Re: Gould criticism and reviews

Tim Tyler wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:

[...]

Gould talks about the chance/necessity split and says:

"I regard the new interpretation of the Burgess Shale as
nature's finest argument for [emphasizing chance over necessity]."

I do not find this statement on page 290. And I also find a discussion there of contingency, not chance. If you can read all of Wonderful Life without learning the difference, there is little hope for you.

Contingency then. Chance is Jacques Monod's terminology.

Of course, when Monod said "chance", what he meant was chance. When Gould said "contingency", what he meant was contingency. Not the same thing. Monod was talking about random mutation. That's not what Gould is talking about when he talks about contingency. What page is this on?

What page is *what* on?

What page is the quoted statement on, the one that begins "I regard..."?

``"I regard the new interpretation of the Burgess Shale as
nature's finest argument for [emphasizing chance over necessity]."

[page 290]''

Ah, there it is, at the bottom. The words you replaced are "placing the boundary this high". What that means is not "emphasising chance over necessity", but contingency. Contingency is not chance. Are we now agreed on that?

[page 290] - i.e. that chance - and not natural selection -
was responsible for the rapid origin of new species in the
Cambrian explosion.

Gould makes no such claim. Nor does he claim that chance, or even contingency, has much to do with the rapid origin of new species in the Cambrian explosion.

That bit is on p. 228 to 230.

Nowhere on those pages do I find a claim that chance was responsible for the rapid origins of new species in the Cambrian explosion. In fact I find an explicit denial of that idea. Gould is arguing for a couple of variations of the "loose genes" hypothesis. "I have to believe that organisms as well as environments were different in Cambrian times, that the explosion and later quiescence owes as much to a change in organic potential as to an altered ecological status."

He is saying it was *not* due to natural selection, but other factors.
He says "Less severe competition", and "nearly anything could find
a place". The "altered ecological status" is a reference to
the influence ofnatural selection. The "organic potential" is a reference to, among other things, the undirected genetic variation
he mentions.

A few points:

1. Gould is *not* talking about the rapid origin of new species. He's talking about the rapid origin of new bauplane, which may or may not (even in Gould's mind) involve increased speciation rates.

2. I think almost everyone agrees that random mutation has something to do with evolution, so unless you do think that genetic variation is directed (do you?) there seems to be no point here.

3. Gould is not talking about chance being important in the Cambrian explosion, which is what you appeared to be claiming. Would you like to clarify what you're actually trying to say?

4. "Altered ecological status" is not a reference to the influence of natural selection. It's a reference to the filling up of ecospace in the Cambrian explosion, so that there has never been an "empty barrel" since then.

5. "Change in organic potential" has nothing to do with chance variation, but about the theorized tightening of developmental programs that happened after the explosion -- the "loose genes" theory in paleontological terminology.

These all seem irrelevant to me.

That's nice. I think it's important that you should understand what Gould is saying before criticizing it.

An understanding that Behe's context was actually the Cambrian
explosion explains his comment about Gould, IMO. Gould /did/
downplay the role of natural selection in the origin of the
Cambrian forms - instead attributing it to alternative mechanisms -
such as his "organic potential".

This is silly. "Natural selection" by itself is no explanation for anything. Gould is merely acknowledging that the environment determines what will be selected, and that the environment is internal as well as external to the organism. Gould by no means downplays the role of natural selection.

By the way, Behe also makes the common error in assuming that everything Gould says is about PE. PE has nothing to do with explanations of the Cambrian explosion.

There is no need to claim that Behe was wrong about what Gould said. Behe wasn't directly quoting Gould - and the views he attributed
to him are not particularly unreasonable in the light of Gould's
actual position on the subject.

Yes they are. Since you don't understand Gould's actual position I can see how you might be confused.

Many other biologists also downplay
the role of natural selection in speciation itself - instead invoking factors such as drift. So I would council a sympathetic interpretation.

So you reverse your earlier claim that Gould is to blame for creationist use of his words. Now you're saying that he isn't saying anything that any other biologist wouldn't say too.

Behe's quote:

``Gould has argued that the rapid rate of appearance of new life
forms demands a mechanism other than natural selection for
its explanation.''

Just before this, he wrote:

``Gould has been at the forefront of the discussion of
another fascinating phenomenon: the `Cambrian explosion.'''

This has been clear from the beginning, so I don't see why you need to say it again. Behe is wrong. Gould said no such thing. Natural selection is quite compatible with contingency. He has said nothing about a mechanism other than natural selection for the rapid appearance of new bauplane. The question is what the selective environment was that hasn't been repeated since. Both "empty barrel" and "loose genes" are common explanations (first articulated, I believe, by Jim Valentine), and Gould is merely repeating them.

Now what Gould sometimes suggested chance may be involved in is extinction, not origination, and in this he is actually following Dave Raup and his "field of bullets" analogy.

Both you and Behe are confused (and I'll throw in Robert Wright too) about what Gould was actually saying. Behe has an excuse of sorts in that he's looking for evolutionist views he can distort into providing support for his ideas. What's your excuse?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gould criticism and reviews
    ... And I also find a discussion there of contingency, not chance. ... That's not what Gould is talking about when he talks about contingency. ... Nor does he claim that chance, or even contingency, has much to do with the rapid origin of new species in the Cambrian explosion. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gould criticism and reviews
    ... And I also find a discussion there of contingency, not chance. ... That's not what Gould is talking about when he talks about contingency. ... Nor does he claim that chance, or even contingency, has much to do with the rapid origin of new species in the Cambrian explosion. ... The "organic potential" is a reference to, among other things, the undirected genetic variation ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gould criticism and reviews
    ... And I also find a discussion there of contingency, not chance. ... Gould said "contingency", ... Nor does he claim that chance, or even contingency, has much to do with the rapid origin of new species in the Cambrian explosion. ... The "organic potential" is a reference to, among other things, the undirected genetic variation ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gould criticism and reviews
    ... Why Stephen Jay Gould is bad for evolution. ... the Cambrian explosion. ... i.e. from chance, ... Nor does he claim that chance, or even contingency, has much to do with the rapid origin of new species in the Cambrian explosion. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Gould the creationist
    ... A few things lead me to believe that Gould might have been a ... Darwinists have difficulty with Gould's conception of chance, ... as shown by him saying that it is what science is about. ... All creationists would in large part ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading