Alternative Evolution

Myksyk

Here's the kind of thing you'll find on www.alternativescience.com, originally brought to my attention by 'Meatproduct' who is very enthusiastic (seriously) about it and thinks that we're all in a conspiracy to hide the truths about cold fusion and psychokenesis and that we're all in a pact to shove the big bad bogey of Darwinian evolution down everybody's throat.

I posted a similar post on another thread but it bears repetition here I think. Firstly, this is a quote from the site:
_______________________________________________________________

"Notice the words; "The characteristics themselves do not directly matter at all." This innocent phrase fatally undermines Darwin's original key conception: that each animal's special physical characteristics are what makes it fit to survive: the giraffe's long neck, the eagle's keen eye, or the cheetah's 60 mile-an-hour sprint.

Simpson's reformulation means all this must be dropped: it is not the characteristics that directly matter -- it is the animals' capacity to reproduce themselves. The race is not to the swift, after all, but merely to the prolific. So how can neo-Darwinism explain the enormous diversity of characteristics?"
________________________________________________________________

Now ... is this perhaps the most transparently stupid statement ever made on evolution?

Does the author seriously think that ability to reproduce has nothing to do with characteristics which enable you to survive?

As he clearly lacks insight into even the most fundamental ideas of neo-Darwinian evolution... I'll explain slowly ... if he happens past our little forum. In order to reproduce, you must survive until you actually can reproduce (Does this really need explaining????).

In other words you must still be alive after whatever constitutes your 'puberty'. In order to get to that stage you must survive in your environment and you must COMPETE (probably the most fundamental idea in Darwinian thought) with other animals for the resources in your environment. If you lose, you increase your risk of dying and not reproducing and your genes don't get passed on. Whatever genes helped you win the race, or at least stay in it, will then be 'naturally selected' for. There is no use in being potentially prolific if you die age 2!!!! There is no oraganism alive who had ancestors who died before they could reproduce.

If I'm faster (or quieter, or smarter, or have better camouflage, or can fend off colds better, or am sexier etc etc etc) than my cheetah mate Padraig (and the local "Didjahearsumtin" impala family) then I'm more likely to beat off the competition, catch loads of food, be able to attract that sexy vixen of a cheetah, Maura (who also has all the characteristics which have helped her survive until I get a chance to woo and jump her), and survive long enough to pass on my genes and keep my demanding offspring alive.

If people come up with other excerpts from this or other sites I'd be interested in a critical analysis ... if this is the right thread for that.

ecksor

Originally posted by Myksyk
Now ... is this perhaps the most transparently stupid statement ever made on evolution?

Perhaps, but making points (apparently) about mammals doesn't seem to answer the point entirely. Our reproduction doesn't seem terribly prolific or efficient.

I posted a similar post on another thread but it bears repetition here I think. Firstly, this is a quote from the site:

Have you got a specific link for that, it is unclear to me what point the writer is trying to make out of context.

davros

I sense a discussion of evolution coming on so I'm splitting it off to its own thread.

ecksor

This seems to be the link: http://www.alternativescience.com/natural-selection.htm

I think the commentry is interpreting "do not directly matter" as "do not matter" (and then applying them to different contexts), which seems to be the essence of Myksyk's objection?

I'm not interested in a debate about evolution, the question is meant as is. The point that Milton has latched onto, if taken as given (and I'm not saying it necessarily is), doesn't seem to be adequately rebutted by the points about mammals. What difference would living past two make if we were simply outcompeted by the prolific insect that has had many million offspring by that age?

So, not a debate so much as a clarification of assumptions and misinterpretations or (gasp) actual gaps or problems in the theory that can be found in the article.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Myksyk
Here's the kind of thing you'll find on www.alternativescience.com, originally brought to my attention by 'Meatproduct' who is very enthusiastic (seriously) about it and thinks that we're all in a conspiracy to hide the truths about cold fusion and psychokenesis and that we're all in a pact to shove the big bad bogey of Darwinian evolution down everybody's throat.

Oh god, I sense a rant with a complete misunderstanding of darwins message and a lecture on "folk-evolution" coming on......

Originally posted by Myksyk
Now ... is this perhaps the most transparently stupid statement ever made on evolution?

I've seen worse.

Originally posted by Myksyk
Does the author seriously think that ability to reproduce has nothing to do with characteristics which enable you to survive?

It doesn't have nothing to do with it but its not the be all and end all of evolutionary selection, which is something that Darwin himself knew was a hole in his original message. Many creatures survive to reproduce yet don't produce offspring that make it to adolecence or even birth. If you are going to make an arguement, make sure your own counter arguement can stand alone.

Originally posted by Myksyk
As he clearly lacks insight into even the most fundamental ideas of neo-Darwinian evolution... I'll explain slowly ... if he happens past our little forum. In order to reproduce, you must survive until you actually can reproduce (Does this really need explaining????).

Many animals are more adept predators, hunters, camoflage experts whatever, yet don't hide their eggs as well, produce partcularly vunerable offspring etc etc. This may be what the author is alluding to, while its not the be all and end all of evolutionary theory, it shows up a little more than "I can run faster than you"

Originally posted by Myksyk
In other words you must still be alive after whatever constitutes your 'puberty'. In order to get to that stage you must survive in your environment and you must COMPETE (probably the most fundamental idea in Darwinian thought) with other animals for the resources in your environment. If you lose, you increase your risk of dying and not reproducing and your genes don't get passed on. Whatever genes helped you win the race, or at least stay in it, will then be 'naturally selected' for. There is no use in being potentially prolific if you die age 2!!!! There is no oraganism alive who had ancestors who died before they could reproduce.

And here you show that you're not as well read on evolution as you might like to think. First off, Darwins evolution has many holes, that he himself pointed out and others after him. Your idea of "naturally selecting the good genes" is over simplified and incorrect. Generally you are competing for resources with your own species as most tend to find a specific niche, but more over rarely does competition with other animals for the same resources come into play (unless you mean other animals of the same species, you're not clear on this). While you make a point that reproducing is important for continuation of the species, it doesn't ensure a place on the evolutionary ladder, but I've already said that anyway.

Originally posted by Myksyk
If I'm faster (or quieter, or smarter, or have better camouflage, or can fend off colds better, or am sexier etc etc etc) than my cheetah mate Padraig (and the local "Didjahearsumtin" impala family) then I'm more likely to beat off the competition, catch loads of food, be able to attract that sexy vixen of a cheetah, Maura (who also has all the characteristics which have helped her survive until I get a chance to woo and jump her), and survive long enough to pass on my genes and keep my demanding offspring alive.

Quite

Originally posted by Myksyk
If people come up with other excerpts from this or other sites I'd be interested in a critical analysis ... if this is the right thread for that.

Maybe I'll look again, I've seen this hoken a hundred times, usually its some guy who seizes a counter arguement to Darwinian evolution, not realising that Darwinian evolution as most people know it was expanded upon and revised by many, including Darwin, over the years. Then some bright spark who read many a popular book about Darwinian evolution comes along and gets on his high horse, also missing the point about Darwinian evolution being much revised since on the origin of the species and we get a reinactment of some debate that probably took place over a hundred years ago. *sigh*

I'm going to bed.

Myksyk

Pardon my profound confusion but what insects are you in competition with exactly in your particular environmental niche?

davros

Ahem, can we keep that rule in our heads: attack the post, not the poster? Thank you

Myksyk

That was a question for ekcsor ... as syke was obviously typing at the same time as me.

QUOTEAnd here you show that you're not as well read on evolution as you might like to think. First off, Darwins evolution has many holes, that he himself pointed out and others after him. Your idea of "naturally selecting the good genes" is over simplified and incorrect. Generally you are competing for resources with your own species as most tend to find a specific niche, but moreover rarely does competition with otehr animals for teh same resources come into play (unless you mean other animals of the same species, yo're not clear on this). While you make a point that reproducing is important for continuation of the species, it doesn't ensure a place on the evolutionary ladder, but I've already said that anyway.QUOTE

Of course Darwin's original theory had holes in it (sigh)... many have been filled and many remain (spare us the tiresome patronising). Of course my point was 'oversimplified' ... I was posting a comment on an internet thread, not summarizing the neo-Darwinian synthesis!

My comment to eksor echoes the sentiment regarding competition and hopefully clarifies the point that I meant that competition is (obviously!!!!!!!) constrained to and within particular contexts. I guess I made certain assumptions about the readers here knowing this.

QUOTE: Then some bright spark who read many a popular book about Darwinian evolution comes along and gets on his high horse, also missing the point about Darwinian evolution being much revised since origina of the species and we get a reinactment of some debate that probably took place over a hundred years ago. *sigh* QUOTE

SIGH indeed. What has not been revised is that competition is still an important factor in the evolution of phenotype characteristics and that these characteristics play an important role in the survival of the individual organism. That was the only point I was making in rebutting the point made on the site. If you wish to jump to some strange conclusion that I'm not aware that innumerable other factors might matter (why do you do that?) then that is up to you.

GuanYin

Originally posted by davros
Ahem, can we keep that rule in our heads: attack the post, not the poster? Thank you

Erm, all I said was that he was using an argument he didn't understand, but if I was offensive, sorry.

ecksor

Originally posted by Myksyk
Pardon my profound confusion but what insects are you in competition with exactly in your particular environmental niche?

I seem to remember the little ****ers required quite a fair bit attention to keep them off the crops but I'm sure that isn't what you mean and perhaps it wasn't a good example to illustrate my misunderstanding of your post (in real terms I don't know how much we're in competition with any insects).

All I'm saying is that it isn't clear from your post if you're disputing that the theory favours being prolific or not, and if not it isn't clear how you're making the case that that the examples you quote help to be prolific. Sure, they help to survive until reproduction time, but that seems to make an assumption about the methods of reproduction (hence the references to insects).

Hey, I'm not going to pretend to understand evolution to engage you in a debate here, I'm just trying to understand your slow explanation.

Myksyk

I know we're overlapping posts and impacting on the fluidity of the thread but what exactly don't I understand syke. I'm not asking for your usual assumptions about what I (and everyone else who has the temerity to comment on science) may know or not know. I'm asking you to point out what in my thread specifically indicates a lack of understanding of Darwinian theory. In my opinion, you see what WASN'T said then assume that the person doesn't know about it, rather than that they felt it wasn't germane to the very simple point being made.

If there's a high horse around here, it isn't on this side of the keyboard.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Myksyk
I was posting a comment on an internet thread, not summarizing the neo-Darwinian synthesis!

You made a rebuttal arguement to a perfectly acceptable part of evolutionary theory without mentioning that the theory was inany was accepted an dimply that it wasn't and that your point was the be all and end all. This just isn't the case as complex ecological niches are far more complex than this.

Originally posted by Myksyk
I guess I made certain assumptions about the readers here knowing this.

It wasn't clear to me either and as such I'd say its a poor debating technique on your part.

Originally posted by Myksyk
If you wish to jump to some strange conclusion that I'm not aware that innumerable other factors might matter (why do you do that?) then that is up to you.

I'm just replying to what you posted, I attacked the post, not made assumptions about the poster either way.

Myksyk

QUOTE You made a rebuttal arguement to a perfectly acceptable part of evolutionary theory without mentioning that the theory was inany was accepted an dimply that it wasn't and that your point was the be all and end all. This just isn't the case as complex ecological niches are far more complex than this.QUOTE

LOL .. You've had more wine than me syke.:) However, I certainly didn't say that my point was the be all and end all. I was simply rebutting the following point:

QUOTE...This innocent phrase fatally undermines Darwin's original key conception: that each animal's special physical characteristics are what makes it fit to survive: the giraffe's long neck, the eagle's keen eye, or the cheetah's 60 mile-an-hour sprint.

Simpson's reformulation means all this must be dropped: it is not the characteristics that directly matter -- it is the animals' capacity to reproduce themselves. The race is not to the swift, after all, but merely to the prolific. So how can neo-Darwinism explain the enormous diversity of characteristics?".....QUOTE

I'm sorry for having unintentionally started an argument. I am saying that this is nonsense. Physical chraacteristics matter. Competition matters. These (and other factors) DO, contrary to this site's assertion, explain the the enormous diversity of characteristics. Please stop making assumptions about what else I may think about evolution ... I haven't stated anything else. What this guy said was wrong (the race is ... merely to the prolific? come on!!) .

You obviously agree that this guy's assertion is wrong. What is it about the way I rebutted it (stating that phenotype differences are obviously important to the survival of the individual and the evolution of diverse physical characteristics within and between species) that is wrong ... apart from the fact that I didn't rebutt it in the other 32 to ways it could have been rebutted.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Myksyk
LOL .. You've had more wine than me syke.:) However, I certainly didn't say that my point was the be all and end all. I was simply rebutting the following point:

I hadn't had any wine, and I'll thank you kindly to not make personal comments about my state. You posted an ambiguous piece which seems to have fallen into the same trap as the author by either not knowing the current literature or not showing that you know the current literature, which you cannot expect another poster to telepathically distinguish.

Originally posted by Myksyk
I'm sorry for having unintentionally started an argument. I am saying that this is nonsense. Physical chraacteristics matter. Competition matters. These (and other factors) DO, contrary to this site's assertion, explain the the enormous diversity of characteristics. Please stop making assumptions about what else I may think about evolution ... I haven't stated anything else. What this guy said was wrong (the race is ... merely to the prolific? come on!!) .

Actually in some respects this is true but it tends to be based on the creature. Large and highly adapted animals evolve at a slow rate as they produce few offspring over long periods. Elephants, Sharks, Whales and Humans would all fit into this catagory as they have no major predators or environmental pressure.
On the other hand, many insects and small mammals, fish etc would produce and abundance of offspring who would be very much at threat from predators and these creature may also reproduce more often. Because of the lower generation time and the comparatively high number of progeny subtle changes may occur and in these cases natural selection is ALL about getting as many kids out as possible, subtle advantages are one thing but survival of the offspring is paramount.

The author seems to have missed this though and it is a place where Darwin fell short. Darwinian evolution, while a brilliant piece for what it was (although he didn't do it all himself), had many fatal shortcomings as a stand alone piece. Many of these have been redressed and modified. Unfortunately, many creationists and alternative scientists miss this and seem to think that new ideas or observations are contradicting Darwin instead of expanding it.

Originally posted by Myksyk
You obviously agree that this guy's assertion is wrong. What is it about the way I rebutted it (stating that phenotype differences are obviously important to the survival of the individual and the evolution of diverse physical characteristics within and between species) that is wrong ... apart from the fact that I didn't rebutt it in the other 32 to ways it could have been rebutted.

Because your rebuttal looked narrow visioned. Its obvious as to wher ethe author made tehmistake. Its easy enough to point this out. Your post, while you may not have intended it, made it look like an either/or situation and clinging to the old Darwinian ideas - the cheetah analogy for instance is far too simple to be accurate except for folk-biology, it worked for Darwin at the time, then we became more advanced in our understanding, started seeing other creatures that died off that would have been just as capable as the Cheetah, and revised the situation.

In short you argued a misunderstood new idea with anoutdated old model.

Myksyk

I hadn't had any wine, and I'll thank you kindly to not make personal comments about my state.

As you have no smiley after this I'm not sure if you're actually serious!!! Just for clarification I wasn't being malicious old boy, I was gently slagging you for the (presumably unintentional) unintelligibility of the line:

...without mentioning that the theory was inany was accepted an dimply that it wasn't...

Sorry if you were actually offended (seems a tad sensitive to be fair).

I have taken on the rest of what you said and feel we would probably agree with each other in a proper discussion on this.

I will attempt to be clearer in future.

davros

Even at the best of times, in a thread that starts out so confrontationally, it would be wise to lay off the personally-directed humour. But when I've already stepped in and asked participants to stick to the argument, it's fuel on the fire.

I've been asked to mod this forum with a heavier hand to prevent the ill feeling that arose in previous threads. That's the mode we are in now.

Temperate language, elegance of phrase and the polite back-and-forth of stimulating debate - these are our watchwords

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Myksyk
Pardon my profound confusion but what insects are you in competition with exactly in your particular environmental niche?

AFAIAA insects eat about 1/4 of all crops worldwide.

In most cases evolution is a law of averages - organisms usually don't suddenly develop a third arm that enables them to scratch thier arses while eating etc., many traits are neutral and spread by chance alone - eg: what is the competitive advantage in eye colour ? - more importantly if a trait is not disadvantageous then there is no pressure to loose it.

Also behaviour can be "inherited" by learning it, with smarter mamals this can compensate for poorer genetics to a certain extent.

Then again can anyone name two organisms that can run twenty miles, swim across a river and climb a tree .

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Myksyk
Here's the kind of thing you'll find on www.alternativescience.com, originally brought to my attention by 'Meatproduct' who is very enthusiastic (seriously) about it and thinks that we're all in a conspiracy to hide the truths about cold fusion and psychokenesis and that we're all in a pact to shove the big bad bogey of Darwinian evolution down everybody's throat.

Wow, just came across this. I'd just like to point out that I am being misrepresented by Myksyk here. Since this thread is already unstable I won't join in ( I will if the discussion becomes more calm).
Never at any stage did I say that cold fusion or indeed psychokenesis were part of a conspiracy. Quite remarkable how you came to those conclusions there Myksyk, each to his/her own. The "throat" thing? Really, grow up.

Nick

PS: For this subject I would recommend the book: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Well worth the read no matter if you are pro or anti Darwin.

davros

I've been doing some research... I've tracked down the original impetus for this thread to the Paganism board, a board I don't happen to read. To my knowledge, MeatProduct has never before posted here. When I read the start of this thread I was puzzled by the (quoted) 'Meatproduct' reference.

I'm sorry, MeatProduct, if I had realised someone was being defamed (and especially without their knowledge) I would have shut down the thread right there.

I'm closing it now and issuing a yellow card to Myksyk.