Inference and its role in NS (General)

by dhw, Sunday, January 30, 2011, 12:52 (5044 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: I will point out that this discussion has been about Dawkins saying that the whole of life is explained by natural selection, which you take issue with. My job here has been to "be" Dawkins. -Errrm, not quite, but perhaps this has led to our talking at cross purposes. The discussion began with my asking David (17 January at 11.14) how the available living space theory could lead to diversification (new organs and species), as this question had been glossed over by statements like: "when birds evolved the ability to fly". In my thank you response to David on 18 January at 12.11, I wrote: "I find it galling that scientists continue to talk of evolution by natural selection, as if adaptation and innovation ... without which there would be no diversification and nothing to select from ... could be taken for granted. This is a linguistic device used, among others, by Dawkins, who claims that NS "explains the whole of life"." -I used Dawkins only as an added example, following on from the living space article, and in my post to you on 22 January at 10.21 I explained exactly how and why this linguistic device is used. Since then, I've continued to object to the claim that NS and evolution are synonymous, and you've continued (apparently) to defend it. I appreciate, however, that you've been acting as the devil's advocate without actually knowing what the devil has to say (though the title The God Delusion gives you a pretty good idea), but the same "glossing over" is all too common in articles about evolution. -As you agree that "the mechanisms which brought about life are also responsible for how life changes", you clearly agree that evolution and natural selection are not synonymous, and so I suggest we shake hands and move on ... which is what we usually do anyway!