Very well - it is false to suggest that I, or any sane person, would suggest the is “a lack of math in evolut…” It is ludicrous to think any discipline of natural science does not use maths - thus I repudiate such nonsense attributed to me, and I am currently discussing some maths suggested to me on an area of evolutionary biology.
[edited by moderator]
Hi Lynn, not sure what your point is. Is it the “there’s no ideology in Mayr” position? There’s no ideology promoted by evolutionary biologists … ever - they just do science neutrally, wink, nudge, etc.? I’ve already cited Dennis Alexander’s work here at BioLogos showing that is untrue. So, please clarify your main point.
Thanks, Al-Khalil
I would not say that. Dawkins is a fine example of an evolutionary biologist promoting an ideology. (I’m not saying his ideology is fine…) But you seem to attribute objectionable ideology to Darwin personally and/or “Darwinists,” whatever that means. I was wondering if you cared to clarify, since as far as I’m aware, Darwin isn’t particularly known for promoting ideology over solid data and science.
I ran a quick search for any of your comments mentioning Dennis Alexander and didn’t find what you were referring to, would you mind pointing me there?
If you mean me, you’ve seriously misread my comments. “Darwinism” isn’t a term I use, and I generally don’t know what people mean by it.
And that would be different from my characterization of your comments as “the lack of math in evolutionary biology” in what way?
Here are two examples:
Question: why would you read and cite PoSc on these matters, instead of the primary evolutionary biology literature?
Creationists tend to turn conversations into “EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION!!11!” when they can no longer address the evidence. It’s a way of trying to smear the messenger so that people will ignore the message.
Evolution is no different than any other theory in science.[quote=“Al-Khalil, post:318, topic:35756”]
They don’t seem overly occupied with Darwin, though, and the term “Darwinist” doesn’t really seem to fit anyone here, except perhaps like one biologist above who seems to think “Darwinism” means simply “natural selection” & “common descent.” It will likely take biologists pushing back against each other, as some have done, and as the Third Way and Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is curiously starting to do, to get Darwinist ideology cleansed from their ranks.
[/quote]
The EES is nothing more than flashy salesmanship. When you look at the actual science of EES it falls apart pretty quick.
You have made mention, but I fail to see what the claimed ideologies are. What are they? What are these ideologies you keep speaking of?
So, then I’m glad we’re on the same page. I don’t generally use the term “Darwinism” either, unless I’m clearly dealing with a “Darwinist” who is trying to push it. It is a largely useless term nowadays, except for it has remained in the vocabularies of a significant # of the kinds of people BioLogos is catering to who continue to use it.
I’ll side with Sy_Garte on this one, and with some of the other biologists who are fascinated by what EES means for the field biology. A colleague and friend of mine is very upset about the 11 million, apparently being “wasted” on trying to extend the Modern Synthesis. But of course there are always backwards-looking people (historians) in any discipline or academic field, while people on the cutting edge explore new opportunities and ideas. Kevin Laland would handle your ‘concerns’ rather well, anonymous blogger @T_aquaticus, as would Dennis Noble, I assume. If anyone around here had heard of John Dupre, a little philosophy may help too. We’re simply not going backwards to the way it used to be anymore in biology, folks! We need some new language and let the biologists have their messy quarrel (but there is no quarrel, right? nobody is supposed to be quarreling, except for when they disagree, without consensus in the field). The 99% non-biologists will watch, many of us amused at the denials. Start another thread on EES if you like. It’s BioLogos that should be doing this if they had a wider view.
“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” - William Provine.
Dredge,
Provine went kinda nuts as the years passed. At least, someone who knows him well told me that. He had no qualms about inviting YECs to his classrooms and running them through the grill. Quoting him marginalises you with “those people” who choose a certain type of sparring partner.
You are aware of the great proportion of Catholic thinkers, including both scientists and humanists, who’ve come to peace with an ‘old’ Earth, right Dredge?
If you cut away the outliers on both sides, you’ll find a much more solid and coherent middle.
One would have to guess that a Catholic was largely consuming Protestant evangelical literature for them to somehow have come to the extreme conclusion that God couldn’t (read: wasn’t _______ enough to) have created using evolutionary and developmental processes.
You know literally every single BioLogos writer believes in miracles (beyond nature-alone), right? ; )
In any case, hope you saw my late note to you above.
Why?[quote=“Al-Khalil, post:331, topic:35756”]
Kevin Laland would handle your ‘concerns’ rather well, anonymous blogger @T_aquaticus, as would Dennis Noble, I assume.
[/quote]
Until they do so it is nothing more than a fantasy.
This is the salesmanship that I was talking about before. The EES crowd has not brought anything important to the table and they try to overplay their hand. It is all show and no substance. Even in your own posts you can’t present anything scientific that would overturn the current paradigm.
What is “Darwinism”, according to you?
Only one reason; he’ll snatch at any straw which he thinks might somehow unravel all the evidence for evolution. You’ll note he treats the EES pretty much like other anti-evolution Fundamentalists, and like them he doesn’t really understand it.
You will find this is a recurring characteristic of his posts, which is why he will write pages playing irrelevant word games, while staying away from the actual science. Ask a direct question about the science (as I did), and he falls silent.
I think this is an overstatement. There are elements to the proposed EES that are real and important for biology and evolution. For those elements, the only real controversy is whether labelling them as part of a new synthesis is anything more than marketing; if they change the evolutionary paradigm, then the change has already happened (and most researchers didn’t notice).
Other proposed components strike me as being quite variable in their importance. My off-the-cuff take on some of them . . .
Evo-devo: a major, important research program that’s already well-accepted and flourishing. Maybe it should be better incorporated into straight evolutionary theory – but lots of subfields would benefit from more communication with other subfields. (And of no relevance to most organisms, of course.)
Facilitated variation: really an application of some evo-devo-related ideas, and a useful heuristic way of thinking about possible evolutionary trajectories.
Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: real and unlikely to be of much evolutionary significance.
(Horizontal gene transfer, neutral theory: important extensions to the original synthesis, at least for subsets of organisms, but so well accepted and incorporated that they are not usually mentioned in EES discussions.)
Newman’s dynamical patterning stuff: intriguing possibility for early animal evolution, quite speculative and difficult to test.
Niche inheritance: makes me sleepy.
Epigenetic innovation: In the broad sense of phenotypic plasticity, real and important for facilitating evolution, but not very novel. In the narrow sense of an entire population changing phenotype because of environmental change, speculative and poorly supported.
I could easily be wrong about some of these ideas. That’s partly because none of them, even the ones I think are valid and important, have any discernible effect on the kind of studies I have worked on – and this despite the fact that quite of bit of my work has intersected with evolution in one way or another.
Some of what you list has been a part of the standard theory for decades now, such as Evo-Devo, facilitated variation, HGT and neutral theory, and Newman’s patterning. Even with Evo-Devo, that has been a part of biology since the 1960’s with the discovery of the lac operon. As far as epigenetic variation, it is extremely limited and is only inherited by a few generations which makes it a non-player in long term evolutionary lineages or in explaining the differences between species. Even with epigenetics it all still boils down to the DNA sequence. Which bases get methylated under which conditions is controlled by DNA sequence. What the effects of methylation are is also controlled by DNA sequence. The current theory handles all of those things just fine without needing to abandon anything, or extending anything.
Hence my comment about marketing.
I concur with glipsnort. There are many areas of work associated with EES that are interesting and certainly valid. These are not terribly controversial and are currently being studied as technology and modeling permits. Still, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. There are some good ideas and then there are some crank-like proposals (I’m looking at you, James Shapiro). Those individuals who promote EES do not hold to a single, monolithic opinion as to what it represents. Some believe it is a ‘revolutionary, paradigm busting, new approach that greatly departs from past theory’. Rather more think it’s useful to reframe views about various mechanisms and to try to approach research from a different or fresh angle. I’m more inclined to side with the latter over the former though I’m far from convinced about EES being a cohesive approach. To me, it’s a bit of a mishmash, but YMMV.
I am somewhat relived that the discussion is heated and vibrant. In science, that tends to be a healthy sign that ideas are being engaged and that something will likely fall out one way or the other. It would be helpful if participants had a broad understanding and historical appreciation of evolutionary theory. Often, scientists in a newer generation don’t quite know what’s gone before. Or, they come from other fields and are less familiar with the broader topic of evolutionary biology. For example, if one is primarily trained in developmental biology, they’ll have a lot of catching up to do in order to understand where things stand the context of evolutionary theories. Often, that ‘new thing’ you’ve discovered has already been considered. If you’re not familiar with the territory, you risk wasting effort like in the parable of blind men trying to understand an elephant.
Re: “Hype” – Related to salesmanship. I think EES is being badly and prematurely hyped. It is a means of gaining attention (and funding?) but excess hype muddies the actual issues. See, for example, how ‘epigenetics’ has been mangled and misappropriated in the popular press. It’s even been adopted by medical woo-meisters to promote highly questionable treatments. Currently, ‘epigenetics’ is taking the place of ‘quantum’ as a term that greatly misused and misunderstood in the public. Enthusiasm for, and public knowledge about the applicability of ‘EES’ is also outpacing the scientific debate. The history of science is littered with example of revolution-promising approaches that delivered far less than expected. So, I’m a bit less than sanguine about the EES being particularly novel. Most likely, evolutionary theory will continue to advance and someone will label it 'EES" after the fact.
Notice that the real scientists (those that do science for a living) here are only addressing EES. The so-called “Third Way” is so far into left field, I would categorize it as scientific “foul ground” – probably a few rows into the stands!
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.