tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3169741094136720956..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Debating philosophers: Pierrick Bourrat responds to my criticism of his paperLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3037867623744828542017-05-17T12:45:39.966-04:002017-05-17T12:45:39.966-04:00@Corneel,
I'd only seen discussion of epimuta...@Corneel,<br /><br />I'd only seen discussion of epimutations lasting up to a couple of dozen generations (in the materials for one of the speakers at the seminar Larry went to on extending the evolutionary synthesis). The paper you linked to talks about thousands of generations. Big difference. O_ojudmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54961030446854721452017-05-17T04:29:49.707-04:002017-05-17T04:29:49.707-04:00@judmarc,
Epimutations aren't as stable as ge...@judmarc,<br /><br />Epimutations aren't as stable as genetic mutations, but neither do they revert immediately. I expect the selection response to be sustained for, say a few dozens or maybe hundreds of generations. In addition, if the selection pressure persists the response may be sustained in mutation-selection balance for somewhat longer. I guess that on even longer timescales, processes like genomic rearrangements, expansion of TEs or mutations of the methylation machinery, will completely wreck any previous contribution of epigenetic variation to adaptation and lineage divergence but that is a different story.<br />But I am really no expert in this, just been exposed to it by Frank Johannes and his group when he still was in Groningen. I see they have a nice review up <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5175322/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Corneelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884855837357720225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1083766804044905202017-05-16T13:15:43.444-04:002017-05-16T13:15:43.444-04:001. change takes a long time 2. change occurs from ...1. change takes a long time 2. change occurs from constant environmental pressure(s). 3. im not sure the religious mind is capable of comprehending this, as pretty every story in the bible talks as though everything is immediate, instantaneous- when in fact science proves absolute the process of evolution is almost as unique as the individual species that have gone through and continue to go through varying processes of evolution- as we all are and will continue to do- remember, evolution does NOT happen within a single lifetime, that is known as adpatation- btw- how about this for common sense, doesnt HOT air rise? and cool/cold air sink? so why isnt Heaven HOT and Hell cold?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06282344287063839182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62190276594470287402017-05-16T11:42:59.710-04:002017-05-16T11:42:59.710-04:00Hi Corneel -
But when you talk about evolutionary...Hi Corneel -<br /><br />But when you talk about evolutionary change, what is the *change* in the population? You have the same population at a new location, yes?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7366525108873488532017-05-16T08:28:54.922-04:002017-05-16T08:28:54.922-04:00@judmarc
That's along the lines how I think o...@judmarc<br /><br />That's along the lines how I think of it as well. But as I see it, the transient nature of the epigenetic variation does not disqualify the selection event you've described from being an evolutionary change. Corneelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884855837357720225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67169065809449648342017-05-16T08:00:16.725-04:002017-05-16T08:00:16.725-04:00There's something going on that can go on and ...<i>There's something going on that can go on and on.</i><br /><br />I see where you are coming from, but hopefully you can see that that is a requirement of evolution that you have added yourself. Many evolutionary processes will not result in diversification of lineages, e.g. gene flow which accomplishes exactly the opposite. Corneelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884855837357720225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76333471460756507502017-05-16T08:00:06.057-04:002017-05-16T08:00:06.057-04:00epigenetics might be a quasi-sympatric isolation f...<i>epigenetics might be a quasi-sympatric isolation factor</i><br /><br />That's along the lines of what I was picturing, but since the isolation factor wouldn't last over evolutionary time scales, I conceive of it as something that might contribute on a contingent basis to survival of, but not a change over time in, a population. So for example an epigenetically controlled earlier time to flower and seed might enable some members of a plant population to survive a fire or flood while the part of the population still in flower dies. But then this remnant, if it successfully establishes there or elsewhere, won't carry that earlier flowering and seeding characteristic more than a handful of succeeding generations if at all. So it "smells like" a founder effect, but the epigenetic characteristics of the founder(s) aren't passed on in the population.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20891864726560275862017-05-16T07:23:05.212-04:002017-05-16T07:23:05.212-04:00Hey Corneel,
As I said, I see epigenetics as a co...Hey Corneel,<br /><br />As I said, I see epigenetics as a confounding factor in evolutionary studies, rather than evolution. In my mind, at least, as changes in those characters happen, we get such divergence that species split, then genera, then families, etc. There's something going on that can go on and on. Epigenetics doesn't look that way (come to think of it, epigenetics might be a quasi-sympatric isolation factor, but I'm not sure, it just occurred to me).<br /><br />(I might end up convincing myself that you're right, as I argue, but it doesn't seem that way)<br /><br />Best,<br />-GaboGabohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17552375541700079254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5229725846868052282017-05-16T07:10:15.553-04:002017-05-16T07:10:15.553-04:00Yes. When someone is almost completely correct, an...Yes. When someone is almost completely correct, and the other almost completely wrong, there is not much room for agreement. Your job, then, is to become informed enough to determine which is which. Or, at very least, stop talking about the subject until you correct your ignorance.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15201225966779451142017-05-16T04:56:08.246-04:002017-05-16T04:56:08.246-04:00Gabriel Moreno-Hagelsieb said
It's just that t...Gabriel Moreno-Hagelsieb said<br /><i>It's just that the changes that happen because of epigenetic phenomena are very far from what I have always understood as evolution</i><br /><br />Hi Gabriel<br /><br />Sorry, but that I don't believe. The changes we are talking about are shifts in the population mean of continuous characters or the frequency of discrete traits. Think of responses to selection on height or flowering time or the spread of a resistance phenotype. This stuff is considered genuine evolutionary change by most biologists, and I doubt that you would argue with that if we were talking about genetic alleles.<br />But somehow, now we are talking about epimutations, the bar has been raised to (sub)speciation and interspecies variation, otherwise it doesn't count as evolution. Corneelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884855837357720225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36880587687383923422017-05-16T04:10:46.440-04:002017-05-16T04:10:46.440-04:00@judmarc
It is true that "epimutations" ...@judmarc<br />It is true that "epimutations" are unstable and most of these revert rather quickly. As has been remarked several times in this thread it is very unlikely to contribute to any substantial variation among evolutionary lineages.<br />Your final question is an important one and to be honest, I don't know the answer. As far as I know nobody has ever quantified the contribution of epigenetic variation relative to genetic variation. Still, I think it has been demonstrated that it could be considerable, and that it can contribute to short-term evolutionary change (adaptation and drift), so let's not dismiss it out of hand. Corneelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884855837357720225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8655913302787664572017-05-15T23:17:47.428-04:002017-05-15T23:17:47.428-04:00Dr. Moran-
When I read your critique, I understood...Dr. Moran-<br />When I read your critique, I understood there was some very basic differences, but most of the material is over my head.<br />Now I see the differences are even more basic than I thought.<br /><br />It’s hard to find agreement where there is so little.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72293218162338988742017-05-15T13:59:11.270-04:002017-05-15T13:59:11.270-04:00Hi Corneel,
Hum, then I doubt that we can agree o...Hi Corneel,<br /><br />Hum, then I doubt that we can agree on this one. I doubt that epigenetics can even give us varieties within a species (besides it being reversible), and I don't think that my understanding of evolution is made explicitly to exclude epigenetics. It's just that the changes that happen because of epigenetic phenomena are very far from what I have always understood as evolution, even before I heard about epigenetics. But to each their own.<br /><br />Best,<br />-GGabohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17552375541700079254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66912112572200489292017-05-15T12:54:36.987-04:002017-05-15T12:54:36.987-04:00Corneel -
Two questions from a layperson:
- Am I...Corneel -<br /><br />Two questions from a layperson:<br /><br />- Am I correct that (1) it is very rare for epigenetic changes to span multiple generations, and (2) even those that do span a handful of generations go away before what we might think of as "evolutionary time" has passed?<br /><br />- If so, even within species, how significant would epigenetic changes lasting a few generations be, except as a non-repetitive contingent occurrence that can simply be considered with all other contingencies?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31632521592969648842017-05-15T12:42:54.241-04:002017-05-15T12:42:54.241-04:00@Eric
Like I said, pretty insignificant stuff when...@Eric<br /><i>Like I said, pretty insignificant stuff when you look at the whole</i><br /><br />I get exactly the oppposite impression from that paragraph.<br />Apart from the fact that flowering time is a major fitness component, I would have expected you to realise that if epigenetics conditions phenotypic variation in these traits, it is very likely to apply to any complex trait (fitness!). Especially since you have been lecturing about the use of models.<br /><br />@Gabriel Moreno-Hagelsie<br /><i>Depends on what you mean by evolutionary responses</i><br /><br />From <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.nl/2007/01/what-is-evolution.html" rel="nofollow">this very website</a>:<br /><br />"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."<br /><br />In my book, this includes changes WITHIN species. Hence, focusing on evolutionary processes at and above the level of speciation (macro-evolution) amounts to delibarately restricting the definition of evolution to exclude changes in epigenetic variation.Corneelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884855837357720225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30986313933536932202017-05-15T08:04:34.685-04:002017-05-15T08:04:34.685-04:00Corneel,
«All of the evidence also indicates that...Corneel,<br /><br /><i>«All of the evidence also indicates that things like DNA methylation and histone packaging may have a considerable impact on standing heritable variation and short-term evolutionary responses.»</i><br /><br />Depends on what you mean by evolutionary responses. I doubt that epigenetics contributes to speciation, and thus I would not even worry about accounting for such a thing when talking about evolution. I'd leave it as a confounding factor though. One that might mislead evolutionary studies.<br /><br /><i>«Unless you want to trivialize those findings by restricting evolution to "long term trends", it really is important to conceptually accomodate epigenetic heritable variation.»</i><br /><br />I doubt there's any trivialization. I think that the discussion is not about the importance of epigenetics as a biological phenomenon, but whether it should be considered in evolutionary theory.Gabohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17552375541700079254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63268489759663789032017-05-15T07:43:52.424-04:002017-05-15T07:43:52.424-04:00@Jack Jackson
In my opinion, epigenetics is unint...@Jack Jackson<br /><br />In my opinion, epigenetics is uninteresting form an evolutionary perspective because it does not contribute to changes in the genetic characteristics of a population. I don't think Lu and Bourrat agree with me. They believe that epigenetics is important in evolution and all you have to do to remove any controversy is tweak the definitions of "gene" and "evolution" to smooth things over.<br /><br />We all agree that there's no paradigm shift under way but our reasons are quite different.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69692490724858721192017-05-14T23:49:27.817-04:002017-05-14T23:49:27.817-04:00Dr. Moran-
I found the use of the term ‘semantic’ ...Dr. Moran-<br />I found the use of the term ‘semantic’ to be off putting in this case. (Is ’snide’ appropriate?)<br />The reply seems quite defensive.<br /><br />After analyzing the situation, the authors deemed epigenetic does not create a difficulty for modern evolutionary theory.<br /><br />I wonder if you had spent more time acknowledging the accomplishment and where they agree with you before getting into the details of the disagreements things might have gone differently.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49692647009063086072017-05-14T11:33:00.123-04:002017-05-14T11:33:00.123-04:00-- [Continued from above] -- RE: Corrections:
Pos... -- [Continued from above] -- RE: <b>Corrections:</b><br /><br /><i>Post 2, paragraph 1, sentence 2 should read:</i> “At best, [<b>the</b>] gcET may be deemed as a linearly static (non-life) <b>physicalist, reductionist</b> (or at worst) <b>anthropomorphised neo-darwinist, eugenicist, evolutionist (rhetorically-flawed) theory, philosophy, or the pseudo-genetic self-determinism</b> [<b>par excellence</b>] of the 20th century past (please see more arguments below)!?”<br /><br /><i>Post 2, paragraph 2, sentence 3 should read:</i> “As our world history has shown: When the neo-darwinist, natural (or reductively-modified as [<b>the</b>] gene-centric version of) selectionist MS of the detrimental ET that once had been ill-conceived, misunderstood, and hubristically applied in and to our Humanity issues (such as, the Holocaust in Europe and the Eugenics in Americas, etc) [<b>and</b>] further been dictated in and to the Agriculture policies (such as the Lysenko case in the now-defunct USSR), a <b>mere semantic point</b> of misconceived argumentation or philosophical trivialization issues -- the sheer[<b>ly</b>] reductionist tactical semantic aversion and/or diversion of the truly-deep <b>philoscientific debates, enquiries into such a complex, multidimensional, biological or genetical empiricism, realism, as well as ethical imperative</b> -- can have many a severe, intractable, as well as deadly consequences!”<br /><br /><i>Post 3, paragraph 1, sentence 2 should read:</i> “I think the core aim of the paper is trying to persuade incorporating the discovery of epigenetic inheritance into the now-defunct illy-conceived MS of the biological ET: whether by extension or assertion by semantic means, while [<b>completely</b>] neglecting the fact that epigenetics was actually uncovered by the means of developmental geneticist empiricism, theory, and philosophy; the developmental, molecular genetics (not the gcET as refuted in arguments 1 - 3 above) that has been increasingly pursued since 1970s-80s; especially at a time when the precision biotechnology and methods, have begun to proliferate and accelerate in varied research and development programs that have been actively applied in and to the many a revitalized disciplines of developmental cell and molecular biology, genetics, biomedicine, etc: but definitely not arisen in or from the field of physicalist, reductionist, neo-darwinist, and theorist evolutionary biology!?”<br /><br />Best, Mong 5/14/17usct10:32; practical public science-philosophy critic (since 2006).Mong H Tan, PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46429936364279473602017-05-14T11:31:38.969-04:002017-05-14T11:31:38.969-04:00RE: Corrections: I would like to make some spellin...RE: <b>Corrections:</b> I would like to make some spelling corrections in the 3 continuous posts [RE: <b>How to differentiate ”Semantic” (rhetoric) vs “Scientific” (empiricist) philosophy debates and defences!?</b>] above, as follows:<br /><br /><i>Post 1, paragraph 3, sentence 1 should read:</i> “Accordingly, with the currency of our mutual 21st-century multi[<b>disci</b>]plinary readings, understandings, definitions, and standards in and of the philoscientific literature in biology, I shall now try to quote and refute the 5 key neo-Darwinism-biased fallacies or defences, that Bourrat has had made in the above “semantic” vs “scientific” philosophies debates and defences, as follows:”<br /><br /><i>Post 1, paragraph 4, sentence 3 should read:</i> “Whereas it would be absolutely detrimental, if it is casually applied to any living subjects in <b>biology</b> (o[<b>r</b>] behaviourism).”<br /><br /><i>Post 1, paragraph 5, sentence 1 should read:</i> “Consequently, many a physicalist methods that doesn’t bring-up, concern, and/or sustain life-viability or vitalism issues in the purely reductionist theoretical processes will not suffice; and that all purely physicalist theories or philosophies will also not enable any hard-headed, neo-darwinist philosophers so as to appreciate and comprehend the whole process of life-viability or vitality inquiry issues, including the many an evolutionary dynamisms of biomolecular composites or cellular component bits and parts, and their in[<b>ter</b>]active and [<b>inter</b>]connected network[<b>s</b>] within their dynamic operating milieu and/or the organism’s real world environments, or ecology, etc.”<br /><br /><i>Post 2, paragraph 1, sentence 1 should read:</i> “Although the <b>gene-centric evolutionary theory</b> (gcET) -- [<b>one</b>] which doesn’t even represent or consider any gene being viably [<b>ac</b>]tivated or sustained in its real component or nutrient milieu -- has had only been pursued rhetorically (but not physiologically nor empirically since 1976) by most <b>physicalist, reductionist, neo-darwinist, evolutionist, theorist philosophers</b>; [<b>the</b>] gcET in itself is <b>Not</b> a falsifiable <b>geneticist, empiricist theory or philosophy</b> at all.”<br /><br /> -- [To be continued below] --Mong H Tan, PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89852004663997769772017-05-14T02:40:05.504-04:002017-05-14T02:40:05.504-04:00-- [Continued from above] -- RE: How to differenti... -- [Continued from above] -- RE: <b>How to differentiate ”Semantic” (rhetoric) vs “Scientific” (empiricist) philosophy debates and defences!?</b><br /><br />4) “<b>The core aim of our paper addresses issues surrounding epigenetic inheritance, rather than which aspect(s) of the modern synthesis have been the most challenged by recent theoretical developments and empirical discoveries.</b>” -- I think the core aim of the paper is trying to persuade incorporating the discovery of epigenetic inheritance into the now-defunct illy-conceived MS of the biological ET: whether by extension or assertion by semantic means, while neglecting the fact that epigenetics was actually uncovered by the means of developmental geneticist empiricism, theory, and philosophy; the developmental, molecular genetics (not the gcET as refuted in arguments 1 - 3 above) that has been increasingly pursued since 1970s-80s; especially at a time when the precision biotechnology and methods, have begun to proliferate and accelerate in varied research and development programs that have been actively applied in and to the many a revitalized disciplines of developmental cell and molecular biology, genetics, biomedicine, etc: but definitely not arisen in or from the field of physicalist, reductionist, neo-darwinist, and theorist evolutionary biology!?<br /><br />Therefore, food for thought: There will be <b>No more</b> of any physicalist theoretical developments or syntheses that can resuscitate or revive the semantic defences of the gcET or the MS of the ET, whether by extending revision, insertion, or reduction in the current static state of <b>evolutionary biology</b> (as one that has had been rhetorically-formalized in 1930s-40s and further modified in 1960s-70s past) <b>in the 21st century and beyond!?</b> -- [Please see <a href="http://godsgenesconscienceglobaldialogues16.blogspot.com/2016/01/" rel="nofollow"><b>Featured issue: May 2016 see the beginning of an end to the hubristic neo-Darwinist narrative of “evolutionary pseudogenetics” -- “The Selfish Gene” meme narrative, RIP (1976-2016)*, that is!?</b></a> Etc.]<br /><br />5) Last but not least: "<b>But this is for the great part a semantic point, not a conceptual one. I also note that David Haig and George Williams, on whom we relied for our definition, are acclaimed evolutionary biologists.</b>" -- Once again I think this is clearly a self-defeatist, parasite philosophy of evolutionary biology, parroting rhetorical semantic point from the flawed physicalist, reductionist, selectionist, neo-darwinist ET authority of the 20th century past!? As such, if “<b>one thinks about it a bit</b>” <b>scientifically, empirically, and above all, biologically and ethically</b>: Such argumentation rhetoric invoking any semantic point(s) is just too philo-scientifically <b>a 19th-20th-century rhetorical or self-defeatism-biased defence</b>, whether evolutionary or degradingly in philoscientific debates <b>since the rise and fall of neo-Darwinism past</b> (please see arguments 1 - 4 above)!?<br /><br />Best, Mong 5/14/17usct01:39; practical public science-philosophy critic (since 2006).Mong H Tan, PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78250731818120415562017-05-14T02:38:27.001-04:002017-05-14T02:38:27.001-04:00-- [Continued from above] -- RE: How to differenti...-- [Continued from above] -- RE: <b>How to differentiate ”Semantic” (rhetoric) vs “Scientific” (empiricist) philosophy debates and defences!?</b><br /><br />Although the <b>gene-centric evolutionary theory</b> (gcET) -- which doesn’t even represent or consider any gene being viably motivated or sustained in its real component or nutrient milieu -- has had only been pursued rhetorically (but not physiologically nor empirically since 1976) by most <b>physicalist, reductionist, neo-darwinist, evolutionist, theorist philosophers</b>; gcET in itself is <b>Not</b> a falsifiable <b>geneticist, empiricist theory or philosophy</b> at all. At best, gcET may be deemed as a linearly static (non-life) <b>physicalist, reductionist</b> (or at worst) <b>anthropomorphised neo-darwinist, eugenicist, evolutionist (rhetorically-flawed) theory, philosophy, or the pseudo-genetic self-determinism</b> of the 20th century past (please see more arguments below)!?<br /><br />2) "<b>Nevertheless, whether some features of current evolutionary theory [ET] should be regarded as extensions of the Modern Synthesis [MS] or as parts of a different theoretical apparatus is a mere semantic point.</b>" -- Wrong! As our world history has shown: When the neo-darwinist, natural (or reductively-modified as gene-centric version of) selectionist MS of the detrimental ET that once had been ill-conceived, misunderstood, and hubristically applied in and to our Humanity issues (such as, the Holocaust in Europe and the Eugenics in Americas, etc) further been dictated in and to the Agriculture policies (such as the Lysenko case in the now-defunct USSR), a <b>mere semantic point</b> of misconceived argumentation or philosophical trivialization issues -- the sheer reductionist tactical semantic aversion and/or diversion of the truly-deep <b>philoscientific debates, enquiries into such a complex, multidimensional, biological or genetical empiricism, realism, as well as ethical imperative</b> -- can have many a severe, intractable, as well as deadly consequences!<br /><br />3) “<b>What matters is to be clear about what one means.</b>” -- That is exactly why in any deep philoscientific debates, one must justify argumentations to be based on advanced scientific empiricism or empiricist philosophy; and not to be alone arguing in or by invoking “semantic” rhetorical issues. As such, intellectually, this latter type of argumentation tactic somehow reminds me of the fact that these rhetorical defences on “semantic” evolutionary issues, have had been deployed and exhausted by both the world renowned British evolutionists, neo-darwinists, and bio-reductionists William D Hamilton (1936-2000) and Richard Dawkins before, especially in the 1970s-80s past (please see more arguments below)!?<br /><br />-- [To be continued below] --Mong H Tan, PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30497791919319119862017-05-14T02:33:09.112-04:002017-05-14T02:33:09.112-04:00RE: How to differentiate ”Semantic” (rhetoric) vs ...RE: <b>How to differentiate ”Semantic” (rhetoric) vs “Scientific” (empiricist) philosophy debates and defences!?</b><br /><br /><b>Preamble</b>: Since I have proclaimed in this series of “<b>Debating philosophers</b>” before, that <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/05/debating-philosophers-lu-and-bourrat.html?showComment=1494060736715#c6526479987980583821" rel="nofollow">RE: <b>There can be no debates but withdrawal of the flawed Evolutionary Theory in Biology of the 20th century past!?</b></a>; I shall now further present more argumentations that I think which are relevant to the LAM’s brief response above on “semantic” rhetoric point.<br /><br />Obviously, the LAM serial criticisms of the Lu and Bourrat paper have been under close scrutiny and rebutted vigorously by one of the defendant (aka neo-darwinist) philosophers (Pierrick Bourrat), with whom LAM must have communications, while articulating their many a philoscientific issues on the evolutionary theory in biology expressed, in and by, the varied points and counterpoints (debates and defences) as referenced above.<br /><br />Accordingly, with the currency of our mutual 21st-century multiplinary readings, understandings, definitions, and standards in and of the philoscientific literature in biology, I shall now try to quote and refute the 5 key neo-Darwinism-biased fallacies or defences, that Bourrat has had made in the above “semantic” vs “scientific” philosophies debates and defences, as follows:<br /> <br />1) "<b>Theory and philosophy are not that far apart, when one thinks about it a bit.</b>" -- On the contrary, I thought this statement may be true only if, it is specifically applied in those <b>non-life physical sciences</b>, such as <b>physics, physical laws, mathematics, or even chemistry</b> as well as “<b>physicalist, reductionist philosophy</b>” (or neo-Darwinism). Whereas it would be absolutely detrimental, if it is casually applied to any living subjects in <b>biology</b> (ot behaviourism). This is because all living entities (or organisms) and their behaviors -- which are unlike non-life matters -- can only be sustained or subscribed to their own life-dynamisms, including life multidisciplinary systems, and inquiries, in and by their own multidimensional systems of <b>biological empiricism, physiology, empiricist theory, and/or philosophy, etc</b>, namely the physicalist theoretical ideas in quantum computers may not be equated to the empiricist life-theory or philosophy of organic cells.<br /><br />Consequently, many a physicalist methods that doesn’t bring-up, concern, and/or sustain life-viability or vitalism issues in the purely reductionist theoretical processes will not suffice; and that all purely physicalist theories or philosophies will also not enable any hard-headed, neo-darwinist philosophers so as to appreciate and comprehend the whole process of life-viability or vitality inquiry issues, including the many an evolutionary dynamisms of biomolecular composites or cellular component bits and parts, and their inactive and connected network within their dynamic operating milieu and/or the organism’s real world environments, or ecology, etc. Thus, any biological theory or philosophy in biology must concern itself with the empiricist witness and awareness of being able to predict, attain, and sustain the proofs of life-viability in biologist philosophy or physiology, etc; and not merely by applying the physicalist, reductionist, or evolutionist theory or philosophy alone in biology as well as developmental genetics and embryology!?<br /><br /> -- [To be continued below] --Mong H Tan, PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50930415050790087112017-05-12T13:22:08.761-04:002017-05-12T13:22:08.761-04:00It's really quite distressing to see how openl...It's really quite distressing to see how openly these fraudsters are able to advertise themselves. As the parent of two university students it's maddening to know that they are competing against so many cheaters. I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to professors. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75574319063330856712017-05-12T12:22:11.457-04:002017-05-12T12:22:11.457-04:00Mt. Analogue writes:
"Models aren't deriv...Mt. Analogue writes:<br />"Models aren't derived from data, they are interpretations that seek to help us interpret and explain the data we see. There is no direct correspondence between DATA and models, hust as meaning ins't in the words, in in the sentences they make. "<br /><br />That is really just more semantics. The point I am talking about is that scientists deal with the data, and construct models with the data in had. Philosophers don't seem to have a handle on that data, and that is why their criticisms fall short.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09481645265615126897noreply@blogger.com