Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Cornell evolutionary biologist declares neo-Darwinism dead

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The “modern synthesis” is dead

Allen MacNeill

This echoes exactly the words of Eric Davidson and Stephen J. Gould. Below is the full quote in context:

Allen MacNeill on Modern Synthesis

the evidence that macroevolution has happened is all around us, in the patterns of biogeographical distribution of species and in the fossil record. What is not so obvious is the mechanism(s) by which such macroevolution has occurred. Prof. Giertych is probably right in asserting that the “modern synthesis” mechanisms grounded in theoretical population genetics are insufficient to explain macroevolution. However, scientists within the field of evolutionary biology have been saying the same thing for over a century. The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution was probably first drawn by the Russian Russian entomologist Iuri’i Filipchenko in around 1927 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html). In the first half of the 20th century, Richard Goldschmidt did pioneering work into possible mechanisms of macroevolution, work that was later discredited and/or ignored by the population geneticists of the “modern synthesis” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Goldschmidt). Eldredge and Gould, in their landmark 1972 paper on punctuated equilibrium (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.asp) initiated the newest revolution in macroevolutionary theory, pointing out that the “modern synthesis” model of gradualistic macroevolution via purely populaton genetics mechanisms is not compatible with much of the fossil record.

So, the history of the concept of macroevolution is not entirely compatitible with the neo-darwinian “modern synthesis” – this is supposed to be some sort of surprise, or to undermine the idea that macroevolution has not occurred? You folks need to pay a little more attention to what has actually been going on in evolutionary biology over the last half century, and less time tilting at “modern synthesis” windmills that have long since fallen into disrepair within our discipline.

The “modern synthesis” is dead – long live the evolving synthesis!

and interestingly, Allen reports about Will Provine in Comment on the Celeste Biever affair

BTW, I wish one of you folks would attend Will Provine’s evolution course, and participate when you have a chance. Will spent the whole lecture this morning lambasting the “modern evolutionary synthesis” (and I jumped in at the end to deliver the coup de gras to the biological species concept for eveything except vertebrates). I think you might find it enjoyably iconoclastic, and we could get into some interesting (and illuminating) discussions…

In fairness to Dr. MacNeill, he accepts that evolution happened and is open to ideas as to how. He probably is not enamored with the ID explanation, but he has certainly won the appreciation of the IDEA chapter at Cornell for his knowledge and candor.

I hope we get access to Will Provine’s lambasting of “modern synthesis” someday. That would be very interesting!

Note:
According to Wikipedia, neo-Darwinism is also known as modern synthesis:

The modern evolutionary synthesis (often referred to simply as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis, neo-Darwinian synthesis or neo-Darwinism), generally denotes the integration of Charles Darwin’s theory of the evolution of species by natural selection, Gregor Mendel’s theory of genetics as the basis for biological inheritance, random genetic mutation as the source of variation, and mathematical population genetics.

Comments
[…] created, that of course doesn't happen, Randomness destroys intention. Neo-Darwinism is dead. Cornell evolutionary biologist declares neo-Darwinism dead | Uncommon Descent Thomas Nagel vs. his critics: Has Neo-Darwinian evolution failed, and can teleological naturalism […]A finely tuned universe that points to a God. - Page 27 - Christian Forums
October 1, 2014
October
10
Oct
1
01
2014
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
Asa Gray, in a quote furnished by j above, wrote: "Wherefore so long as gradatory, orderly, and adapted forms in Nature argue design, and at least while the physical cause of variation is utterly unknown and mysterious, we should advise Mr. Darwin to assume in the philosophy of his hypothesis that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines. Streams flowing over a sloping plain by gravitation (here the counterpart of natural selection) may have worn their actual channels as they flowed; yet their particular courses may have been assigned; and where we see them forming definite and useful lines of irrigation, after a manner unaccountable on the laws of gravitation and dynamics, we should believe that the distribution was designed." To which Darwin responded: "However much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief “that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines,” like a stream “along definite and useful lines of irrigation.” If we assume that each particular variation was from the beginning of all time preordained, then that plasticity of organisation, which leads to many injurious deviations of structure, as well as the redundant power of reproduction which inevitably leads to a struggle for existence, and, as a consequence, to the natural selection or survival of the fittest, must appear to us superfluous laws of nature. On the other hand, an omnipotent and omniscient Creator ordains everything and foresees everything. Thus we are brought face to face with a difficulty as insoluble as is that of free will and predestination. It is very late to be re-entering this discusion; yet, for discussion's sake, several points should be made: (1) Darwin wrongly interprets Asa Gray's meaning. Darwin, in his reply, suggests that Gray's position was that all species were "specially created". Yet, the final words of Gray's quote (above) are: ". . . we should believe that the distribution was designed." This is simply a way of saying that if the laws of nature cannot explain the variation that is seen in each particular species, nonetheless in higher taxa "gradatory, orderly, and adapted forms" (distributions) are encountered. So Darwin is wrong in assuming that Gray is saying that "each particular variation was . . . preordained." Which leads to a second point: (2) Gray is distinguishing between what is ordered and what is not. Streams that are simply meandering around can be fully explained in terms of "gravitation and dynamics", but when we encounter "definite and useful lines of irrigation", meaning, 'when we encounter furrowed farm land', we know that we're looking at design. Man, an intelligent agent, is involved. (Just imagine, a 'design argument' way back when!) Gray, in stating that the particular courses of these otherwise "meandering" streams "may have been assigned"(just as in ordinary erosion the stream flows in a particular "direction"), taken together with this observation that "the physical cause of variation is utterly unknown and mysterious", suggests that Gray, philosophically, takes the position that there might be an "overall direction" given to whatever turns out to be the "physical cause" of variation. I have argued in the past that it would only be sensible for a "designer" to design organisms in a "dynamic", rather than a "static" fashion, given that the interaction of the laws of physical nature cause things to vary in the short term. Rather than prescribing species to be 'utterly' specific, an "intelligent designer" would construct a species so that it had the potential to vary given variable environmental conditions. Just think of Darwin's finches. They exactly do this. Their beak sizes vary depending on the amount of rainfall the islands receive. Hearkening back to Darwin's analogy of the "architect" and the "wedge-shaped stones" he uses to build with (see post #45 above), Darwin is more or less arguing that it is silly to think that God made odd-shaped stones so that an architect would have something build wonderfully designed homes with, and that, likewise, it is silly to think that God included variation into "species" just so that a "breeder" would have something to design strange birds with. And, so, to Darwin, no "final cause" is apparent in this "principle of variation". But Darwin's analogy is wrong. And that's why Gray says that Darwin would be well advised "to assume in the philosophy of his hypothesis that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines." Darwin's analogy breaks down because he is unaware of the discrete (stochastic) nature of the principle of inheritance, i.e., Mendelian genetics. Ferguson Jenkin, an engineer and a contemporary of Darwin, already anticipated this error when he pointed out that Darwin's principle of variation, which was a "blending" type of inheritance, would have the effect of "diluting" any variation that cropped up in the original species. The force of his criticism was such that Darwin eventually (last edition) had to back away from this notion altogether. Knowing what we know now (again, Mendelian genetics), it is easy to see that discrete "blending" is a mechanism of inheritance that allows organisms to "adapt" to their particular, changing, environment. Thus, the "principle of variation" is not ordered to the well-being of "man"; rather, it is directly ordered to the well-being of each organism; hence, it is designed. As an example, in a Monte Carlo simulation, randomly generated input is fed through a defined series of mathematical equation (such equations are meant to 'simulate' the object of interest) leading to a probability distribution of possible outcomes. An element of randomness is part, and parcel, of a designed, purposeful, mathematical process. The final point is this:] (3) Dr. MacNeill's notion that "adaptive radiation" is the clue to understanding "macroevolution" does not cut the mustard. Back in 1940 Richard Goldschmidt pointed out that the "radiation" of phenotypes in a cline of butterflies (moths) he had studied was not, in fact, genetically based, but was environmentally produced. Along the lines that I've been pointing out, this is exactly what one would expect to see from an "intelligent designer" who designed organisms in such a way as to be able to "adapt" to their environment. Dr. MacNeill makes the following statement: "Last (but not least) it incorporates new findings (summarized in Mary Jane West-Eberhard’s book, Developmental Plasticity and Evolution), which indicates that phenotypes appear to change first, followed by changes in alleles, rather than the other way around as asserted in the 'modern evolutionary synthesis.'" If, as I argue, the "environment", interacting with the genome, is the "cause" of new phenotypes, then one would expect phenotypic changes to occur rather suddenly, and, with an eventual underlying genotypic change: that is, the environment changes, which causes the genome to be expressed differently, which, through successive generations, leads to a genomic change. A process that can repeat itself in environment, by environment; hence, "adaptive radiation".PaV
October 21, 2006
October
10
Oct
21
21
2006
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
Salvador, Carroll's book does nothing more that describe how a particular life form develops during gestation. Hence the "devo" part of the Evo Devo description. The "evo" part is more suspect. There is nothing in the book that supports naturalistic evolution other than the assumption that it happened and this is how it might have happened. If an intelligence somewhere was designing organisms, then this intelligence would use a similar set of parts. This would also fit with Carroll's thesis though he wouldn't touch that explanation with a 100 foot pole. Think about how humans would go about creating a life colony on some other planet some time in the future. We would use a common set of tools or genes to do so. One of the main arguments from hearing the materialists defend their beliefs is that the designer would not have done it this way. That is prevalent with Darwin himself and frequently mentioned in evolutionary biology classes or books. They say that the actual life forms on the planet seem a little too haphazarded to be the result of any grand plan. It never considered that the much of the variation but not all might have been naturalistic and part of a plan. All ID says is that some of it was a plan. How much is what we argue over. The materialist says nothing; the ID proponents says somethings were directed by an agency. There is other circumstantial evidence against an intelligent agent such as the geographical distributions of species caused by continental drift. Wallace's famous trench is a good example. Anyway some time in the future it may be worth while to discuss Carroll's book and invite Dr. MacNeill and Darrel Falk to participate. Falk suggested Carroll's book to defend his beliefs in Darwinism. It might be good to ask Dr. Falk what he has to say about Dr. MacNeill's comments on neo Darwinism.jerry
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Dr. MacNeill
bFast: I think I did that in the previous post (#47). If not, let me know, and I’ll try to do better.
Your post #47 was an interesting fleshing out of the theory, but you did not pointedly answer my basic question. In your opinion, does modern evolutionary biology theory (including your theory/hypothesis) provide a reasonably complete explanation for the variety of life that exists, or do you believe that there still is some primary piece(s) missing?bFast
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
Sal: Even in the YEC community there is warming toward the idea of limited macro-evolution, the question is the extent of the evolution. Seeing that the definition of macro-evolution is "evolution that occurs above the level of species, over long periods of time, that leads to speciation, in contrast to microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. " Wikipedia on macro "In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species." Talk Origins I would be surprised if there were any YECs who didn't accept it. But that also demonstrates why/ that the definitions provided are part of the problem. The NCSE cited Berkley site- Evolution 101 has this to say: "Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale—what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction." And True Origins offers: evolution, biological n. 1) “microevolution”—the name used by many evolutionists to describe genetic variation, the empirically observed phenomenon in which exisiting potential variations within the gene pool of a population of organisms are manifested or suppressed among members of that population over a series of generations. Often simplistically (and erroneously) invoked as “proof” of “macro evolution”; 2) macroevolution—the theory/belief that biological population changes take (and have taken) place (typically via mutations and natural selection) on a large enough scale to produce entirely new structural features and organs, resulting in entirely new species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla within the biological world, by generating the requisite (new) genetic information. Many evolutionists have used “macro-evolution” and “Neo-Darwinism” as synonymous for the past 150 years. IOW what is required before even discussing micro/ macro is a clear, concise definition of the term.Joseph
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
I think your idea is great, Jerry. Regarding Carrol and evo-devo, as you know I accept special creation, and there are probably some YECs who would still find something salvageable about Carrol's work. Even in the YEC community there is warming toward the idea of limited macro-evolution, the question is the extent of the evolution.scordova
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Dr. MacNeill, What I hear you saying is that adaptive radiation is the visible effect, the cause is reduced pressure to select the existing stable phenotype. Is that correct? IMHO, you have to go one step further and discuss the sources of this reduced pressure. Why, in ecological terms, are there so many open niches to radiate into? Is it mainly catastrophic events such as asteroids or a plague wiping out a monotype population? Is it plate tectonics and weather patterns? Or has gradual phenotypic development opened a new set of niches that previously did not exist? Here I'm thinking of arguments such as in Andrew Parkers "In the Blink of An Eye" http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Eye-Andrew-Parker/dp/0738206075/ to the effect that the development of vision in one species conferred such a great advantage that other species were forced to invent vision also. Further that widespread vision induced changes in predator-prey arms races, leading to hard pody parts. I don't see that you are arguing for a different mechanism, just that contingent events allow that mechanism freer range of expression.David vun Kannon
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Salvador, The main premise of Sean Carroll's book is that the animal kingdom (I know nothing of plants) use a common set of genes to produce their forms, systems etc. Since these genes are common to arthropods and mammals, it implies that there existed a common ancestor before the Cambrian Explosion that had all the various types of genes. This very developed ancestor has evaded the fossil record and would have had eyes, appendages and many other systems from which all the phyla of the Cambrian Explosion descended. No proof of this, only assertions. This seems like all homology arguments. The genes are what Carroll calls the toolbox of life. The other interesting part of Carroll's book is that the genes are relatively unimportant for determining body parts, systems etc. and it is what he calls switches that control all the cell types that unfold during gestation. There are tens of thousands of these switches or maybe more that control the form of an organism and how they fire or turn on and off various genes seems to be the secret of life's difference (the genes are the nuts and bolts that are assembled) . I am not a biologist so I may not understand everything clearly but it seems from Carroll's book and Allen MacNeill's comment here the last few days that we are all barking up wrong trees. I don't think there is anything in either Carroll's book or Dr. MacNeill's comments in any way obviates the ID position. In fact I think they actually support ID. They admit Darwin is dead but then again they won't admit Darwin is dead. They want it both ways. I suggested before and maybe you could implement some time in the future a discussion of various books or papers for threads. Each would be a separate thread. That way we could maybe learn from each other or experts if they choose to participate the pros and cons of each book or article.jerry
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
Dr. MacNeill, You're welcome. I presented the quote because you claimed that Darwin didn't make any "definitive statements about purpose in nature or that lack thereof" in his "publications on evolution." Now you know that's not true. He was quite definitive in rejecting the design of biological variation.
"[Darwin argued that] assuming that such purpose exists is neither necessary nor likely, given what we know about the actual variations that exist among living organisms."
Darwin was making a theological argument against the design of microvariation, and unjustifiably extrapolated from that to deny design of all variation. Further, he did not address Gray's implication that there are patterns observed in nature that are "unaccountable [from] laws." —————————— You didn't address Darwin's use of the word "accidental" to describe the variations. He discontinued it's use in subsequent editions of the Origin; it appears he realized that he let slip a statement of his belief in lack of purpose in nature. ——————————
On the Origin of Species by Means of the Relaxation of Natural Selection, or the Proliferation of Unopposed Variations in the Absence of the Struggle for Life.
So much for Mr. Darwin's vaunted "power intently watching" (natural selection).j
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
I have Carrol's book, but I've been to busy to read it. I hope one day soon. Ironically, there are a couple of IDers like Mike Gene and company who are friendly to writings of the evo-devos. I don't think evo-devo can explain things like the common ancestor of plants and animals. It might explain limited amounts of "macro" evolution such as the issue of Placentals and Mammals.scordova
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT
I have read Sean Carroll's book on Evo Devo and found zip, zero, nada on anything that would explain macroevolution level changes. It is a fascinating book which implies that the secret to species differences is not in the genes but in the switches which control the expression of the genes, cell by cell during development. But it gives no clue as to how the switches evolved to produce the large differences between phyla, orders etc. Everybody should read it just to know what it actually says so they know when smoke is being blown or not.jerry
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT
bFast: I think I did that in the previous post (#47). If not, let me know, and I'll try to do better.Allen_MacNeill
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT
Dr. MacNeill, I was hoping that you would respond to my question #40 above. Maybe it got lost in the chatter.bFast
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
In comment #44, PaV asked: "Is there some theory that you presently favor, or that you feel marshals the latest experimental evidence well? " In a word, yes. I am currently working on an introductory textbook on evolution, in which I lay out the skeleton of what I think evolutionary theory consists of today. Basically, I tend to side with Lynn Margulis and Stephen J. Gould in dividing evolutionary theory into explanations of microevolution (i.e. changes in populations over relatively brief periods of time) and macroevolution (i.e. changes at and above the species level over deep evolutionary time). Furthermore, I think the paleontological and genetic/developmental evidence is sufficiently robust at the present time to assert that macroevolution cannot be simply reduced to microevolutionary processes working over longer periods of time. There appear to be macroevolutionary mechanisms that operate somewhat differently that those traditionally placed under the heading of microevolution. One of the most important of these macroevolutionary mechanisms is the process known as "adaptive radiation", in which a population of organisms of relatively restricted phenotype rapidly diverge into many phenotypically distinct forms in a relatively brief period of time (i.e. under a million years). An example of this phenomenon is the fantastic diversification of the cichlid fishes of Lake Victoria, which apparently diversified into hundreds of distinct "species" in less than 13,000 years. As I will explain in my forthcoming textbook, I believe that adaptive radiation is based on the exact opposite process as natural selection: that is, rapid diversification of phenotypic forms occurs most rapidly when selection is relaxed, rather than intensified. This conforms with recent field investigations showing that, in general, most selection in the "wild" is stabilizing selection, which tends to maintain a population in relatively unchanged condition, rather than directional or diversifying selection, which tend to change it. It fully incorporates the observations upon which the theory of "punctuated equilibrium" as first outlined by Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould, is based. It also squares with recent observations from molecular genetics, which indicate that the vast majority of genetic change is selectively neutral, and therefore does not directly contribute to phenotypic change at all. Last (but not least) it incorporates new findings (summarized in Mary Jane West-Eberhard's book, Developmental Plasticity and Evolution), which indicates that phenotypes appear to change first, followed by changes in alleles, rather than the other way around as asserted in the "modern evolutionary synthesis." Which leads me to suggest that the title of Darwin's most famous book, if he were writing it today, might be more accurately stated as On the Origin of Species by Means of the Relaxation of Natural Selection, or the Proliferation of Unopposed Variations in the Absence of the Struggle for Life.Allen_MacNeill
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
Hi, J: Thanks for the citation; I've searched for something like this for years, but never thought of looking in the 2-volume Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication. I don't own a copy myself, and just haven't had the time to plow through the online version available at: http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/variation/variation_fm1.html Having not read all of his correspondence either, I can't say one way or the other whether Darwin deliberately omitted references to purpose (or the lack thereof in evolution) from the Origin. However, it would not be uncharacteristic for him to have done so, as he assiduously avoided provoking controversy whenever possible. And, as I asserted earlier, even the quote listed above from the Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication doesn't contain a flat-out denial of purpose in nature; it simply makes an analogical argument that assuming that such purpose exists is neither necessary nor likely, given what we know about the actual variations that exist among living organisms.Allen_MacNeill
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT
Allen MacNeill (38): "In fact, Darwin never writes directly about the apparent lack of purpose or design in nature at all: not in the Origin, the Descent of Man, nor The Expression of Emotions in Men and Animals , nor in any of his other publications on evolution. He speculates on the subject here and there in his notebooks, but once again he doesn’t come right out with any definitive statements about purpose in nature or that lack thereof." —————————— Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859 -- First Edition):
Further we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration...
M-W dictionary: accident - 1 a : an unforseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE [etc.] —————————— Asa Gray, writing in the Atlantic Monthly, Vol. VI, October 1860:
Wherefore so long as gradatory, orderly, and adapted forms in Nature argue design, and at least while the physical cause of variation is utterly unknown and mysterious, we should advise Mr. Darwin to assume in the philosophy of his hypothesis that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines. Streams flowing over a sloping plain by gravitation (here the counterpart of natural selection) may have worn their actual channels as they flowed; yet their particular courses may have been assigned; and where we see them forming definite and useful lines of irrigation, after a manner unaccountable on the laws of gravitation and dynamics, we should believe that the distribution was designed. To insist, therefore, that the new hypothesis of the derivative origin of the actual species is incompatible with final causes and design, is to take a position which we must consider philosophically untenable. We must also regard it as highly unwise and dangerous, in the present state and present prospects of physical and physiological science. We should expect the philosophical atheist or skeptic to take this ground; also, until better informed, the unlearned and unphilosophical believer; but we should think that the thoughtful theistic philosopher would take the other side. Not to do so seems to concede that only supernatural events can be shown to be designed, which no theist can admit--seems also to misconceive the scope and meaning of all ordinary arguments for design in Nature.
Charles Darwin, The Variation of Plants and Animals under Domestication (1868):
I may recur to the metaphor given in a former chapter: if an architect were to rear a noble and commodious edifice, without the use of cut stone, by selecting from the fragments at the base of a precipice wedge-formed stones for his arches, elongated stones for his lintels, and flat stones for his roof, we should admire his skill and regard him as the paramount power.... And here we are led to face a great difficulty, in alluding to which I am aware that I am travelling beyond my proper province. An omniscient Creator must have foreseen every consequence which results from the laws imposed by Him. But can it be reasonably maintained that the Creator intentionally ordered, if we use the words in any ordinary sense, that certain fragments of rock should assume certain shapes so that the builder might erect his edifice? If the various laws which have determined the shape of each fragment were not predetermined for the builder's sake, can it be maintained with any greater probability that He specially ordained for the sake of the breeder each of the innumerable variations in our domestic animals and plants;--many of these variations being of no service to man, and not beneficial, far more often injurious, to the creatures themselves? Did He ordain that the crop and tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary in order that the fancier might make his grotesque pouter and fantail breeds? Did He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man's brutal sport? But if we give up the principle in one case, -- if we do not admit that the variations of the primeval dog were intentionally guided in order that the greyhound, for instance, that perfect image of symmetry and vigour, might be formed,--no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike in nature and the result of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork through natural selection of the formation of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided. However much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in his belief "that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines," like a stream "along definite and useful lines of irrigation." If we assume that each particular variation was from the beginning of all time preordained, then that plasticity of organisation, which leads to many injurious deviations of structure, as well as the redundant power of reproduction which inevitably leads to a struggle for existence, and, as a consequence, to the natural selection or survival of the fittest, must appear to us superfluous laws of nature. On the other hand, an omnipotent and omniscient Creator ordains everything and foresees everything. Thus we are brought face to face with a difficulty as insoluble as is that of free will and predestination.
j
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
Allen, that was a most interesting set of posts. As I sort of read between the lines, I suspect our position is really not too far apart. I think biological science helps itself by leaving behind Darwinism and simply looking at what experimental evidence is now showing us. We certainly are in a "brave, new world" when it comes to biological experimentation. It borders on the incredible what they are now doing in labs across the U.S. And it would seem that our understanding of biological phenomena is exponentially growing; so why try to force all of this into the narrow confines of Darwinian theory that in no way could have envisioned the kind of experimental work that is now being done? Allen Orr recently wrote a paper (last year, I think) where he spoke openly about the "quest", let us say, for a new theory of evolution. In it he mentions several proposed solutions/scenarios(along with their inherent problems of each such solution). Is there some theory that you presently favor, or that you feel marshals the latest experimental evidence well? Again, I would appreciate your comments.PaV
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
Also, to make it clear, I have looked up the editions Wiker claims to quote from online and found the quotes.Ben Z
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
“Indeed, I firmly believe that jumping to the conclusion that purpose doesn’t exist in nature because it is unnecessary for the evolution of adaptations is to make a metaphysical jump…” Careful now, that’s just "metaphysical speculation" also (which can be based on reason, which makes it a little more than speculation). BTW here is Wiker in Architects of the Culture of Death: “…”Darwin very early on had seen the radical implications of evolutionary theory for human beings; however, he avoided saying anything about these implications in his most famous book, The Origin Species.” Here’s where Wiker starts his critique: The “moral faculties of man” evolved from “social qualities” which were acquired “through natural selection, aided by inherited habit.” The Descent of Man (part 1, ch 5, page 162Princeton, NJ, 1981). “In order that primeval men…should have become social, they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings which impel other animals to live in a body. (ibid 161-162). He also writes that he does not wish to maintain that any strictly social animal, with intellects like man, would develop the same morals (pg. 73). Pages 73 and 74 elaborate, where he makes it clear that morals such as these are clearly arbitrary under his theory.Ben Z
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
"I’ve given students the assignment of finding quotes from the Origin in which Darwin does what the commentators on this list allege that he does. The outcome? They can’t find it." I remember reading your post on Telic Thoughts and seeing that you'd read through the 1st edition a dozen times. I also remember thinking then, as I am now, that the quotes come from later editions. Of course you wouldn't find them in the first when the writers who point out the quotes specifically say they're not in the first edition.Ben Z
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Dr. MacNeill, you said, "What is not so obvious is the mechanism(s) by which such macroevolution has occurred. Prof. Giertych is probably right in asserting that the “modern synthesis” mechanisms grounded in theoretical population genetics are insufficient to explain macroevolution." I am trying to understand very clearly what you are saying. I know that lots of progress has been made at fleshing out the theory of evolution -- the evolving synthesis as you called it. Are you saying, as it appears, that even with this fleshing out, science still does not have an adequate understanding of the process of macroevolution, or are you saying that folk like myself who are preseting ID are doing so because we don't understand the nature of the fleshing out that has happened?bFast
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
As to why Darwin didn't entitle his most famous book "On the Origin of Adaptations", it turns out that this was exactly what he was planning to do. Darwin worked for two decades on a book that he planned to call Natural Selection, only to be "forced" into writing an "abstract" of his theory by the receipt of the famous letter from Alfred Russel Wallace in April of 1858, a letter that contained essentially the same explanation for the evolution of adaptations that Darwin had labored over for so long. Exactly why Darwin chose to call his magnum opus On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection... we don't exactly know, and it is somewhat ironic to discover upon reading it that he barely mentions the "origin of species" at all. His obsession (which is apparently shared by virtually every IDer and most EBers except those working on the neutral theory) was natural selection and the origin of adaptations.Allen_MacNeill
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
Several people stated that Darwin "snuck in" non-directed evolution into the Origin of Species. This is an interesting charge, given that we assign our students the whole of the first edition of the Origin every year, and as a consequence I've read it cover to cover at least a dozen times. Furthermore, I've given students the assignment of finding quotes from the Origin in which Darwin does what the commentators on this list allege that he does. The outcome? They can't find it. In fact, Darwin never writes directly about the apparent lack of purpose or design in nature at all: not in the Origin, the Descent of Man, nor The Expression of Emotions in Men and Animals, nor in any of his other publications on evolution. He speculates on the subject here and there in his notebooks, but once again he doesn't come right out with any definitive statements about purpose in nature or that lack thereof. Why not? And why do so many people think he did? I believe that the answer to this seeming paradox is that Darwin proposed mechanisms for evolution - natural and sexual selection - that did not include (nor require) purpose or design for the production of adaptations. In other words, Darwin was trying to do for biology what other scientists had already done for physics, chemistry, and geology: provide an explanation that relied completely on purely natural causes, without reference to purpose. For this reason, Darwin is often referred to as the "Newton of biology", because he provided an explanation for the production of adaptations that was essentially "mechanistic", rather than teleological. Hence, Darwin found it unnecessary to discuss purpose in nature when explaining how natural selection could bring about the evolution of adaptations. In this context, it is essential to understand that just because something isn't necessary doesn't imply that it doesn't exist. According to Occam's Razor, we simply don't include unnecessary items in a scientific explanation. Indeed, I firmly believe that jumping to the conclusion that purpose doesn't exist in nature because it is unnecessary for the evolution of adaptations is to make a metaphysical jump without any empirical support whatsoever. IMHO it amounts to metaphysical speculation without any visible means of support.Allen_MacNeill
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
People might also enjoy discussing the definition of life used in Dr. Benner's article!David vun Kannon
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
"The “modern synthesis” is dead - long live the evolving synthesis.".... is that a nod to Cronenberg's Videodrome? If so, that's disturbing.Doug
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Dr Macneill: However, I believe that it is still an open question whether the code is arbitrary (and therefore strong evidence for homology) or necessary (and therefore strong evidence for convergence, despite multiple origins). With respect to the arbitrary nature of the coding system, what is your opinion of the work of Dr. Stephen Benner's group at University of Florida? For example, in the entertainingly written http://www.ffame.org/sbenner/cochembiol8.672-689.pdf their work on expanding the number of base pairs from 4 to 12 is mentioned.David vun Kannon
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Social Darwinism and eugenics are derived directly from his principle of natural selection. No more so than "we should stay on the ground-ism" is derived directly from the theory of gravitation.franky172
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
Hate to post so many times, but there's no edit controls: Also, I think you are incorrect to assume that Wiker and Dembski believe that neo-Darwinism are the cause of so many ills. Wiker and Dembski are both trained Theologians--they'd have to be fools to think that; they believe that humans have been fallen for a long time. They might think Darwin's thought has had MORE bad affects on society--but this might only apply to mostly higher levels of education. Second, considering that a lot of people don't even buy common descent or Darwinian evolution, you'd be at a loss to explain how it affected them much.Ben Z
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Forgot the interview: http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.8docs/15-8pg43.htmlBen Z
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
For instance: If we read this interview of Wiker here, you will notice he focuses on Darwin's social and moral implications--implications that are either there or not there. If you believe they are not there... please explain why. Wiker's evidence sure pointed to it, and I've been looking for counter-evidence for a while but the evidence just keeps growing. If they are there, but you claim it's not part of science and not even a valid philosophical position--that still has no affect on the fact that Darwin thought so.Ben Z
October 18, 2006
October
10
Oct
18
18
2006
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply