Re: Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?

On Thu, 1 May 2008 20:26:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx>:

On May 1, 1:11 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:2662f117-8033-43a6-b299-cdc26edf745e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On May 1, 12:31 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

snip

[But that is exactly what Major has said too. Dana cannot possibly be
this thick. He is deliberately misrepresenting by nit picking, to be
kind about it. Dana cannot admit that he was and is wrong.]

You're being an idiot. You claimed that natural selection changed an
individual.

[Ad hoc, Ernest knows this is a basic claim, he is not serious.

It's quite likely Ernest is serious.   This is not a 'basic claim' of
evolution, which has already been explained to you.

 >NS

does not change an entire population, which is what Ernest is "saying"
by implication.]

What Ernest is saying is that natural selection causes changes *in* the
population, not in the indvidual.



That is what evolution claims: NS modifies an organism, then the
modified organism breeds passing the modification into the population.
The next generation inherits the modification (= gradualism).

Again, Ray, that's wrong.   Natural selection does not modify an organism.
It modifies the gene frequency in the population over many generations.
Natural selection cannot change the genes of the individual, only of the
gene pool over time.

   This has been explained to you many times.  Why do you keep
misunderstanding this simple matter?


Because it is not simple - that's why.

Today I was, in the course of writing my paper, searching my
electronic files of rough drafts written well over a year ago. I was
searching for something completely unrelated to the issue here, but
low and behold, there it was: I had written (in my own words of
course) exactly what you have been saying about natural selection. As
soon as I saw it I said to myself "Dana is right."

I then sank low in my chair attempting to figure out how I had come to
forget that which I already knew. I then began a search of my sources
to confirm. Since I am going after Darwin I started entering key words
like "modification."

Charles Darwin:

"As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive,
favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification;
it can act only by very short and slow steps" (1859:471).

I misunderstood this passage.

So have many others:

http://human-nature.com/dm/chap4.html

In the context of the above quote from Darwin, Robert M. Young
explains how Darwin was misunderstood, a trap I had fallen into myself
(but I blame no one but myself). Please read the following excerpt:

"Now of course it can be argued that all this is making heavy weather
of something which is rather obvious and innocent. Indeed, Darwin says
at one point in the Origin that he called the principle "natural
selection" "for the sake of brevity." Again, when his publisher
objected to the term, Darwin apologized for its being obscure and
wrote to Lyell, "Why I like the term is that it is constantly used in
all works on breeding, and I am surprised that it is not familiar to
Murray; but I have so long studied such works that I have ceased to be
a [sic] competent 'udge." Breeders used the term to refer to any
agency operating outside the sphere of man's control; it was merely a
convenient way of contrasting unknown sources of change with
deliberate ones. It is certainly arguable that the origins of the
phrase were innocent enough, but it is also clear that its overtones
and the ways in which Darwin wrote about it both reflected and raised
grave difficulties. After some of these began to emerge, Darwin wrote
to Lyell, "Talking of 'natural selection;' if I had to commence de
novo, I would have used 'natural preservation.' For I find that men
like Harvey of Dublin cannot understand me, though he has read the
book twice." (It is worth noting in passing that although the term
"preservation" eliminates some of the voluntarist overtones from the
interpretation of the sources of variation, it still conveys the
impression that active processes with voluntary overtones are
operative in the accumulation of modifications.)

[Important:] In later editions of the Origin Darwin tried to escape
the implication that selection was involved in both the occurrence and
the preservation of variations" (Young, page 95).

[One page later, Young quotes Darwin:]

"Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural
Selection. Some have even imagined that natural selection induces
variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such
variations as arise and are beneficial to the being under its
conditions of life."

The last sentence (detached) from the first excerpt, and this last
quote by Darwin, explain my misunderstanding - perfectly. I had also
thought natural selection caused the variation or modification,
instead of preserving it in a species.

But initially, according to what I had written in my electronic file
dated 3-24-07, I was NOT beguiled by this misunderstanding. But like I
said, for some reason, like many others, as referenced above through
Robert Young, I fell back into this misunderstanding.

Dana, for what it is worth: I was wrong, you were correct; please
accept my apology.

Dana already thanked you; I do too. You showed honesty and a
willingness to admit error, which I'm sure the entire group
appreciates.

SNIP....

PS: I retained the topic title only so those who have been reading
these exchanges would not lose track of it.

That's usually the best course for the reason stated, and
shows why thread titles should probably be as neutral as
possible.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?
    ... What Ernest is saying is that natural selection causes changes *in* the ... Since I am going after Darwin I started entering key words ... the preservation of variations" ... explain my misunderstanding - perfectly. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?
    ... Dana cannot admit that he was and is wrong.] ... Natural selection does not modify an organism. ... It modifies the gene frequency in the population over many generations. ... explain my misunderstanding - perfectly. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?
    ... Natural selection cannot change the genes of the individual, ... Since I am going after Darwin I started entering key words ... the preservation of variations" ... explain my misunderstanding - perfectly. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How about a sweepstake on Rays paper?
    ... which means a silly Dana Tweedy reply acting ... Darwin 101 claims or "Creation-Evolution 101". ... Scott with coming up with the basic arguments you are using. ... My hypothesis is invulnerable to falsification. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Did Darwinism Smooth the Way for Nazi Ideology?
    ... >>>derivation from Darwin. ... in 1859 and set forth his theory that animals ... >> evolved through variation and natural selection of those most fit ... link you snipped to the "Descent of Man" and read away. ...
    (talk.origins)