Re: Recent evolutionary reading (attention Steven J.)


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f8f8cad6-6db0-42fc-b100-0322f7cbea9c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 12, 4:55 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:363cfb6a-120f-437e-b228-535b4d33781e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Apr 12, 9:57 am, Robert Grumbine <b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Two books I've recently finished and enjoyed:
_Evolution for Everyone_ by David Sloan Wilson
SNIP...

Both are easily readable by the nonprofessional. Wilson's
introduces a fair amount of general evolutionary biology SNIP....

Sloan plugs and explains natural selection exclusively. Not that he
believes it to be the only cause of evolution, the point is he only
talks about natural selection as producing all life.

Can you produce the relevant passages?


Yes. Problem is is that I do not have the book within reach at the
moment. I was hoping for an honest discussion devoid of any legalism:
defined as needing to quote passages. Said book is a popular book
written for the lay public. I am sure you agree on this point.

What I disagree on is that Wilson claims that natural selection operates
exclusive of any other mechanism. If you are wanting an honest
discussion, perhaps you could curb your own dishonesty for a bit....


The same with F.
Ayala in his new book; natural selection is treated the same: the main
cause of evolution producing all biological life.

Natural selection is part of the process, obviously. To say it's the
"main
cause" ignores the role of variation and drift.


Here is the point of departure, Dana. NS is the main (but not the
exclusive) mechanism causing evolutionary change.

Again, you are ignoring the importance of variation. Without variation,
natural selection has nothing to work with. Note also, that Steven did
not claim that natural selection is not the main mechanism of evolution.
He was pointing out that your definition of microevolution, which you
claimed came from biologists, defined it as being the result of natural
selection. Natural selection is part of the mechanism of adaptive
evolution, but it's not the defining factor of evolution. Evolution can
occur without natural selection, as in cases of genetic drift.

Darwin said it
repeatedly and I have quoted Darwin repeatedly.

But not within context, and not showing what Darwin himself meant.

You need to accept
this point.

I accept that you quoted Darwin. I don't accept that you understand what
Darwin was talking about.

Each biologist that I have cited in this thread accepts
this fact.

As shown below, that's not true.

Based on your previous answers in another thread I predict
that you will misrepresent this simple point and fact.

Then your prediction is wrong. I've never misrepresented you, now, or
before. The biologists mentioned above do not claim that natural
selection is the definition of evolution.


Next issue: variation is a simple truism feeding NS.

Again, variation is what provides the raw material for natural selection to
operate. Without variation in a population, natural selection is impotent.

What causes
variation is not the issue here.

Except that without variation, there can't be evolution. What causes
variation is random mutation. That is well known.

Whatever its cause the same is not
***a mechanism*** contributing to evolutionary change.

Which is where you are wrong. Variation is essential for evolutionary
change.

It is a
component of the main mechanism causing evolutionary change.

Again, you are missing the point. Variation is not a component in natural
selection. It's a component in evolution, along with natural selection.
Natural selection operates on variations in the population. Without
selection, variations still spread in the population.


Next issue: drift is not held to be of equal importance like natural
selection because NS is the main (but not the exclusive) cause of
evolutionary change.

Again, you are confuisng adaptive change, with evolution in general.
Natural selection is what causes adaptive change, but evolution is not
necessarily just adaptive change, but ANY change in the gene frequency in a
population over time.

It appears that all of your forth coming comments
are built on rejection of this uncomplicated fact.

Once more, I don't reject the fact that natural selection is the main factor
in adaptive change. What I am trying to get through to you, is that
natural selection is not *necessary* for evolution. You can't define
microevolution as change due to natural selection, because there are many
other ways of changing the gene frequency in a population.



Going back some
years the same with Ken Miller in "Finding Darwin's God" - natural
selection and only natural selection is brought up as producing all
life.

Miller does not say that natural selection, and only natural selection
produced all life.

From my previous message (which you made your reply from):

"Again: so I am not misunderstood. These three biologists did not say
natural selection was the only mechanism. The point is that only
natural selection was touted as producing all life."

This comment is absolutely true representing all three books.

Except that it's not. Natural selection is "touted" as producing adaptive
change in a population. What "produced" all life is abiogenesis, and the
subsequent evolution of diversity. None of the biologists would agree that
natural selection, and natural selection alone, produced "all life".

Please note, YOU said, in the sentence above, that Miller says "natural
selection, and only natural selection is brought up as producing all life".
Miller does not say that in his book. I've read the book, and I do have it
close at hand.


Miller states that the mechanism of evolution is
variation and selection. While Miller says: (pg 48) "Even the opponents
of Evolution agree that natural selection is a genuine force in shaping
the
characteristics of organisms, generation after generation." Miller also
knows the role of mutations in providing the raw material for natural
selection to work on. From "Finding Darwin's God", Miller states on page
104.
" Mutations acting on that digital genome, produce variation, the raw
material upon which natural selection goes to work".


Dana: I have ready access to Miller's book.

Then why do you keep misrepresenting Miller? Remember you still haven't
admitted you were wrong when you claimed he said he was "without sin".

The initial pages give NS
the only billing and top billing. From the top of Mt. Fuji to his
backyard NS operates the same. In fact Miller says NS is so simple
(other scholars disagree, they say it is just the opposite) that
because Darwin was a "longwinded Englishman" he essentially
complicated the matter with an enormous thesis.

That's not exactly what Miller is actually saying here. What Miller says
is:

"That means the conditions of nature, whether acting in y back yard, or the
Galapagos Islands, or the top of Mt Fuji, are constantly acting on natural
variation, selecting out unsuccessful variations, and rewarding successful
ones."

Miller obviously is placing variation as at least as important as natural
selection.


You are interjecting facts that are diluting the simple point: Miller
says and believes that NS is the main but not the exclusive cause of
evolutionary change.

Once more, you are confusing adaptive change, with evolutionary change in
general. And, once more, you are ignoring the real point here. You were
attempting to define microevolution as change caused by natural selection.
No one, especially a biologist like Miller would agree with that.




Miller, however never states that mutation and selection are the only
mechanisms of evolution.

You have made an error: I never said this. I have shown this above.

Once again, the error is yours. You wrote

"Going back some
years the same with Ken Miller in "Finding Darwin's God" - natural
selection and only natural selection is brought up as producing all
life."

Do you deny you wrote this?



Worse, for you, Miller, in his expert statement
for the Dover trial, states quite
clearly:http://www2.ncseweb.org/selman/2006-11-16_Miller_expert_report.pdf

Pg 4,5

"Evolutionary scientists have confirmed the process of natural selection
through direct observation, but have discovered that other processes are
also important in evolutionary change. These included genetic drift, the
so-called founder effect, genetic recombination, transposition, and
horizontal gene transport between species."


I never disputed this.

Again, the quote above refutes your claim.

My original post in this thread was careful to
say that I was only talking about the three books, or in this case
"Finding Darwin's God". I was not talking about Dover and everything
Miller has said or written in his life. I specifically was only
talking about three books. I said this most clearly. You have made a
bad error.

No, Ray, once again, you are the one in error. Obviously Miller does agree
that genetic drift is an important mechanism of evolution, and trying to
claim that he does not, just from one particular book, and not taking his
other works into consideration, is dishonest. You were trying to imply
that Miller and the other writers disagreed with Steven. I pointed out, by
giving examples, where these same "authorities" agree with Steven's
statements.





Of course Steven J would have us believe that lesser mechanisms
deserve recognition in the same breath and context as natural
selection.

Seven J. pointed out that there are other mechanisms by which evolution
occurs. He was showing that your "definition" of microevolution as being
the result of natural selection is wrong, as evolution can occur in the
absence of selection. It really doesn't matter if other scientists can be
quoted as saying that natural selection is the "main mechanism".


You are making excuses for Steven and evading the simple and
uncontested point: Darwin and the three books cited all say that NS is
the main but not the exclusive cause of evolutionary change.

Which is wrong. Natural selection is only part of the mechanism, with
variation being at least as important. Moreover, you are ignoring that
you were trying to define evolutionary change as being by natural selection.

Like I
said early on in this message: your rejection of this simple point and
fact is what the remainder of all your forth coming comments is built
upon.

And like I pointed out before, I don't reject that natural selection is an
important mechanism of evolution. What I'm telling you is that it's not
part of the definition of evolution.


This was his silly and sourceless point that he made over
and over in recent exchanges with myself.

Actually, it was Ray who made the "silly and courceless" claims. Ray was
unable to provide a single biologist who defined microevolution the way
that
Ray did.


Totally false, but off topic here.

Odd that Ray doesn't bother to show why this is either.... It's quite on
topic that Ray was unable to show that biologists defined evolution as he
did, when that was his claim. Ray claimed that he got his defintion from
evolutionary biologists. He was not able to provide a single evolutionary
biologist who agreed.




Maybe Steven could provide some evidence that drift belongs in the
same league with natural selection since I have now cited three
evolutionary biologists who did not feel any other mechanism was
important enough and worth mentioning in their books?

You really didn't "cite" any biologist who says that natural selection
was
the sole mechanism of evolution. You implied that they did, without
providing any real statements from those biologists.


Augray: Is Dana lying or has he made a bad mistake since for the
millionth time I nor my sources have ever said NS was the sole cause
of evolutionary change?

Neither. I'm not lying, and I'm not the one making the mistake. You did
say:

"Going back some
years the same with Ken Miller in "Finding Darwin's God" - natural
selection and only natural selection is brought up as producing all
life."

Care to retract, and/or apologize?



Dana is lying since he knew I never uttered this falsity.

I have directly quoted you as saying exactly that.



There is no reason to go any further here and waste my time.

On the run again, Ray? Why don't you just admit you haven't got the
ability to address my statements?

Note that below, I show that the scientists you alluded to, don't support
your claims..





Ray


http://www2.ncseweb.org/selman/2006-11-16_Miller_expert_report.pdf
refutes your statement entirely.

Also, David Sloan Wilson states in:

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/angier_wilson07/angier_wilson07.html
"It's like all the genes out there that have no effect on fitness; they
just
drift into the population. This is why we have molecular "clocks." We can
date things from this kind of genetic drift."

Wilson also says in the book Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and
the Nature of Society
(pg 92)
"on the Galapagos Islands were explained as a product of genetic drift.
The
British ecologist David Lack (1961) became famous for explaining these
differences in terms of adaptation and natural selection, ..."

In the paper: "Clonal population structure and genetic diversity of
Candida
albicans in AIDS patients from Abidjan (Cote d' Ivoire)" 2006
(Postprints,
Univiersity of California) , co authored by Ayala, is this
statement:http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3531&contex...

"These differences may have come about by genetic drift, although the
possibility of natural selection un response to drug treatments cannot be
excluded"

This would tend to indicate that Ayala accepts genetic drift as a
mechanism
of evolution.



Again: so I am not misunderstood. These three biologists did not say
natural selection was the only mechanism.

Which contradicts your own "definition" of microevolution. This supports
Steven's statements, and refutes yours.

The point is that only
natural selection was touted as producing all life.

That 'point' is not supported by those biologists. Natural selection is
undoubtedly an important mechanism of evolution, but not the one that
"produced all life" by itself. Your claim was that microevolution was
DEFINED as being by natural selection. The biologists who you attempted
to
use to support your claim do not agree.

DJT


Poor Ray, too afraid to address the real issues

DJT






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Recent evolutionary reading (attention Steven J.)
    ... _Evolution for Everyone_ by David Sloan Wilson ... Sloan plugs and explains natural selection exclusively. ... providing any real statements from those biologists. ... "on the Galapagos Islands were explained as a product of genetic drift. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why Ray Martinez Should Accept MicroEvolution
    ... that only changes in populations caused by natural selection are ... Horrible distortion, caricature and misrepresentation. ... Given that biologists routinely DEFINE ... I have never denied that some biologists define evolution this way. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Recent evolutionary reading (attention Steven J.)
    ... _Evolution for Everyone_ by David Sloan Wilson ... natural selection is treated the same: ... These three biologists did not say ... "on the Galapagos Islands were explained as a product of genetic drift. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwins morality
    ... evolution results in caring and compassionate organisms. ... If kin selection is operative in human beings that is not what I meant ... a byproduct of Darwinian evolution. ... The processes of natural selection work on every organism, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Recent evolutionary reading (attention Steven J.)
    ... _Evolution for Everyone_ by David Sloan Wilson ... What I disagree on is that Wilson claims that natural selection operates ... The biologists mentioned above do not claim that natural ... Miller does not say that natural selection, ...
    (talk.origins)