I would think it is likely that some verse in Genesis suggests that this is so. If properly understood.
@sfmatheson, @Bill_II, @MarkD, @jstump, @Mervin_Bitikofer
The primary difference between my understanding of how evolution works and that of Richard Dawkins is that I maintain that evolution works through natural selection that acts based on ecological mutualism usually called symbiosis and he maintains that evolution works through a form of natural selection that acts based on a struggle for existence called the selfish gene or gene-centric evolutionâŚ
For some reason some people do not agree with this analysis and claim it is dishonest and a lie. If so I will contribute to that lie and dishonesty by quoting from Dawkinsâ book, The Selfish Gene, p. 2, where he wrote, âI think ânature red in tooth and clawâ sums up our modern understanding of natural selection admirably.â emphasis added. This is what he said. This is what he meant and I take him at his word.
I am not judging Dawkins because the Selfish Gene is somehow amoral or immoral. This is a discussion of science, not morality. The fact is Dawkins presents, as far as I am concerned, no scientific verification that his gene-centric understanding of natural selection and evolution is accurate.
As I have done previously, I am willing to listen to any evidence that might prove me wrong. Please spare the wild accusations.
I havenât seen anyone do that. The dishonesty is in your consistently false claims about what Dawkins says and what he knows. You now can choose whether or not to resolve to accurately represent Dawkins. I donât have any further response to you.
To other readers, I recommend Dawkinsâ writings on evolution very highly. His writing is beautiful, his passion is childlike and inspiring, his knowledge deep. He has a gift for explaining difficult scientific concepts. Some of his ideas are the subject of robust debate to this dayâthe gene-centric view of life and evolution is brilliant IMO but is challenged by legitimate scientific opponents. Some of his ideas have left lasting impressions in the scientific literature, most notably the concept of the extended phenotype. If you have to choose one book by Dawkins, read The Extended Phenotype. The Blind Watchmaker is a close second. These are classics of science writing, and you will learn a lot. One thing you will learn is that @Relates is not a good source of information about what Dawkins thinks and what he has written.
1 Like
My sister-in-law wanted to see the ark replica in Kentucky, so my wife and I took her.
The most surprising part of it for me was the variety of dinosaur replicas they had in cages in the ark.
1 Like
The fact is that Darwinism says that Natural Selection is based on a dog eat dog view of nature and this is his position too. All I have done is demonstrate that this understanding of Natural Selection is false. You might not like this, but it is not dishonest in any way, shape, or form.
I am glad that you admit that âthe gene-centric view of life and evolution ⌠is challenged by legitimate scientific opponents.â As I said you can add me to the list, except for some reason it seems that you do not consider me to be âlegitimate.â
It does seem that he is a good writer, but if what Dawkins is saying is false, then the books he wrote are not science, but science fiction. So the real question is, Is the gene-centric view valid or is the symbiotic/ecological view valid? I think that it can be shown clearly from The Selfish Gene that gene-centric view is false.
@Mervin_Bitikofer, @Bill_II, @MarkD, @jstump
On pp. 184- 188 of his chapter on Natural Selection Dawkins works out his Sucker, Cheat, Grudge model of ESS. The immediate problem is that his basic premise is that all individuals are driven by selfish genes so they cannot be suckers or even grudges, but are cheaters. He says that there is no way that cheats can be converted to suckers because cheats will always do better than suckers because cheats will always receive and never give, even as the population goes into extinction.
On the other hand Dawkins seems to say that symbiosis or mutualism is real as a practical reality, even though he has ruled it out theoretically. He says that the symbiotic relationship between some ants and fungi is a mutually altruistic relationship, or two suckers in relationship. This is contrary to all that the gene-centric understanding of evolution and life stands forâŚ
Symbiosis is the only possible real basis for natural selection and evolution because it provides a positive basis for this process.