DNAunion

DNAunion: Topic 2 of 2.

DNAunion: Okay, so pz has plainly stated several times that he meant precisely: “pz: "biologists don't ever argue that evolution is linear, direct, or by ever-increasing complexity". Are we all straight on that?

In addition, we have pz saying:

DNAunion: So the question is, do biologists – or anyone except Behe or other IDists, for that matter - ever mention “direct evolution”?

I’m not about to read every paper ever written on evolution to find out! But I did spend about 5 minutes doing a Google search on “direct evolution”. Here are some of the hits (note: those that use the word DIRECT as a verb have not been quoted – only those that use it as an adjective have).

Here’s probably the best one. Why? Because it was published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, and it is by anti-IDists. So this isn’t just Behe writing in his own little book to the general public. Here’s the abstract and the link

DNAunion: Two out of four are methods of direct evolution.
That’s enough to prove my point. I win.

**************************

But here’s some icing for the cake. I anticipate that instead of addressing the real quote just above, that any objections raised will be against these “icings”. But…

Remember, pz has dug himself more and more into a hole. He has, multiple times, insisted that he meant precisely – literally – exactly – what he said. And, he has even gone further to say that the term “direct evolution” is meaningless. Thus, pz’s claim now deals with ANY mention of ANY TYPE of direct evolution by biologists.

DNAunion: As I said, people may complain that some of these last several quotes are not talking about the same kind of evolution that we were, but that is no longer the issue. PZ has dug himself so far into a hole that any mention of any type of direct evolution by a biologists shows him to be in error.

And, let’s not forget about the first quote I posted where two out of four methods the article addressed were forms of direct evolution, which does deal with honest-to-goodness Darwinian evolution.

pz

Boy, you are one seriously wiggy kind of guy.

I'm pretty comfortable in my hole. You seem to think I ought to be distressed, but I don't see why. We are talking about the evolutionary process, and there is nothing direct, linear, or predisposing it towards increasing complexity. You can trot out as many instances as you want of lineages exhibiting a direct or linear pattern after the fact, but it doesn't change the underlying mechanism.

We may look at a lineage and see feature A, and think it would make a lot of sense to see it then evolve feature B...but there's nothing in the mechanism that will bias individuals to generate feature B. We might see B emerge in descendants, but B is not implicit. Don't confuse an observed historical pattern in a subset with an intrinsic cause in the whole.

DNAunion

DNAunion: And don’t you confuse your new, completely different version – which apparently implies the term “directED”, as in a cause - with your original statement which used the completely different term “direct”, as in a route.

Here, let me remind you and everyone else here what you emphatically stated, multiple times, you meant, precisely:

DNAunion: Sorry dude, but by your own repeated confirmations, you are stuck with those exact words. No changes allowed.

Of course now that I have shown everyone how utterly ridiculous your statement – taken completely literally - is, you’ve decided to distance yourself from your own words – you know, the ones that you had emphatically confirmed to be precise multiple times.

Sorry dude, but I tried to let you off the hook by taking some of the heat – admitting that I probably misinterpreted what you said - but you refused the offering and restated that you meant precisely what you stated.

And it is sad to see you resort to trickery to try to save face. It would have been less painful for you to just not respond. Now, in addition to everyone knowing that you are wrong, they also now know that you are a weasel. OUCH!

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>

pz

As you've admitted, I have several times now stated that I simply stand by what I said. How do you turn that into a claim that I'm weaseling? I've also plainly explained what I said, and tried my best to make it clear. You apparently think that is "trickery".

Calm down, guy. You're getting frantic and looking desperate.

RufusAtticus

DNAUnion,

A common misconception is that evolution is a direct process. This is not true because evolution is a branching process with many stops, starts, twists, and turns. Sure you can find instances of a strait branch, but that doesn't mean that the process is a direct and linear one.

Nic Tamzek

DNA, this is now the third time that I've tried to explain this to you:

1) PZ was saying that evolution in general is not a direct process. He is correct. He was not saying that nothing that ever occurs in any small part of evolution could ever be considered direct.

2) I was saying that the VFT evolution pathway was "direct" in the sense that it exhibited no change of function, simply improvement of function (faster trapping, basically). This does not contradict #1.

This is not that hard a distinction to make...

nic

E_muse

I think that your claim regarding the misunderstanding concerning the linking together of metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism as a dishonest ID tactic is extremely unfair.

This very website explicitly states that it is committed to metaphysical naturalism. However, under the heading of this very forum it asks the question, "Did life evolve or was it created?" implying immediately that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

I understand that such a question is only provided to prompt debate but does not really represent what many people think.

If we couple with this statements made by Dawkins which say that evolutionary theory enables one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist and we immediately see that the theory cannot simply be regarded as philosophically neutral.

This is further compounded if scientific discoveries are made the principal line of attack against theistic ideas.

This is simply true regardless of which side of the fence one chooses to stand.

E_muse

I have read this thread with avid interest and wanted to comment on some of your recent remarks. I hope you don't mind me joining the discussion late.

I think that your statement in some ways over simplifies what is actually occuring (theoretically). For a start, I thought that there was more than one mechanism that drives evolution?

Firstly, your statement that there is nothing linear or direct about the evolutionary process is plainly not true.

An essential ingredient to the evolutionary process is the ability for organisms to either reproduce or replicate in some way. Because offspring differ from their parents and yet share their genetic data, reproduction is a form of evolution and follows a pattern. The ability for organisms to pass on their genetic data to their offspring is very clearly directed and linear and an essential mechanism of evolution because evolutionary changes cannot occur within individuals but only in offspring.

In light of this overwhelming fact, to hear someone say that there is nothing direct or linear about the process seems absurd. If there were nothing direct or linear about it then there is nothing to stop me believing that a virgin could give birth to six kittens!! (hyperbole )

Secondly, with regard to increasing complexity, whilst it may be true that organisms are not predisposed to become more complex, where increased complexity occurs we should expect to see a linear progression. This is highlighted in a statement by Dawkins from The Blind Watchmaker.

Emphasis mine.

Even if increasing complexity is not predisposed we can speak in terms of the likelihood of it occuring. If I throw a dice I know that I won't roll a 0,7,8,9.... and so on, ad nauseum. In light of the variety of species on this planet further increased complexification would seem highly likely. We also know that it must follow a particular progression.

In the above example, if chance plays a major role, then the first self replicating organisms must have been sufficiently simple. Therefore, in terms of certain levels of complexity appearing on the world stage, we know that certain levels of complexity must be younger than others due to the fact that each step towards increased complexity must have been very small and occured later in earth's history than the previous increase in complexity. Therefore, the appearance of increasing complexity should be something that follows a linear progression through earths history even if previous less complex forms continue to survive. However, I would argue that Dawkins arguement seems more based on the need to overcome human incredulity than hard scientific facts IMO - but that's a side issue.

We don't know of anything in the mechanism that will bias an individual to generate feature B, or.... whilst the generation of feature B remains a distinct possibility nothing within our current understanding based upon extensive obeservation leads us to believe that such a development is inevitable.

A little less dogmatic maybe? Our inability to predict something can just as easily be based upon a lack of understanding than something lacking in what we observe. Only human arrogance would cause us to conclude otherwise.

Lastly, aren't indirect changes also based no after-the-fact observation? In fact, our entire understanding of the world is based upon after-the-fact observation.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Albion

This website and Richard Dawkins both supporting atheism and both support science. That doesn't mean that science can be equated with atheism (which would be the case if there were no diference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism). I can't help it if Dawkins talks about scientific theories helping people to become intellectually fulfilled atheists - that's his personal opinon, it isn't a necessary part of the scientific method. If it were, devout Christians, Muslims, and Jews wouldn't be able to use it. I've read enough of Phillip Johnson's writings to see where he talks about metaphysical naturalism while calling it methodological naturalism, and I think that's deeply dishonest.

Zira_C

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrgh. I am so tired of the Dawkins' quote presented as standing for something it doesn’t. Please- Please. Pick up the Blind Watchmaker and read how he actually uses the statement. Dawkins was talking to an atheist philosopher friend about the argument from design. For Dawkins, Hume had already made it logically sound to be an atheist by disposing of the design=God argument, a century before Darwin. Darwin made him intellectually fulfilled by explaining what caused design. Here’s the actual quote from page 6.
Bold added.

Dawkins’ point it that Hume already destroyed the argument from design. The thing now was, with the design argument out of the way as a plausible explanation, what is there left to explain the origin of complex things (man). This is what left him intellectually unsatisfied. Displacing one explanation (by Hume), and not having another one to satisfactorily take its place. Enter Darwin. Darwin proposed an explanation to fill the void left by Hume. Now there was no longer an empty non-explanation. This was what was satisfying. So when Dawkins says that Darwin made him an intellectually fulfilled atheist, this is what he means. He does not mean that Darwin made him an atheist (Hume gets the credit for paving the way to that). Darwin simply satisfied his intellect. Darwin proposed an answer where there was none. The thing is, this answer is not only satisfying to atheists, it is satisfying to theist as well. It is an intellectually satisfying answer period.

OT rant over. Please return to your original thread.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Zira_C ]</p>