Odds

Not quite philosophy discussions, debates, various thought experiments and other topics of interest.

Re: Odds

Postby davidm on February 6th, 2020, 9:51 pm 

Excuse me, did you read what I wrote above? Here, let me reproduce it for you, to save you the intellectually daunting task of scrolling upward:

Yes. Complaining, as Reg does, about THE theory of evolution, is a red herring. The word “the” here is used colloquially, and has never been intended, by biologists anyway, to suggest that the theory advances a single, dogmatic, all-encompassing explanation for the origin of species. “The” theory of evolution has many components and sub-components, and there certainly are disputes, such as, for example, the role or selection vs. drift, or PE vs. gradualism. I do not deny this — indeed, in a number of posts on this forum, I have pointed out some of these disputes. However, NONE of these disputes even begins to overturn Darwin’s key insight of common descent and natural selection.


Maybe move your lips while you read, to aid comprehension.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 765
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 6th, 2020, 9:53 pm 

Are you available to date, David?

I'll just sit there and admire your brilliance.
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby davidm on February 6th, 2020, 9:55 pm 

Gould and Elredge are having none of this. Now, make no mistake, punctuated equilibria is not being offered as a supplement or additive to phyletic gradualism, but a rival theory ...


So what?

Honestly, so what?

Do you, yourself, even understand your own argument?

Yes, Punk Eek, when presented, in 1972, rivaled phyletic gradualism. So what? It did not rival common descent or natural selection, did it? Now, it is no longer 1972, any more than it is 1859. Today, it is understood that both PE and phyletic gradualism happen, for different species, in different circumstances.

And, again, so what?
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 765
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 6th, 2020, 9:57 pm 

Glad we cleared that up.

So we can close the file now?

Nailed it, eh?
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby davidm on February 6th, 2020, 9:57 pm 

And, once more, as you have ignored, Darwin himself anticipated Gould!
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 765
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Odds

Postby davidm on February 6th, 2020, 9:58 pm 

Reg_Prescott » February 6th, 2020, 7:57 pm wrote:Glad we cleared that up.

So we can close the file now?

Nailed it, eh?


Yes, we have nailed the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm glad you now agree with me, and concede the point. That is progress on your part.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 765
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 6th, 2020, 10:00 pm 

davidm » February 7th, 2020, 10:57 am wrote:And, once more, as you have ignored, Darwin himself anticipated Gould!



Well, why didn't he save us all the bother and write "I agree with everything Darwin said"?
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 6th, 2020, 10:00 pm 

Er, because he didn't?

Duh
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby davidm on February 6th, 2020, 10:18 pm 

Reg, do you claim that Gould disagreed with Darwin's key insight: natural selection and common descent? Yes? No?

Do you, Reg, dispute natural selection? Common descent? Phyletic gradualism? Pun eek? (Note that PG and PE are not mutually exclusive -- both can be true, for different species, at different times. And NEITHER of them dispute Darwin's key insight -- in fact, both DEPEND on it.)

Do you dispute genetic drift? Sexual selection? Molecular biology? The fossil record which, while unavoidably incomplete, has allowed us, for example, to trace the evolution of land mammals to whales, and the descent of modern birds from avian dinosaurs?

Be specific! What is it about the modern evolutionary synthesis you dispute, and why? Invoking Gould is useless to you -- he never disputed Darwin's key insight, so your whole spiel here has been a giant red herring.

If you are trying to dispute ONLY ME, this another fail -- I have NEVER argued for a UNITARY theory of evolution -- I have argued exactly the opposite.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 765
Joined: 05 Feb 2011
Forest_Dump liked this post


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 6th, 2020, 10:22 pm 

davidm » February 7th, 2020, 11:18 am wrote:so your whole spiel here has been a giant red herring.



Well, it's only fair we fish remain silent while you make us Fischers [sic] of men
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 6th, 2020, 10:24 pm 

Do, I deny natural selection?

Of course not. That would be like denying "all vats are vats".

It's true, but not very informative.
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 6th, 2020, 10:28 pm 

Would you like to hear my stunning new theory?

"Those athletes with traits conducive to winning competitions tend to win more competitions than those without".

And THAT, good sir, is natural selection in a nutshell.

Science was never so easy.

But hey, your area of expertise is demystifying absurdities.
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 6th, 2020, 10:42 pm 

davidm » February 7th, 2020, 10:55 am wrote:
Gould and Elredge are having none of this. Now, make no mistake, punctuated equilibria is not being offered as a supplement or additive to phyletic gradualism, but a rival theory ...


So what?

Honestly, so what?

Do you, yourself, even understand your own argument?

Yes, Punk Eek, when presented, in 1972, rivaled phyletic gradualism. So what? It did not rival common descent or natural selection, did it? Now, it is no longer 1972, any more than it is 1859. Today, it is understood that both PE and phyletic gradualism happen, for different species, in different circumstances.

And, again, so what?





So what?

So what is that you're here spinning fairy tales about peace on earth, goodwill to all men, and a universal consensus on "the theory of evolution".

Which, by my understanding at least, stands in about the same ontological status as the tooth fairy and philanthropic Scotsmen.

Do you do lullabies too?
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 6th, 2020, 10:43 pm 

Who are you trying to kid, my good man?
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 6th, 2020, 10:45 pm 

Might as well be listening to a televangelist.

Sigh, double sigh, and even a triple sigh.

Happy now, Mr Vat?
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 6th, 2020, 10:54 pm 

davidm » February 7th, 2020, 11:18 am wrote:
Do you dispute genetic drift? Sexual selection? Molecular biology? The fossil record which, while unavoidably incomplete, has allowed us, for example, to trace the evolution of land mammals to whales, and the descent of modern birds from avian dinosaurs?




Well, here's how I see things (with a little help from Thomas Kuhn)..

Do I dispute genetic drift? You mean we're not all identical copies of one another? Cough.

Do I dispute sexual selection? Of course, I do. The whole notion of nature selecting is preposterous. Yes, yes, now you'll tell me it's a metaphor. If I wanted metaphors, I'd look to Harry Potter, not science.


So the peacock's tail doesn't sit well with your bs theory? I have a good idea: Let's conjure up sexual selection.

So altruism doesn't sit well with your bs theory? I have a good idea: let's conjure up kin selection.

So ...er, need I go on?

If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, conjure up another unit of selection. How can you lose?
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 6th, 2020, 10:58 pm 

In a nutshell.... "Hey, how do I know if I'm fit or not?"

"If you weren't fit you wouldn't be here".

Gee, thanks.
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 6th, 2020, 11:00 pm 

It's about time someone pointed out the absurdity of nature selecting.

I am by no means the first.

Oh, and bitter, too.
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 6th, 2020, 11:08 pm 

You can make a lot of money by making up rubbish and inventing new units of selection.

Those who say "I don't know" tend to...

Well, may I borrow your pot to piss in?
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 6th, 2020, 11:13 pm 

Why will no one elaborate on this? Social awkwardness?


What is the objective probability of your theory (whatever that is today) being true:

1. 100%

2. 50%

3. 1%

4. No one has the faintest idea

?
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 6th, 2020, 11:14 pm 

Buy hey, I'm the Kentucky hillbilly who can't read.

You guys are the Grand Inquisitor.
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 6th, 2020, 11:15 pm 

Well, it's been a stimulating discussion. And I met a lot of new friends.

Bless you all.
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby davidm on February 7th, 2020, 10:12 am 

And here you are again, basically spinning the “tautology” misconception of survival of the fittest, to which I already linked the rebuttal, here. You, predictably, failed to address it, except with yet another of your snarky, content-free one liners.

Natural selection, in concert with heritable variation, is one of the most powerful explanatory tools ever developed by science. For Christ sake, it explains where whole species come from! That is the very essence of explanation!

Genetic drift is NOT just, “We’re not all identical copies of one another.” So, no, that is NOT what I mean by “genetic drift.”

Sexual selection is part of natural selection.

The rest is just your typical numbing gassbaggery. Yes, there is a universal consensus, not necessarily about the detailed components and subcomponents of evolutionary change, but a universal consensus about Darwin’s key, and very explanatory, insights — common descent, reproductive variance, and natural selection. The only people who depart from the consensus are ID/creationists — which you, disingenuously, disavow. IOW, all you want to do, to borrow Forest’s colorful metaphor, is pee on candles.

There are indeed disputes about the relative significance of evolutionary drivers, and I, myself pointed out one of them — the dispute between adaptationists and non-adaptationists. This a fundamental conflict over the relative importance of selection vs. drift at the phenotypic level. But since you don’t know what drift is, and don’t understand the explanatory power of NS by your own embarrassing admission, then I wouldn’t expect you to understand this dispute.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 765
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 7th, 2020, 10:32 am 

davidm » February 7th, 2020, 11:12 pm wrote:
Natural selection, in concert with heritable variation, is one of the most powerful explanatory tools ever developed by science. For Christ sake, it explains where whole species come from! That is the very essence of explanation!




And who gets to decide these things again?

Oh that's right. You.

Essence of explanation? I could have swore that was under debate too.

Are you familiar with Hempel? Van Fraassen? Kitcher? Achinstein? They all have interesting things to say on scientific explanation.

You don't.


But, once more, ladies and gentlemen, Davidm has the final word.

Amen.
Last edited by Reg_Prescott on February 7th, 2020, 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 7th, 2020, 10:43 am 

davidm » February 7th, 2020, 11:12 pm wrote:And here you are again, basically spinning the “tautology” misconception of survival of the fittest, to which I already linked the rebuttal, here. You, predictably, failed to address it, except with yet another of your snarky, content-free one liners.




Well, why not take take it up with J. B. S. Haldane?



"The phrase 'survival of the fittest' is something of a tautology. So are most mathematical theorems. There is no harm in stating the truth in two different ways."


Or do you reckon he's a closet Creationist, too?
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 7th, 2020, 10:44 am 

Oh, how I admire an honest man.

Do you know any?
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 7th, 2020, 10:47 am 

davidm » February 7th, 2020, 11:12 pm wrote:
Genetic drift is NOT just, “We’re not all identical copies of one another.” So, no, that is NOT what I mean by “genetic drift.”




Well, would you mind explaining it to me?

Sounds to me an awful lot like "stuff happens, eh, chaps?"

Not much of a theory, dude.
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 7th, 2020, 10:49 am 

davidm » February 7th, 2020, 11:12 pm wrote:
The rest is just your typical numbing gassbaggery. Yes, there is a universal consensus, not necessarily about the detailed components and subcomponents of evolutionary change, but a universal consensus about Darwin’s key, and very explanatory, insights — common descent, reproductive variance, and natural selection. The only people who depart from the consensus are ID/creationists — which you, disingenuously, disavow. IOW, all you want to do, to borrow Forest’s colorful metaphor, is pee on candles.



So, what you're telling me is evolutionary biologists are all agreed?

Except on the bits they don't agree about?
Reg_Prescott
 


Re: Odds

Postby Reg_Prescott on February 7th, 2020, 10:51 am 

Not much of a universal consensus, dude.

Not that I see anything wrong with disagreement.

My only problem is with fanatical televangelists like yourself feigning a united front where none exists.
Reg_Prescott
 


Previous

Return to Odds & Ends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 16 guests