Tribalypredisposed wrote:
Sadly, since Dawkins is in extreme dogmatic denial about multi-level selection in evolution, he can only remain ignorant about war.

I think that Dawkins has looked into group selection and David Sloan Wilson's multilevel selection, and found it lacking. As have many others in the field. Its basic flaw is that it lacks a mechanism to explain how it works without resorting to the gene centered model. I've tried to make sense of DSW's hypothesis and have failed.

Tribalypredisposed wrote:
I also have some very big issues with the whole "selfish-gene" deal since he still fails to understand that selfishness at the genetic level does not automatically translate into selfishness at the phenotypic level or rule out "real" altruism.

Have you read The Selfish Gene? In it Dawkins said that he could have just as easily called it The Cooperative Gene and been just as accurate. Dawkins never said that selfishness at the gene level automatically translates into selfishness at the phenotypic level. Neither did he say that it rules it out, or rules out altruistic behavior. In fact he takes pains to explain cheating/selfishness verses cooperation/altruism in the frame work of evolutionary stable strategies.

Tribalypredisposed wrote:
I will keep it simple here unless people prefer serious complexity. It is incredibly common to hear those who commit acts of heroism state that they "just did what anyone else would do." The belief that people are altruists results in altruism among those who hold that belief.

What you are talking about is societies that are more or less cooperative. What group selection misses is that cooperation is innate in the individual and that how far that cooperation extends depends more on environment/resources than anything else. A group that in times of plenty are highly cooperative within the group and to outsiders can become much less cooperative in all aspects when resources are scarce. It comes down to the individual and their own interests. Vampire bats feed offspring that are not there own, but only after they have fed their own offspring.

Tribalypredisposed wrote:
On the other hand, the belief in the basic selfishness of others is a foundation for neoliberal views and was openly expressed by members of the Bush Jr cabal including Condy Rice and others. In general this belief can only lead to selfishness on the part of those who hold it.

Don't you mean neo-conservatives? It's kind of circular reasoning to say that neo-conservatism leads to selfishness since it's at the core of the philosophy.

Tribalypredisposed wrote:
So denial of the truth of altruism (and such altruism can only evolve if Dawkins is wrong about multi-level selection) is a very harmful thing for humans. Belief in altruism leads to good, belief in selfishness leads to evil to put it as simply as possible

There is no need for group selection in order to explain cooperation/altruism. And a gene centered explanation does not stop anyone from believing that cooperation is better than selfishness.

I don't think that you understand the concept of The Selfish Gene. Many who have not read past the title think that it means that there are genes that promote selfishness, but this could not be father from the truth. Genes do many things and one of them is promoting cooperation in social species.

Tribalypredisposed wrote:
Also, in general, unwarranted attacks on religion as a category of belief cause those who hold religious beliefs to become defensive and less open minded about science in response. This is harmful.

I guess it is a matter of opinion what are unwarranted attacks, and the opinion of religious believers is probably that any criticism is an unwarranted attack.

Tribalypredisposed wrote:
Finally it is impossible to understand the human predisposition for war while denying group level selection and altruism, and what we cannot understand we cannot act effectively against.

Dawkins does not deny altruism, he tries to explain it and its evolution. And understanding why humans fight one another does not need an explanation that lacks a coherent mechanism.

So your defense on Dawkins and group selection is that he agrees with himself and you have failed to make sense of David Sloan Wilson's hypothesis? Not really what I would call a rational argument, sorry.

The interesting thing about the group selection wars is that both sides are, in fact, making the same error just in opposite directions. Using the term "selection" in a sloppy way to refer to two distinct questions is the root of the entire conflict. Selection is used to refer to both the question of what is selected and the question of how, how is the selective pressure generated? It is true that groups are not replicators, they cannot be what is selected. Dawkins then sloppily asserts that therefore the answer to how is also at the gene level, but this is absurd and a non-answer. If I ask how flight evolved in birds and you tell me "at the gene level" this is clearly not satisfactory or explanatory. DSW and E. O. Wilson go the opposite direction. They see that competition at the group level is the how of selection, how altruism and pro-social behavior evolved, and conclude that the answer to how is the answer to what. This is also absurd.

Let us work through this then. A central assertion of the theory of evolution is that competition for resources creates the force of selection. This must always be true or the theory has a serious problem. If a species competes at the group level, it must create the how of selection, the selective force of selection, at the group level or big problem for the whole theory. This does not mean that the group is what is selected, still the genes are the answer to the separate question of what. But the genes selected are selected partially due to force of selection at the group level, and the result is AS IF the group was what was selected. Different environments create different forces, a bird that flies does not have the same how of selection for their wings that a penguin that swims has. In the same way, a species that competes only as individuals does not have the same how of social behavior selection as a species that also competes at the group level has, and contrary to Dawkins and friends will not see the same traits arise regardless.

If the selection question is what, the answer is at the gene level. If the selection question is how then there is multi-level selection, or the theory of evolution is wrong.

As for your defense of Selfish Gene have you read it? Because he absolutely does say what you state he "never said." Of course, he also states that he is not saying what he says numerous times in various places in the book. So your confusion is excusable, but his is not. Here is a link to my Amazon review where I provide quotes and page numbers for those interested. http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-rev ... 2CPCN7XHO7

Wowzers, coming back to respond to a post four years later!

I would defend RD on most issues, with the exception of his eye evolution theory, as he claimed that vertebrate eyes were some kind of mistake - natural selection gone wrong!

DavidMcC wrote:I would defend RD on most issues, with the exception of his eye evolution theory, as he claimed that vertebrate eyes were some kind of mistake - natural selection gone wrong!

No he didn't.

Animavore wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:I would defend RD on most issues, with the exception of his eye evolution theory, as he claimed that vertebrate eyes were some kind of mistake - natural selection gone wrong!

No he didn't.

It won't be easy to find a quote, but I am sure he took the view that the "inside-out"" vertebrate retina was some kind of mistake that had to be corrected by further evolution.
I'm thinking of the blind-spot (or optic disc), which he made much of.
EDIT: Oh, and the neurons that run on top of the photoreceptors, so that light has to pass through them first, causing some light losses (that do not occur in invertebrate eyes) as well as the blind spot.

DavidMcC wrote:

Animavore wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:I would defend RD on most issues, with the exception of his eye evolution theory, as he claimed that vertebrate eyes were some kind of mistake - natural selection gone wrong!

No he didn't.

It won't be easy to find a quote, but I am sure he took the view that the "inside-out"" vertebrate retina was some kind of mistake that had to be corrected by further evolution.
I'm thinking of the blind-spot (or optic disc), which he made much of.
EDIT: Oh, and the neurons that run on top of the photoreceptors, so that light has to pass through them first, causing some light losses (that do not occur in invertebrate eyes) as well as the blind spot.

"Mistake" implies design. The example of the eye was given as a demonstration that eyes are not designed. He was not saying that eyes are wrong. He was saying that eyes should be expected to be constructed better if there were a designer.

You're right, though. If Dawkins had been saying what you said he was saying about the things you said he was saying them about, he'd have been completely full of shit.

Ah, found it!:
The Blind Watchmaker, Ch.4, "Making Tracks Through Animal Space". (Page 93 in my copy.)

DavidMcC wrote:Ah, found it!:
The Blind Watchmaker, Ch.4, "Making Tracks Through Animal Space". (Page 93 in my copy.)

Found what?

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Animavore wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:I would defend RD on most issues, with the exception of his eye evolution theory, as he claimed that vertebrate eyes were some kind of mistake - natural selection gone wrong!

No he didn't.

It won't be easy to find a quote, but I am sure he took the view that the "inside-out"" vertebrate retina was some kind of mistake that had to be corrected by further evolution.
I'm thinking of the blind-spot (or optic disc), which he made much of.
EDIT: Oh, and the neurons that run on top of the photoreceptors, so that light has to pass through them first, causing some light losses (that do not occur in invertebrate eyes) as well as the blind spot.

"Mistake" implies design. The example of the eye was given as a demonstration that eyes are not designed. He was not saying that eyes are wrong. He was saying that eyes should be expected to be constructed better if there were a designer.

...

No, "mistake" could alternatively imply that natural selection (NS) produced a sub-optimal "design" (ie, structure) for the vertebrate retina, that had to be subsequently compensated for by further NS. More detailed consideration shows that this was not the case.

DavidMcC wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Animavore wrote:
No he didn't.

It won't be easy to find a quote, but I am sure he took the view that the "inside-out"" vertebrate retina was some kind of mistake that had to be corrected by further evolution.
I'm thinking of the blind-spot (or optic disc), which he made much of.
EDIT: Oh, and the neurons that run on top of the photoreceptors, so that light has to pass through them first, causing some light losses (that do not occur in invertebrate eyes) as well as the blind spot.

"Mistake" implies design. The example of the eye was given as a demonstration that eyes are not designed. He was not saying that eyes are wrong. He was saying that eyes should be expected to be constructed better if there were a designer.

...

No, "mistake" could alternatively imply that natural selection (NS) produced a sub-optimal "design" (ie, structure) for the vertebrate retina, that had to be subsequently compensated for by further NS. More detailed consideration shows that this was not the case.

Except there's no such thing as "sub-optimal" "design" in nature. What works will do if it keeps a species ticking along.

DavidMcC wrote:
No, "mistake" could alternatively imply that natural selection (NS) produced a sub-optimal "design" (ie, structure) for the vertebrate retina, that had to be subsequently compensated for by further NS. More detailed consideration shows that this was not the case.

"Sub-optimal" also implies design. Show me an optimal eye. Without some sort of teleological assumption, it is impossible to determine what is optimal.

And especially in the case of any excerpt from The Blind Watchmaker, since that is a book pretty much entirely about the case for evolution versus design, to imply that something Dawkins says in that particular book is not intended to contrast evolution with design (generally to the disservice of design advocates) is to take it out of context.

Animavore wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Ah, found it!:
The Blind Watchmaker, Ch.4, "Making Tracks Through Animal Space". (Page 93 in my copy.)

Found what?

His reference to the vertebrate retina being a bad job, so to speak:
To quote from page 93:
"Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells ould point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that photocells might point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas.
...
I don't know the exact exaplanatioon for this strange state of affairs.... but I am ready to bet that something to do with trajectory..."

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
No, "mistake" could alternatively imply that natural selection (NS) produced a sub-optimal "design" (ie, structure) for the vertebrate retina, that had to be subsequently compensated for by further NS. More detailed consideration shows that this was not the case.

"Sub-optimal" also implies design. Show me an optimal eye. Without some sort of teleological assumption, it is impossible to determine what is optimal.

And especially in the case of any excerpt from The Blind Watchmaker, since that is a book pretty much entirely about the case for evolution versus design, to imply that something Dawkins says in that particular book is not intended to contrast evolution with design (generally to the disservice of design advocates) is to take it out of context.

But it does not necessarily imply conscious design. RD himself made much of non-conscious design by "The Blind Watchmaker", which is why he used that title for the book.

DavidMcC wrote:

Animavore wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Ah, found it!:
The Blind Watchmaker, Ch.4, "Making Tracks Through Animal Space". (Page 93 in my copy.)

Found what?

His reference to the vertebrate retina being a bad job, so to speak:
To quote from page 93:
"Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells ould point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that photocells might point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas.
...
I don't know the exact exaplanatioon for this strange state of affairs.... but I am ready to bet that something to do with trajectory..."

Simply paying attention to the words Dawkins chooses to use in the bit you quoted should immediately clue you in to the fact that he's arguing against eyes being designed, DavidMcC. He's not saying they're "wrong." He's saying a designer ("Any engineer") would have done them differently.

DavidMcC wrote:

Animavore wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Ah, found it!:
The Blind Watchmaker, Ch.4, "Making Tracks Through Animal Space". (Page 93 in my copy.)

Found what?

His reference to the vertebrate retina being a bad job, so to speak:
To quote from page 93:
"Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells ould point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that photocells might point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas.
...
I don't know the exact exaplanatioon for this strange state of affairs.... but I am ready to bet that something to do with trajectory..."

I don't see how he says that's a bad job. It seems more like to me he's saying if it were designed, rather than a product of natural selection, there would be better ways to do it. But unfortunately natural selection deson't work that way and has to build on what's aready there.

Where does he say anything about the eye vertebrate eye being a mistake? It's not obvious from this quote.

DavidMcC wrote:
But it does not necessarily imply conscious design. RD himself made much of non-conscious design by "The Blind Watchmaker", which is why he used that title for the book.

I'm thinking that, while you may have read the book, there are vast gaps in your comprehension of it. For example: there is no sort of design, conscious or otherwise, which goes on in evolution. And Dawkins never said there is.

DavidMcC wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
No, "mistake" could alternatively imply that natural selection (NS) produced a sub-optimal "design" (ie, structure) for the vertebrate retina, that had to be subsequently compensated for by further NS. More detailed consideration shows that this was not the case.

"Sub-optimal" also implies design. Show me an optimal eye. Without some sort of teleological assumption, it is impossible to determine what is optimal.

And especially in the case of any excerpt from The Blind Watchmaker, since that is a book pretty much entirely about the case for evolution versus design, to imply that something Dawkins says in that particular book is not intended to contrast evolution with design (generally to the disservice of design advocates) is to take it out of context.

But it does not necessarily imply conscious design. RD himself made much of non-conscious design by "The Blind Watchmaker", which is why he used that title for the book.

There is no design in natural selection. Dawkins, I seem to recall, once wrote a piece warding other biologists from using the word 'design' because he felt it played into creationists' hands.

Lol, SS. We're saying the exact same thing. Do you want to take this over? I've to go out now.