We ECs are Christians after all, say Ken today

Faith & Science Conversation
122

I know what I have read. Sadly you have not yet provided your understanding of what Dawkins thinks.

I have no personal interest in saying that Dawkins does not understand and accept ecology and symbiosis, even though I know he has strongly attacked James Lovelock. My goal is to reconcile Darwinism and ecology, and if there were no barriers, such as Dawkins puts up, it would be much easier.

E. O. Wilson has abandoned the Selfish Gene for ecological evolution, which is super.
one of the founders of today’s ecology.

123

I just checked. The book doesn’t even contain the word symbiosis in the text. My reading of this portion of the text is it isn’t about symbiosis.

Count me as one earnest believer that agrees with you. :smile:

And yet a search of “The Selfish Gene” finds this:

So yes he does understand symbiosis and if you had only read the book you would know this.

3 Likes
124

My twisted Christian mind is prone to agree with you. :wink:

Proverbs 18:13 (NLT) says, “Spouting off before listening to the facts is both shameful and foolish”

Or as my dad used to say, ‘better to stay silent and look like a fool, than to open your mouth and removal all doubt.’

1 Like
125

Your father was Mark Twain???:wink:

One of my favorite quotes also, and usually very true!

4 Likes
126

:rofl: I had no idea that was a Mark Twain quote - I am guessing neither did my dad.

Agreed, a great observation.

1 Like
127

Well, it probably isn’t, but it is attributed to him. It is interesting how many attributed quotes really cannot be documented. But it sounds like something he would say. Just googling, it is also attributed to AbrahamLincoln, who also said, “Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
And is similar to Proverbs 17:38. Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

3 Likes
128

I would love to see his blog page!

3 Likes
129

My reading of the4 text is that it is about symbiosis. The word doe not have to be in the text to be the subject of the text esp. since this is a crucial concept in biology. Any text about biology would be remiss if it did not discuss symbiosis.

The text says that grass benefits grazers and grazers benefit grass therefore it is about
symbiosis or mutual benefits between grass and grazers Still Dawkins does not want to say that grass benefits from grazing, even though he says that it does, because “if the individual grass plant can get away with not being grazed itself so much the better.”

Dawkins for reasons of his own refuses to place the needs of the community above those of the individual. Therefore he finds the basis for evolution in the individual “selfish gene” who does not want to suffer, rather than the well being the species.

What I read is that Dawkins takes this textbook definition then uses his own logis as above to explain it away. His view is expressed in the title of this chapter, “You Scratch My Back, I Ride Yours.” What he is saying is that mutual benefit is a myth, that the good of the species or the ecosystem is false. All there is the Selfish Gene that seeks an asymmetrical benefit to benefit itself alone. How there can be any relationships in this kind of “system?”

"In general associations of mutual benefits will evolve if each partner can get out more than he put in. " pp. 182-83. Who says this is true? Where is the experimental evidence? He does not provide any. His defense of the Selfish Gene is based on pure speculation and thin air.

Who says that life forms “overproduce” young when fruit, seeds, calves, and eggs provide the food that maintains the balance of nature? It is a problem that corn plant produces grain that provides many meals for me or animals or alcohol. I know we have been taught to think that there is something strange about the fact that trees produce many seeds, but this does not cause evolution.

130

At the risk of taking things out of context myself … I’m going to go out on a limb just based on that single sentence you quote and suggest that you may have misunderstood it (and perhaps quite badly if I’m right).

When I first read those words, it sounded like heavily one-sided opportunism of the sort that gets our ‘fairness hackles’ up. (As in if you take just a little from me … watch me take a whole lot from you!) Am I correct that you took his words exactly this way?

Now give them a second consideration (as I did) … What do birds do on a hippo’s back - and does the hippo benefit? Quite a bit, actually. Birds or other critters get the free ride, but the hippo gets the free back scratch and a few of those pesky flies and such get eaten. Not a bad deal for either one. Symbiosis. And straight from your own quote mining of Dawkins, no less!

3 Likes
131

Your persistent tortured misrepresentation of Dawkins is disgraceful. And it raises the reasonable question of why your claims, and presumably your book, require these mountains of falsehood.

1 Like
132

Funny, but this doesn’t sound like he is explaining it away.

But I am sure you will disagree with this.

2 Likes
133

@sfmatheson, @Bill_II

[quote="Mervin_Bitikofer, post:130, topic:41292,

quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:130, topic:41292”]
I’m going to go out on a limb just based on that single sentence you quote
[/quote]

Yes, you are going out on a limb and sadly that limb is very weak, so it does not need to be sawed off. It falls of its own weight. I must admit that the same thing occurred to me. However I checked it out and this sentence, which is the title of a chapter, does not apply to the bird and the rhino, although maybe Dawkins wants us to think it does.

First of all, I scratch your back, you scratch mine, is a simple transaction and that is the way Dawkins treats it. But, does the bird scratch the rhino’s back? (yes) and does the rhino scratch the bird’s back? (I hope not.) No! The bird grooms the rhino and, I think, acts as another pair of eyes for the poorly visioned behemoth, while the rhino provides the bird with protection from predators and food that its hooves uncover. This is symbiosis, both sides are in a mutually beneficial relationship, not a transaction that can be mutually beneficial.

To clarify Dawkins used a thought experiment demonstrates how he thinks symbiosis works. He posits three survival strategies that genes use to deal with mutual grooming. The first is the “Sucker” (sic) which is the altruistic approach, that is “Christian” approach, where the life form grooms others regardless as to whether it receives grooming in return. The second is the “Cheat,” which never grooms anyone in return. This is the pair that is involved in the I (Sucker) scratch your back, you (Cheat) ride my back, that is take advantage of me.

A third approach Dawkins calls the “Grudge” who willingly grooms others, but not if they fail to return the benefit. This would seem to be the preferred approach, but Dawkins says they are all acceptable. The Cheat will thrive if there are enough Suckers to support him as we can see in the world today. pp. 184-86.

The fact is the sucker, cheat, grudge behavior does not apply to evolution and ecology, but to human behavior. Symbiosis is not transactional. It is a relationship.

The rhino is neither a sucker, a cheat, nor a grudge and the same with the bird. The same with all the symbiotic relationships in the world. Humans have a symbiotic relationship chickens, cattle, dogs, and cats. We do not have transactional relationships with them, we have a symbiotic relationship.

134

Well that way of characterizing the three relationships relies on human concepts in terms of intent, but the question should be are they descriptive of the actual behaviors we observe. I think they are descriptive even though the non-human cheat has no malevolent intent and the sucker hasn’t failed to do his due diligence.

135

Are we reading the same book? There is no mention of rhinos or birds so where did you read that?

That wasn’t a thought experiment on symbiosis. He was discussing “An evolutionarily stable strategy or ESS”. Which was mentioned a total of 54 times in the book, but I guess you missed it.

And yet he says

2 Likes
136

@Bill_II,
Mervin and I, as well as Dawkins, are very aware that the rhino and the tickbird are a well known example of symbiosis, because the little bird grooms the rhino and the rhino protects the bird and allows it to ride on its back.

As has been pointed out before Dawkins talks about symbiosis in this chapter, pp. 181-82, but then he changes gear because “we have eschewed the ‘good of the species’ view of evolution.” for the Selfish Gene centered view. He does not indicate why symbiosis is not important to Natural Selection, he asserts it.

From there he moves to talk about grooming and his theory of ESS and Suckers, Cheats, and Grudges. The implication of the title of the chapter is either the tickbird is a cheat who rides the back of the rhino, or the rhino is a cheat who takes advantage of the tickbird and symbiosis is not really a factor in evolution.

“A kind of relationship of mutual altruism could be said to exist between ants and fungi.” Selfish Gene p. 180

Many things can be said, but them does not make them accurate. This statement is part of the description of how ants farmed fungi. Like all cultivation, the ants cultivates and protected the fungi and enjoyed the return of their labors. This is a good example of symbiosis, although Dawkins does not recognize it as such.

He calls it mutual altruism. He defines altruism as helping others even if one does not benefit from this transaction. Since both sides admittedly benefit from the relationship although in different ways, altruism is a label that does not fit. Especially when it is clear that neither the ants nor the fungi have a choice in the matter. It is a mutual relationship or symbiosis, pure and simple.

@MarkD, Nature works by symbiosis, not by transactions between individuals. The Selfish Gene does not exist. Individuals act morally or immorally. Species interact to adapt to the environment. .

137

Well not “self gene” perhaps but do you agree that “self” exists? I think it refers to the thing that is said to have “free will”, the existence of which many atheists (but not this one) question.

138

I hope readers already suspect that this, like essentially everything you write about Dawkins, is false. All anyone needs to do is read the very next page in the book where Dawkins defines the “mutual altruism” of the ant-fungus relationship as symbiosis. But as I’ve mentioned before, even without reading Dawkins (which it does not appear that Roger is willing to do), a thoughtful person should have been deeply skeptical that a biologist famous for his writing on evolution would somehow be unaware of the meaning of the word ‘symbiosis.’

Adding more falsehood to a mountain of falsehood does not make the mountain smaller. Is it not possible to advance ideas, even speculative or fringe ideas, without using strawmen that reveal comical misrepresentation and call basic principles of integrity into question? I just don’t understand.

2 Likes
139

I wonder what Ken Ham thinks happened to an ant on a rock crushed by an elephant’s foot during the period he thinks death did not exist.

3 Likes
140

I would guess (but don’t know) that he either believes that ants are not “life” per se and therefore could not be killed, or that they miraculously avoided being stepped upon. Maybe rocks in paradise were merely pillows until after the fall, when the physical laws of the universe changed madly following the apple biting incident.

1 Like
141

Perhaps the Saturday morning cartoons of the 1960s are the model.

For example, Wile E. Coyote would just bounce back in shape after being flattened against a rock or the road or a moving truck.

1 Like