On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:26:11 -0800 (PST), Greg Billock wrote:
>>GB>I don't think we disagree about the severity (as you pointed out
>>>below); we disagree about the nature of it (so far as I can tell).
>SJ>Agree that we disagree. But that is different from your earlier
>>claim that I misunderstand.
GB>If I stop repeating myself, I've changed my mind?
That I misunderstand is one thing. That we disagree is quite another.
How about leaving it at that?
>SJ>happens in the future. If you are right that this is a normal,
>>vigorous, healthy debate like other scientific debates, then Gould
GB>I said very clearly that I thought the form this debate has taken is
>vigorous, but largely unproductive. It provides for some good excitement,
>though, and may have positive repurcussions.
Yes indeed. One obvious positive repercussion is that the public will
wake up that if two of the leading Darwinists in the world cannot
agree what Darwinism is, and can't even discuss it rationally, then
maybe it's time to let other voices such as Intelligent Design, be
heard.
>SJ>and Dawkins (or at least their followers) should eventually resolve
>>their differences. OTOH, if I am right, and this is a deep-seated
>>and irreconcilable rift caused by the failure of the
>>materialist-naturalist paradigm to cope with the evidence, then the
>>distance between the Gould and Dawkins' camps should not get smaller
>>and even get wider.
GB>The issue of 'selectionism vs. pluralism' will be resolved. The issue
>of which is most interesting, and the semantic fight about which group
>which thinks certain aspects are most interesting gets to call themselves
>'true Darwinists' will not be resolved. The issue of the unit of
>selection will be resolved. That seems to be less acrimonious, though.
What I find interesting for what is supposed to be a science is both
sides desperately trying to win the posthumous favour of Charles
Darwin! If they were *really* being scientific, they shouldn't care
less whether they are "true Darwinists". They sound just like a
religion, arguing over who is a truer follower of the Master!
Interestingly, Gould (who is usually one of the main offenders)
admits this:
"The irony of this situation is twofold. First, as illustrated by
the quotation above, Darwin himself strongly opposed the ultras of
his own day. (In one sense, this nicety of history should not be
relevant to modern concerns; maybe Darwin was overcautious, and
modern ultras therefore out-Darwin Darwin for good reason. But since
the modern ultras push their line with an almost theological fervor,
and since the views of founding fathers do matter in religion, though
supposedly not in science, Darwin's own fierce opposition does become
a factor in judgment.)" (Gould S.J., "Darwinian Fundamentalism", New
York Review of Books, June 12, 1997.
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?19970612 34F)
So what Gould seems to be saying here is that appealing to founding
fathers is valid in religion but not in science, but my opponents are
doing it (with "almost theological fervor"!), so I will too!
[...]
>SJ>No doubt there are egos involved, but it is unbelievable that this
>>is the sole explanation. The real explanation is the frustration
>>caused by the intractable problems in Neo-Darwinist theory itself in
>>failing to fit the facts, and yet being the only plausible
>>naturalistic theory. Darwinism is unique among scientific theories
>>in the length of time (over four generations) its core theory has
>>been under dispute, as Jaki points out:
GB>I've pointed out before which elements of Darwinian theory are no longer
>under dispute. Brief review: common ancestry, selection as key element
>for generating adaptation. These are the core elements of Darwin's thesis,
>and they have not been in dispute for decades. Common ancestry was not
>in dispute within a generation after _Origin_ was published.
It wasn't even in dispute *before* the origin was published:
"Indeed, by 1850, almost all researchers accepted common descent
(Gillespie, 1979; Desmond, 1989). The unique implication of
Darwin's theory was therefore not descent, but its suggestion that the
source of biotic order was to be found in the natural (material)
order." (Wilcox D.L., in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism:
Science or Philosophy?", 1994, p195)
The real issue since 1859 has been "selection as key element
for generating adaptation". That it has not been resolved after
nearly 140 years is highly significant. One would have thought
that the core mechanism in Darwinist macroevolutionary theory
should have been resolved by now - if it was true.
>SJ>"He [Darwin] recognized, however, that there was something
>>unsatisfactory with the "how" he held high, or the selective impact
>>of environment on the fact that offspring were always, however
>>slightly, different from their parents. That "how," supported by
>>genetics as it may be, is still elusive. Indeed, so elusive as to
>>have produced a unique feature in the history of science. Whereas
>>in physics and chemistry the conversion of scientists to a new major
>>theory becomes complete within one generation, in biology a
>>respectable minority has maintained itself for now over four
GB>What a hoot. The same thing happened with common ancestry. (Which was
>the main argument of _Origin_.)
No. The main argument of Origin was Natural Selection. This is seen
in the very title of the Origin:
"The Origin of Species BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION,
or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
(emphasis mine)
(Darwin C., "The Origin of Species", [1859], First Edition, Penguin:
London, 1985 reprint, p3).
Moreover, in the Origin, Darwin calls his theory "the theory of natural
selection" over 40 times. In his opening argument of the Origin,
Darwin points out that a naturalist concluding that species had descended from
other species was not enough. The naturalist had to show *how* it had
happened:
"In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a
naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on
their embryological relations, their geographical distribution,
geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the
conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had
descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a
conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it
could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world
have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and
coadaptation which justly excites our admiration." (Darwin C., "The
Origin of Species", [1872], 6th edition, Everyman's Library, p18)
Indeed, common ancestry was already accepted by most naturalists
*before* Darwin published his Origin. Burrows, in his introduction to
the Penguin Edition of the Origin, points out that Darwin "listed over
thirty predecessors" in the Origin itself:
"The theory of evolution in biology was already an old, even a
discredited one. Darwin, in later editions of The Origin, listed over
thirty predecessors and was still accused of lack of generosity. Greek
thinkers had held the view that life had developed gradually out of a
primeval slime. Diderot, Buffon and Maupertuis in the eighteenth
century had held evolutionary views, as had Darwin's own
grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, whose evolutionary ideas were
expressed partly in verse.." (Burrow J.W., "Editor's Introduction", to
Darwin C., "The Origin of Species", [1859], First Edition, Penguin:
London, 1985 reprint, p27)
Darwin and Wallace's unique contribution was that they proposed a
naturalistic mechanism (variation and natural selection) of *how*
common ancestry could have occurred.
GB>Selection was discounted thereafter for many years, largely
>because of the problematic fact that no good mechanism for it was
>known. When Mendelian genetics was introduced, the same thing
>happened with that. You can read Mayr's book, for instance, to get
>a grasp on the history of the theory. It is pretty good and quite
>short, and written by a key player in this particular synthesis.
Agreed that selection ran into problems early on (Darwin himself
came close to repudiating it), and by the turn of the 20th century
Mutationism based on Mendelian genetics was all the rage. But the
Modern Synthesis in the 1930's tried to reconcile Mendel with
Darwin. But although by the centenary of Darwinism in 1959, Neo-
Darwinism looked triumphant, but as Gould (who studied at Columbia
under Neo-Darwinism's co-founder Dobzhansky) put it, it has
slowly unravelled as a universal description of evolution:
"I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its
unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's.
Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal
description of evolution. The molecular assault came first, followed
quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of speciation
and by challenges at the level of macroevolution itself. I have been
reluctant to admit it-since beguiling is often forever-but if Mayr's
characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory,
as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as
textbook orthodoxy." (Gould S.J., "Is a new and general theory of
evolution emerging?", Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p120)
BTW, which "Mayr's book" are you referring to?
>SJ>...Despair about Darwinism is the driving force behind that
>>recent rush to the idea of punctuated evolution....a mere
>>verbalization demanded by the fact that the geological record
>>almost invariably shows bursts of new forms and hardly ever a
>>slow gradual process as demanded by classical Darwinism."
>>(Jaki S.L., "The Absolute beneath the Relative", 1988, p191)
[...]
>SJ>But my point all along has been that:
>>
>>1) I "take the side" (if I am to use your words) of Dawkins in his
>>claim that the Neo-Darwinist `blind watchmaker' theory of the
>>gradual step-by-step cumulative preservation by natural selection of
>>tiny incremental improvements in adaptability to local environments is
>>the only materialist-naturalistic theory that can explain life's complex
>>designs in the absence of a Designer; and
>>
>>2) I "take the side" (again to use your words) of Gould in his claim that the
>>fossil record does not support the Neo-Darwinist `blind watchmaker' theory
>>of the gradual step-by-step cumulative preservation by natural selection of
>>tiny incremental improvements in adaptability to local environments; and
>>therefore
GB>except that this is not the issue under contention here. (And you are
>misrepresenting what both sides say is.)
Instead of simply asserting that I am "misrepresenting what both sides
say" how about posting some *evidence* in the form of excerpts
from Gould's actual New York Review articles? Here is my evidence
that Gould claims "that the fossil record does not support the Neo-
Darwinist `blind watchmaker' theory". From the first article:
"Second, the invigoration of modern evolutionary biology with
exciting nonselectionist and nonadaptationist data from the three
central disciplines of population genetics, developmental biology, and
paleontology (see examples below) makes our pre-millennial decade
^^^^^^^^^^^^
an especially unpropitious time for Darwinian fundamentalism--and
seems only to reconfirm Darwin's own eminently sensible pluralism."
(Gould S.J., "Darwinian Fundamentalism", New York Review of
Books, June 12, 1997.
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?19970612
34F@p2)
"My own field of paleontology has strongly challenged the Darwinian
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
premise that life's major transformations can be explained by adding
up, through the immensity of geological time, the successive tiny
changes produced generation after generation by natural selection.
The extended stability of most species, and the branching off of new
species in geological moments (however slow by the irrelevant scale
of a human life)-- the pattern known as punctuated equilibrium--
requires that long- term evolutionary trends be explained as the
distinctive success of some species versus others, and not as a gradual
accumulation of adaptations generated by organisms within a
continuously evolving population. A trend may be set by high rates of
branching in certain species within a larger group. But individual
organisms do not branch; only populations do--and the causes of a
population's branching can rarely be reduced to the adaptive
improvement of its individuals. The study of mass extinction has also
disturbed the ultra- Darwinian consensus. We now know, at least for
the terminal Cretaceous event some 65 million years ago that wiped
out dinosaurs along with about 50 percent of marine invertebrate
species, that some episodes of mass extinction are both truly
catastrophic and set off by extraterrestrial impact. The death of some
groups (like dinosaurs) in mass extinctions and the survival of others
(like mammals), while surely not random, probably bears little
relationship to the evolved, adaptive reasons for success of lineages in
normal Darwinian times dominated by competition. Perhaps mammals
survived (and humans ultimately evolved) because small creatures are
more resistant to catastrophic extinction. And perhaps Cretaceous
mammals were small primarily because they could not compete
successfully in the larger size ranges of dominant dinosaurs.
Immediate adaptation may bear no relationship to success over
immensely long periods of geological change." (Gould S.J.,
"Darwinian Fundamentalism", New York Review of Books, June 12,
1997.
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?19970612
34F@p4)
And from the second article:
"The first part of this article outlined the general fallacies of ultra-
Darwinian fundamentalism, especially in the light of new theories and
discoveries in the core disciplines of developmental biology,
paleontology, and population genetics." (Gould S.J., "Evolution: The
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pleasures of Pluralism", New York Review of Books, June 26, 1997.
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?1997062647F)
"Dennett first attacks my view that punctuated equilibrium is the
dominant pattern of evolutionary change in the history of living
organisms. This theory, formulated by Niles Eldredge and me in
1972, proposes that the two most general observations made by
paleontologists form a genuine and primary pattern of evolution, and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
do not arise as artifacts of an imperfect fossil record. The first
observation notes that most new species originate in a geological
"moment." The second holds that species generally do not change in
any substantial or directional way during their geological lifetimes--
usually a long period averaging five to ten million years for fossil
invertebrate species. Punctuated equilibrium does not challenge
accepted genetic ideas about the rates at which species emerge (for
the geological "moment" of a single rock layer may represent many
thousand years of accumulation). But the theory does contravene
conventional Darwinian expectations for gradual change over
geological periods, and does suggest a substantial revision of
standard views about the causes of long-term evolutionary trends.
For such trends must now be explained by the higher rates at which
some species branch off from others, and the greater durations of
some stable species as distinguished from others, and not as the slow
and continuous transformation of single populations." (Gould S.J.,
"Evolution: The Pleasures of Pluralism", New York Review of
Books, June 26, 1997.
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?1997062647F
@p2)
[...]
>SJ>What you are really trying to do (whether you realise it or not) is
>>have me convicted of a minor, special meaning of certain words (like
>>"conspiracy"), and then I am held automatically guilty of the major
>>meaning too! This is a evolutionist trick that I have learned to be
>>wary of on this Reflector and that's why I insist on clarifying
>>words at the outset.
GB>I pointed out that you are using the fact of a public debate to claim
>that there is some sort of arrangement whereby debates aren't made
>public (for some reason, you are reluctant to recognize that this is
>a 'conspiracy'). This sort of 'everybody's scheming against us' is,
>unfortunately, a common technique by creationists which seems unlimited
>in its explanatory power. (See 'the Great Global Evilutionist Cabal
>won't publish our papers!', 'The Great Global Evilutionist Cabal is
>hiding fossils that won't fit their theories!', 'The Great Global
>Evilutionist Cabal is suppressing radiometric dates that disprove their
>methods!' and on an on and on and on and on.) Whether other people
>'convict' you of that is their problem, and, frankly, I'm almost
>completely disinterested.
But that's just the point! I *don't* claim that "there is some sort of
arrangement whereby debates aren't made public". I *don't* claim
that "everybody's scheming against us". I *don't* claim that there is a
"Great Global Evilutionist Cabal". I *don't* claim that evolutionists
are "hiding fossils" and "suppressing radiometric dates" In fact I
*accept* "radiometric dates" and the "methods" used to obtain them.
I think your "problem" is that you are getting your "creationists"
mixed up! I am an *Old*-Earth creationist, *not* a Young-Earth
creationist.
[...]
>SJ>popular press are probably very low" (my emphasis). No doubt
>>"references to both combined in the popular press" will be "probably
>>very low", compared with Presidential affairs or the war with Iraq,
>>but that tells us nothing about what we were originally debating
>>about!
GB>You claimed that the reason publicity is low (despite its being
>high) is the un-conspiracy.
Eh? Not only are you shifting ground, you are trying to shift the
burden of proof too! I said nothing about "publicity". *You*
introduced the publicity angle by claiming that: "the public cares even
less about evolutionary theory than it does about quantum physics"
and "there will be more articles in the public press about physics in
1998 than about evolutionary biology." I simply dispute that.
GB>I suggested another possible reason: that the popular press simply
>doesn't care.
I dispute this too. The "popular press" cares very much about evolution,
because it knows that readers care. If one includes also TV, which (in
Australia at least) has a number of popular nature and science shows
which all contain the topic of evolution. Phil Johnson in one of his
tapes says that he checks the news media search program called NEXIS
and there is a creation vs evolution debate raging in one part of the
USA every day. I don't think there would be too many debates about
quantum physics!
GB>I'm not wedded to it; I suggested some observations which would
>clarify the matter. I'm uninterested in semantic arguments over whether
>'quantum physics' and 'evolutionary theory' are at the same level of
>granularity or not.
It was *your* claim that "the public cares even less about evolutionary
theory than it does about quantum physics". If you now accept that is
false, why not just say so?
GB>Let me spell out the relevance: if there is little interest in the
>popular press to some debate within evolutionary biology, then that debate
>won't get publicity, not because of any un-conspiracy, but because there
>is little interest.
I dispute that there is "little interest" in "the popular press" to this
"debate within evolutionary biology." The *two* articles in the
New York Review by Gould and one by Lewontin, refute that.
My claim is that Darwinists have tried to keep the matter out of the
public arena to avoid giving aid and comfort to creationists (no
conspiracy is suggested), but so intense and so bitter have the
disagreements over the relative importance of natural selection and
adaptation, that they have spilled over into the public arena.
My prediction is that the issue will gradually percolate down from
the high end of "the popular press" represented by the New York
Review, to the medium and lower end of same. The public's
interest in whether science's story is true, and the competition
to sell papers will ensure that this rupture in the very heart of
Neo-Darwinism will bleed more and more.
Added to a whole swag of Intelligent Design books in the pipeline
(next cab off the rank is Michael Denton's new book: "Nature's Destiny:
How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe", Publication
date: July 1, 1998.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0684845091/4178-2741008-094952)
things are going to get even tougher for Darwinists!
GB>To see whether that could be the case, one could examine the
>popular press to see whether there is indeed this lack of interest.
>Clearly, there will be some issues in physics and biology which will get
>more or less attention comparatively. As a whole, then, relative levels
>of exposure which each field gets would be a marker which would provide
>an averaged basis of comparison for weighting. Understood? Now, just
>because there is no press interest doesn't mean there is no un-conspiracy.
>There could be an un-conspiracy *despite* lack of press interest.
>However, evidence which tended to support the idea, given the attention
>given to the debate at hand, which is fairly public (although something
>as abstruse as the planetary status of Pluto seems to have received more
>attention) it seems to undermine the un-conspiracy theory. I don't see
>this as going much of anywhere, so this is my last communication on the
>topic.
That's OK by me. Thanks for the debate.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------