You still do not understand what I am saying. Just as Variation equals genetics, so does Natural Selection equals ecology.
When you wrote about all the things that went into Natural Selection, they all were aspects of ecology.
Correct, because part 6 doesnât exist yet. Itâs just saying that this is the last post currently published in the series. Sorry that this was confusing.
I do not accept your assessment.
Natural Selection is the intersection of genetics and ecology.
Why do I say this? Because it is the ecological vectors that determine which genetic factors are extinguished, and which genetic factors comparatively prosper!
This terminology you are playing with is not in a one-to-one relationship âŚ
Ecology is, shall we say, âexternalâ ⌠and Genetics is, shall we say, âInternalâ.
You gotta have a concept/vocabulary that treats the intersection of these two spheres of operation âŚ
Does it bother anyone else that the word âecologyâ is used for the word âenvironmentâ on this site all the time? Maybe things have changed, but I was taught ecology means âstudy of the environmentâ and is something people do. I know, common usage changes definitions. I still smile and say âYes, you certainly areâ when a patient states that they âare nauseous.â Oh well, back to the regular programming.
Yes, it bothers me too. But Roger is rather insistent with the use of the term. If you donât use the term, he thinks you donât get his deep and nuanced meanings.
I found using the term - - even perhaps awkwardly? - - saves a good deal of time âŚ
As it stands, even using the word Ecology doesnât resolve all the dancing around âŚ
@gbrooks9
I*n my view Evolution is the combination of genetics and ecology. Evolution as Darwin saw it took place when Variation took place and Natural Selection caused it to survive and prosper or select5ed it in. As I see it evolution takes place when genetic change takes place and ecology selects it in by causing it to survive and prosper.
James some one raised that question before. I checked it out and the dictionary said that âecologyâ can be used both ways. Ecology is a shorter wor5d than environment and I think is a more inclusive concept. It is also more âscientific.â
Do you understand what I am saying when I say that the ecology acts as Natural Selection?
Me:Note that scientific organizations do take positions on political matters, so Iâm not saying that scientific organizations donât take any positions at all.
No, it doesnât at all, because ID isnât scienceâitâs politics masquerading as science.
If you disagree, Eddie, it should be trivially easy to state an ID hypothesis and the empirical predictions it makes. You know there isnât anything of the sort from the political ID movement.
Thatâs why it is denounced by scientific societies. Remember, even Behe admitted that ID is more like astrology than science.
Behe (under oath) disagrees with you:
Q And in the second whereas clause it [the American Academy of Scientists â American Association of Scientists statement] says, âThe ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution.â And âThe ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims. Therefore be it resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called intelligent design theory makes it improper to include as a part of science education.â Thatâs the associationâs position, correct?
Behe: Thatâs what it says. And if I might comment, this is a political document.
1 Like
Ecology deals with the integration of systems on the planet, so it includes environmental studies, carbon cycle, atmospheric, oceanic and ground chemistry, and the way forests, animals, wet areas, etc., impact on the bio-sphere called planet earth. The dictionary states:
ecology: the branch of biology concerned with the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings.
This is an area which has begun to be considered by the various disciplines of the physical and biological sciences, and we know very little, and unfortunately, what we do know seems to be from the destruction of various species and their immediate environment.
Hereâs what Behe said:
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that â which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other â many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, thatâs correctâŚ
Note Beheâs use of the present tense.
[quote=âJon_Garvey, post:53, topic:5596â]
You have only to read my post of 11 days ago to see that I presented a philosophical distinction to Sy, in the context of theology, related to BioLogos Evolutionary Creation. Since I did not mention or reference Intelligent Design at all, you should easily be able to reason your way to the answer to your own question.[/quote]
I donât think itâs necessary to read everything you write, and even in that context, your writing was unclear. A simple answer would have sufficed.
[quote]âŚBut just as that does not preclude science from using its philosophical assumptions to identify what is within in its remit (for example, ânaturalâ, âefficient causesâ), so design can well become a suitable subject for empirical scientific study, in principle.
[/quote]I agree completely! Why doesnât anyone in the ID movement do an empirical test of an ID hypothesis? Why is it all rhetoric?
No. But you ought to read the bits from which your comments arise.
As for my clarity, Iâve been around long enough to know that most readers have no comprehension problems with it.
Iâm starting to wonder if Behe is a more legitimate representative of a speculative branch of BioLogos than a true representative of virtually the rest of I.D.
One more time. Variation plus Natural Selection equals Evolution according to Charles Darwin.
Variation as changes in DNA plus Natural Selection by the Ecology equals Evolution according to the new Theory of Evolution.
@Eddie, Well, obviously, if a person decides to reject BioLogos positions, thereâs not much sense in trying to define such a person as âa branch of the BioLogos treeâ. So I will resist saying he is or isnât until I have obtain more relevant information.
I will agree with your statement that they Behe and BioLogos are branches âofâ the same tree. No quibble there.
But I do return to the theme I launched above:
If someone promotes Intelligent Design, but refuses to take a position on who the Designer is, or how long it took the Designer to create humanity, I see no compelling reason for BioLogos to take any kind of stance regarding that person.
Such vagueness is intentionally political, rather than sincerely scientific. Assuming we agree that Behe is suitably specific with his position on Intelligent Design - - who is left in the I.D. world who is also so specific?
1 Like