Niamh Middleton on Evolution and Darwinism

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Niamh_Middleton

You biologists who disagree that human behaviour has been shaped by natural selection are just one side of the controversy.

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?

[John_Harshman]

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

@Niamh_Middleton

You biologists who disagree that human behaviour has been shaped by natural selection are just one side of the controversy.

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.

[Niamh_Middleton]

@Mercer

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

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.

[Niamh_Middleton]

@John_Harshman

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.

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”

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@ProfBravus

Among other things, modern humans have been around for only about 200,000 years, or about 10,000 generations.

Is that sufficient time for behaviours adaptive to particular conditions to evolve genetically, especially when conditions have changed so incredibly dramatically in that time? (e.g. the last ice age ended only 12,000 years or about 600 generations ago).

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.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Niamh_Middleton

I do not.

You did.

@Niamh_Middleton

Yes, the question is the extent.

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

@Niamh_Middleton

You biologists who disagree that human behaviour has been shaped by natural selection are just one side of the controversy.

…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?

[Niamh_Middleton]

@Mercer

when no one here has stated such a binary disagreement?

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)?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Niamh_Middleton

It is a binary disagreement. Either you believe that natural selection has shaped human behaviour so that our morality is genetically determined…

Binary so far!

@Niamh_Middleton

…to a high degree or you don’t.

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

@Niamh_Middleton

To believe it is not to deny that there are other evolutionary mechanisms.

Then why did you ask:

@Niamh_Middleton

And isn’t the modern evolutionary synthesis a combo of Darwin and Mendel?

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

@Niamh_Middleton

How many of those who have attacked my views know about evolutionarily stable strategies (ESSs)?

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.

[Mark10.45 (Mark McGowan)]

@John_Harshman

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

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.

[T_aquaticus]

@AlanFox

What I’m struggling with is, not that drift happens, what does drift result in that is not random.

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.