The challenge, for all and sundry but especially for “Darwin doubters”, should you wish to take it, is to submit a one-paragraph summary of the theory of evolution. The idea is to see if you understand it well enough to fairly summarize the theory so that you pass as a proponent of evolution. We also need some examples from proponents to test the null hypothesis!
To ensure anonymity, please submit your paragraph by private message to me or another admin and we will add it in edit. (Or email it to me at alanfox@free.fr if you prefer.)
Speculation and divination are enouraged in the comments!
ETA some degarbling!
First contribution:
The Theory of Evolution (hereafter referred to as just evolution is generally credited to Charles Darwin. In his book, Origin of the Species, he described his observations regarding finches in the Galapagos Islands. He noticed that living organisms, when they reproduce, are reproduced with slight modifications. In essence that organisms descend with modification. The first crucial part of evolution is this basic idea. What we now refer to as descent with modification. Gradually, over much time, continual modifications are made to generations of descendants, and after much time, the descendants may be quite different in function and appearance than their ancestors. The first part of this theory was established prior to our current knowledge of DNA and genetics. After the discovery of DNA, and as we learned about how genes are copied, evolution was confirmed because we learned in fact that genetic s are not copied perfectly. Instead there are slight changes, we call random mutations. We now know that Charles Darwin’s ideas about descent with modification were correct and more precisely we know that those modifications happen through random mutation. The second crucial part of evolution is the idea of natural selection. When random mutations happen, they are mostly nonsignificant and have no bearing on an organisms ability to survive in their environmental niche. However, sometimes the random mutations are negative and those specimens die out quickly and don’t reproduce. For instance, albino rabbits are more easily seen and captured by the foxes than are rabbits that are brown. In other cases though, the random mutations result in positive changes to an organism in their given environmental context. These mutations allow the organisms to be more fit for their context and thus they are more successful at reproducing. Gradually over time, natural selection weeds out the less adapted versions in favor of the newer adaptations. An example of this can be seen in the black and white moth scenario in the UK. Together, Random mutation and natural selection along with ‘deep time’ make up the heart of the modern synthesis of evolution. The theory continues to readjust slightly over time with additional research. For example, recently, a minority of scientists (Kimura, et al) have emphasized simple descent with modification as the primary driver of evolution, though not totally discounting natural selection. In essence a neutral drift of the species mostly. There are other slight variations with the models, for instance Stephen J Gould famously proposed a punctuated equilibrium model as an alternative to the ‘gradualist’ model. In neither of the mentioned cases though was evolution rejected. Instead, proposed variations to the theory were given. There are generally some very convincing evidences for evolution. The fossil record and its various layers support the theory of evolution. The age of the universe supports evolution. Vestigial features such as the hair of the human arm standing on end when we are scared or cold provide compelling examples. Junk DNA provides powerful evidence of evolution. And the close relationship, DNA wise of chimps and humans provide strong evidence for evolution. The origin of life, abiogenesis, is generally considered outside the conversation of evolution and not strictly speaking part of evolutionary theory. Evolution gives a clear model for explaining the diversity and similarity of living things across the earth. Contrary to some opinions evolution doesn’t necessarily make any statement about theism or atheism.
Second contribution:
The theory of evolution is that biological organisms develop from one physical state to a different physical state by incremental steps through selection of successfully reproducing members of a population. Those successfully reproducing being due to mutations affecting members of a population and those members gaining a advantage in a environment of the moment. The mutations being the important element for biological change may mean also that selection is not needed in a population and so new populations may simply occur upon mutations alone. The evidence for the theory is from a system of close attributes in organisms demonstrated by a tree formation. These attributes are used to show a spectrum of biological relationship and so common descent to be demonstrated. Genetics and the fossil record are also essential evidences and based on attributes showing a spectrum of divergence. Other evidences based on comparison of attributes also are included. Starting from a hypothesis the accumulation of evidence and general explanatory weight has turned the hypothesis into a theory in biology. Within the evolutionary biology community there are important or notable differences in ideas on aspects of evolution however the core concept is a foundation.
Third submission:
Whether it is a court case or science, the capabilities and limits of causes of specific effects are crucial to deciding whether or not there is good reason to doubt the alleged cause or causes. Evolutionary theory lives or dies on the evidence of the specific effects caused by its capabilities and limits, as should any other claimed cause of life and its diversity. In simple form, evolution is caused by reproduction, which passes inherited information from parent to child, or from single cell to daughter cells, with considerable fidelity, but also with changes in that information called mutations. Detrimental mutations tend to be weeded out by natural selection, while natural selection tends to retain beneficial mutations, and over many generations intersecting and additive beneficial mutations may lead to new features, such as flight. Much more happens in evolution, like neutral or near-neutral mutations, bottlenecks, and genetic isolation (or not), but natural selection tending to eliminate what does not lead to reproductive success and favoring what facilitates reproductive success is usually thought to be the most important process. With these evolutionary processes in place there is considerable scope for impressive change over long periods of time, but there are also important limitations to it that mark evolved life with the evidence for evolution. Notably, while there is some genetic flow between reproductively separated lineages, especially in prokaryotes, polygenic traits are quite unlikely to be transferred to, for instance, vertebrates. Vertical transmission of DNA information predominates in most eukaryotes, and is quite evident in prokaryotes as well. The relative lack of portability of information across separate lineages shows up in the vertically derivative genomes of vertebrates in general, which is seen as nested hierarchies in taxonomy. The limitations of evolutionary processes apparently produce the patterns of life. An interesting example is to be found in the three types of flying vertebrates, bats, pterosaurs, and birds, which all share obvious yet fairly distant homologies, but whose flight adaptations are entirely uninformed by each other at all, apparently due to the fact that all three groups had diverged before each group evolved flight. The same evolutionary limits mean that birds do not have the fine auditory bones that evolved in mammals, while mammals do not have the improvements in eyesight that evolved in birds, such as the pecten (nor do mammals have the more efficient lungs of birds). Vestigial organs are a peculiar case of information retained that is no longer useful for a specific purpose (but may have other current uses), such as the tiny bones of the human coccyx that apparently evolved from tail vertebrae. The general trend of the fossil record is also what would be predicted by evolutionary theory, with amphibians needing dampness evolving first from fishes, then reptiles evolving for drier climates, while mammals and dinosaurs (including birds) evolved insulation for colder areas (among many other changes). “Transitional” forms like Archaeopteryx reveal the incomplete and inefficient adaptations expected from evolutionary processes that are mostly incapable of all but incremental change. The specific patterns and evolutionary developments visible in present life and in the fossil record point with consilience to a specific set of processes that we see happening today, the evolutionary processes of inheriting DNA information with some variations in that DNA, along with natural selection tending to retain reproductively helpful changes, while tending to eliminate reproductively harmful changes.
Fourth submission
The theory of evolution holds that there has been, and continues to be, change in form via change in the genetic makeup of organisms during the succession of a lineage – summarised as ‘descent with modification’. The primary source of these modifications is provided by mutation, arising from copy and repair errors and DNA damage, but also with significant contributions from recombination, gene transfer and transposition. Many changes are lost, but some become fixed, an inevitable consequence of the blind resampling process that is involved in a succession of generations in populations of finite size. Where a change is neutral, it may become fixed in a population through genetic drift alone. Where non-neutral, both drift and selection are involved. The change affects its own survival in the population, by influencing the rate at which it is passed on to descendants, when compared to the neutral expectation. Detrimental changes are more likely to be lost, and this will occur more rapidly on the average than neutral ones. Conversely, beneficial changes are more likely to become fixed, and again this is likely to happen more rapidly than the neutral case. These latter processes constitute the modern version of Darwin’s principle of Natural Selection, which lacked a sound genetic basis when first proposed, but nonetheless articulated the basic requirements of variation and excess of production over carrying capacity.
Within sexual populations, interbreeding tends to maintain an entire population in step, but where gene flow between such populations is reduced or eliminated, divergence is inevitable, leading to the phenomenon, at a moment in time, of multiple fixed and distinct types derived from the original single population. With increasing time, ongoing divergence leads to broader and broader taxonomic classifications with greater and greater difference between them, but all tracing back to simple population-level splits at varying depths in the time series.
My issue with genetic drift is not that it happens (your Brownian motion analogy is apt, in my view). As Allan Miller points out selection slews or biases the stochastic component. Without bias from selection, there would be no adaptation to the niche. I see the niche as paramount to the evolutionary process..
OTTeVO much, foxy? Just lay it out there, now that you’ve dangled it. There really must be ONE for you to show, right? A sentence, a paragraph, an abstract, a precis, a long thesis, a draft paper, a white paper, a mini-book, a book … WHATEVER YOU CHOOSE.
Just lay it out there for us. Name, location, page number, publication, edition, etc. Be professional, not amateur and boring like you have been in denying the mere EXISTENCE of multiple evolutionary theories. DUH!
VOILA – here it is, OTTeVo, as promised by Monsieur Foxy…
And now the great real not fake or premature existing OTTeVo: “Luke, take off my mask”
Gregory is properly skeptical of the use of concepts derived from the study of biological evolution in the study of cultural and social change.
He gets very passionate about this. At times his passion gets the better of him and he seems to be skeptical about the use of concepts derived from the study of biological evolution in the study of biological evolution.
Hmmm …
Silly me. I thought “random” in evolutionary theory meant “random with respect to fitness.”
I’m not sure I know what that would mean. With ordinary genetic drift and ordinary fitness differences, for simplicity in a haploid population, there are random differences from newborn to newborn in how many offspring they have. The fitness differences reflect different expectations from one genotype to another, but there is also variation around that.
It is also possible to have fitnesses that vary from generation to generation, and from population to population.
I thought the title said Take the Evolutionary Turfing Test!
I guess that’s why Alan didn’t post my submission.
=P
Well, that’s appreciated, Joe. We do speak the language of research, after all, and using “concepts derived from the study of biological evolution in the study of cultural and social change” is a rampant problem, both among natural-physical sciences (e.g. Robert Trivers, E.O. Wilson, D.S. Wilson, A. Mesoudi, et al.) and human-social sciences (e.g. S. Sanderson, J. Diamond, S. Pinker, M. Tomasello, et al.). Be welcome to expand on what makes it a problem in your view, Joe, because the ‘skeptics’ here are already pre-conditioned against accepting what I say as true.
Not only should people become ‘properly skeptical’, the should outright reject both Darwinian (as even Dawkins admits) and also evolutionist LANGUAGE in SSH. Now, please think carefully, skeptics, of what that actually means.
This is false imputation. Use whatever concept(s) in biological sciences you want, whichever work best. I have never suggested a biological intervention from outside; whereas the opposite happens on a regular, consistent, if albeit shallow basis, e.g. EVONOMICS.
If you think opening and offering a powerful new concept into the mixture of Trans-Evolutionary Change simply *must* be a biological concept only, that’s on you, Joe, not on me. I don’t intend it as a biological concept. And indeed, it should serve to do exactly what you’ve identified above is proper: skepticism about “use of concepts derived from the study of biological evolution in the study of cultural and social change”. But it goes further than that by bringing in Human Tension, Intension and Extension as dynamic alternative concepts to discuss and explore change-over-time by human beings in society that is planned, intentional, goal-oriented, etc. – that is a teleological form of change, not some ‘random’ goalless undirected unguided process like in biological sciences.
Gregory,
That was my degree subject, but is not my profession.
The critics of evolutionary theory are talking about biology. Their ‘there are too many theories of evolution/there is no theory of evolution’ complaint is not about anything else.
Mung,
That is how mutational randomness is often portrayed, but not selection/drift. I don’t like it much myself in any case. ‘Random’ has quite enough work to do already. Give the poor word a break!
“The number of biologists who think the world revolves around them seems to be rather high nowadays.”
physicists and mathematicians would find that amusing.
Joe Felsenstein,
I’m just not sure how his concept is going to make novel predictions. Is it a ‘framework’?
But in any case, no, scientists don’t think the world revolves around them. We wonder how pride in ignorance seems to have taken over.
Right, so the obvious defense of biologism isn’t much of a surprise either and it shouldn’t be surprising to anyone ‘advanced’ in these discussions to see that is your tactic. As it turns out in the realm of HR, a bachelor’s degree in biology isn’t worth much nowadays. MSc or PhD is a different story. Perhaps you went into pharmaceutics?
There you go again wagging a big finger of ‘doesn’t know what he’s talking about.’ Thus, if what you mean by “critics of evolutionary theory” is only a small portion of those who actually criticise it (and among them, only some do so out loud), then you’re kind of ‘way out of your league.’ As you are long well aware, I am a critic, no, I am a game-change agent on the topic of evolutionism and if you’re not on the level of willing to face or even open to discuss those criticisms head-on, then it’s not worth the time to deal with ‘Allan Miller’ (are you willing to send a link to your non-biologist profile?).
I am making specific highly-damaging observations of reality that contradict the OTTeVo story that more than a few folks here hold. To keep hearing ‘biology-only’ is empty bluster easily shown. Either let it go here in this thread in public that you accept the existence of multiple evolutionary theories or retreat to a small-village head-in-the-sand avoidance of reality. It doesn’t bother me which you choose, but it’s not worth wasting time on those who can’t face reality beyond their narrow little dirt-y specialisations on issues that are of crucial importance in discussions of meaning and purpose of human life.
Perhaps your degree in biology is also probably from a highly credentialed and decorated university (thus, generally, a higher quality education, e.g. compared with what in USA is called a ‘community college’), Allan? Is this why you seem to presume that merely pumping up with your chest with biologism, and behind it, natural scientism, would somehow be ideologically intimidating and undefeatible? It isn’t.
This is the kind of counter-hegemonic basic information one needs in order to have a coherent conversation with ‘narrow specialists’ like Allan who unwisely think they can monopolise ‘evolution’ by ONE SINGLE ACADEMIC FIELD. They don’t even know how many biologists are against that view! (And they won’t ask them out of fear.)
Chapter 1 in Elliott Sober’s Philosophy of Biology isn’t “What Is The Theory Of Evolution?”.
And the chapter on “A Plurality of Evolutionary Patterns” in the Special issue on Evolutionary Patterns isn’t “How to Rethink The Theory of Evolution”.
Get a clue folks.
Don’t drop the name Alex Mesoudi here, the cultural materialists might drool.
Downward elevator greeting: “Stop talking about such people and thus proving that ‘skeptical’ myopic biologism proponents of OTTeVO … are missing something they hadn’t previously seen. It’s just *WRONG* to raise awareness like that at TSZ. People might realise that skepticism is both a limited and in many ways decadent worldview. Let’s not publicise that, shall we?”
Gregory,
My ‘tactic’ is to respond to criticisms of the biological theory of evolution by concentrating upon the thing criticised – the biological theory of evolution. You have a major bee in your bonnet, I can see that, ‘-ISM’ snipers in every tree. But that, for the hundredth time, is all I am on about: biological evolution. You can impute wider motives to me if you wish; you are obviously way beyond the reach of rational discussion.
Feel free to fuck off, then.
Mung,
Why are we obliged to agree with your chosen sources?
There’s a small issue with this. Namely, if humans as species evolved by biological evolution (a la Darwin), then everything we do, think and act, evolved the same way. Now, you can retort that there’s still no wider motive involved besides biological evolution, but if this biological evolution encompasses everything we do, think and act, then what is left outside it?
Biological evolution explains the origins of species-specific abilities. It doesn’t explain what each and every individual organism does with those abilities.
I grant that you are not obliged to agree. 🙂
btw, I brought home my copy of the Futuyma textbook today. I have the third edition.
Yes, it is protecting society against the exaggerated ideology of EVOLUTIONISM and I do it with 4 academic degrees in 3 fields behind my belt studying it for 15 years. Since this includes HPSS, it most probably means I know a whole lot more about your field that you know about mine. I am aware of no one at TSZ who has the interdisciplinary pedigree to match my critique of evolutionistic ideology, and that is partly why ‘skeptics’ hide. (Then again, so do IDists, TEs, ECs & BioLogosians – and nobody really wants to befriend backwards white protestant evangelical young earth creationist-USAmericans on God’s green earth anymore.)
If you have it in your mind to defend the ideology of evolutionism (and yet won’t actually name it an ideology), then please put your views more clearly on the table. If all you want to defend is limited evolutionary biology, that is too boring for me. You can do that in small town USAmerica anytime you want on pace of slugs.
A few people here seem to understand that this asks you to open up your though to the reality that evolutionary theories are widespread across not just biological sciences. So mere ‘biologists’ need to learn their silence in the right places, which is most of the time ‘evolution’ is being discussed. Ask questions rather than state your mastery over a subject that you haven’t studied, but could at least, as a balanced human being, show that you respect and would in principle LIKE to learn more about, if you had the time. Y’know, PEOPLE?
You’re definitely ON ABOUT IT, Allan Miller. 😉 Can I ask: Do you actually know anything about technology, language or cooking? We know you don’t know anything and refuse to know about religion, which helps shape the character behind the communication. But this ‘me stick face in mud because biologist & be smart’ apish-talk is rather 20th century. 😉 So, do technology, language and/or cooking ‘evolve’ in YOUR view or not?
“I remain a humanistically uncommitted, myopic and irrelevant biologist so I have no answer,” would be a legitimate answer.
Where is Alan Fox’s promised OTTeVo? He had his chest out to the edges of the play room claiming that there actually IS a single, monolithic, ‘understood by experts, but not IDists (who all think there isn’t even any evolutionary theory, certainly not ‘evolutionary theories,’ right? 😉 ), buttocks be upon them’.
So, where is this THEORY in one single place? Is it under locked glass at the Goetheanum? 😉 Does NCSE really keep a secret copy of “the pamphlet in which OTTeVo was invented” that is now procured, after being saved from the Mormon fires in Utah and an acid attack by a Southern Baptist collaborating with a theosophist, kept in Eugenie Scott’s safety deposit box? Will Alan Fox eventually SHOW what he baited TSZ visitors (IDists – a few quasi-IDists, way fringe) with? “Hurrah – down with the ignorant WASP IDists!”
Now, Alan, your turn: the ominous OTTeVO definition please…
Gregory,
You’d be better served fleshing out your better-than-evolution alternative rather than blowing your own trumpet.
That’s why I spend little time in this skeptic cesspit. Working. And even when it is shown in visual pop form here, what was it <25 responses? Go play more with Vincent before he cuts his ear off. The Evolutionariat makes ominous threats based on an outdated British ‘naturalist’? Oh, wOw, world slow down and look backwards at Darwin for some more heroic history fixation! 😉 Not my idea of fun, Richard. Humanistically, I go forwards with many others well ahead of me and ‘evolutionists’ far behind us all.
Erik,
If people say ‘there is no theory of evolution’, or ‘there are SOOOO many theories of evolution’, then it is the biological theory they are talking about, and hence that is the theory I discuss in response. The fact that might have undesirable consequences for one’s worldview is somewhat beside the point. Certainly, it is no reason for agreeing with them, or staying silent, since they are simply being factually incorrect. You too seem to think I’m pushing atheism. I’m not.
Gregory,
When the topic under discussion is biological evolution, it will naturally seem that this is my main focus. “EvolutionisbollocksEvolutionisbollocksEvolutionisbollocksEvolutionisbollocksEvolutionisbollocksEvolutionisbollocks” goes the chorus.
“Well … it isn’t, because X Y Z”, say I.
“YOU’RE OBSESSED! YOU NEVER TALK ABOUT ANYTHING BUT EVOLUTION, YOU DAMN DIRTY DARWIN-WORSHIPPER!”
Okayyyyy…
Someone with four whole degrees might be able to wrap their head around the fact that one cannot glean the entirety of a person’s character or interests from their comments on a special-interest discussion board.
You want me to restate my short version of the Theory of Evolution? Not that I recall promising to do so, and despite the fact I’ve previously done so, for your delectation and delight, and right off the top of my head without reference to earlier attempts, I give you:
Given a population of biological organisms capable of reproducing and an environment of limited resources such that there will be competition for resources such as space, food, and sexual partners,
And given the fact that replication of heritable material is imperfect so that variation accumulates in that heritable material (with the added element of processes such as recombination in sexually reproducing organisms),
Then individuals carrying heritable material that gives a phenotype better adapted to that environment are likely to contribute more heritable material to offspring than individuals that don’t. That bias in survival and reproduction will result in change over time of the heritable material in that population with a resultant change in phenotype.
If you just want to talk dirty, there are probably other sites more appropriate for your requirements. 😉
Want me to confirm that Rudolph Steiner was a bit daft,? Ok then!
Did you take a turn, Gregory?
Can that assessment be independently verified, or do we only have your word for it?
In practical terms, what does it mean that you are far ahead of ‘evolutionists’? Do you have an alternative to ‘evolutionism’ that explains the observed facts better?
This is the mistake you are making. You think religion is something. It’s not, it’s just wisps of air. Put some people without memories of religion on a desert island, come back in 100 years. They’ll have no doubt invented their own religion. Do it again, compare the religions. They will not be the same. Now do the same with a bunch of scientists. The atomic weight of helium will never change, no matter how many times you try the trial. Unlike the religious lot, who will just make it up as they go along. They have no other choice, do they? Unless you can demonstrate otherwise – go from no knowledge of Jesus to Jesus without using the bible? Will a group of people on a desert island with no knowledge of Jesus independently invent him and then worship him? That’s just silly.
So whatever religion has done to shape the character behind the communication it reflects nothing of underlying reality. It’s just whatever random thoughts were floating round at the time.
And that’s why as humanity grows up you’ll fade away into history. Humanity needed you once, but as light replaces darkness you’ll just go away.
Good to hear. 🙂
But Patrick’s not pushing atheism either. That would mean actually making claims. Turning the immaterial into the material, as it were. I mean, how does one push lack of belief? LoL.
I don’t know why you would think The Theory of Evolution could be compressed into a single paragraph. Futuyma had to use 20. And he called them “The Major Tenets.” No telling how many “minor tenets” there are.
tenet: a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy.
synonyms: principle, belief, doctrine, precept, creed, credo, article of faith, axiom, dogma, canon;
Just pointing out for the record: Gregory is not interested in talking about what everyone else here is talking about, and conversely.
Gregory is interested in talking about the uses and abuses of the concept of “evolution” in the social sciences and humanities.
He’s not (so far as I can tell) raising any objections to evolutionary theory in biology.
Conversely, everyone else here is only interested in evolutionary theory as an explanation in the biological sciences, of biological phenomena.
You’re all talking past one another.
I get that.
I get that too! There was a thread on it started by Gregory a while ago. here
Not as far as I can tell, either. I’m not sure he’s altogether clear on how biological evolution is supposed to work, though.
I’m concerned that when folks discuss biological evolution, they are clear about what the theory says and what bits they disagree with. I do have other interests and I doubt I’m the only one.
That happens a lot. Judging by his remark “25 responses”, Gregory is a bit miffed at the lack of interest in another OP of his.
Summarized.
According to Futuyma there are at least twenty different major tenets that comprise The Modern Synthesis.
I don’t know why you would think they could all be
compressed intosummarized in a single paragraph.Kantian Naturalist,
That is hardly news to me. Honestly, how is one supposed to address such an interlocutor, assuming one wants to?
I get that Gregory has major issues with ‘Evolutionism’. He has not lost me on that score; I can read and understand his posts.
Mung,
They take up less than 2 pages in the book. They could easily be summarised. Is there anything missing from #4 of the OP that is essential, from the list of 20?
And yet Futuyma tells his readers that “very often, in treating a particular topic, I have first described the theory, and have then provided one or more examples of studies that have been done to test the theory.”
Do you think he’s repeating the same theory over and over for each topic, or that there are in fact multiple theories, perhaps even one (or more!) theory per topic?
By the way, I have it on good authority that Gould actually changed the title of his book. The original title was The Structure of Evolutionary Theories.
😉
Hah. I see what you’re trying to do. You’re trying to get me to actually read them. I’m on to you though.
You are ‘not lost’ that there is a serious problem with ideological evolutionism (that you appear still to hold), yet for some ‘mysterious’ corn-field reason can’t gather the ________ to answer a simple, clear, uncomplicated question put to you above:
“So, do technology, language and/or cooking ‘evolve’ in YOUR view or not?”
No one else to help you, Allan Miller. The question is directed to your ________ (insert most core human identity indicator of choice).
“I don’t use that language,” would suffice (kinda wimpy, but hey, there’s all kinds 😉 ). So would, “No” or “Yes” or “I’m not sure” or whatever. At least those are committed answers.
Gregory,
The question was buried in one of your ill-focussed rants. Make clarity and concision your friends, if communication is your aim.
Language has a clear relation to biological evolution, having as it does close analogues of populations, selection, drift, ‘genetic’ transfer and common ancestry. The others, not so much, so they ‘evolve’ in a somewhat different sense.
Language also has horizontal transfer.
And spelling rather blatently evolves via mutation, drift and selection.
‘Buried’ – meaning in BOLD LETTERS – apparently is a satisfying solution for Allan Miller, biologist to ignore the more difficult reality of his evolutionistic ideology head-on, philosophy (not just the philosophistry on tap here!) staring back in the mirror.
Please explain this “somewhat different sense” with more detail or theoretical context. Something like “technology [or cooking] ‘evolves’ this way…”. & I don’t just mean ‘changes’ since there are varieties of change including non-evolutionary change. Are you following anyone who claims that theoretically or just making it up as you go, like Alan Fox with his OTTeVo? ROTFL.
(Aside: Let’s see if he can get by without using quasi-agential PASSIVE eVolutionariat voice)
Gregory,
Yeah, bold letters and ALL CAPS are very effective strategies for distinguishing the important parts of a post from the rant-y parts!
Evolution in those instances is simply ‘change’, in my view. I say that despite having read your caution against saying that. I think it is equivocation to lump all notions of change together.
O.k. so in the cause of being against equivocation, which non-evolutionary varieties of change would you mention?
“Evolution (in those 2 or 3 instances) IS simply change, but sometimes ISN’T simply change” is not a very reassuring, scientific or scholarly position. It is just agnostic nonsense.
Gregory,
In what context? I’m standing on a street corner and someone asks me to mention some non-evolutionary varieties of change? According to some definitions of evolution, all change would fit evolution. But not all change shares the characteristics of biological evolution, wrt populations, heritability etc.
I dare say. It’s not meant to be any of those; it’s principally a semantic position.
You always shrink to biology. Silly dehumanising human. 🙁
That’s why I asked about technology and cooking. You have no theory on which to base your ideas. They are as a foolish dilettante.
Non-evolutionary varieties of change; there are NONE. Is that what you’re saying? Or just that they are forbidden to be publically named?
Or is it just that you don’t know any non-evolutionary varieties of change, even though you said “I think it is equivocation to lump all notions of change together.” Now you have no problem not identifying ANY varieties of change that are non-evolutionary? So you have no solution to the equivocation of other people, but, even without identifying other varieties of change BY NAME, you know (‘it when you see it’) when change isn’t ‘evolutionary’?
It sounds like you are contradicting yourself. Please name some non-evolutionary varieties of change otherwise this won’t be solved. I don’t think you know any. Take time to think & research if needed.
If ‘principally semantic’ is your position, that’s fine. You will lose naturalism (including the resident philosophist here) vs. humanism.
OTTeVo foxy flop. His def’n of THE OTTeVo is as valuable as a Franc.
Ciao
Gregory,
I mention biology, if that’s what ‘shrink to’ means in your world.
Since I have no great interest in ‘evolution’ [qv] as applied to those arenas, I could hardly be other, though I do earn my living in technology and make a mean tagine.
Do you claim that you ‘evolve’ technology? If not, which other active verb(s) do you prefer?
Gregory,
No.
Design.
Design technology (& anything else human-made) & the biosphere evolves. Fine.
I’ll take that as a vote for the need for non-evolutionary change to be explored more carefully, with the voter having no comprehension of ANY alternative variety of change other than evolutionary change, or at least, it was too much for him to have NAMED anything after repeated requests. Pump chest out OTTeVo Potemkin-skeptic tricks.
No more time for that