Evolutionary Science, not Darwinism

[John_Harshman]

@swamidass

I know. Dawkins uses it to mean atheism.

Say what now?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@John_Harshman

I know. Dawkins uses it to mean atheism.

Say what now?

More precisely he can often rhetorically equivocate the two. Don’t you think? How would you put it?

Grant it I haven’t asked him directly. Though we can be sure he does not deny all non Darwinian mechanisms.

[John_Harshman]

@swamidass

More precisely he can often rhetorically equivocate the two. Don’t you think? How would you put it?

I see nothing in anything I’ve read from Dawkins to suppose that he means “atheism” when he says anything other than “atheism”. I don’t know that he uses “Darwinism” at all, and if he says “neoDarwinism”, I would assume he means “neoDarwinism”.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

We have several active loose ends. Let’s add this to the list and pick it up soon.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@swamidass

Except Neo-Darwinism RIP in 1968.

Not in the popular consciousness.

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

I’ve already explained this to you and others here, many times. “Evolution” for Behe means essentially “descent with modification”. Neo-Darwinism is a particular explanation of how evolution works. Behe is not attacking “evolution” but only certain explanations of how it works.

So what is the Neo-Darwinian explanation and how does it differ from the theory modern biologists use?

@Eddie

For the same reason that Gould doesn’t always do so. Sometimes it is necessary to talk about a particular theory of how evolution works. When I mean the process of descent with modification, I say “evolution”. When I mean what Mayr, Dawkins etc. advocated, I say “neo-Darwinism”. When I mean what certain current evolutionary theorists advocate, I say, “Certain current evolutionary theorists”. I try always to be clear.

What did Mayr, Dawkins, etc. advocate for and how does it differ from the theory modern biologists use?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@swamidass

Of course I’m arguing against that all the time. I’m telling everyone to drop the term Darwinist.

I’m not concerned with what terms Miller uses. He may or may not use the term Darwinist or neo-Darwinist; that is not my point. My point was that his description of how evolution works in Finding Darwin’s God is pretty much popular neo-Darwinism. My point is that he and Behe and Dawkins are all writing about evolution in the same vein. So you have an ID guy, at TE guy, and an atheist all using pretty much the same language regarding evolution, whether they call it Darwinian or neo-Darwinian or don’t give it any particular name at all. And I don’t mind your objecting to that popular neo-Darwinian conception of evolution, as long as you object to it when people other than ID people use it, not just when ID people use it.

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

I already explained this. The emphasis in neo-Darwinism is on random mutations and natural selection as the two main factors in evolution.

Really? Because that is not what Gould said.

Kimura has always stressed the high frequency of neutral substitutions as his main challenge to Darwinian traditions. He writes, for example (1991a, p 367), that “in sharp contrast to the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, the neutral theory claims that the overwhelming majority of evolutionary change at the molecular level are caused by random fixation (due to random sampling drift in finite populations) of selectively neutral (i.e. selectively equivalent) mutants under continued inputs of mutations.”
Stephen Jay Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory

Gouls also wrote about evolution producing “spandrels”.

In evolutionary biology, a spandrel is a phenotypic characteristic that is a byproduct of the evolution of some other characteristic, rather than a direct product of adaptive selection.

The term “spandrel” originated as an architectural word for the roughly triangular space between the tops of two adjacent arches and the ceiling. These spaces were not actually utilized until later on, when artists realized they could make designs and paint in these small areas, enhancing the overall design of the building.

Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin brought the term into biology in their influential[1] 1979 paper “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme”.[2] This defined the biological concept and argued the case for a structuralist view of evolution.
Spandrel

Gould sure thought neutral theory was a big part of the theory of evolution, and he has even said so in books and articles aimed at the general public.

[Mung]

@Eddie

Regarding current evolutionary theory, I don’t see complete unity in it; I see a pick and mix set of mechanisms, with each evolutionary theorist weighting the various mechanisms differently in his own formulation of how evolution works. The Royal Society Conference, the Altenberg Conference, and other other meetings confirm that there is diversity among theorists in the weighting of various mechanisms. And that’s fine with me. What I object to is any presentation of “modern evolutionary theory” as if it is a seamless and precisely defined theory, rather than a collection of ideas about how evolution works, with pronounced differences of emphasis among the theorists themselves. To pretend that there is more unity than there is, is not intellectually honest.

Appreciate your comments. When someone says “evolutionary theory” I ask, which one?

[T_aquaticus]

@Mung

Appreciate your comments. When someone says “evolutionary theory” I ask, which one?

Why wouldn’t you think they are talking about the theory modern biologists use?

[Mung]

@T_aquaticus

Why wouldn’t you think they are talking about the theory modern biologists use?

Because, as Eddie correctly points out above, there is no such thing as “the theory” that modern biologists use.

[T_aquaticus]

@Mung

Because, as Eddie correctly points out above, there is no such thing as “the theory” that modern biologists use.

What do you base this on?

[T_aquaticus]

Speaking of Kenneth Miller, he wrote an essay on why ID/creationists use Darwin’s name so often.

On "Darwinism"

Dr. Miller seems to reflect my own view on why Darwinism and Darwinist are used so often by ID/creationists. It is simply an attempt to move away from the science and into rhetoric.

A number of purposes are served by reducing an entire scientific field to an “ism” based on the name of its founder. The first is obvious. Evolution then becomes an ideology, not a field of science. This view is on full display at the lavishly appointed Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, where visitors are assured that scientific data can be interpreted in two ways—from a Darwinist perspective, or from a creationist point of view. Because both depend only upon one’s preconceptions, the creationist viewpoint is just as valid as any other.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Excellent piece.

[Patrick]

@Mung

Because, as Eddie correctly points out above, there is no such thing as “the theory” that modern biologists use.

But Eddie isn’t (and never was) a working scientist in the evolutionary biology field. Why base your understanding on Eddie?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@T_aquaticus

Gould sure thought neutral theory was a big part of the theory of evolution, and he has even said so in books and articles aimed at the general public.

You’re misusing your quotation. Gould knew that classical neo-Darwinism predated neutral theory. And random mutations were regarded as a cause of evolution long before neutral theory was formulated. There is no error in Gould’s description of neutral theory, but it doesn’t contradict my description of neo-Darwinism as it existed prior to neutral theory.

I’ve read Gould’s essay on spandrels. I have no objection to it, but it doesn’t call into question the conception of neo-Darwinism that I was referring to. I did not say that Gould’s own personal view of evolution was neo-Darwinian. And Gould is a good enough scholar not to confuse his own view with those of theorists who preceded him. When he explains what neo-Darwinism (aka 1930s-1940s Modern Synthesis) was, he is neither endorsing it, nor saying that modern evolutionary theory is exhausted by it. Nor, when I use the term neo-Darwinism, am I either endorsing it or saying that modern evolutionary theory is exhausted by it.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@T_aquaticus

Dr. Miller seems to reflect my own view on why Darwinism and Darwinist are used so often by ID/creationists. It is simply an attempt to move away from the science and into rhetoric.

For Miller to complain about rhetoric is for the pot to call the kettle black.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@eddie, why are you zealous in this charge against the the strawman? Why do you insist on tilting against the windmills? You are arguing against a position that literally no one in this thread holds.

I admit it is comical, in a perverse sort of way. But why?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@swamidass

You are arguing against a position that literally no one in this thread holds.

I’m not here arguing against neo-Darwinism. I think it’s inadequate, but I’ve not made that argument here. People here asked me what I meant by the term. I’ve explained that I’m referring to a particular phase of evolutionary theory. People have asked me why Behe talks about neo-Darwinism rather than evolution. I’ve explained why he does this. My remarks are clarificatory. I’m not waging the war against neo-Darwinism here. If people want to see that war waged, they can read the books of Behe, Denton, etc.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

It is totally legitimate to discuss Darwinism in historical terms as a past tense theory.

@Eddie

I’m not waging the war against neo-Darwinism here. If people want to see that war waged, they can read the books of Behe, Denton, etc.

Why do you think Behe and Denton have devoted their careers to falsifying a theory that was falsified 50 years ago?