Natural Selection

You should read the paper in Nature before you make your odd declarations - ~0.1% of proteins, and speculation about finding nutrients from inorganic sources(?). LUCA discussions have included a “bush”. a “forest” and the usual “tree of life”. Such discussions always commence with “the notion is correct” followed by “we lack data etc etc”. Other scientist simply declare our inability to provide scientifically robust arguments for this speculation.

The central concept of ecology is the interdependence that permeates the entire plant - if you and relates understood this, you would comprehend the differences between the impact of local habitats (environmental aspects) and the entire interdependence in the global ecology. A notion such as natural selection would be irrelevant - instead we would struggle with either (a) random without any particular end (irreproducible with staggering odds against life) or (b) an extension of the universal constants, the so called fine-tuning argument applied to the planetary system, to show the extreme improbability that life or LUCA could arise via any “random evolutionary” notion.

Trying to rescue these difficulties by saying, “Well God can do what I want to believe” brings little credit to any argument, and is very poor theology.

@GJDS

I’m not following you very well … did you just say that “a notion such as natural selection would be irrelevant…” !!!

How do you manage to arrive at that conclusion in any discussion of ecological factors? If the ecology is dry … natural selection favors organisms that can thrive with less water … If the ecology is WET … natural selection favors organisms that can thrive with LOTS of water …

It would seem that the one thing that cannot become irrelevant is natural selection.

As for the issue of what God can or can’t do … are you saying that you don’t think God can design chromosomes?

What do you suppose was going on with that RIB God removed from Adam ? …

My comment states the central issue re ecology is the vast interdependent system of this planet - I cannot see the point you want to make - dry areas may undergo change and this has been observed. For example, areas that experienced drought seem to be wastelands for years, but when rain comes, these are transformed into lush areas of vegetation, animals, fish in lakes, etc. This has been observed to occur over months, and does not require a selection of any sort.

When viewed on a planetary scale, as an interdependent system, our modelling would need a different approach to variation and NS. When you extend this to LUCA, the entire edifice of variation and NS crumbles, because we are left with options (a) or (b) in my previous post.

@GJDS, I find the topic of LUCA to be interesting. But I don’t find theorizing about LUCA to have much direct impact on the BioLogos position.

As to your re-statement about planetary Ecology … how do you get from there to your statement: “… our modelling would need a different approach to variation and N[atural] S[election].”

We have ALL sorts of tools for modeling different kinds of variation. And I’m sure the future decades will produce even more tools.

How this changes the ultimate biological “tyranny” (< my word!) of Natural Selection, I can’t even begin to see.

@Swamidass
With all due respect this not an argument about terminology, but a argument about the structure of evolution, which is essential in determining the proper methodology for the study and understanding of this process. I hop[e that you will agree that the proper methodology is essential for the study and understanding of science and any other discipline.

It is my understanding, following Darwin that evolution is composed of two separate processes, Variation, which is primarily genetic, and Natural Selection, which is not genetic. (Of course the mechanism of genes was adopted after the death of Darwin.)

This separation means that these two processes must be studied separately and not be confused. A very important for instance is that Variation is Random, while Natural Selection is Determinant. Those people who say that evolution is a random purposeless process do not understand how evolution works. They are partly right in that there is a random aspect to evolution, but they are mainly wrong because the outcome of evolution is determined by Natural Selection, which is determinate and purposeful.

I would not argue against evolution as solely as “common descent” as the Evansville U. course does. However this definition while it affirms the unity of evolution does not explain its diversity. Natural Selection does that and this is why it would seem that this course combines genetic Evolution as Variation, and Ecology as Natural Selection.

One cannot divorce Form, how we understand what is true, from Substance, the facts of reality. If we confuse Variation with Natural Selection so we do not understand the Form of Evolution, we do not understand the Substance of Evolution.

Dawkins and his Selfish Gene remain the public face of evolution today. It is also the basis for his New Atheism. I am sure that you so not agree with Dawkins’ views, but until some one explains to the public that the scientific understanding of evolution has repudiated much of Dawkins, how can we know this?

The tyranny of natural selection seems to me to be the endless repetition of this term - I have provided papers that have shown that when (I think the term is meta-analysis) a correlation is sought between NS and observables that are thought to illustrate or prove this as a “scientific law”, the correlation is weak, and no-where near that of, for example, gravity and observables related to that (e.g. falling objects). So treating such a concept as if it were the same as gravity is just plain wrong. Claiming that it must be a magical combination of variation and NS is equally wrong.

This has been discussed/debated, with references and different point of view, to the point that I find it tedious.

It is much much more complicated that this. Have you read this paper yet?

http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Both sides of the debate actually agree on the science. They are arguing about the terminology.

@GJDS

I’m not really clear on why you think SURVIVAL is irrelevant to changes in the underlying genetics of any population of organisms.

If you aren’t even a little bit impressed with the diversification of bird forms in the Galapagos Islands … or the dispersion of marsupials in Australia into all the niches that placental mammals disperse into in the rest of the world.

This is not a MAGICAL process… it’s all about SURVIVAL…

Dr. @Swamidass

Thank you very much for the link to that paper. It is very informative about the debate that is going on in the scientific community.

I disagree with you to some extent as to the meaning of this debate. It sounds to me that it is not a question of terminology, but a question of philosophy. I can see why you say that both sides agree on science, they agree on many of the facts involved, but they disagree on the way to interpret these facts. They disagree on the priority of genetics or ecology.

This is much more than terminology. This is how we understand the world that we live in. This is Dawkins and his Selfish Gene vs Margulis and Sagan and their Symbiotic Planet.

Now you might expect me to support the latter over the former, ecology over genetics, but the fact is that both are equally important. This is the genius of Darwin and his theory, which the neoDarwinists have lost,

The primary problem with genetics and ecology is that it goes against Western dualism which tells us that we need to decide between genetics OR ecology. Plus it means a whole new way of thinking for evolutionary biologists and a serious widening of the study of evolution beyond biology.

I have been trying to argue for Evolution as Variation (genetics) and Natural Selection (ecology) though my book, Darwin’s Myth and on the web. I hope that people get the message, because how we understand the world we live in is important to science, philosophy, and theology. It is important to human culture and civilization, so we need to move forward on this vital front, rather than spin our wheels with Western dualism. .

@Relates

Gee… I thought it was YOU who argued that we must decide between Genetics or Ecology …

You have an extraordinary capacity for obfuscation.

@GJDS

I think you must genuinely have my post confused with Roger. Have you read @Relates posts on the trinity and triune analysis?

And you say I am the obfuscator?

Delete post. Make new topic.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.