The first time that Roger and I had a debate about the acceptance of ecology as part of the Darwinian framework was in 2009, near the beginning of this forum. Much more recently, Roger was kind enough to send me a copy of his book, in which I read that Richard Dawkins rejects any notion of ecological influence on natural selection. I posted a list of quotes and references, wherein Dawkins clearly acknowledged the importance of ecology in Darwinian natural selection. And yet here we are. Needless to say, I am not optimistic about the possibility of a resolution of this issue from this (endless) conversation.
4 Likes
I’ve been here since the beginning and I share your lack of optimism. Lou Jost and I used to quote Dawkins to him, to no avail. I realized that further communication would be futile.
1 Like
Roger, don’t get discouraged. I know you put a lot of work and thought into your books.
I referenced the book, The Gaia Hypothesis by Michael Ruse, where he documented the difference between James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis and Richard Dawkins concerning ecology. I do not think he invented this out of thin air.
It was supporters of Dawkins who brought to my attention that his friends called a conference in Europe to denounce Niche Creation Theory, after I supported it on BioLogos. Dawkins supported this tactic.
It is Dawkins and Dennett who denounced Wilson’s concept of the Social Conquest of the Earth, which is based on ecological selection.
In my book I carefully laid out Darwin’s understanding of Natural Selection, based on the ideas of Thomas Malthus. Then I laid out another point of view based on ecology which as a discipline did not come into its own until the writings James Lovelock. The problem is that both cannot be true.
Dawkins believes that Darwin’s view is right, because this view support his Selfish Gene. If Darwin’s view is wrong and the ecological view is right, then the Selfish Gene is wrong and Christian view based on the Logos is most likely true. This is my point of view.
Whether Darwin believed in ecological Natural Selection or not, Whether Dawkins believes in ecological Natural Selection or not is not the point, although I do believe in historical accuracy. The point is that if ecological Natural Selection is true, then Darwinian Survival of the Fittest and Dawkins’ Selfish Gene are false.
Therefore it is clear that was ecological influence gains in evolutionary theory, neoDarwinian recedes, which is the topic of this discussion.
I’m just writing out of frustration here, but this would have been good to know before engaging in what turned out to be incoherent discussion involving the assertion of several outright falsehoods. A long browse through the writings of @Relates on this forum does reveal the pattern, and now I wish I had paid more attention to the fact that no one else was correcting his errors. I dunno, might there be a way to help newbies like me to avoid a rabbit hole like this? Even as I type those words, I realize it was my mistake, and yet if I ran a forum like this I would be concerned about the influence of this kind of writing on the conversation.
One thing I really like about the forum is that there are knowledgeable scientists here, who show great generosity toward laypeople and those confused by pseudoscience. I admire this work, and want to emulate it myself. To patiently answer the same basic questions over and over again, even when the answers are easily discoverable? That’s worthy of honor. To sit quietly while falsehoods are advanced as facts, year after year? That’s not.
I am sure I will hear that people have tried repeatedly. But that’s not what happened in this thread, and it’s not what happens in general. Please give that some thought. Thanks.
I often pm people when I see them spinning their wheels.
1 Like
I understand your frustration, Stephen, and I might have intervened earlier, but I am not logging into this forum as often as I used to, and so missed the earlier posts.
I will say (and this is for you, @Relates) that I believe Roger started out with a very good idea, one that I only fully appreciated years after I first read it from him. A great deal of the new EES (but far from all of it) is based on ecological interactions that go heyond the classical sense of the environment’s role in natural selection. Some time ago, I even complimented Roger here on his early perception of this truth, and confessed my own error of ignoring some of it.
But, Roger, when you say[quote=“Relates, post:64, topic:34877”]
The point is that if ecological Natural Selection is true, then Darwinian Survival of the Fittest and Dawkins’ Selfish Gene are false.
[/quote]
you are making a fundamental error in the interpretation of scientific theory. The either/or scenario for truth rarely applies to scientific issues (just as rarely as it does to theological ones). In this case, the reality is that all of those ideas are true to some extent, and it serves no purpose at all to declare any of them to be false. Phlogiston is false, the ether is false, and a flat earth is false. There are a few others, but certainly survival of the fittest and the selfish gene are not among them.
4 Likes
Sy,
Thank you for admitting that my ideas reflect new scientific thinking and this thinking goes beyond traditional evolutionary science. Science is changing as it should. The old is giving away to new as it should, because that is the way that science works. Now what we are talking about is the philosophy of science
I hear what you are saying and the answer is yes and no. For example we know that birds descended from dinosaurs. That means that once there were dinosaurs with some characteristics of birds and now there are birds have many characteristics of dinosaurs. However once the transition has been made, birds are birds and dinosaurs are dinosaurs. They are related, but they are either/or, not both/and.
The examples that you cited of either/or, ether, phlogiston, flat earth, as well as a earth-centric universe, an eternal universe, 6 day creation are questions of models of how we view and understand the universe. These are either right or wrong. That would include Newton’s model of gravity. Evolution is one of these which is why it is so controversial.
When Dawkins says that DNA is The Source of evolution that is a falsifiable statement, and it is false. Of course DNA plays a role, but more passive than active as ecology indicates. The Darwinian model of Natural Selection is basically different from ecology as I laid out in my book. Dawkins seems to understand that because he has opposed the ecological point of view.
“We must have no truck with the pop ecologist fallacy, the holisty (sic) holy grail of individuals striving for the good of the community, the ecosystem, ‘Gaia.’” Dawkins, Mt. Improbable, p. 268
So we have two competing models of life. Life is war (Darwin) where conflict ends up as goodness or life is evil. Take your pick. Darwin already had a model of a system, which is similar, that of Adam Smith, which sees that selfish actions result in good economics. We can see the results in the USA when greed of banks and others resulted in the economic meltdown of 2008.
A model is right or wrong, accurate or false. Details might be unclear, but the model is definitive. Again I outlined this in my book. I understand that scientists are not accustomed to think like this, but there is always room for growth. The status quo is not sacra sanct.
In terms of theology, God is real or God is not real, Jesus is the Messiah or Jesus is not the Messiah. God is Trinity or God is not Trinity. Jesus is the Logos or Jesus is not the Logos. Creation has a Beginning or Creation is eternal. Jesus Christ rose from the dead. All these theological views are falsifiable. They are or they are not.
Science to be science must be falsifiable.
That part is accurate, and for good reason.
1 Like
What is the good reason?
Hello Roger,
How about if instead of apologizing, you simply stop doing it?
4 Likes
I would be willing to do so if you and others would clearly separate yourselves for the views of Dawkins.
If you do not want to be considered a member of the Dawkins camp, then just say how you disagree with him.
Yep. At the sound of a gong, everybody is by default pro-Dawkins unless they visit this site and proclaim otherwise. Sounds like a plan.
3 Likes
Could we instead get Dawkins to state how he disagrees with each of us? That would save me the trouble of learning what he thinks about, well, anything.
4 Likes
I was going to ask if the people who regularly talk about The Selfish Gene would be interested in actually reading and discussing the book. But maybe that would deprive everyone of a favorite voodoo doll.
1 Like
You’re directly contradicting your “apology,” Roger.
2 Likes
Roger
I cannot find my copy of Climbing Mt. Probable, but I do have The Ancestors Tale handy. (I refuse to lend it out). There are plenty of references to ecological aspects of evolution. In the chapter on Coral Reefs there are quite a few. Here is one (page 474) about the relationship of cleaner fish to their larger dangerous “clients”
“On tropical coral reefs, the almost fantastical levels of cooperation achieved between cleaner fish and client is symbolic of the way an ecological community can sometimes simulate the intricate harmony of a single organism…herbivores depend on plants, carnivores depend on herbivores. Without predation, population sized would spin out of control…Without a particular “keystone” species…the whole community would collapse”
So, that is Richard Dawkins writing about evolution and ecology. I am curious about the passage you mention in the other book, so, if you could type out the offending words (either here or in a message to me) perhaps we can lay this matter to rest.
@Sy_Garte
One of the advantages of BioLogos is that old blogs never die. I have found the response to me that you refer to and it is above.
As you can see the list of quotes and references was really one and you never responded to my quote even though you had it in my book. It is also below.
There is a problem however in that there is no re4ference in the single quote to Natural Selection. Instead he says that “an ecological community can simulate the intricate harmony of a single organism.” whatever that means. The he adds comments on predation. This might be a form of ecology, but it has little to do with Natural; Selection and his Selfish Gene.
Niche Creation Theory clearly states that ecology determines Natural Selection and he has opposed this. Where so you stand on this concept?
Where I stand, quite frankly, is that I have no idea what you are talking about. I mean that. As I stated in the comment you found, I listed one of several such comments about ecology from the book, for the sake of brevity. I am at a loss as to why you dont know what that quote means. I dont know how you came to the conclusion that Dawkins “opposes” ecology as fundamental to natural selection, and quite frankly, at this point, I dont want to know. I AM DONE.
3 Likes
And another victim struggles free from Rancho La Brea Tar Pits! Will he be tempted back in? Stay tuned.
3 Likes
Well, there’s been one good outcome from my brush with fossilization in the tar pit: I wandered into the Harvard Coop and bought the 2016 edition of The Selfish Gene, which includes a large appendix of notes on particular passages in the 1976 book. There are a handful of corrections, and lots of explanations that are entertaining and enlightening. I still think The Extended Phenotype is richer scientifically (I wrote about it almost a decade ago), but there’s no doubt that The Selfish Gene was a game-changer. I am now wondering if I will be able to coax a few fellow nerds into a little book clatch to read one or the other. I’m very silly, I know.
1 Like