority group of scientists who are right and a minority group of scientists who are wrong?

Then there are the data that decide. That’s the part you keep missing.

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

Just admit it. You have a very, very narrow band of knowledge regarding evolutionary theory, based almost entirely on your work with viruses and bacteria. That leaves out at least three whole kingdoms of life. Serious evolutionary theorists have a much broader acquaintance with the whole range of living things.

Just more rhetoric.

Will you be discussing the actual science any time soon?

@Eddie

The point is that they are not automatically wrong just because they disagree with the current majority view. So debate must be allowed.

You won’t allow debate. As soon as someone challenges the claims of the fringe minority you go crazy, challenging our right to even suggest they are wrong.

How about this. Allow debate. Don’t reject debate just because someone doesn’t meet your lofty and arbitrary requirements. Also, debate the science, not rhetoric.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Mercer

And then what? You’ve already established your lack of understanding by referring to it as a single number.

In other words, you don’t know the answer. Bluffing again. As you always have done, on other sites as well as here.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

In other words, you don’t know the answer.

As I keep pointing out, there isn’t “the answer.” You continue to confirm that you don’t understand basic evolutionary theory.

So, explain the point of asking for this fraction for a particular case, please.

[Chris_Falter]

@Eddie

“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."

You left out the part where 4 Ph.D. biologists said, “the former.” You keep trying to define the Ph.D. biologists out of the conversation, and I’m not sure why.

In addition, your choice of terminology strikes me as a bit ambiguous, Eddie. My claim is that there is a core area of agreement and a boundary area where disagreement is plentiful. I did not intend to label the boundary area as insignificant to the discipline, if indeed I did so at all. My claim, instead, is that the core area of agreement has adequate explanatory power with respect to descent with modification + common ancestry. Thus anyone who accepts DWM + CA should have no problem accepting the core area of agreement.

Yours,
Chris

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Mercer

As I keep pointing out, there isn’t “the answer.”

You said that an answer could be given if the size of the genome and of the population were known. I invited you to pick any organism of your choice, specify the size of its genome, specify a population, and then give me the percentage. If you don’t know your population genetics well enough to do that, just admit it, and stop talking.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

You said that an answer could be given if the size of the genome and of the population were known.

I did. But you haven’t explained why you assumed that there was a single value.

@Eddie

I invited you to pick any organism of your choice, specify the size of its genome, specify a population, and then give me the percentage.

And then what?

@Eddie

If you don’t know your population genetics well enough to do that, just admit it, and stop talking.

I’ve already found several values; it took me seconds to find them and several papers remain open on tabs in my browser.

But now that we’ve established that you don’t understand the underlying theory, what was your point, and what is your point now that you know that you were wrong?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Chris_Falter

You left out the part where 4 Ph.D. biologists said, “the former.” You keep trying to define the Ph.D. biologists out of the conversation, and I’m not sure why.

Because I know of other Ph.D. biologists who are specialists in evolutionary theory in a way that no one here is (except maybe evograd, who seems to keep up with evo-devo and other things), and they see evolutionary mechanism as a much less settled area than many people here think it is. (And by the way, one of the your Ph.D.s has since announced that he has only a Bachelor’s degree.)

@Chris_Falter

My claim is that there is a core area of agreement and a boundary area where disagreement is plentiful.

Which I have always agreed with, and have never denied. I have admitted to such a core several times, to you and to others here.

@Chris_Falter

I did not intend to label the boundary area as insignificant to the discipline, if indeed I did so at all.

If I’m not mistaken, you used the word “peripheral,” but maybe that was another person, defending your remarks.

@Chris_Falter

My claim, instead, is that the core area of agreement has adequate explanatory power with respect to descent with modification + common ancestry.

You are free to believe that, but if you believe it, you are believing it on authority. A whole group of serious evolutionary biologists has for 10 years and more has been questioning whether what you are calling the “core agreement” provides an adequate causal account, and there has been quite a lot of resistance to their efforts, as we see in the Coyne review cited in the other discussion. That is what I mean when I say that evolutionary biologists have disagreements about mechanism, and that the disagreements that are not trivial. It’s because of the existence of those disagreements that I don’t sign on to any particular account of mechanism.

You still haven’t answered my very specific questions from an earlier post. You keep speaking in generalities about a “core area” but you won’t name specific evolutionary claims. What exactly is it that you want me to accept, beyond descent with modification? Here is what I asked you on another thread:

---

All right, Chris; let’s see if we can start fresh. What admission are you trying to get out of me?

Back at the beginning of this discussion, I said that I accepted the existence of a process called evolution, but did not necessarily accept any account of the mechanism coming from any individual theorist, or from some supposed scientific “consensus.” I said I left the door open and would read up on future developments regarding theories of mechanism. But I have been left with the impression that you find my attitude very unsatisfying, that you think I have some sort of intellectual obligation to endorse something beyond descent with modification. If this is not what you think, then say you are satisfied with my distinction and my approach (not as one you hold, but as one legitimate for me to hold), and we can end this discussion quite peacably. But if my impression is correct, you are going to have to specify the evolutionary “creed” that you think I am bound to accept.

And it will do no good for you to say that I should accept “modern evolutionary science,” because that is far too vague. I would want more precision. Do you want me to accept, for example, that 80% of mutation is under selection? Or only 20%? Or some other number? Has “modern evolutionary theory” decided, for example, that on average 37.5% of mutations are under selection? Where was the scientific conference held where that number was fixed, and who subscribes to it?

Do you want me to agree to rule out any possible teleological factors in the evolutionary process?

Do you want me to rule out genomic self-engineering, on the grounds that “most” (according to your informal estimate) theorists don’t believe in it? Do you want me to rule out self-organizational theory?

What is the list of mechanisms and their relative weighting that you want me to sign on to?

You know, there is a Westminster Confession of faith, and a Chicago Statement on inerrancy, and so on. I can read those statements and decide, before I sign, whether I agree with them. I’m asking you for that level of precision regarding “current evolutionary theory.” What are you demanding that I subscribe to, before you will count me as someone who accepts “evolution”?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@T_aquaticus

As soon as someone challenges the claims of the fringe minority you go crazy, challenging our right to even suggest they are wrong.

False. I have said repeatedly that I have no objection to your saying that Shapiro or anyone else is wrong. I do object when you or anyone else makes the false claim that evolutionary biologists never have any serious disputes about the adequacy of proposed mechanisms, and that is what I took Chris to be saying.

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

False. I have said repeatedly that I have no objection to your saying that Shapiro or anyone else is wrong.

Really?

Just admit it. You have a very, very narrow band of knowledge regarding evolutionary theory, based almost entirely on your work with viruses and bacteria. That leaves out at least three whole kingdoms of life. Serious evolutionary theorists have a much broader acquaintance with the whole range of living things.
– @Eddie

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@T_aquaticus

Really?

Your quotation has nothing to do with my statement about Shapiro, so why do you introduce it?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

Your quotation has nothing to do with my statement about Shapiro, so why do you introduce it?

Good grief. You specified:

@Eddie

False. I have said repeatedly that I have no objection to your saying that Shapiro or anyone else is wrong.

[Chris_Falter]

@Eddie

they see evolutionary mechanism as a much less settled area than many people here think it is.

Are you claiming that your favorite creme de la creme theorists think that no combination of previously identified mechanisms is sufficient to account for the history of descent with modification?

I have read Lenski and Shubin, and I am currently imbibing Andreas Walker. They have some differences in emphasis, but none have claimed that the elements previously identified in the ToE are not up to the explanatory task. For this reason I am highly skeptical of what you seem to be claiming.

I am also skeptical of what you seem to be claiming because 4 Ph.Ds in biology agree with me. (And T_aqua makes 5.) They understand the implications of your favorite evolutionary theorists far better than you or I, in my opinion.

Yours,
Chris

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

(And by the way, one of the your Ph.D.s has since announced that he has only a Bachelor’s degree.)

And tons of experience, and the most patient disposition on this board.

But speaking of your love of credentialism: you claimed to teach at a university, so why are you complaining about a journal paywall?