@benkirk @Eddie So now that you both have had you chance to point out how the other person doesn’t know how to debate and makes absolutely no sense, maybe you could both move away from the totally unproductive personal sniping and griping.
Just wanted to clarify your post, @Lynn_Munter…
The words you quoted are from @Relates… but you addressed your post to @gbrooks9.
For what it’s worth, I think your attempt to understand Roger’s viewpoint is worth a post or two…
No you are not wrong in the broad sense, but I would not put it that way.
I am critical about Darwin’s concept of Natural Selection, also de4fined as Survival of the Fittest, because it has never been scientifically verified. It is based on constant conflict or war between organisms which isw false and counter to the fact that all things were created through the Logos/Jesus Christ, Who was not an advocate for war.
I would not equate the ecology with Nature. It is part of Nature, but it is not Nature. Nature is not a scientific term, while ecology is. Ecology works by symbiosis, while survival of the fittest works by competition. Ecology is established science, while Darwinian survival of the fittest is not.
I really do not think that we need new terms to communicate to “the masses.” Indeed I think most people even young people understand the role of ecology in evolution. The problem is with scientists like Dawkins, Dennett, and others who are do bound to defend Darwin against all comers, that they defend the indefensible, because their goal is to defend their brand of evolution, not to improve on it.
Now if you think that organisms can pick and chose how to survive, I think that you are mistaken. If you have any non-ecological examples of Natural Selection, please share them.
Biology has exhaustively verified Darwin’s natural selection for the past century plus. It is not based on constant war between organisms, however! There are many different avenues through which it works, and war is comparatively rare.
Nature can indeed be a scientific term, and that is how Darwin used it. I am unconvinced that your use of the word Ecology agrees with everyone else’s, however, and I strongly reject your distinction between symbiosis and competition as completely separate (‘competing,’ if you will) mechanisms. Organisms in symbiotic relationships can be and often are ‘fitter,’ and therefore natural selection applies to them. This was not news to Darwin.
I am glad you agree that we don’t need to invent new terms! I was mildly surprised to discover, while checking definitions on Wikipedia, that ‘ecological selection’ is actually a term that is often used to refer to “natural selection minus sexual selection.” I.e. there is no distinction as it is used between symbiotic or competitive traits.
Well, obviously if an organism chooses to join, remain with, or leave a group, that can have a large impact on their survival. But I believe your point is that deliberate choices are the exception rather than the rule in evolution. The word ‘strategy’ is often used in biology to mean ‘a method or consistent course of action’ without necessarily implying thought. Nevertheless if it causes confusion I will avoid using it in this context.
I’m unsure what you mean by non-ecological examples of natural selection. By the accepted definition above, any and all sexual selection would count.
My point, however, was that the two ‘categories’ are too overlapped for any of the definitional hairsplitting you have been promoting, so I would say the onus is on you to provide examples of ‘ecology’ which do not fall under natural selection.
Sorry for the confusion! I think I’ve got the hang of it now.
Thanks!
@Lynn_Munter, thank you for your response.
Yes, Natural Selection happens, but the real question is how? Darwin based his theory on Malthus who wrote that population change took place through continual struggle for limited resources. That is a fact,and it is also a fact that this mechanism has not been verified.
The conflict between predator and prey is the only clear example that Dawkins gives and it is wrong because predator and presy are not in competition for the same resources.
Ecology says that Natural Selection happens because some alleles are better adapted their environment then other alleles. Even if there is no population presure, God created flora and fauna to continually produce Variations. It is the ability of these Variations to adapt to their environments which determines evolutionary change.
Now part of the problem has been that I am basing my view of what is the neoDarwinian standard of Evolutionary theory on the writings of Richard Dawkins. Why? Because that is what he claims to represent. Also I really do not see anyone contradicting his claim.
If some scientists disagree with Darwin and Dawkins, they need to demonstrate how Natural Selection can be different for different species. E. O. Wilson in his recent book, The Social Conquest of the Earth" says that it is social creatures who work together and not compete against each other who are selected to flourish. I agree. Dawkins does not. Symbiotic mutuality is the basis of evolutionary change, not Darwinian conflict.
Michael Ruse wrote a book, The Gaia Hypothesis, about the conflict between Dawkins and James Lovelock/ Lynn Margulis representing ecology. He seems to think that Dawkins get the better of the argument. If one does not take the Gaia Hypothesis too literally, I don’t think so, but Dawkins does seem to have the upper hand now, which I what I am saying.
Dr. Frank Perry criticized the Darwinian neglect of ecology with his book, Darwin’s Blind Spot, in 2002. It seems to me that they have changes some of the wording to pay lip service to ecology as well they should, but not their basic way of their their basic model of how evolution actually works.
Piece meal change does not work in nature or science. We need a “Scientific Revolution” is the understanding of evolution, which is never simple or easy as Thomas S. Kuhn documented.
Until we do that we will still have a theory that really does not explain how and why life forms actually change. We will have a crippled science that creates confusion as well as some order. Science is at its weakest when it claims to have solved all the problems.
This is the actual existing definition of how natural selection works. Dawkins suffers from unfortunate attitude problems and I have not read his work; if you are looking for an overview of the current understanding of the matter, might I suggest the Wikipedia entry on Natural Selection? It enumerates a lot of different ways natural selection can work.
Although it may be true that symbiotic relationships could be studied or talked about more in the context of evolution, this does not amount to needing a ‘revolution’ in our understanding of natural selection. The basic model is sound, piece-meal change does work, and the theory really does explain how and why life forms actually change.
That said, I appreciate your detailed response, including the books you are forming your conclusions based on, and the thoughtful discussion!
Thank you for this suggestion to check out the Wiki, which I did. The first thing I noticed was there was a definite change in the article on NS from when I checked it out in 2010 In 2010 the language about ecology and the environment ware not there, and now they are.
I am glad the Wiki recognizes this reality, but it points to the fact that this is a change in evolutionary thinking which has taken place since I have been talking about it. Still Dawkins has not changed his views.
Richard Dawkins has more than an attitude problem, He has a scientific problem with his Selfish Gene, and to overlook or deny that he has a strong following in the scientific community is a serious mistake.
Also in the Wiki Article about Symbiosis I found this information.
_While historically, symbiosis has received less attention than other interactions such as predation or competition,[37] it is increasingly recognized as an important selective force behind evolution,[12][38] with many species having a long history of interdependent co-evolution.[39] In fact, the evolution of all eukaryotes (plants, animals, fungi, and protists) is believed under the endosymbiotic theory to have resulted from a symbiosis between various sorts of bacteria.[12][40][41] This theory is supported by certain organelles dividing independently of the cell, and the observation that some organelles seem to have their own nucleic acid.[42]_
This is the point that I made about symbiosis. Symbiosis is not just an important selective force behind Natural Selection, it is the force between Natural Selection. We know that predation mentioned as another force is actually a form of bio symbiosis. Predation benefits both the predator species and prey species.
The lion does not compete with the zebra for grass to eat. The zebras benefit from the culling of the herd. Both benefit when there is plenty of rain and grass for the zebras which means there is enough food for all without overgrazing.
Humans are also predators and because of this millions of cattle have a comfortable life. This is also symbiosis.
The basic model is changing because the old form was not correct. When the change or revolution is complete we will have a much better science which will satisfy those who objected on moral grounds and might reorient those who used survival of the fittest to justify selfish motives.
How did you get into this rut that things are sooooo Black and White ?
The relationship between Predator and Pray is not a fallacious one… even if they are not in competition for the same resources. We should be able to grant to you that the Predator/Prey relationship might not be the controlling factor. But it is certainly a factor in Natural Selection.
As to how Natural Selection works… what a very odd thing to say…
I’m glad you found the Wiki valuable! We are all works in progress. 
I found this quote regarding The Selfish Gene: “In the foreword to the book’s 30th-anniversary edition, Dawkins said he “can readily see that [the book’s title] might give an inadequate impression of its contents” and in retrospect thinks he should have taken Tom Maschler’s advice and called the book The Immortal Gene.”
My opinion on it, such as it is, is that it’s an interesting idea, there’s probably something to it, and it suffers the same problem as when I used the word ‘strategy’ earlier, in that it implies motive and thought that do not exist in the simple processes being described. This is ridiculously common in biology; for some reason we all talk about biochemistry as though molecules ‘want’ to do things. I put it down to a quirk of human language and not a fundamental flaw of science.
Really not sure either of the point you are trying to make here or of how you arrived at it.
Of course not: the lion competes with the zebra for zebra to eat, vs. zebra with which to eat grass and make more zebras. Both species are improved by this competition.
I think if you stop thinking of ‘competition’ and ‘symbiosis’ as competitors and instead look at how they can be related symbiotically, with each concept expanding upon and improving our understanding of the other, it may prove illuminating!
1 Like
@Lynn_MunterI do not think of symbiosis and competition as competitors. I think of them as two alternative ways of being. like cooperation and conflict, love and hate.
Dawkins sees evolution similarly. He sees life as composed of selfish individuals .(Selfish Gene p.167) Ecology sees the organic world differently, as made up of interdependent organisms Evolutionary thought based on Darwin and Dawkins sees .life developing based on constant struggle or war between selfish individuals. Ecological thought based on Lovelock and Margulis sees life developing based on mutual desire for survival between individuals which instinctively know that cooperation is essential to survival and flourishing.
Ecology is right. Darwinian conflict is wrong.
@Relates
Ah, I see now! You are making a philosophical case, rather than a scientific one.
For what it’s worth, philosophically, I agree with you and encourage you to argue with Dawkins all you like.
Scientifically, however, both cooperation and competition exist in nature and are selected upon. They are both integral to evolution. An animal in one group may compete with others in the group for mates, and cooperate with them to compete with other groups of animals for food or territory, or to defend themselves from predators.
Science looks at the world as it is, and attempts to refrain from drawing broader conclusions than are warranted, or at least to not present such opinions as science. For the record I think Darwin did a much better job of this than Dawkins, but all of us fall somewhat short of this goal sometimes.
As a side note, I would be very cautious in saying any creature “instinctively knows” anything, since that phrase has been very prone to being overused erroneously. Animals may instinctively seek warmth, and they may know that a den will be warm, but instincts are not based on thought or experience, while knowledge is, so what exactly is defined as “instinctive knowledge?”
1 Like
Yes and No. I am seeking to make a scientific case, based on the science of ecology, however philosophy does inform my world view just as it informs the world views of Darwin and Dawkins. Darwin grew up in the world view of Adam Smith and this world view persists in the form of libertarianism. It is the world view of individualism and conflict. Dawkins revealed his basic stance when he proclaimed that Darwin made atheism intellectually respectable.
Human beings do not live in three separate worlds, the worlds of science, philosophy, and theology. We live in one world which is informed and shaped for better or for worse, by these three disciplines. Sadly it seems to me that Christians have left the field of philosophy to non-believers who have failed to develop a cogent philosophy for our day.
Scientifically, however, both cooperation and competition exist in nature and are selected upon. They are both integral to evolution. An animal in one group may compete with others in the group for mates, and cooperate with them to compete with other groups of animals for food or territory, or to defend themselves from predators.
My comment on this statement is that you have relegated conflict and struggle to a secondary role of sexual selection. Dawkins, following Hamilton, makes sexual selection the key as the selfish gene uses sex to keep its alleles in the family so to speak. This appeals to people based on the proverb, “blood is thicker than water,” which I think means that family ties (blood) are more important than religious ties (the water of baptism.)
E. O. Wilson has attacked the selfish gene individualist, conflict view by pointing to reality of The Social Conquest of the Earth. Sexual selection has more to do with Variation than Natural Selection. It opens the doors for the gre4aster mixing of genes as creatures move beyond family to find mates.
The conflict between lions for leadership of the pride is just that. It is for leadership of the social group which is the basis of its survival. The hunting is done by the females and is done cooperatively. The Lion provides cohesion and protection for the pride. Sexual privilege is part of the office and cohesion. Research has shown that the females often have sex with non alpha males in the bush.
There are sources of conflict in any system. God has set up ways to limit and handle this conflict do it does not destroy to community and can even enhance it. However it is NOT true that “all is fair in love or war.”
As I have said, there is only one way that nature selects in terms of evolution and that is adaption. If a organism is well adapted to its environment, it will survive and flourish. If it is not, it will stagnate and die out. Symbiosis is the standard for this process. Yes, bullies might seem to flourish for a while, but without strong social roots they will not last.
I maintain that science is not what scientists say it is, but what is scientifically verified. The strongest proponent of that view Karl Popper strongly maintained that Natural Selection as survival of the fittest or selection based on conflict was a tautology which was not verified. Even when he has forced to retreat from this position, Popper said that Survival of the Fittest was a HYPOTHESIS that had not been verified, rather than a theory which had been. I agree and observe that even with this time, it has net been verified. .
Dawkins tries to replace instincts with the concept of memes. Memes are extensions of genes, so they are not rational, able to think. Instincts are knowledge that takes place without thinking as people think.
However all organisms have some kind of nervous system. Plants instinctively seek light, water, and nutrients. Animals learn from others how to hunt and perform other important tasks through instinct and experience. Exactly how this works, we cannot say, except our ability to experience, learn, and think is not based on our genes, but on how ancestors, human and nonhuman. developed over the millennia.
Both Darwin and Dawkins chose to construct an evolutionary process that doers not depend on a rational plan or design. To some extent they fell for the false dichotomy that life is either totally determined or totally by chance. They were correct in saying that life is not totally determined. They are wrong in saying it is totally by chance.
Speaking of sexual selection I just came across an article in the Boston Globe, June 26, 2016 by a Washington Post writer, Sarah Kaplan entitled Gross. Beautiful. And essential to promoting biodiversity. The article tells how scientific studies tell how male crustaceans use bioluminescent vomit to attract females and promote diversity.
Wow… that’s gotta work … I find myself mysteriously drawing closer to crustaceans who vomit glowing sputum … it’s amazing…
Don’t even think about it. I’m likely to vomit right back.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.