|
Author
|
Topic: Phillip L. Engle: New Evolutionary Theory: The End of Ideology
|
Argon
Member
Member # 276
|
posted 14. April 2004 19:21
Phillip L. Engle writes:
"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!..."
Is that a problem with the core equations being nonlinear or with simply trying to model three objects? Three body problems cannot be solved analytically. Even with classical physics (such as Newton's inverse square law of gravity), one also cannot solve the three body problem precisely.
In population genetics, a full analytical solution for relatively simple interactions between two or more loci is similarly difficult.
"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."
I think the extreme complexity of living systems is appreciated by most biologists, regardless of whether they are neo-Darwinian supporters or not. Most people are not surprised to find 'complexity' accompanied with nonlinear interactions.
IP: Logged
|
|
Claire
Member
Member # 725
|
posted 15. April 2004 00:20
Philip,
I like the references in your last post about bodys and no-bodies and non linear science. I think I might agree with it.
Claire
IP: Logged
|
|
gordon
Member
Member # 781
|
posted 15. April 2004 08:04
Phillip writes: quote:
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?)
I think you took my query the wrong way, but I appreciate your response, and that does explain the non-scientific writing style you employ. I was not implying that you were a nobody, just that when someone implies that they have made major contributions to a field of science they usually have a track record. I am not sure why you mention Darwin, things were a bit different in the field of bioogy 150 years ago. As for Davison, he stopped doing legitimate research in the late 1970s as far as I can tell. Right about the same time he concocted his hypothesis. Coincidence, I am sure. other than references to deHaan at creationist and ID web sites and by Davison, I hadn't heard of him either. But thanks for the response.
I must say, however, that I found the linked to essay flawed from the start, from the caricaturing of the foundational premises of Darwin's theory to the hyperbole regarding the state of the theory today. As others have pointed out, the linearity argument fails, and thus, the foundation of this latest round of "Darwinism" bashing is doomed from the outset.
[ 15. April 2004, 08:08: Message edited by: gordon ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 15. April 2004 11:01
Gordon
Of course this latest round of "Darwinism bashing' is doomed fom the start, for precisely the reasons I offered in an earlier post. To
borrow a phrase from Engle, the following have been "nobody-ized" by the Darwinians in roughly chronological order - St George Mivart, William Bateson, Reginald C. Punnett, Leo S. Berg, Robert Broom, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Otto Schindewolf, Pierre Grasse, Alexander Petrunkevitch and the many other distinguished scholars who have had the temerity and the acumen to criticise the Darwinian model. That list includes some of the finest biologists of the 20th century. I will not speak for Engle, but I am happy to join the previous in the list of those who have been "nobody-ized" by the evolutionary establishment. It is an honor.
As for your comment on when I did my last significant research, that is an inexcusable personal attack and your post should be deleted either voluntarily or by the moderator. I cannot imagine a better demonstration of the lengths to which a Darwinist must go to defend an hypothesis for which not a scintilla of significant experimental or descriptive evidence has ever been produced.
In the interest of accuracy, I did not publish the Semi-meiotic hypothesis until 1984 in the widely respected Journal of Theoretical Biology where I published another evolutionary piece in 1987, that in response to a Darwinian who chose to ignore the published findings of L.R. Cleveland, a world authority on the flagellates commensal with termites, whom I had cited in support of the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis.
I expect your post to be deleted. If it is not there will be no reason for any further contributions from me, especially since that seems to be your primary objective.
[ 15. April 2004, 13:46: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 15. April 2004 16:12
In reply to Gordon -just who is Gordon?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 16. April 2004 06:25
I find it interesting that the protagonists of the Darwinian position, argon, gordon and Rex Kerr, unlike their adversaries, DeHaan, Engle and myself, remain anonymous. Being genetically curious by nature, I can only wonder why. In any event it does place a questionable stamp on the legitimacy of any meaningful discussion.
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 16. April 2004 12:53
If you're curious, ask. I'm not exactly trying to be anonymous--after all, I am using my real name. But I don't think it's terribly relevant, as I try to shy away from arguments from authority--my own or anyone else's.
Judging authority and background is a substitute for judging the accuracy of factual claims and the correctness of arguments--if one does not have an appropriate background to evaluate claims on their own merit, a judgment of authority may be all that one can make. (Or one may not have time to judge facts.)
If I don't have time to judge an argument on this board on a factual basis, I don't think I should take the time to post a reply, either. I wouldn't have much to say.
[ 16. April 2004, 12:57: Message edited by: Rex Kerr ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 16. April 2004 14:17
I am perfectly willing to respond to any criticism, positive or negative, provided only that it comes from someone whose identity is known and declared as is my own, Phillip Engle's and Robert DeHaan's as well as many others who participate in this and other forums. I see no reason to even acknowledge a statement from an anonymous source. Whatever virtues anonymity may or may not have, license to engage in denigration of ones professional competence is certainly not one of them. Accordingly, I remain willing to communicate with that proviso.
[ 16. April 2004, 14:18: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Janitor@MIT
Member
Member # 125
|
posted 16. April 2004 16:04
I’m sure I don’t understand the problems. But “hybridization” was suggested as a test by Darwin. Is it a test?
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 16. April 2004 17:28
I can't figure out whether that is "asking" or not, but since I am not posting under an anonymous pseudonym and have not been and do not intend to engage in ad hominem attacks on people's character, reputation, professionalism, etc., I assume the post was intended for someone other than me.
IP: Logged
|
|
Argon
Member
Member # 276
|
posted 17. April 2004 02:18
nosivad writes:
"I see no reason to even acknowledge a statement from an anonymous source. Whatever virtues anonymity may or may not have, license to engage in denigration of ones professional competence is certainly not one of them. Accordingly, I remain willing to communicate with that proviso."
Which provision: Not acknowledging statements from anonymous sources or not communicating with sources that practice professional denigration?
Withholding communication under either provision would be fine, thanks. I have been happy interacting directly with Phillip.
[ 17. April 2004, 02:19: Message edited by: Argon ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 17. April 2004 06:15
My most recent post was prompted by my having been characterized as incompetent by an anonymous contributor to this forum. I have never understood why anonymity was ever instituted as a practice in the first place. I just like to know who my critics are so I can examine their professional credentials as they have examined and commented on mine. That's all.
IP: Logged
|
|
gordon
Member
Member # 781
|
posted 28. April 2004 09:46
John asks:
quote:
In reply to Gordon -just who is Gordon?
A fair question I suppose, but irrelevant.
For I have not written a book - an e-book or otherwise - in which I have claimed that a major theory of science is all wrong and that my personal musings are in fact better supported by the evidence. Nor have I written a series of theotretical essays with similar themes. Nor have I then started or taken part in discussion board threads advocating my personal musings.
Had I done so, then clearly I would not be anonymous.
Since I have not done so, I feel no need to say anything more.
As for your offense taken at my earlier statement regarding your last research publication date, well, I am not sure why you would take offense to such a fact. It is, after all, a fact. And it is relevant to your work as you have stated in the past your disdain for those not engaging in lab research on issues they promote.
I may add more later and try to get back on track when I have time.
[ 28. April 2004, 09:54: Message edited by: gordon ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 28. April 2004 12:31
Neo-Darwinism is not a theory. It is the most failed hypothesis in the history of science, especially now that Lamarckism has apparently undergone a long overdue demise. It is major simply because a majority think so. My criticism of Darwinism is not limted to my unpublished Manifesto. It began twenty years ago in the Journal of Theoretical Biology and will continue, God willing, as long as I breathe. As for my work and those on whom my work depends, the evolutionary establishment has steadfastly practiced what George Bernard Shaw properly identified -
"The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them; that's the essence of inhumanity."
I can't recall a single negative comment from a source on "brainstorms" whose identity were known to me. If I am wrong, and I could be, please bring me up to date.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 28. April 2004 15:54
Nosivad: Neo-Darwinism is not a theory. It is the most failed hypothesis in the history of science, especially now that Lamarckism has apparently undergone a long overdue demise.
Your unsupported assertions become a bit tedious and seem to me to be not very conducive to the brainstorm forum. Perhaps an argument would help?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
