Skip to comments.Everything You Know About Natural Selection Is Wrong
Posted on 10/20/2009 8:22:18 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Oct 16, 2009 Its called a fresh theoretical framework but it undermines the popular conception of natural selection. Its called a dense and deep work on the foundations of evolutionary biology but it criticizes as simplistic and false the ideas of Richard Dawkins, one of the most outspoken proponents of natural selection as the greatest show on earth. It produces a new scheme for how natural selection works, but raises more questions than it answers. What is it? Its a new book by Harvard philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith, Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection (Oxford, 2009), reviewed mostly positively by Jay Odenbaugh in Science.1
Odenbaugh is in the philosophy department of Lewis and Clark College, Oregon. Get ready to jettison your classical concepts of fitness, selection and reproductive success. Unload your simplistic ideas of gene selection, individual selection and group selection. Prepare to see Richard Dawkins demoted from his status as a leading spokesman for modern Darwinism. In his first paragraph, Odenbaugh clears the deck to get ready for the fresh ideas of Godfrey-Smith: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
There, fixed it.
Ahh... Evolution: The endlessly flexible theory.
Considering this article's target audience is Creationist, it's probably the most truthful title you ever posted
Well if they didnt come up with different theories from time to time it would be dogma. Somehow I suspect you dont like this any better than Darwin’s 1800s ideas(which were brilliant at the time) . It’s the throwing out and coming up with new that makes it ‘science’, or to be more careful ‘historic science’ because it cant be proved.
What we know about Gravity changes often as well. As we study and learn more, our views and understanding changes. We’ve come a long way since Newton. That doesn’t mean gravity doesn’t exist.
Indeed, it is so flexible that it has managed to tie itself into knots :o)
Well, then, you must really be sober, xcamel.
Do not scorn the sunken ship but instead celebrate the date palm’s sustaining succor...
The idea of dividing the world into evos and creatos is just a waste of time, internet bandwidth and perfectly good pixels. And yet... some people do it.
“”Dawkins is a prominent critic of religion, creationism and a wide variety of pseudoscience. In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, he argued against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the complexity of living organisms. Instead, he described evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker.
In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist, writing that such beliefs, based on faith rather than on evidence, qualify as a delusion. He was a co-founder of the Out Campaign, as a means of advancing atheism and freethought.””
So apparently all these various flat earth threads are a disguised argument for atheism. And the general dishonest tenor of the arguments over time then begins to make sense. Hail Satan, or Santa. Whatever.
ps : Dawkins coined the word MEME (the cultural equivalent of a gene) to describe how Darwinian principles might be extended to explain the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena.
Funny, I haven’t seen any flat earth threads posted by Creation/ID folks. You must have us confused with the anti-science evos on FR.
But you still cant prove what gravity did in the past either. You can compile evidence based on the current state of matter. Maybe the evidence seems overwhelming, especially to those that come up with the theories. The theories become paradigms. But they still are theories.
This evolution is ‘fact’ stuff is promoted by atheists to show “God doesn't exist” and is used by creationists to rally the base(creationist) to sneak the Bible into science class using the hokey ID non-sense. It's the creationists vs the atheists and the rest of us are in the crossfire, to be shot by either side if caught.
...specifically, when there is variation with respect to a trait, those variants differ in the numbers of offspring produced, and this variation is heritable to some degree...
No no no Mr. PHILOSOPHY.....it's "specifically" when those variants differ in the numbers of offspring produced THAT REACH REPRODUCTIVE AGE AND PASS THE VARIANT OFF TO THEIR OFFSPRING.
Simply varying the numbers of offspring produced means NOTHING concerning "selection." Simply having offspring inherit a trait means NOTHING concerning "selection".....you must pass the trait off to offspring WHO PASS IT OFF TO OFFSPRING.
...but I bet they didn't tell you that in phylosophy classes.
Oooooo.....it was published in Science......that must mean it's a piece of peer-reviewed research, right? It's not just a book review, publishied without peer review....of a philosopher's book, reviewed by another philosopher?
This isn’t an article about a book, it’s an article about a REVIEW of a book!
Creationists seem to be the best liars.
The theory of evolution is still the best model folks, relax.
Your excerpt says it was reviewed in Science, not published as an article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.