@XGralgrathor Yes. because of the exclusion of chaos theory from the linear picture presented by Dawkins - Darwinism appears quite naive of sudden inexplicable events - chaotic catastrophism that e.g wiped out the Dinosaurs - in Dawkins terminology you only get to the top of 'mount improbable' if you don't get hit by a comet first. the modelling of [kauffman, Goodwin, Langton etc] suggests that evolution isn't slow and ponderous - its sudden through the chaos law of emergence.
I doubt that Dawkins claims a linear model best describes evolution. Just look up his views on evolutionarily stable strategies: they're perfectly consistent with chaos theory. I always assumed that chaos theory applies equally to the modern synthesis as a whole. You've got your tendencies, and you've got your chaos. Neither tendencies nor chaos disappear when you change scope.
« chaotic catastrophism that e.g wiped out the Dinosaurs »
Excellent example of chaos. Having a friggin great rock drop on you and blast your planet back a couple of geological era will do that to you every time. But what's the argument here?
Oh yeah, and how are meteorites, volcanism and climate shifts inexplicable, by the way? We're aware that the convection systems that drive plate tectonics and the thin smear of weather on top, as well as the gravitational forces that drive the development of the solar system form complex systems sensitive to initial conditions - ie. chaotic systems. This does nothing to negate the tendencies we find in those systems, and the explanations we have for them.
« suggests that evolution isn't slow and ponderous - its sudden through the chaos law of emergence »
And I agree. This is perfectly consistent with some models of punctuated equilibrium - that Dawkins also supports. Life, like meteorology and tectonics, is a chaotic system. You have tendencies and chaos at every scale. Evolutionary biology is about recognizing the tendencies and their mechanisms. It makes no claims about the system not being subject to chaos.
@Danmill23 if you propose that Darwin is good for something in terms of accuracy of science then you are an Instrumentalist after Dulheim circa 1920 who said that a biplane model was sufficient for flight - which was true as far as it went but it wouldn't go to the moon. We can either choose primitivism or we can reach for the stars
I believe in a balance of Creation and Evolution. I believe the Creator(s) create the Pattern and then the Patterns evolve over time for adaptation purposes as environments of course change.. i find mimicry to be an 'in your face' argument for this. Take just one as an example; the Orchid Mantis of Hawaii.. these types of creature mimicry events always make me wonder, which came first -as in this example, the insect or the flower. -it's all wonderful and for science to ignore is almost criminal.
@XGralgrathor Yes. because of the exclusion of chaos theory from the linear picture presented by Dawkins - Darwinism appears quite naive of sudden inexplicable events - chaotic catastrophism that e.g wiped out the Dinosaurs - in Dawkins terminology you only get to the top of 'mount improbable' if you don't get hit by a comet first. the modelling of [kauffman, Goodwin, Langton etc] suggests that evolution isn't slow and ponderous - its sudden through the chaos law of emergence.
outshore 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@outshore
« from the linear picture presented by Dawkins »
I doubt that Dawkins claims a linear model best describes evolution. Just look up his views on evolutionarily stable strategies: they're perfectly consistent with chaos theory. I always assumed that chaos theory applies equally to the modern synthesis as a whole. You've got your tendencies, and you've got your chaos. Neither tendencies nor chaos disappear when you change scope.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@outshore
« chaotic catastrophism that e.g wiped out the Dinosaurs »
Excellent example of chaos. Having a friggin great rock drop on you and blast your planet back a couple of geological era will do that to you every time. But what's the argument here?
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@outshore
« inexplicable events »
Oh yeah, and how are meteorites, volcanism and climate shifts inexplicable, by the way? We're aware that the convection systems that drive plate tectonics and the thin smear of weather on top, as well as the gravitational forces that drive the development of the solar system form complex systems sensitive to initial conditions - ie. chaotic systems. This does nothing to negate the tendencies we find in those systems, and the explanations we have for them.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@outshore
« you only get to the top of 'mount improbable' if you don't get hit by a comet first »
Yeah, okay, so? What's objectionable about that?
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@outshore
« suggests that evolution isn't slow and ponderous - its sudden through the chaos law of emergence »
And I agree. This is perfectly consistent with some models of punctuated equilibrium - that Dawkins also supports. Life, like meteorology and tectonics, is a chaotic system. You have tendencies and chaos at every scale. Evolutionary biology is about recognizing the tendencies and their mechanisms. It makes no claims about the system not being subject to chaos.
MrGralgrathor 1 month ago
@Desertphile my first ad hominem attack. I may be religious but I have the more reasonable position in this case.
outshore 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
cars do not replace the horse and cart. Each is better in it's environment. But one IS more "advanced" than the other.
Danmill23 2 months ago
@Danmill23 if you propose that Darwin is good for something in terms of accuracy of science then you are an Instrumentalist after Dulheim circa 1920 who said that a biplane model was sufficient for flight - which was true as far as it went but it wouldn't go to the moon. We can either choose primitivism or we can reach for the stars
outshore 2 months ago
I believe in a balance of Creation and Evolution. I believe the Creator(s) create the Pattern and then the Patterns evolve over time for adaptation purposes as environments of course change.. i find mimicry to be an 'in your face' argument for this. Take just one as an example; the Orchid Mantis of Hawaii.. these types of creature mimicry events always make me wonder, which came first -as in this example, the insect or the flower. -it's all wonderful and for science to ignore is almost criminal.
MightyMessenger777 2 months ago