(split) Atheism and acceptance of science

[S.A.M.]

Because natural selection does give a direction. It is the very definition of it. Seriously, this is about the most basic concept you will find in evolutionary theories. Again, what natural selection does is reducing the allele frequency of detrimental alleles.
The important point is that natural selection is one of the major factors why not all organisms have identical reproduction successes. Understanding of this is essential to understanding evolution and it is one of the central aspects of Darwin's theory that have survived until now.
And btw., historically neo-Darwinism is an old concept. It arose shortly after Darwin and essentially refuted the Lamarckian mode of inheritance.
But I assume that this discussion is bound to be fruitless as long as the basics are not clear (textbooks anyone?).

What happens to my slow, detrimental alleles if I have a fast car?

 

[Nasor]

Because natural selection does give a direction. It is the very definition of it.

Well, the only "direction" is toward being more fit. But what exactly qualifies as "more fit" is very, very dependent on the specific situation. There generally aren't any traits that are inherently "better" under natural selection, except in the context of some specific circumstance. Being more intelligent might be a "bad" trait under some circumstances, for example.

 

[CharonZ]

No Nasor. Fitness in an evolutionary context is not as arbitrary as you appear to think it is. Absolute fitness of an allele is the ratio of those with the allele after a selective sweep to those before.
Of course it is not something that can be easily determined by guessing (as you imply), that is where population genetics come into play. If you have read the example more closely you will note that I highlighted that in this case predation exerts the highest selective pressure. The concept of fitness is meaningless without natural selection.

What you think about "good" or "bad" has nothing to do with this discussion. But reading SAM's comment I am sure that adding anything will be a waste of time, anyhow.

 

[Nasor]

No Nasor. Fitness in an evolutionary context is not as arbitrary as you appear to think it is.

Who said anything about fitness being arbitrary? I said that there is no standard of "fitness" except in the context of a particular set of circumstances. Relative is not the same as arbitrary.

Absolute fitness of an allele is the ratio of those with the allele after a selective sweep to those before.
Of course it is not something that can be easily determined by guessing (as you imply),

I never implied that it can be easily determined by guessing

What you think about "good" or "bad" has nothing to do with this discussion.

I guess you missed the part where I said "There generally aren't any traits that are inherently "better" under natural selection, except in the context of some specific circumstance."

 

[GeoffP]

Please, let's not inflate S.A.M.'s ego. There are plenty of theists who have to trouble thinking and talking about these topics. I've met many over the years. She has a personal dislike of Richard Dawkins, and so works to tear down anything associated with him. There is no concern for reason or logic, no good-faith considerations, and no possibility of progress. It's just your standard shot-gunning of tangentially related complaints, each discarded by the time it's posted and so impervious to criticism. Trolling.

Well. This could be.

What happens to my slow, detrimental alleles if I have a fast car?

They are eventually outcompeted by fast, non-detrimental alleles...carried by people also driving a fast car. Not always. The world might be hit by an asteroid, or no mutations might occur, but basically you need to be worried.

 

[(Q)]

Maybe it's just me, but I've always regarded Sam as an authority on questions of biology, since she's one of the few career scientists here and she was once the Moderator of the biology board. But lately she's been behind the information curve on things that even the humble Fraggle knows, merely from my experience as a breeder of dogs and parrots.

So, she pulled the wool over your eyes and you're just now understanding that. Don't you remember when Sam first arrived here, she didn't have a clue about evolution. This from a working scientist in her field? Clearly, Sam has been having her way with you all this time.

 

[S.A.M.]

No Nasor. Fitness in an evolutionary context is not as arbitrary as you appear to think it is. Absolute fitness of an allele is the ratio of those with the allele after a selective sweep to those before.
Of course it is not something that can be easily determined by guessing (as you imply), that is where population genetics come into play. If you have read the example more closely you will note that I highlighted that in this case predation exerts the highest selective pressure. The concept of fitness is meaningless without natural selection.

What you think about "good" or "bad" has nothing to do with this discussion.

So basically evolutionary biologists assign direction to natural selection and work backwards from that assumption?

But reading SAM's comment I am sure that adding anything will be a waste of time, anyhow.

Its the first time I've realised that biologists work under the assumption that natural selection is an active process. Is it good science to reach a conclusion first then male the data fit the conclusion leaving the rest under "ceteris paribus"?

They are eventually outcompeted by fast, non-detrimental alleles...carried by people also driving a fast car. Not always. The world might be hit by an asteroid, or no mutations might occur, but basically you need to be worried.

So a learned skill can outcompete an inborn trait? All the weaker slower animals needed was some physical training?

 

[GeoffP]

So a learned skill can outcompete an inborn trait?

In some cases, yes. A man with lots of physical training might run faster than an animal. For a while at least. What are you attempting to illustrate? Does it invalidate Neodarwinian theory?

All the weaker slower animals needed was some physical training?

Possibly in some cases. But unfortunately, some animals simply have "better genes". Did you have an argument to advance here? I'm tired, and I have lots and lots of articles to write. Relate the two things directly.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

So, she pulled the wool over your eyes and you're just now understanding that. Don't you remember when Sam first arrived here, she didn't have a clue about evolution. This from a working scientist in her field? Clearly, Sam has been having her way with you all this time.

Therefore my request for a resume is valid. I don't understand why some members object to it.

So a learned skill can outcompete an inborn trait? All the weaker slower animals needed was some physical training?

I've lost some of the continuity in this sprawling thread, but if you're referring to my assertion it only applies to Homo sapiens because of our uniquely massive forebrain. We have a unique ability to substitute reasoned and learned behavior for instinctive behavior.

Obviously I'm using the word "unique" hyperbolically. Everyone's seen a dog who doesn't attack his dinner until the human alpha of his pack tells him it's time. All of the highly intelligent pack-social animals we've worked with, from dolphins to rats, have proven capable of overriding some of their instincts as the result of reasoning and learning. But the farther down the IQ scale you go, the more difficult it is for an animal to learn a behavior that conflicts with his programming.

 

[GeoffP]

Well said.

And what happens to those individuals inheriting a lucky mutation for a better brain? Naturally, they surpass their fellows - or are more likely to do so. I think Sam's caught up on the distinction between intraspecies fitness and competition between species. Both influence overall fitness, naturally; but evolution in the context of 'proving' or 'disproving' it (as we seem to be discussing here) applies to competition within species.

 

[(Q)]

Therefore my request for a resume is valid. I don't understand why some members object to it.

To maintain some form of anonymity, most would not offer it, myself included. It wouldn't make sense to not object to such a request.

Of course, we know that Sam's resume isn't what she claimed, based on her posts. To not know about evolution and claim to work in the field of biology is a dead giveaway.

 

[iceaura]

So basically evolutionary biologists assign direction to natural selection and work backwards from that assumption?

No. That's what you are claiming they do. You have misunderstood the theory.

Its the first time I've realised that biologists work under the assumption that natural selection is an active process.

You have been framing off base questions based on that mistaken "realization" for years.

Of course, we know that Sam's resume isn't what she claimed, based on her posts. To not know about evolution and claim to work in the field of biology is a dead giveaway.

That isn't true. There are many professional biology-field toilers who misconstrue standard evolutionary theory.

That's the most interesting -one might say the only interesting - aspect of this discussion, and its significant relevance to the thread topic.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

To maintain some form of anonymity, most would not offer it, myself included. It wouldn't make sense to not object to such a request.

I'm not asking for the name of anyone's university or employer. I would just like to know if someone who calls herself a biologist actually has a B.S. or a more advanced degree in biology from a university--a school that awards postgraduate degrees as opposed to a 4-year college or polytechnic institute--and a university in which country. I guess she's told us about her job, but I'm unclear as to whether she's working as a biologist--a real scientist--or just a lab assistant or a data analyst. If she's a professional nutritionist then she's not much more of a biologist than I am as a professional animal breeder.

Of course, we know that Sam's resume isn't what she claimed, based on her posts. To not know about evolution and claim to work in the field of biology is a dead giveaway.

Oh, nothing surprises me about the recent generation of American university graduates. The statistic (unverified but supported by observation) that their average reading level is what my generation called the sixth-grade level means that it must be terribly difficult for them to learn very much. Obviously Sam's written language skills are superior to that, but if she went to an American university (below the Stanford level), how much could she have learned in classes designed for the illiterate?

 

[quadraphonics]

I would just like to know if someone who calls herself a biologist actually has a B.S. or a more advanced degree in biology from a university--a school that awards postgraduate degrees as opposed to a 4-year college or polytechnic institute--and a university in which country.

Regardless, it still wouldn't necessarily establish her as any kind of expert on the subject of evolution. Biology is a big field, and not all - or even most - of its practicioners need to be intimately familiar with competing interpretations of evolutionary theory. She's previously described herself as a molecular biologist (which I take to mean she has a degree in that), which does imply a certain level of familiarity with DNA and processes on that level (which she displays, in point of fact).

But evolutionary biology/genetics is quite another story altogether, and cannot be reduced to molecular biology. I note a strong contrast between the grasp she displays of specifically mol-bio stuff, as compared to larger topics, and the persistence with which she attempts to reduce the issue to questions of molecular bio, or lard her posts with lots of molecular bio terminology when her statements call her background into question. My guess would be that her knowledge of topics outside molecular bio is very thin, and consists of whatever general-education courses her bio department required for her BS - probably she's not touched any of the material in a professional context since then. And probably the classes she did take on evolution were not even in-depth enough to get into questions of the quality of different interpretations of evolution, in the first place. This being typical of biology (and other large fields) in my experience.

To take another example, it might seem credible to most laypeople if I were to present myself as an expert on electrical power infrastructure, on the basis that I am an Electrical Engineer. But anyone familiar with EE knows that it's a huge field, and that most EEs don't know much of anything about power. Furthermore, anyone familiar with me knows that I'm a signal processing guy, and haven't touched an actual circuit since junior year of college. Sure, I know the basic terminology and have some idea what issues are involved. But any reasonaby interested and studious layperson could easily self-study their way to my level of expertise on power infrastructure in fairly short order. I've never read a single book on the topic, so that's all it would take to leap-frog me.

And the analogy would get even starker, if I were to be ideologically opposed to the more notable public proponents of the theories used in electrical power infrastructure.

 

[GeoffP]

Of course, we know that Sam's resume isn't what she claimed, based on her posts. To not know about evolution and claim to work in the field of biology is a dead giveaway.

That's the most interesting -one might say the only interesting - aspect of this discussion, and its significant relevance to the thread topic.

I'm not asking for the name of anyone's university or employer. I would just like to know if someone who calls herself a biologist actually has a B.S. or a more advanced degree in biology from a university--a school that awards postgraduate degrees as opposed to a 4-year college or polytechnic institute--and a university in which country. I guess she's told us about her job, but I'm unclear as to whether she's working as a biologist--a real scientist--or just a lab assistant or a data analyst. If she's a professional nutritionist then she's not much more of a biologist than I am as a professional animal breeder.Oh, nothing surprises me about the recent generation of American university graduates. The statistic (unverified but supported by observation) that their average reading level is what my generation called the sixth-grade level means that it must be terribly difficult for them to learn very much. Obviously Sam's written language skills are superior to that, but if she went to an American university (below the Stanford level), how much could she have learned in classes designed for the illiterate?

Gentlemen, I'm almost certain she is in fact a nutritionist, although I don't know too much more than that. That doesn't mean she'd have more than a grazing association with evolutionary science; I, for example, don't know a hell of a lot about nutrition, and I'm probably not going to. (Well, actually it seems that I'm going to have to learn a little after all, but let me delude myself a bit longer.) So that's true. As you say, biology is a big field. There are few or none that are experienced with all of it.

I interpret this latest round as more an assault on Dawkin's reductionism. Personally, I think he's a narrow-minded arse, but selfish gene theory - and he didn't invent the fucking thing; game theory's been around for ever - is probably correct, within its parameters of variance and effect relative to the population / cohort / familial / genetic group mean.

 

[S.A.M.]

In some cases, yes. A man with lots of physical training might run faster than an animal. For a while at least. What are you attempting to illustrate? Does it invalidate Neodarwinian theory?

Not sure what neodarwinism is but it seems like an inherent contradiction when a learned skill [like driving] can outstrip an inborn trait in a theory where genes are the assumed central focus of the equation. Since a learned trait is not "passed on" unless there is an organism to do so.

Possibly in some cases. But unfortunately, some animals simply have "better genes". Did you have an argument to advance here? I'm tired, and I have lots and lots of articles to write. Relate the two things directly.

Thats exactly what I thought I was doing. Are the words gene and organism swapped arbitrarily?

But evolutionary biology/genetics is quite another story altogether, and cannot be reduced to molecular biology. I note a strong contrast between the grasp she displays of specifically mol-bio stuff, as compared to larger topics, and the persistence with which she attempts to reduce the issue to questions of molecular bio, or lard her posts with lots of molecular bio terminology when her statements call her background into question. My guess would be that her knowledge of topics outside molecular bio is very thin, and consists of whatever general-education courses her bio department required for her BS - probably she's not touched any of the material in a professional context since then. And probably the classes she did take on evolution were not even in-depth enough to get into questions of the quality of different interpretations of evolution, in the first place. This being typical of biology (and other large fields) in my experience.

Yeah thats about right. I have some hazy recollection of a chapter on evolution in high school. I branched out into biochemistry immediately after and haven't looked back since. Plus, evolution is not hotly debated in India, the way it is in the US. Its not even debated in the Middle East where like India, the general trend of thinking is "it is what it is" or "God knows best" depending on how rigid your thinking is. I see its become a surrogacy for atheism in the west, with atheists sporting Darwinian evolution as an icon while spouting separation of science and religion. Which is ironic, really.

 

[GeoffP]

Not sure what neodarwinism is but it seems like an inherent contradiction when a learned skill [like driving] can outstrip an inborn trait in a theory where genes are the assumed central focus of the equation.

It isn't. To use your analogy, better drivers will be able to get farther more safely than slower drivers. Even with the learned advantage of driving, some will outperform others based on mutations in genes for eyesight, reflexes and so forth that will change the survival ration in all driving individuals.

Humans, as a group, are able to largely beat the phenomenon of competition with other species - which I assume is your direction here since you're bringing up the whole-organismal issue - but within our species we, too, compete based partially on our genetics.

Thats exactly what I thought I was doing. Are the words gene and organism swapped arbitrarily?

They are not. Why would they be? If you have more to add on this specific issue, why not say it directly and clearly?

 

[S.A.M.]

It isn't. To use your analogy, better drivers will be able to get farther more safely than slower drivers. Even with the learned advantage of driving, some will outperform others based on mutations in genes for eyesight, reflexes and so forth that will change the survival ration in all driving individuals.

Humans, as a group, are able to largely beat the phenomenon of competition with other species - which I assume is your direction here since you're bringing up the whole-organismal issue - but within our species we, too, compete based partially on our genetics.

So an organism trained by another organism does better than one who is not

They are not. Why would they be? If you have more to add on this specific issue, why not say it directly and clearly?

You say they are not, but you talk of individuals [better drivers will be able to get farther more safely than slower drivers] [that will change the survival ration in all driving individuals] in a gene centered theory.

 

[GeoffP]

So an organism trained by another organism does better than one who is not

??? Er, possibly, depending on the trial. I can't teach a bacterium to use a citrate medium better than its neighbours.

You say they are not, but you talk of individuals [better drivers will be able to get farther more safely than slower drivers] [that will change the survival ration in all driving individuals] in a gene centered theory.

Yees, but the individual doesn't persist over multiple generations. The genes that that individual carries which allow it to get farther more safely than other drivers will persist. The drivers do the driving. The genes affect how well they drive - or even whether they can drive or not.

 

[S.A.M.]

??? Er, possibly, depending on the trial. I can't teach a bacterium to use a citrate medium better than its neighbours.

The bacterium can't use you either. What does that mean?

Yees, but the individual doesn't persist over multiple generations. The genes that that individual carries which allow it to get farther more safely than other drivers will persist. The drivers do the driving. The genes affect how well they drive - or even whether they can drive or not.

So its irrelevant if the driver survives? Or not? The same gene doesn't survive either, does it?