(2018-01-20, 03:13 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Yes. You were counteracting a point that I never made in the first place. I made some other point, which was actually confirmed by Laland's article.
EES evolutionary biologists aren't overly controversial because the ideas they refer to - epigenetics, evo-devo, developmental bias, etc. are overly controversial (which Laland confirmed). They're overly controversial because they disagree over whether the current characterization of evolutionary theory adequately captures those ideas or whether it needs a broader characterization.
My response to Kamarling, referred to the former - whether it would be regarded as overly controversial for a biologist to bring up newer ideas (e.g. epigenetics, evo-devo, etc.), since that is what we had been talking about (newer ideas or criticisms as to mechanisms wrt abiogenesis). Your choice of Laland quote referred to the latter - attacks on whether evolutionary theory needs a broader characterization.
Linda
My but you can drag things out to the point of absurdity. My point was simple, I said "
Anyone who challenges the orthodoxy is controversial. Even the so-called Third Way proponents are considered controversial."
To illustrate, here's what Coyne thinks of James Shapiro (Third Way):
Quote:His Big Idea is that natural selection has not only been overemphasized in evolution, but appears to play very little role at all. Even though he’s spreading nonsense in a widely-read place, I don’t go after him very often, for he just uses my criticisms as the basis of yet another abstruse and incoherent post. Like the creationists whose ideas he appropriates, he resembles those toy rubber clowns that are impossible to knock down.
And this:
Quote:It isn’t the “gene concept” that holds back evolutionary thinking; it’s not only creationist opposition, but also people like Shapiro who, without any scientific support, mislead readers by arguing that the modern theory of evolution is fatally flawed.
Or how about Larry Moran (someone Paul has cited elsewhere)? This is him on Denis Noble (Third Way):
Quote:I have heard Denis Noble speak and I've read some of his papers [Physiologists fall for the Third Way; A physiologist thinks about evolution]. Denis Noble is a physiologist who worked on hearts and circulation in complex mammals (humans). He's very annoyed at biochemists and molecular biologists for getting so much attention (and money) over the past few decades. He has constructed in his mind a false image of evolution. He thinks it's entirely adaptationist and gene-centric and that's what he rails against. He doesn't like Richard Dawkins. He's a prominent member of The Third Way.
Or his thoughts about the recent Royal Society conference:
Quote:It looks to me like the organizers of this meeting didn't think very carefully about the can of worms they were opening. When you have speakers like Denis Noble and Jim Shapiro you are just inviting trouble.
(2018-01-17, 08:59 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]God did it with a mere thought. Created life, the Universe, and especially Homo sapien sapiens. It's all accurately documented in the Book of Genesis. After all The Bible is not just a book that explains how to get to heaven, it is also a book of science. I'm half expecting Valmer to claim the Earth is pancake flat.
Despite all the years you have spent debating on Skeptiko, you
never seem to have understood that given two theories A and B, proving A wrong does not prove B is right unless you also prove that there are no other possible theories, such as C,D,E etc. You are only willing to choose between the Bible and strict materialism!
David
I agree with a lot of the original article - perhaps one exception would be the section on chirality. I think the point is that if life was formed by abiogenesis, it likely only formed once (or the other instances died out for one reason or another) so that singular event locks in the chirality that happened to exist in the very first living system.
I was glad he mentioned cross reactions, polymerisation, and the problem of dilution of anything useful that did get formed by random chemistry.
However, I think the point is, the amino acids, individual DNA bases, sugar monomers etc. are like a collection of screws, transistors, wires, resistors, and other individual electronic components - even when you have all the necessary components, someone has to use intelligence to combine them in just the right way if you want a computer (or even an AM radio!). This is covered in the section "Information content", and you will notice that a number of big names in science are quoted in support.
I dare say many scientists steer clear of the chemical details of abiogenesis, because there is always uncertainty about conditions on earth a couple of billion years ago, and they don't want to damage their careers, but the problem of assembling all those monomers into the large structures needed to support life, is the REAL problem (which is not to say that the problem of making the monomers by random chemistry is easy). Fortunately Meyer and his colleagues seem to have focussed increasingly on this point.
David
(2018-01-20, 08:04 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I tend to think that panspermia, while possible, only pushes back the ultimate question.
Kinda sort of. If your question is 'By what mechanism did it get started', panspermia doesn't get any help at all. But I think panspermia is somewhat likely given:
The universe has life all over the place (not for sure, but given NDEs, and current science, seems likely)
Life on Earth started relatively quickly as soon as it could have.
The universe allows for life to begin with.
(2018-01-20, 08:04 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think that anyone here is invoking the anthropomorphic deity as creator. We are still agreed that evolution is happening (while disagreeing on the mechanisms). An omniscient designer would kinda make evolution pointless, no?
My language was probably suboptimal, perhaps invoking 'intelligence' of some kind? Not necessarily against it, these types of things are hard to test. I'm just not sure why it couldn't be built into the physics of the universe, which seems to lead to life.
(2018-01-20, 04:25 PM)DaveB Wrote: [ -> ]Despite all the years you have spent debating on Skeptiko, you never seem to have understood that given two theories A and B, proving A wrong does not prove B is right unless you also prove that there are no other possible theories, such as C,D,E etc. You are only willing to choose between the Bible and strict materialism!
David
Specifically speaking there's no reason too consider C,D,E when there is a well developed theory. Look up Orgel's two rules. I assume Asimov's Axiom went unread.
Why do you think immaterial ideas can't have a strick material explanation? Is there a Law that prohibits? Care to explain?
P.S. Have you seen this?
Cape Town on the verge of running out of water. (1)
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-ca...t-of-water
(2018-01-20, 04:14 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]My but you can drag things out to the point of absurdity. My point was simple, I said "Anyone who challenges the orthodoxy is controversial. Even the so-called Third Way proponents are considered controversial."
They aren’t considered controversial with respect to whether their ideas are valid, though, which is what I asked for. The Laland article, which you ‘liked’, goes to great pains to clarify this.
They are controversial because of what proponents in the Darwin thread have done - taken what would be a minor controversy about characterizing the field (well within the bounds of scientific debate, in any other field) and pretended that it’s a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory (for various narrow and exquisitely outdated definitions of “evolutionary theory”) in general.
Your quotes illustrate that the ire directed against them (deserved or not) relates to their perceived complicity in adding fuel to creationists and IDers misrepresentations. Their participation in debating/researching new mechanisms for variation, heredity, and selection is not drawing that ire.
Linda
(2018-01-20, 05:05 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Specifically speaking there's no reason too consider C,D,E when there is a well developed theory. Look up Orgel's two rules. I assume Asimov's Axiom when unread.
Why do you think immaterial ideas can't have a strick material explanation? Is there a Law that prohibits? Care to explain?
Because that’s totally how quantum theory was developed, amirite? Remember that one time they were discouraging students from going into physics because it was a completed field, and only two tiny unresolved problems to solve and they could wrap it up? Those two questions gave way to quantum theory, and were still struggling to understand it a century later.
(2018-01-20, 05:09 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]They aren’t considered controversial with respect to whether their ideas are valid, though, which is what I asked for. The Laland article, which you ‘liked’, goes to great pains to clarify this.
They are controversial because of what proponents in the Darwin thread have done - taken what would be a minor controversy about characterizing the field (well within the bounds of scientific debate, in any other field) and pretended that it’s a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory (for various narrow and exquisitely outdated definitions of “evolutionary theory”) in general.
On the contrary, Laland was complaining that the traditionalists were trying to erect creationism into a bogey-man, as a scare tactic to suppress legitimate debate - "seemingly designed to prevent new ideas from spreading by fair means or foul".
Obviously Laland has no time for the creationists himself, but equally he is clear that the behaviour of many traditionalists is unacceptable - the kind of games-playing he has associated with politics rather than science in the past. Beyond the bounds of normal scientific controversy, as I said.
Here, again, is what Laland actually wrote:
We all know that sensationalism sells newspapers, and articles that portend a major upheaval make for better copy. Creationists and advocates of ‘intelligent design’ also feed this impression, with propaganda that exaggerates differences of opinion among evolutionists and gives a false impression that the field of evolutionary biology is in turmoil. What’s more surprising is how commonly conservative-minded biologists play the ‘We’re under attack!’ card against their fellow evolutionists. Portraying intellectual opponents as extremist, and telling people that they are being attacked, are age-old rhetorical tricks to win debate or allegiance.
I had always associated such games with politics, not science, but now realise I was naive. Some of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans I have witnessed, seemingly designed to prevent new ideas from spreading by fair means or foul, have truly shocked me, and are out of kilter with practice in other fields that I know. Scientists, too, have careers and legacies at stake, as well as struggles for funding, power and influence. I worry that the traditionalists’ rhetoric is backfiring, creating confusion and inadvertently fuelling creationism by exaggerating division. Too many reputable scientists feel the need for change in evolutionary biology for all to be credibly dismissed as fringe elements.
https://aeon.co/essays/science-in-flux-i...ary-theory
So, now somewhat of a counterpoint to the materialistic viewpoint. From a purely materialistic mechanistic perspective, how do you get stable DNA, complete with the necessary proteins to get the whole thing started, so to speak. Then on top of that, signaling pathways (not just intracellular, but systemic).
Random example of a systemic pathway: I have to puke. I instinctively know this. My salivary reflexes kick in, presumably to protect my teeth. Afterwards, I feel a sense of relief, probably dopamine from the brain, making me feel better. So from a neo-Darwinian perspective, did all the animals who did not produce a salivary response die out from acidified teeth? Some animal just got lucky and happened to salivate everytime they puked?
Did those who did not feel a dopamine kick after throwing up die out because they were too afraid of the act of vomiting? Is this (neodarwinism) really the best mechanism going forward to explain these emergent behaviors?
(2018-01-20, 05:40 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]On the contrary, Laland was complaining that the traditionalists were trying to erect creationism into a bogey-man, as a scare tactic to suppress legitimate debate - "seemingly designed to prevent new ideas from spreading by fair means or foul".
I don't care what you want to try to read into that snippet. The remainder of the article is specific that when it comes to the practice of science, these are "ordinary, hardworking, evolutionary biologists", and that what is going on is "normal science" with respect to extending the understanding of evolutionary biology. Throughout he refers to EES biologists as valid participants in the field - "protagonists with authoritative credentials square up on both sides of this debate", "hundreds of such studies, many published in the most prominent and prestigious journals", etc. And he refers to broad acceptance of some of these newer ideas - disputes over "whether epigenetic inheritance is truly Lamarckian or only superficially resembles it", but no dispute that it really does happen, or "all this complexity can't be reconciled with a strictly genetic currency for adaptive evolution, as many biologists now acknowledge".
He's not describing a group of scientists successfully confined to the fringe, through the efforts of traditionalists, with no legitimate audience for their ideas.
Linda