Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Everything You Know About Natural Selection Is Wrong
CEH ^ | October 16, 2009

Posted on 10/20/2009 8:22:18 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Oct 16, 2009 — It’s called “a fresh theoretical framework” but it undermines the popular conception of natural selection.  It’s 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?  It’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; belongsinreligion; catholic; christianity; creation; darwiniacs; evangelical; evolution; evoreligion; intelligentdesign; judaism; naturalselection; notasciencetopic; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; templeofdarwin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

1 posted on 10/20/2009 8:22:19 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Everything GGG Knows (and posts) About The Natural World Is Wrong.

There, fixed it.

2 posted on 10/20/2009 8:24:27 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Ahh... Evolution: The endlessly flexible theory.


3 posted on 10/20/2009 8:26:00 AM PDT by TChris (There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...
Of course, the evos are going to complain that this guy is from the philosophy department. I wonder how long it will take them to realize that this was published in Science! Ping!!!
4 posted on 10/20/2009 8:26:14 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Everything You Know About Natural Selection Is Wrong

Considering this article's target audience is Creationist, it's probably the most truthful title you ever posted

5 posted on 10/20/2009 8:26:32 AM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

Much better!


6 posted on 10/20/2009 8:26:37 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


7 posted on 10/20/2009 8:28:15 AM PDT by sickoflibs ( "It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the government spending you demand stupid")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

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.


8 posted on 10/20/2009 8:31:10 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TChris

Indeed, it is so flexible that it has managed to tie itself into knots :o)


9 posted on 10/20/2009 8:31:32 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

Well, then, you must really be sober, xcamel.


10 posted on 10/20/2009 8:33:18 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Do not scorn the sunken ship but instead celebrate the date palm’s sustaining succor...


11 posted on 10/20/2009 8:34:13 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: qam1

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.


12 posted on 10/20/2009 8:34:13 AM PDT by Tax Government (Mighty nuts from tiny Acorns grow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

bookmark


13 posted on 10/20/2009 8:40:30 AM PDT by fightinJAG (Mr. President: Why did you appoint a Communist to your Administration?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“”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.


14 posted on 10/20/2009 8:42:15 AM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

bookmark


15 posted on 10/20/2009 8:47:17 AM PDT by massmike (...So this is what happens when OJ's jury elects the president....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb

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.


16 posted on 10/20/2009 8:48:19 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mnehring; GodGunsGuts
RE :”That doesn’t mean gravity doesn’t exist.

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.

17 posted on 10/20/2009 8:50:16 AM PDT by sickoflibs ( "It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the government spending you demand stupid")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about:

...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?

18 posted on 10/20/2009 8:51:29 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


19 posted on 10/20/2009 8:56:41 AM PDT by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Of course, the evos are going to complain that this guy is from the philosophy department. I wonder how long it will take them to realize that this was published in Science! Ping!!!

Your excerpt says it was reviewed in Science, not published as an article.

20 posted on 10/20/2009 8:58:15 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

” For example, contrary to Richard Dawkins, many instances of genic selection are instances of scaffolded reproduction of genes by cells, and evolutionary models are ultimately representing selection of organisms via their genetic properties. Often (though not always), when we treat genes as evolutionary units we imbue evolutionary biology with an “agential” framework involving agents, goals, strategies, and purposes that can corrupt the foundations of evolutionary biology.”

“many”,,, not all
“Often (though not always)”
“that can corrupt” “can” does not mean that they do.

“is this new work compatible with the old?” Not answered.

” Godfrey-Smith and others have argued that there is a role in evolutionary biology for “functional” notions.”
How big a role? Not answered. The author seems to be jumping to a lot of conclusions.


21 posted on 10/20/2009 8:59:37 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

They reviewed it, and tossed it in the c-file, where it belongs.


22 posted on 10/20/2009 9:00:22 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

It was published in “Nature” not “Science.”

“Nature” does publish a lot of philosophy without the rigid requirements of other periodicals. It does not promote itself as a scientific journal - it’s a magazine for entertainment and a lot of gee-whizzing.

That said, the CEH clip (they don’t actually have articles just sound bite sized snippets) doesn’t say anything of value for criticism. It’s just a brow raise and a move along.


23 posted on 10/20/2009 9:00:45 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve
Creationists seem to be the best liars.

More like surrounding the truth with a shell of ignorance.

24 posted on 10/20/2009 9:03:05 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TChris
Ahh... Evolution: The endlessly flexible theory.

It's endlessly evolving. And in the evolutionist's world of faith in "the unseen", that in itself probably proves the theory.

I just don't have that kind of faith.

25 posted on 10/20/2009 9:03:27 AM PDT by mikeus_maximus (African scam artists are now not only in my inbox-- they're running our country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
I think I see what you're driving at. Well, since you seem to think anything goes in the review section of Science, maybe we can get a few Creation and ID articles published there!
26 posted on 10/20/2009 9:09:39 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I think I see what you're driving at.

I'm driving at your misrepresentation of the truth, once again.

27 posted on 10/20/2009 9:12:42 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“Often (though not always), when we treat genes as evolutionary units we imbue evolutionary biology with an ‘agential’ framework involving agents, goals, strategies, and purposes that can corrupt the foundations of evolutionary biology.”

We can, because that’s the easiest way to explain it. However, I don’t see that as particularly dangerous. Are people really all that likely to imbue genes with agency? Genes, for pete’s sake? I’d have thought one of the reasons evolutionists focused in on genes like a laserbeam in their technical and popular writings was to erase any sense of agency in the process. People are far more likely to think of genes as neutral parties to the process than organisms as such.


28 posted on 10/20/2009 9:15:11 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


29 posted on 10/20/2009 9:16:06 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

What truth, in your opinion, is being misrepresented, Mr. Moonman?


30 posted on 10/20/2009 9:19:23 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; GodGunsGuts
This evolution is ‘fact’ stuff is promoted by atheists to show “God doesn't exist”...

But the most of us take the position that it's the best "theory", not fact, and that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests that it's a good theory.

On the second part, I maintain that evolution does not prove that God doesn't exist - as nothing can prove that negative. It's entirely possible God created evolution as His means of "creation". And logical as well.

Most of GGG's rants against evolution seem to be against exactly the argument you postulated.

31 posted on 10/20/2009 9:24:16 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
...maybe we can get a few Creation and ID articles published there!

If there's actually science in them, they should be published. If it's belief, another venue might be more appropriate.

32 posted on 10/20/2009 9:27:01 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep
The link in the reference section goes to a book review in Science

Wow....it merited a brow raise? OK....ONE brow is raised at the headline and the fantastical claim made.


33 posted on 10/20/2009 9:29:02 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (Didja know that Man walked with vegetarian T. rex within the last 4,351 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jimt; GodGunsGuts

GGGs and I are complete opponents on creationism/ID ,I agree with your last reply.

But I agree that atheists are trying to spread their ‘God doesnt exist’ religion. If evolution was ‘fact’ as atheists claim, it would be dogma. That is because it is many of their dogma.


34 posted on 10/20/2009 9:29:09 AM PDT by sickoflibs ( "It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the government spending you demand stupid")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; GodGunsGuts

see new tagline


35 posted on 10/20/2009 9:30:31 AM PDT by MrB (The only difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jimt
Well, then, that rules out papers on Darwin's evo-religious creation myth being published in Science. I guess Science will just have to stick to science from now on.
36 posted on 10/20/2009 9:30:35 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

A book review by a philosophy professor with a philosophy degree from a Christian University (Belmont)? I’ll give GGG’s heroes credit - they are thorough. How they weed through the thousands of articles to find the few to twist for their gain is impressive.

And silly.


37 posted on 10/20/2009 9:32:11 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

...and oh so true!


38 posted on 10/20/2009 9:34:30 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Someone has to wade through all that evoreligious balderdash masquerading as science and bring it to the public’s attention. It's a tough job, but as always, we are up to the task!
39 posted on 10/20/2009 9:37:43 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

One brow makes it a dubious claim - two brows raised and you’ve probably been startled by a rat.


40 posted on 10/20/2009 9:45:05 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"we are up to the task!"

As I suspected.. multiple personality disorder.

41 posted on 10/20/2009 10:08:47 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Why don’t you post the New Scientist cover?


42 posted on 10/20/2009 10:49:11 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

From your comment, I take it that you believe in evolution?

If that is the case - answer this one simple question:

If we evolved from an earlier, more primitive creature, all the way back to that very first one celled organism, how did that one celled organism first gain ‘life’. ‘Life’, even amoeba, jellyfish, zebra and man does not spring forth from ‘non-life’. A rock does not over millennia turn into a frog. ‘Life’ had to begin - somehow, someway, sometime.


43 posted on 10/20/2009 11:02:54 AM PDT by Ro_Thunder ("Other than ending SLAVERY, FASCISM, NAZISM and COMMUNISM, war has never solved anything")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

I don’t take suggestions or orders from lying imposters, that’s why.


44 posted on 10/20/2009 11:12:47 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Ah, but the lying fraud is YOU: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2365755/posts?page=220#220.


45 posted on 10/20/2009 11:14:16 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ro_Thunder

The evolutionary theory does not address the origin of life. It only shows how life has changed since its inception.

Your very question shows your lack of knowledge regarding science.


46 posted on 10/20/2009 11:27:03 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, There’s a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: tlb
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.

And then Dawkins comes along and purports the idea of alien seeding or some such nonsense. And that the universe gives the *illusion* of design.

Was life put here or not? Does it look like design or not?

The guy can't even be consistent with himself.

He's nothing but a loose cannon for atheists and evos. He has no credibility.

47 posted on 10/20/2009 12:22:49 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: metmom

How would you test for this supposed design?


48 posted on 10/20/2009 12:33:10 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, There’s a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Ro_Thunder
If we evolved from an earlier, more primitive creature, all the way back to that very first one celled organism, how did that one celled organism first gain ‘life’.

Zeus? Thor? Ra? Yahweh? Aliens? What does it matter? It has no bearing whatsoever on the theory of evolution.

That said, I'm confident we'll have a credible answer to this most difficult question in my lifetime. "Life" didn't begin with an amoeba or even a "one celled organism." There are steps before the one-celled... amino acids, RNA, protein chains... I'm glad you're interested in this. Let's be patient and see what science can sort out. OR, we can just keep believing what the bronze age mythos says I suppose.
49 posted on 10/20/2009 12:44:29 PM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"this was published in Science! Ping!!! "

Beep!

50 posted on 10/20/2009 1:27:25 PM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson