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.
” 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.
They reviewed it, and tossed it in the c-file, where it belongs.
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.
More like surrounding the truth with a shell of ignorance.
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.
I'm driving at your misrepresentation of the truth, once again.
“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.
Thanks for the ping!
What truth, in your opinion, is being misrepresented, Mr. Moonman?
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.
If there's actually science in them, they should be published. If it's belief, another venue might be more appropriate.
Wow....it merited a brow raise? OK....ONE brow is raised at the headline and the fantastical claim made.
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.
see new tagline
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 oh so true!
One brow makes it a dubious claim - two brows raised and you’ve probably been startled by a rat.
As I suspected.. multiple personality disorder.
Why don’t you post the New Scientist cover?
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.
I don’t take suggestions or orders from lying imposters, that’s why.
Ah, but the lying fraud is YOU: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2365755/posts?page=220#220.
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.
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.
How would you test for this supposed design?
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.