The "Third Way"/EES and Population Genetics

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Welcome to the forums @mark. It is great to have your voice. Don’t take this response too personally though.

@Mark

Hello everyone. I’m thoroughly impressed with the work done on this site. Personally, I am partial to what William Lane Craig calls the “mythological interpretation” of Genesis 1-11 mostly because I accept the conclusions of mainstream biblical critics on this point,

I’m not sure if that is the conclusion of mainstream critics. It is the conclusions of mainline critics, who are well outside the mainstream of traditional theology. Most conservative theologians roundly reject a mythological interpretation of Adam, even though they acknowledge parallels and borrowing of mythology from surrounding cultures. With inspiration and inerrancy in the mix, it could have been borrowed myth that became true upon inspired modifications.

@Mark

I have recently become convinced that the "Third Way"or Extended Evolutionary Synthesis put forth by people like James A. Shapiro and Denis Noble is the best way to understand how evolution works.

Sorry to hear that. The problem with Shapiro and Nobel is not so much that the science is bad, but because their history is wrong. Nothing they are offering is really new. Neo-Darwinism as the dominant mechanism of change was put to rest back in the 1960’s. The term itself “darwinism” is a slur that only atheists like to apply to themselves. A better term is “evolutionary science” or the “modern synthesis” which, to be clear, is already extended.

The scientific findings are interesting, and already part of the modern synthesis, and have been well established by others decades before Shapiro entered the scene. The remained a pseudo-history to cast themselves as heroes of the story. Scientists do not like that behavior, which is why they are generally resisted by most scientists.

@Mark

This is a quote from Shapiro from Perry Marshall, which Marshall also quotes in his book Evolution 2.0 :

"Last year I attended a lecture at Fermilab by Dr. Shapiro. After his talk, a group of people huddled around him in the cafeteria, peppering him with questions.

One guy suddenly ‘got’ what he’d been saying all night long. ‘You mean the mutations aren’t random?’ he asked. 'No sir. They’re not random at all. “When bacteria are comfortable and well-fed, certain DNA changes occur at a frequency of less than one per billion cells.

But when they’re starving, the mutation rate skyrockets by a factor of 100,000. They develop new adaptations so they can survive.’"

This is not an accurate way of understanding randomness. In statistics, “random” does not mean “without purpose” or “without function” or “without pattern.” These are still random mutations. Even though they might have a purpose, function or pattern.

@Mark

For example, the equations of population genetics, which are based on neo-Darwinist mechanisms, could still be valid as descriptions of the particular conditions and processes they were designed to describe, though we should note that those conditions are highly idealized.

@Mark

But, as with the move in physics to acknowledge what nature tells us by developing new models, we should move on to new mathematics when it becomes clear that our existing maths is inadequate for the job.”

Except that we already moved past neo-Darwinism in the 1960’s with Haldane and Kimura’s work. Why are they tilting against windmills? Why are they labeling populations genetics as neo-Darwinism when that is precisely what they overturned? This would have been a great thing to write in 1960. Not sure what it has to do with our current moment.

@Mark

“Of course, that does not mean that the neo-Darwinist mechanism (chance genetic variations followed by natural selection) does not happen. Nor does it mean that all the impressive developments of population genetics using the mathematical ideas developed by neo-Darwinism suddenly become incorrect.”

It is almost as if they just forgot the last 50 years of research in evolution. Neo-Darwinism (chance genetic variations followed by natural selection) as the dominant mechanism of change was falsified by Haldane and Kimura in the 1960s. A new theory replaced it. Then, several new extensions were made and incorporated into what people call “evolutionary science.”

We do not need a new term design merely to make Shapiro famous. I’m happy with just calling “evolutionary science” and continuing to extend it as we continue to discover key mechanisms.