scared of research because you might waste time seems like the most arbitrary and useless complaint...ever. I can't imagine the success to failure rate is anything but heavily lopsided in failure's favor
I'm not scared of research, but research costs money. If you can keep securing funding in order to keep producing negative results, then more power to you. Or maybe you'll produce positive results! That's great too. But for now, you haven't done any research, and you haven't produced any positive results.
but you ignored a crucial paragraph in the last reply that helps narrow your view. this issue isn't so one sided that persuasion is obvious anyways
Not sure which replies you mean, so I'll tackle both:
I don't think evolution is the right word from your perspective. You suggest that the environment only selects what lives and dies, not how the environment dictates what evolves and how it evolves. While living and dying is essential part of evolution for the long term for a specific species, IE from these apes to humans, it doesn't account for the failure and successful mutations of said species.
I ignored this because I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say. You don't think evolution is the right word from my perspective? Does that mean you think I'm talking about something other than evolution--and if so, what? Living and dying can account for the failure and success of mutations in any given species--so I think you're wrong.
Next:
to my position, it wouldn't be revionist. what i quoted seems to be in line with my understanding environmental effects on the individual fundamental level
That's because you don't seem to understand what evolutionary theory actually says, or how the article in question relates to conventional evolutionary theory.
All the article is discussing is a possible alternative evolutionary chain of species between apes and humans. It's not saying anything about how this new species revolutionizes our understanding of evolution.
you'll just reply and say that one day one creature of a species randomly mutated an enzyme that broke down protein better than all the others beforehand but that mutated enzyme was not at all influenced by what the creature did or ate. so what really is the point? you aren't entertaining the idea that you are wrong and how you would challenge it. you're going to say there's no evidence for past and extinct creatures while likely also suggesting that humans are on too micro and close scale to use at all in comparison for past species.
I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you because you've made it very clear in the past what you think of me. You don't even respect my ability to understand basic science, while praising Eternal Metal's, despite the fact that Eternal Metal has (on more than one occasion) acknowledged that what I'm saying is basically in line with what evolutionary theory allows for (we've also mentioned this in the Mort Divine thread, but you ignored it).
I always entertain the possibility that I'm wrong, but I'm not going to concede when I'm not presented with anything compelling. In your case, I can't even understand your comments half the time. Granted, this is a forum and not a seminar paper; but if you want to be understood then you need to write clearly.
Finally, you're correct that I'm going to keep resisting what you say--not because I think it's impossible, but because I think you're ignoring what basic evolutionary theory dictates. I'm confused as to why your problem is with me and not with anyone else who has shared my perspective. I'm going to refer you to Eternal Metal's last post in the Mort Divine thread:
@rmsIm still unsure as to exactly where rms's opinion stands.
Our main point of contention is the degree to which environment directly influences mutation. I believe that environment shapes evolution only to the extent that it provides the conditions in which mutations can flourish; it cannot infiltrate the genome and engineer future mutations (and I don't think Harris would try and make this claim, but maybe I'm wrong). It seemed, at times, like [rms was] really insisting on this.
Yes. I still stand behind traditional evolution theory when it comes to the idea that the environment drives selection. Just because there are environmental feedback mechanisms intertwined with the genetic code does not change this. As a white man my skin still tans, but I am clearly not as adapted to a tropical environment with lots of sun as someone with naturally dark skin. Epigenetic mechanisms such as the ones proposed by Mukherjee simply prove that genes can be resilient, but there are still limitations (which is why evolutionary theory still reigns supreme).
When we say the "environment drives selection," we're not saying that organisms can promote certain genetic mutations by exercising certain bodily muscles or functions (although they may be able to affect expression). Genetic variance is
always happening, it is
always taking place, and different mutations either succeed or fail (i.e. survive or die out) depending on their applicability in a given environment.
I don't think what you're saying is impossible. I simply don't think any of the examples you've presented can't be explained via traditional evolutionary theory. In other words, I believe that chance variation can account for all these examples, including the one from the
Telegraph article. Unless you find an example that can't be explained by traditional evolution, or you can explain why this article can
only be explained by your theory, then I'm sorry.
EDIT: I haven't bothered to do this until now, but these are some sources I'm working from:
Francesca Merlin, "Weak Randomness at the Origin of Biological Variation: The Case of Genetic Mutations" (2016) and "Evolutionary Chance Mutation: A Defense of the Modern Synthesis' Consensus View" (2010)
Abstract for the latter:
In fact, some argue that mutations due to a particular kind of mutator mechanisms challenge the Modern Synthesis because they are produced when and where needed by the organisms concerned. This paper provides a defense of the Modern Synthesis’ consensus view about the chance nature of all genetic mutations by reacting to Jablonka and Lamb’s analysis of genetic mutations (2005) and the explicit Lamarckian flavor of their arguments. I argue that biologists can continue to talk about chance mutations according to what I call and define as the notion of “evolutionary chance,” which I claim is the Modern Synthesis’ consensus view and a reformulation of Darwin’s most influential idea of “chance” variation. Advances in molecular genetics are therefore significant but not revolutionary with respect to the Modern Synthesis’ paradigm.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ptb/695...-defense-of-the-modern?rgn=main;view=fulltext
See also John Beatty, "Chance Variation: Darwin on Orchids" (2006):
For Darwin, the evolutionary implications of chance variation had to do with (1) the contingency of the outcomes of evolution by natural selection of chance variations, which could in turn lead to (2) chance divergence. He argued that two closely related, even initially identical lineages, inhabiting identical environments, may by chance give rise to different variations. Natural selection acting on different variations in the different lineages would then result in different outcomes, and hence divergence. Which outcomes occur would depend on which variations had occurred, and in what order. For Darwin, the evolutionary implications of chance variation had to do with (1) the contingency of the outcomes of evolution by natural selection of chance variations,
which could in turn lead to (2) chance divergence. He argued that two closely related, even initially identical lineages, inhabiting identical environments, may by chance give rise to different variations. Natural selection acting on different variations in the different lineages would then result in different outcomes, and hence divergence. Which outcomes occur would depend on which variations had occurred, and in what order.
Finally, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Whatever the cause of the generation of a variation may be, the role of selection is to accumulate those already present variations that happen to be beneficial. As Beatty put it, the generation of variations and their selection are ‘consecutive’ processes. But to call the generation of variation a ‘chance’ process is to use ‘chance’ in this second sense, meaning not by design or for some end.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/#RolChaEvoThe
