Niamh Middleton on Evolution and Darwinism

Yes, that was my point.

Yes, that was my point. The consensus is that there is no consensus.

Of course there’s a consensus! And Mendelian genetics explains drift

The consensus is not reductive to natural selection.

1 Like

Over evolutionary time genes go their separate ways by mutation, selection and drift. Yes evolution has to be understood in a nuanced way. But human behaviour is universal and overall fits the big picture of natural selection imo.Any surprising, inexplicable divergences in my opinion (the exception proves the rule!) have an underlying religious/spiritual explanation, because (I know this is subjective opinion) we are not purely natural creatures.

Dawkins says that contrary to what people think he has always had a lot of time for the neutral theory of the great Japanese geneticist Motoo Kimura. He loves the molecular clock idea. But goes on to argue that “the neutral theory does not in any way denigrate the importance of selection in nature. Natural selection is all powerful with respect to those visible changes that affect survival and reproduction”. Neutral means neutral! Darwin himself anticipated the neutral theory in The Origin of Species when he wrote “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call natural selection. Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection”.

Genes don’t. Alleles do. You clearly are not grasping the most basic concepts.

We have plenty of expertise ourselves. What exactly is the point of your lecturing us about what people say?

You still haven’t answered my question: do you read the primary scientific literature?

That is a quote from Dawkins. Of course I know what alleles are. It’s only molecular geneticists who strictly use the word allele for alternative versions of a gene. My kids either got my or my husband’s allele for blue eyes, not my husband’s brown one, cos he has brown eyes. But when I’m chatting about it I use the word gene. You guys with scientistic mindsets have the most reductive minds, no appreciation of writing style, or any form of speculation no matter how informed. No point discussing my opinions with you no matter how evidenced based. And I am not lecturing you. I am a theologian trying to integrate science and faith, interpreting evolutionary science from a faith perspective. And yes I have read plenty of primary scientific literature. And have cited it where necessary in my book. No interest in discussing it with those of a scientistic mindset. Scientism a big problem in the modern era, another issue discussed in my book.

I think you will find that it’s any biologist who talks about alternative versions of a gene, though one might be a bit looser when writing for a public that doesn’t know the word.

One issue in contention here is whether your speculations are informed. The biologists who respond to you think not. This is a problem considering that your speculations are about the opinions of biologists.

1 Like

My speculations are based on the work of the leading evolutionary biologists and scientists who assert that human nature has been shaped by natural selection. I have of course read the work of those like Gould who disagree, and got an excellent endorsement from Michael Ruse a multi award winning philosopher of science who specialises in the philosophy of biology and is also as scientifically knowledgeable as any evolutionary scientist, and recognised as such by leading ones such as E.O. Wilson.He is an expert on the intra-scientific controversy on the issue, has written extensively about it and as I have said won loads of awards, including the Guggenheim Fellowship for Natural Sciences. He also has written prolifically on the religion/science controversies. His conclusion is that human nature has indeed been shaped by natural selection, that Dawkins and those who share his opinions are correct, and Gouldians wrong. He is also an atheist, but an expert on the creation/evolution debate. You biologists who disagree that human behaviour has been shaped by natural selection are just one side of the controversy. Those with scientistic mindsets can’t see the wood for the trees! And not all of those who have responded to me disagree.

2 posts were split to a new topic: Comments on Niamh Middleton on Evolution

That’s quite the straw man.

What several people here have pointed out to you is their opinions that the claims of evolutionary psychology are exaggerated beyond what the evidence justifies. No one here has simply disagreed that human behavior has been shaped by NS as you falsely claim; the disagreement is about the extent to which that is the case.

Why would you take a matter with many shades of gray and simplistically misrepresent it as black/white?

Look at what you’re doing there: just a lot of content-free name-dropping and credentialism.

Who could disagree with such a vague statement? Not even Gould could disagree with it. The argument is about what specific aspects of human behavior were shaped by natural selection. And it’s about another vague statement, whether natural selection is the dominant force in evolution. You are not being clear.

1 Like

I do not. Yes, the question is the extent. Gould doesn’t deny it had some impact, but maintains we evolved away from it, our morality no longer linked to our biology.

Nothing vague about what I’m saying. I believe human behaviour was shaped by natural selection in all the most obvious and fundamental ways. The evolution of the oppressive patriarchy was driven by ‘the will to power’. Interacting on this site has given a whole new meaning to me of the phrase “Darwin’s dangerous idea” :joy:

There doesn’t appear to be any reason to restrict the evolution of human behavior to the period since the first appearance of anatomically modern humans. That could technically go back all the way to the common ancestor shared with chimps.

1 Like

You did.

It is. If you understand this, why did you write,

…when no one here has stated such a binary disagreement?

Can you discuss ideas without labeling them with people or naming the people whom you claim hold them?

It is a binary disagreement. Either you believe that natural selection has shaped human behaviour so that our morality is genetically determined to a high degree or you don’t. To believe it is not to deny that there are other evolutionary mechanisms. How many of those who have attacked my views know about evolutionarily stable strategies (ESSs)?

Binary so far!

The fuzziness of “a high degree” makes it no longer binary.

Then why did you ask:

…if you weren’t denying the role of neutral evolution?

I’m fairly certain that everyone here knows about them. I’m much more interested in hearing you explain in terms of ideas, without naming any names, how Gould was Lamarckian.

1 Like

I agree with this. @Niamh_Middleton, you are obviously a capable thinker and author…I would rather hear what you think than what you think others think.

2 Likes

Random variation is a very important aspect of evolution. The effects of new mutations depends on the genetic background in which they happen, and neutral drift is a major force in producing that genetic background.

21 posts were split to a new topic: How Does Drift Contribute to Adaptive Evolution?