Darwinist ignorance and confusion (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, June 11, 2010, 01:01 (5279 days ago) @ dhw

David has drawn our attention to a lengthy article by Elliott Sober, entitled Did Darwin write the Origin backwards? His conclusion is: "You do not need to assume that natural selection has been at work to argue for common ancestry; in fact, what Darwin thinks you need to defend hypotheses of common ancestry are traits whose presence cannot be attributed to natural selection. This is the evidential asymmetry that separates common ancestry from natural selection in his theory. So, did Darwin write the Origin backwards? The book is in the right causal order; but evidentially, it is backwards." 
> 
> On the previous page, Sober wrote: "But when the causal and the evidential orderings differ, which should be followed? There is no right or wrong here. Darwin led with the part of his theory that has causal priority, but he could have done otherwise. There are many good ways to write a book." So just what is the point of the article?
> 
> Matt writes: "Natural selection ... despite its flaws ... is still the most usable theory of evolution. Science is, was, and will always be about the most usable explanations."
> 
> Natural selection is not THE theory of evolution. It's PART of the theory. And the one point Elliott Sober makes (albeit indirectly) which I applaud is that natural selection does not explain the origin of species. As has been pointed out many times on this forum, it does not originate anything ... it can only work on things that already exist. Innovations are brought about by mutations and adaptations to changing conditions, and natural selection - although of course it is integral to the whole process - simply ensures that those creatures/ organs best suited to cope with the conditions will survive. This seems perfectly logical to me, and if there are flaws in the theory of evolution, I would suggest they lie in the area of innovation rather than in that of natural selection.-It's a sieve; a filter. Genetic change comes from deeper things in the genome: that's what I was trying to point at from my criticism. Sober was talking about an idea that is antiquated; the newer models of evolution when compiled together paint a very complex picture. NS is only a small part of the whole and IS NOT the SOLE source of change. But if we're going to single out one idea that pervades every aspect of biology--no idea is more prevalent or--as I said--useful. It is the glue across all the sub-disciplines.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"