davidm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:49 pm
Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:53 am
davidm wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2017 5:59 pm
It's more than that, though. At the molecular level evolution appears to be dominated not be selection but by the genetic drift of mutant alleles that are neutral: Neither beneficial nor deleterious.
Failure to understand that negative behaviours, and traits can even be preserved in the genome just so long as the host organism produces viable progeny: a confusion between (1) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected and (2) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits. Modern Darwinism is committed to inferring (2) from (1); that this inference is invalid (in fact it's what philosophers call an 'intensional fallacy'); and that there is no way to repair the damage consonant with commitment to naturalism, which (Fodor and Palimanteri) take to be common ground.
The obsession with evolutionary theory to offer an explanation for every single aspect of life
as if it have to have a positive outcome for selection is an embarrassment to the entire field.
Were this NOT the case I think more people would understand evolution and not think there is some kind of god in the mix.
Evolution is not a force that selects genes in any sense.
I can't quite tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.
Neutral evolution suggests that most evolution is non-adaptationist.
is probably meaningless. Evolution is not a force of nature, but a consequence of change. It is not a cause, but an effect.
Change happens all the time. Evolution is a humanly perceived process in which a progression of traits is taken to offer a species an effective response to changing environment.
My objection to this is the obsession with which evolutionary psychologists attempt to unpack ALL humans traits and behaviours as if they had some advantage. The absurdity of this tends to imply a teleology which is not warrantable, as 99% of all traits and behaviours might not offer any specific advantage or could even be negative as the only rubric for survival is the reproduction of viable progeny.
Case in point.
My dog is only five years old but has hip dysplasia
which means she can no longer run. Were she living in a natural environment she may already have had 4 litters of puppies and so the genes that gave her bad hips would have happily passed to the next generation. Evolution does not care!
. There is no pressure on that trait to exit the gene pool.
Diseases are not a special case exception though, but an extreme example. Her floppy ears and many other traits confer no special advantage.
Autistic theorists such as Richard Dawkins, and Steve Pinker who make careers out of empty-headed arguments and academic papers are obsessed with finding the positive on all traits.
Let's take a look at the two points from "What Darwin Got Wrong"
(1) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected
(2) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits.
Claim 2 has to be false as "evolution" would have to know what a trait is "FOR". "For" implies an intentionality, or teleology. This is effectively intelligent design.
Claim 1 makes more sense as creatures within species with good traits are more likely to survive. But would carry along with them a range of genes traits and behaviours which had very little bearing on their survival and evolution.
However evolutionary theorists are constantly guilty of making claim 1, usually with poor or lazy language.
My claim is that if they were more careful they would be better equipped to counter the claims of the kooks of ID, and creationists who find design in nature; (There is none).
I hope that clears up my position.