"So you think you understand Evolution?"
"If you think evolution is simple, you’re probably thinking of adaptationism. And that’s the Tinker Toy version of evolution."
"Darwin has become an icon to us, a scientist who made the world see nature a whole new way. So why is it that so many people who admire him have a very poor grasp of evolution? Darwin’s theory was one that characterized nature as chaos, creativity, and destruction. However, our pop-science poobahs have made a great living redefining evolution as a mechanical process, an “algorithm,” another machine fantasy for our tech-obsessed culture."
Read more at [patheos.com]
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
10 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
I believe in Margolis' theory of symbiosis.
clarkatticus
Level 7
Apr 12, 2018
0
Isn't that merely an elementary form of adaptation rather than embryonic change?
People mis understand evolution, agreed.
We have mis represented Darwin, agreed.
We have learned so much more since Darwin, agreed.
Yet the article did nothing for me, nothing to work with, nothing I found I could get my teeth into.
Rugglesby
Level 8
Apr 12, 2018
0
I found that I was simplifying evolution by seeing it mainly as adaptationism. I hadn't thought that much of Darwin other than the bare bones of his theory. I was more into the genetic sides of evolution. So reading the article taught me something and made me want to look further, learn more. I'm sorry you found it stagnant. Perhaps others may want to go further and maybe not. In any case, people thought enough to comment and maybe learn something.
@Angelface Sorry, I am usually too blunt. Don't disagree with much of it, it is just me personally, I like to look at specific cases(species) . Ecology is more what I am into, and with that goes evolution. I go great out in the field, and studying things first hand not that great with interpreting the works of others.
I don’t particularly admire Darwin over any other famous scientist.
indirect76
Level 7
Apr 12, 2018
1
Of course, Darwin's full understanding of the entire process of evolution was limited by the tools at his disposal. He dis not have the venefits of understanding DNA, genetics, and mutation -- or of the environment's effects in producing muttations. But, he did get the broad outlines correct.
wordywalt
Level 9
Apr 12, 2018
2
Evolution is very simple. Life is full of stresses and challenges every day, for all living things. Those who survive and thrive best reproduce more. Therefore, over time, their DNA becomes more dominent. Throw in a mutation or two along the way - the 'wild cards' that either kill/disable or provide great benefit, and you have evolution in a nutshell.
Always_Curious
Level 2
Apr 12, 2018
0
No, that's adaptationism and partly what the article was about...
From your comment, I get the impression that you yourself don't understand evolution very well. That's not uncommon.
Regardless, of your understanding on the subject of modern evolution, it also appears that you have a poor understanding of Darwins historical theory of eveolution, that he wrote of during his life time.
Regardless of any deficiencies of knowledge in modern evolutionary theory or Darwins original eveolutionary theory; your premiss that the admiration of the original proponent of eveolution (arguable) should in some way mean you have to fully understand his life's work is fallacious.
"Eveolution is a mechanical process, an algorithm, a machine fantasy to our tech obsessed culture" is not only complete gibberish, it's ignorant gibberish!
Was your post a wind-up?
GilesD
Level 5
Apr 12, 2018
2
I think that was his point. And there was a link at the end. And Darwin is not the final and authoritative word on the matter, just one of the first.
No one reads the links I post under the quotes from the article, GilesD. Are you debating with the author? Feel free.
@Angelface we can all copy and paste, we need original thoughts here,
@magicwatch so you object to my c/p of articles I'm bringing to people's attention to facilitate inquiries and conversation? You sound just like someone who asked why I couldn't just post kitten or puppy videos. This isn't the site for me if people don't want to push their mind just that little bit.
@Angelface "feel free"? I have no objection to any comments, see my previous post regarding Fermats last theorem
@Rossy92 we might say that we both "got the wrong end of the stick" (don't ask me; British and English can be weird!). We would also say I was "barking up the wrong tree"! - this is funny because nobody would "bat an eyelid" when saying these things in the UK, but to an Amercican it must sound like crazy talk.
In this context of our comments, we might say "let's go back to square one" or, perhaps more understandably, "let's start off again".
Two great nations, separated by a common language.
"The point is that adaptationist scenarios don’t explain anything except our tolerance for easy answers. The notion that fish are “uniquely adapted to their environment” because they live in water and not in trees doesn’t tell us anything about how they got there. Explaining that rhinos have horns because all the rhinos who didn’t died out doesn’t really explain why rhinos have horns. And peddlers of selective stories assume that it’s easy to distinguish selected-for traits from mere free-riders, without any justification for this assumption. If we’re determined to reject claims that aren’t backed up with evidence, then let’s admit that the vast majority of these just-so stories have to be discarded."
Angelface
Level 7
Apr 12, 2018
1
Very true. Reminds me of Douglas Adam's puddle!
Great video! It explains so much about human nature and how every belief can interpret evolution into being befitting to us (and to each species) when in fact it should not be that way.
Permit me this analogy: The mechanism of evolution seems (to me) to rely of a couple of gears. (1) One being, (almost) completely chaotic as in a spontaneous DNA codon mutation. Rarely are 3 letters changed in a codon at once so usually the mutation is limited to a finite possibility of outcomes. (2) there is DNA expression that is adaptive, i.e. epigenitic, that appears to direct gene expression to subsequent generations. (3) There's behavioral, the adaptation pressures of predator and prey.
Evolution does find itself in a sand box though. It is not entirely chaotic for example, amino acids are chemically chiral yet all living things are using only the L form, we can only digest D-glucose, etc...
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
World Music
1359 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.