|
Author
|
Topic: Phillip L. Engle: New Evolutionary Theory: The End of Ideology
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 12. April 2004 12:56
The repeated cries of "linear" are especially confusing given that Engle goes through a great number of nonlinear systems--including biological ones involving population models!--in his book, and admits somewhere around page 320 that aspects of Darwinism are nonlinear (citing work by Stuart Kauffman as an example of what he would consider as nonlinear study of Darwinism).
I suppose it's because Darwinism = linear fits nicely into the thesis of "old discredited theory = linear, new shiny theory = nonlinear". Except that the switch from linear to nonlinear analysis has recently been greatly assisted by advances in computing technology, and numerous fields are successfully making use of nonlinear analysis, including (apparently) "neo-Darwinism".
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 12. April 2004 13:11
neoDarwinism is neither a theory or theories. Theories are hypotheses that have been verified, preferably experimentally. The simple fact is that the production of a new life form has never been demonstrated to have occured through either natural or the most intensive artificial selection. For all practical purposes contemporary species must be regarded as basically immutable beyond the limits of variety.
As far as the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is concerned, let me quote Reginald Punnett on mimicry, that Darwinian favorite presumably demonstrating natural selection in action.
"Natural selection is a real factor in connection with mimicry, but its function is to conserve and render preponderant an already existing likeness, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of small variations, as is do generally assumed."
Or Pierre Grasse:
"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of Providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped. We believe that there is no reason for being forced to choose between "either randomness or the supernatural", a choice into which advocates of randomness in biology strive vainly to back their opponents. It is neither randomness nor supernatural power, but laws which govern living things; to determine these laws is the aim and goal of science, which should have the final say." page 107
And Leo Berg:
"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard." page 406
And the paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn:
"In all the research since 1869 on the transformations observed in closely successive phyletic series no evidence whatever, to my knowledge, has been brought forth by any paleontologist, either of the vertebrated or invertebrated animals, that the fit originates by selection from the fortuitous".
And finally Berg again, independently concurring with Grasse who never cited Berg's views in his book:
"The laws of the organic world are the same, whether we are dealing with the development of the individual (ontogeny) or that of a paleontological series (phylogeny). Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance." page 134
It is my conviction that the laws which have governed organic evolution will prove to be every bit as demonstrable and tangible as the prescribed laws which so obviously characterize all of mathematics, physics and chemistry.
[ 12. April 2004, 13:18: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Argon
Member
Member # 276
|
posted 12. April 2004 14:15
nosivad writes:
"neoDarwinism is neither a theory or theories..."
Whatever. Note that I was responding to Phillip L. Engle's earlier comment:
"In describing neo-Darwinism as a "linear" theory, I am speaking..."
If Phillip wants to call it a 'theory', that is OK with me. I can glark that. It is not that I do not understand everything Phillip writes, just some of what he writes.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 12. April 2004 16:16
Argon And I was responding to YOUR description of neoDarwinism as a theory or theories. Theory is one of the most abused words in the scientific vocabulary. It is almost as bad as "punctuated equilibria" two words that at one time had real meaning.
[ 12. April 2004, 16:43: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Argon
Member
Member # 276
|
posted 12. April 2004 18:32
Let us consider nosivad's viewpoint on the definition of 'theory' to be noted and documented within this thread, which is titled: "New Evolutionary Theory: The End of Ideology" (An article submitted to this board at John Davison's request).
Now, what does 'linear' mean?
[ 12. April 2004, 18:47: Message edited by: Argon ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. April 2004 05:32
Yes, let's get back to linear and what that really means. That could take days. The real issues raised by Engle's essay are not semantic but fundamental as to why the Darwinian model is a failure. Yes, I did suggest Engle present the essay here. I also transmitted it to Rivista di Biologia with the hope it might be published. I plead guilty to both counts. Now let us discuss the substance of his paper, especially his conclusions.
[ 13. April 2004, 05:49: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Argon
Member
Member # 276
|
posted 13. April 2004 09:33
nosivad writes:
"Yes, let's get back to linear and what that really means. That could take days..."
This started by my asking for a very simple (IMO) clarification within a tightly limited scope. Recall my original post. I tried to keep to that original subject (while providing some information nosivad requested). Overall, I thought that resolution would have only taken a few, brief exchanges.
nosivad, if you cannot or choose not to describe what Phillip is talking about in his description of Darwinism as a linear theory, then perhaps we should leave that explanation to Phillip. If he opts not to do that, then I am content to leave it. Meanwhile, nosivad, if you have additional, side comments that you want to direct to me without cluttering this thread further, consider sending me a PM.
[ 13. April 2004, 09:35: Message edited by: Argon ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Phillip L. Engle
Member
Member # 447
|
posted 13. April 2004 11:20
I have explained what I mean by saying that neo-Darwinism is "essentially" a linear theory in both short form (this present essay) and in long form (the 500 page online book FAR FROM EQUILIBRIUM at www.farfromequilibrium.com .) If you "don't get it", well, I guess you just "don't get it". (For a medium-size treatment of Darwinism vs. macrodevelopment, you might try my 36-page essay "Symmetry in Evolution" in the October-December 2002 issue of PCID.)
However, I will note that when Darwinists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, do occasionally manifest an interest in nonlinear science, it is chaos theory that interests them, since chaos theory comports well with the Darwinian ideological bias that holds that the universe is teleologically "meaningless and senseless".
But there are other nonlinear theories besides chaos theory. There is, for example, Ilya Prigogine's theory of the "dissipative structure", whose thermodynamic evolution is characterized by "punctuated equilibria" and which shows surprising analogies to both biological embryonic development and to evolutionary macrodevelopment. (Not that Prigogine's theory even comes close to fully explaining either embryology or macroevolution, but it's a start.)
To try one more time to get to the heart of the matter: If we view embryonic development as the key analogy to macroevolution, we clearly must model model macroevolution in a nonlinear way, since embryonic development is clearly a nonlinear process. By contrast, if we view the "artificial selection" practiced by human breeders or the "natural selection" that occurs WITHIN species as the analogy to macroevolution, then we are using an analogy that ESSENTIALLY requires only linear statistics to model (with the exception of exceptional cases, such as the modeling of "ecological collapse" via nonlinear chaos theory). [Sorry I hit the wrong key and broke this post in two!]
The real ideological reason why Darwinists don't want to seriously consider nonlinear theories such as Prigogine's theory of the "dissipative structure", nor do they want to take the embryological analogy seriously, is that such theories and analogies might suggest that the universe is teleologically meaningful after all. By contrast Darwinists wish to see even the IMMANENT teleology in the universe (a dog moving towards its food bowl, an amoeba swimming away from danger) as an "illusion" which the essentially linear theories of Darwinism and cybernetics have "explained away". (But see James Barham's articles for a completely non-theological disproof of this.)
[ 13. April 2004, 12:12: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. April 2004 11:29
Argon
The whole purpose of any forum is to promote public discussion of important issues. Phillip Engle has raised significant objections to the Darwinian interpretation of organic evolution. Since his objections have involved both my hypotheses and those of Robert DeHaan, I feel a certain responsibility to keep the substance of this thread focussed on the many differences which characterize those transparently antiDarwinian perspectives. If Engle's conclusions can be refuted, that should become evident through considered argument, preferably bolstered by experimental evidence. It has been my experience that virtually all objections to the Darwinian model, from Mivart to Bateson to Berg to Goldschmidt to Schindewolf to Grasse and right up to the present have simply been ignored by an evolutionary establishment which, in my studied opinion, continues to be dominated by what Engle has characterized, in my opinion correctly, as an ideological faction which steadfastly, in the face of an enormous body of evidence to the contrary, continues to adhere to a mechanism relying solely on random chance as the source of all evolutionary change. That model is without foundation. Judging from past experience, I predict that the present challenge to the Darwinian paradigm will also "die on the vine" as have its many predecessors. It is a great intellectual tragedy. In any event I see no reason to transmit any private messages to anyone while there exists a public forum specifically designed for that purpose.
IP: Logged
|
|
Argon
Member
Member # 276
|
posted 13. April 2004 13:53
Thanks for your reply, Phillip. I appreciate your comments.
Phillip writes:
quote:
The real ideological reason why Darwinists don't want to seriously consider nonlinear theories such as Prigogine's theory of the "dissipative structure", nor do they want to take the embryological analogy seriously, is that such theories and analogies might suggest that the universe is teleologically meaningful after all.
Myself, I do not view it as an ideological preference but one of "tractability." Nonlinear interactions often do not have easy solutions and can be technically difficult or impossible to evaluate. Thus linear or simpler models are typically generated as approximations. For example, in enzyme kinetics, solving the differential equations for many mechanisms of enzyme catalysis is not possible. Consequently, approximations are almost always introduced. The key is to determine the intervals over which the approximations hold, at least well enough for the question considered. If these simplifications are not sufficient, then one must confront the nonlinear terms. When enzymologists introduce simplifying approximations, it not because they worry about teleology, it is more a matter of getting useable results. The fact is, population biologists and geneticists do consider nonlinear models (see one of the URLs referenced earlier). These are not 'exceptional' cases although the trend is increasing as knowledge of useful modelling tools spreads. One of the major difficulties in such studies is compensating for noise in the signal (also, small data sets and short observation time). But I do not see the 'linear vs. nonlinear' distinction arising as the result of a teleological preference. For biologists, mathematics is a tool, not an ideology.
The problem with Darwinian or any other theory of evolution, as I see it, is not linear vs. nonlinear models but whether there is sufficient understanding to: a) map a particular state of a cell (or organism) to an environment and b) evaluate the possible trajectories from any particular point in genome/phenotype/environment space. That is what will ultimately be required if we want 'fully articulated' description. Unfortunately, except under very limited conditions, that understanding does not exist. This simple ignorance hampers all evolutionary theories that seek to model genotypic/phenotypic changes over time.
[ 13. April 2004, 15:26: Message edited by: Argon ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. April 2004 15:57
There is only one problem with Darwinian evolution. It is the same problem that Lamarckian evolution has presented. Both Have failed endless critical experimental analyses. Accordingly, both must be rejected. Lamarckism has been largely rejected. Why Darwinism survives is a mystery. I hope I may be forgiven for introducing my own Semi-meiotic Hypothesis, but the simple undeniable fact is that it has not been subjected to experimental analysis. Until it is it must be considered viable. There is also evidence accumulating from molecular biology that fundamental gene families common to huge groups of organisms have existed since very early in evolutionary history, which certainly is compatible with the notion that chromosome restructuring alone can serve to release novel genetic expressions which were latent and unexpressed perhaps for many millions of years. Both the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis and the correlated Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis have yet to be even recognized, let alone tested. It may prove that there is really no significant role for micromutational (base pair) genetic alterations in determining evolutionary destiny. In any event, as I and others have indicated, there is no compelling evidence that evolution above the species level is even occurring. That certainly is the perspective of Pierre Grasse, Robert Broom and of all people, the author of "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis", Julian Huxley, not to mention myself.
Godfrey Hardy felt that mathematics existed independent of the human condition and needed only to be discovered. I accept that interpretation and have chosen to extend that prefomed concept to include the whole of science to include evolution which I now regard as essentially an emergent phenomenon prescribed just as certainly as were the conic sections, the periodic table of the elements and all of Newtonian physics and Einstein's relativity. Science is nothing but the discovery of what is there. That is the best evidence against the Darwin/Wallace hypothesis. They discovered nothing. They simply reacted to their common reading experience with the works of Malthus and Lyell. The laws of physics have been discovered. The laws that have driven evolution (past tense) will ultimately be discovered. When that finally occurs, and I firmly believe it will, both Lamarckism and Darwinism, like the Phlogiston of chemistry and the Ether of physics will become nothing but historical curiosities.
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 13. April 2004 23:31
Maybe I don't know what "Darwinian evolution" is. Chromosomal rearrangements--inversions, deletions, insertions, translocations--certainly happen. They are, therefore, part of the mutational toolkit that I would attribute to any standard evolutionary view. Of course, point mutations are easier to analyze and better understood, so people focus there more, but there's nothing inherently "anti-Darwinian" about chromosomal rearrangements as far as I can tell.
Maybe I don't know what "linear" is either. However, with a 500-page book available, perhaps Engle can simply point out the section that documents the linearity of Darwinism. Of course, you can use linear analysis on anything, but where is the demonstration that Darwinism necessarily presupposes linear relationships and fails otherwise? I couldn't find it in Far from Equilibrium. (I instead found a number of statements claiming that it presupposed linear relationships but no demonstration of why.) It's a long book and I've been quite busy lately; perhaps I overlooked the relevant section.
[ 13. April 2004, 23:33: Message edited by: Rex Kerr ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gordon
Member
Member # 781
|
posted 14. April 2004 08:46
No offense, but who is Engle? I did some lit searches and came up empty. A Google search only brings up his anti-evolution book website. What does he (do you) do? Maybe I am just looking in the wrong places?
[ 14. April 2004, 08:47: Message edited by: gordon ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 14. April 2004 10:57
Darwinian evolution was clearly founded on sexual (Mendelian) reproduction. That is precisely what I have challenged with the semi-meiotic hypothesis. I have proposed for good reason that the primary role for obligatory sexual reproduction is antievolutionary, serving to stabilize species rather than to create them. I refer to my paper "Evolution as a Self-limiting Process" Rivista di Biologia 91: 199-220, 1998 and to the unpublished Manifesto which was discussed here on "brainstorms" in some 170 posts. I remain confident that my conclusions presented in those essays are sound and founded on documentable realities which have been there before us for many decades. I can only agree with Engle's conclusion that failure to acknowledge this very significant literature has been ideological rather than objective. The Darwinists have consistently ignored their critics from Mivart in Darwin's own day right up to the present. For all practical purposes we, collectively, simply do not exist.
"By 1924, Bateson had come to realize, and told his son in confidence,'that it was a mistake to have commited his life to Mendelism, that this was a blind alley which would not throw any light on the differentiation of species, nor on evolution in general'."
Arthur Koestler "The Case of the Midwife Toad" (1971) page 121
I agree completely.
IP: Logged
|
|
Phillip L. Engle
Member
Member # 447
|
posted 14. April 2004 13:10
Reply to Argon --
I agree that "tractability" is a problem inherent in nonlinear science. The core equations of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity are nonlinear. But using them to calculate the interactions of even three major gravitational bodies can strain the largest computers! That's why most physicists have declined to follow Einstein in his search for a general nonlinear Unified Field Theory, which would have to cover the strong interactions of thousands of particles to even be of much use. Much more "practical" are the statistical approximations of quantum mechanics (which approximations are actually quite accurate when large numbers of particles are involved).
Nevertheless, recognizing the ESSENTIALLY nonlinear nature of embryology and macrodevelopment (i.e., evolution) at least acknowledges the extreme complexity of the biological and evolutionary phenomena we are dealing with.
Reply to Gordon - Who is Engle?
I am a self-employed information architect. (See www.phillipengle.com .) I am therefore a "nobody" as far as biological academic credentials are concerned. Robert F. DeHaan, the inventor of the theory of macrodevelopment, is a retired psychologist, and thus is another "nobody" in the present context. John Davison, the inventor of the semi-meiotic hypothesis, has substantial academic credentials in the field of biology and therefore counts as a "somebody" in the field (though his colleagues at the University of Vermont have made significant efforts to "noboby-ize" him). Charles Darwin started out as an amateur naturalist (a nobody), but then his theory of evolution became wildly successful, thus making him a super-somebody.
Nobody in the above paragraph (least of all Charles Darwin) is attempting to argue from authority, but rather using reason and the facts. (Is everybody clear on this?)
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
