Math works against theory of evolution!

[Sava]

now if you girls can't play nice










as for topic, Doc's post makes a lot more sense to me now that I'm sober.

[Theben]

I was 'fortunate' to live in Winfield in my youth. It's been called the buckle on the bible belt.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Likewise Provost, I think that the civilised world should parachute copies of Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" on the States - one per American

Mayr or Gould would be better. Dawkins is an athiest and so would be ignored by the bible-thumpers (I also think the whole selfish gene concept is over-rated, but thats a whole another debate).

[Lul Thyme]

Dawkin's point is usually stronger and serious than Gould... (for example no way the selfish gene is as overrated as punctured equilibrium.)
People that don't want to wont understand Gould any better than Dawkin anyway.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Do you have anything valuable to contribute that pedantry? A spellcheck can fix my spelling, no amount of therapy can give you a nice personality.

You demonstrate this well.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
for example no way the selfish gene is as overrated as punctured equilibrium

The ORGANISM is the dominate unit of selection in sexually reproducing organisms. Genes rarely interact with the enviroment, the phenotype is what usually interacts with the enviroment, selection acts on the phenotype. the genes, in most cases, record selction on the organismal level. Dawkins mistakes a few rare instances of genes acting as interactors, and somehow extrapolates it to mean genes are the basic unit of selection universally.

Oh, and Punk Eek is not overated, it is well suported and is the dominate macroevolutionary pattern in the fossil record.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Do you have anything valuable to contribute that pedantry? A spellcheck can fix my spelling, no amount of therapy can give you a nice personality.

Why'd we want Kuci to have a nice personality? As long as he's an insufferable twerp, people will tend to keep their distance to him, increasing the net happiness in the world.

[BlackCat]

There MUST be a golftournament for amateurs in the US at the moment

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Odin



The ORGANISM is the dominate unit of selection in sexually reproducing organisms. Genes rarely interact with the enviroment, the phenotype is what usually interacts with the enviroment, selection acts on the phenotype. the genes, in most cases, record selction on the organismal level. Dawkins mistakes a few rare instances of genes acting as interactors, and somehow extrapolates it to mean genes are the basic unit of selection universally.

Oh, and Punk Eek is not overated, it is well suported and is the dominate macroevolutionary pattern in the fossil record.

Notice that I never mentionned selfish genes in particular. In any case, I read most of Dawkin's stuff and never gathered that he defends genes being the basic unit, but just that they too can act as interactors as you said. It has been a while I guess.


Punk Eek is very overrated as being a revolution in the sense of being a new mechanism. AS Dakwin replied and Gould agreed, the "jumps" it predicts are so vital to evolution are actually very small step if you look back far enough, so that in fact what is predicted by Punk Eek and not Punk Eek is exactly the same if you look back a bit.

So in fact Punk Eek is of course true, but nothing new.
Even Gould mostly agreed with this.
As wikipedia states it :
Punctuated equilibrium [...] is actually more properly understood to be a form of gradualism.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
In any case, I read most of Dawkin's stuff and never gathered that he defends genes being the basic unit, but just that they too can act as interactors as you said. It has been a while I guess.

Actually, Dawkins argues rather forcefully in The Selfish Gene and Unweaving the Rainbow that the gene is the basic unit of selection.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Odin
Genes rarely interact with the enviroment, the phenotype is what usually interacts with the enviroment, selection acts on the phenotype.

Don't forget that the phenotype is expressing the underlying genotype. For example, a strong male carry superior genes to a weaker male. Thus, strength is an indicator of genes, even though it is a characteristic of the phenotype. Likewise, beauty, intelligence, and such traits also determine whether an individual gets to pass on its genes or not.

[Deity Dude]

I might be wrong here - but isn't this guys faulty logic disproving himself.

I might be missing something but, isn't he showing us how just a few inputs can produce billions of outcomes? Wouldn't billions of inputs produce almost infinite outcomes?

Wouldn't it take almost infinite outcomes to produce the miracle of life and in successive permutations, Evolution?

I personally have about an 80% confidence in the theory of evolution. I just find his argument to "prove" it wrong very simliar to the arguments that people use to "prove" it right.