Evolutionary Science, not Darwinism

Ah, but that was before neutral theory replaced neo-Darwinism. :smile:

That is what Turner is working toward.

Science won’t do it, since the methodology excludes teleology - and in any case, the nuances of “intention” belong in philosophy.

1 Like

Thank you for clarifying. I consider Darwinism to be broader than that. For example:

The implication here is that I have quote-mined some author or authors to some end which you are not quite clear on having to do with pan-adaptationism. I resent that implication and ask that you refrain from making such statements.

Who here is making such a claim? I have certainly not made such a claim and if you think I have then please consider it possible that you have misunderstood me. From the fact that Darwinism is by no means “dead” to the conclusion that therefore modern evolutionary science is Darwinism would be a non-sequitur.

I also pointed out in this thread that Stephen Meyer doesn’t make such a claim and in fact addresses other evolutionary mechanisms.

I don’t see anyone restricting evolutionary science to Darwinian mechanisms. This also seems to be a tacit admission that Darwinian mechanisms do exist and are part of modern evolutionary theory.

I don’t know what you think these pubmed searches do other than highlight the fact that Darwinism is accepted as settled science and no longer disputed. :wink:

Random mutation returns 11205 results. Positive Selection: 42263, Adaptation: 301867, Adaptive evolution: 17087. What can we conclude?

Common descent returns only 2779 results. Shall we conclude that we should no longer speak of common descent and that it is no longer thought to be true by evolutionary science?

Here is a far more interesting set of results (imo):

In closing, this article on Sandwalk (2012) is an interesting read, relevant and on point:

@Mung

You are playing word games. The industry has clearly drawn lines around certain terms to help differentiate progress within the field.

And you, not a participant in the field, insists that these distinctions arent real… simply because some people lack the discipline to use these terms consistently.

The question to ask is: what is the benefit to anyone to bury all distinctions under a single term?

Do you challenge the physicists when they say Newtonian Science has been superceded?

Do you challenge the field of Psychotherapy by insisting that they all still practice Freudian Psychology… even though hardly any Freudian therapists still practice?

A shame that my on-topic post documenting the use of the term “Neo-darwinian” in recent literature has been diverted to a thread of its own, losing the context it was answering.

Bottom line: a respected evolutionary biologist like Douglas Futuyma (and many others) still regards the Modern Synthesis, aka Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, as the core of modern evolutionary theory.

That, essentially, is his beef with the Third Way - they want an extended synthesis, probably under a new, non-Darwinian, banner, but he thinks the old one can extend quite nicely under its old labels.

Of course, it isn’t what it was in the 60s, but then neither is evolution what it was in 1859.

1 Like

Sorry. I didn’t want it to get buried. You had some good thoughts here.

2 Likes

I don’t understand why this question is directed to me. It is people like Patrick and T_aquaticus who are seeking to “bury all distinctions under a single term” (evolution).

1 Like

I hope you don’t remember that correctly. Lungfish are not the ancestors of modern fish, however, the ancestors of modern fish did have lungs.

Except that they cannot help themselves.

When they say that a mutation is a copying error, they are implying an intention to copy exactly, and noting an error in following that intention.

The use of intentional language is so thoroughly embedded in natural language, that it cannot be avoided. It would be better for scientists to acknowledge that.

2 Likes

That’s like saying we can’t put erosion and deposition under the banner of geology.

1 Like

It’s not like that at all. Darwinian mechanisms are part of modern evolutionary theory. So is neutral theory. They both fit nicely under that banner. You and Patrick are asking us to just say ‘geology’ when we want to say erosion.

Every time Joshua mentions neutral theory why don’t you and Patrick ask him why he can’t just say “evolution”? I mean, seriously, we’ve learned a lot and evolutionary theory has advanced a great deal since 1968.

If someone is trying to criticize modern evolutionary theory then why do they keep referring to Darwinism?

To continue with the geology analogy, it’s a bit like saying Lyellism needs to be scrapped because it doesn’t incorporate catastrophic events. I think most geologists would say “Well, duh”. Catastrophic events have been a part of modern geology for quite a while now. How much does it help to take out parts of geology and call it Lyellism?

1 Like

If I said that evolutionary theory was only neutral theory, everyone would howl. Especially if started to point to well know evidence for other mechanisms, as if that demonstrates evolutionary theory was failing.

I don’t execute such innane debate tactics so no one objects. I do not mistake the part for the whole.

Contrast that with Behe and the Dissent From Darwinism. In this case positive selection is equicovated as the whole of evolutionary science, this strawman is knocked down, and a victory dance ensues about how evolutionary science has been toppled.

One must be willfully blind not to see the difference.

Now, ironically, I’m being charged for misrepresenting the science by emphasizing well accepted non-Darwinian mechanisms. Silliness. Who could possibly take this seriously.

2 Likes

See my explanatory post. My notes and my memory were just fine - and my colloquialism was conscious. If I’d meant rhipidistians I’d have said so. Funny how you guys are so keen to correct perceived errors rather than be glad that someone explained the comment made to Eddie.

1 Like

Neil, you’ll have heard the usual answer to that - “Such language is just a convenience.” But it would be better acknowledged, and maybe its reasons pondered.

1 Like

Who here is trying to criticize modern evolutionary theory? Please try to focus on what is actually being argued. I for one would genuinely appreciate it.

1 Like

Eddie wrote earlier:

“And Shapiro might be wrong to characterize all of current evolutionary theory as “neo-Darwinian”, but again, in context, it’s clear why he calls the self-engineering of the genome a “non-Darwinian” process. Behe uses the term “Darwinian” and “neo-Darwinian” in a certain way, and his objection to evolutionary theory are objections to neo-Darwinian thinking rather than to evolution in itself – but that is clear in context.”

There are people who are trying to claim that ID is true because Darwinism is false.

I’m not one of them.

1 Like

That reminds of when somebody argued (on usenet) that we should avoid all intentional and intensional language and do everything in FOPC (first order predicate calculus). So I asked him to post to usenet using FOPC. And I repeated that request several times. Of course, he never did, because it really isn’t possible.

Most of the time, it doesn’t matter that much. But in evolutionary biology, it does matter. A poor choice of intentional language will be picked up by creationists and used to attack evolution.