I enjoyed the conversation with Craig Isherwood re Darwinian evolution. I’ve studied biology, ecology and geography up to third year at Tas Uni, including, obviously, Darwin’s theory on the origin of species by natural selection.

It seems clear to me that Darwin’s theory was very much influenced by the social and cultural perspectives of his time, which were likewise reflected in the writings of his contemporaries, such as Malthus.

It is also clear to me that evolution is not so much the product of competition between species over limited resources, but rather the opposite, the proliferation and diversification of lifeforms against a backdrop of abundance.

The fossil record supports the idea that evolution proceeds in rapid burst, interspersed with long periods of relative stasis, a concept known as “punctuated equilibrium”.

The primary driver behind evolution then, is not so much competition for limited resources but rather the creative adaptation of life to an abundance of newly acquired habitat.

A concept of evolution that gives proper weight to the role of abundance and diversity is better equipped to explain the prominence of many characteristics that are clearly disadvantageous to a species longterm survival in terms of competition for limited resources and yet persist in spite of this.

Take for example, the peacock’s tail, which would obviously expose the male of the species to innumerable risks with no advantage for it’s survival. The only way such characteristics can develop and persist is if the environment is sufficiently abundant to support such extravagance at relatively little cost to the species longterm survival chances.

Many such examples suggest an interpretation of evolution that is fundamentally different to the one passed down from Darwin’s time. There is another aspect of evolution which is more about creative expression and diversity and flourishing than it is about fighting over limited resources.

Darwinian evolution would tend to reduce biodiversity down to a small number of highly effective predators, but this is not what nature produces.

I thought Craig Isherwood did a great job explaining some of the issues involved.

Hi John, I am going to read out your comments on our next show if that’s ok with you. Great points!

Darwin’s theory may have been influenced by the social and cultural perspectives of the time, but we can apply his theories and experiment with them today and see that they work. In the same way that Galileo was successful because he pandered to the desires of the wealthy nobility - telling the Medici family that their noble lineage was written in the heavens, as Jupiter has the same number of moons as sons in the Medici family. Those powers at the time can use it to their advantage, that doesn’t make those theories invalid automatically, or that Darwin deliberately created his theories to benefit those few.

“It is also clear to me that evolution is not so much the product of competition between species” - how so? It seems like you don’t understand the basic idea of natural selection. If one species outcompetes another, they cut off resources to the other which then dies out, adapts, or moves on. If they die out, they are eliminated from the gene pool entirely. Some might die out and some might adapt if a few individuals excel physiologically. Their genes survive to be passed on. they might not be able to compete, and find other ways to find food/survive in a new area. What you say about “abundance and diversity” doesn’t actually add any new knowledge - the individuals that survive to pass on their genes are the ones who outcompete those who cannot take advantage of that abundance. Your idea is a minor and obvious aspect of evolutionary theory, not an alternative theory.

As for peacocks - google the Handicap Principle.

A small number of highly effective predators? I don’t think you’ve thought about this enough. specifically, selection and abundance as drivers of evolution are not mutually exclusive. Imagine a dense forest - there is a lot of abundance of plant life, so herbivores can thrive. A carnivore could also thrive on consuming the herbivores. But if they consume all of the herbivores, they die out because there’s no more food. Fortunately, some herbivores are more adept at escaping (running, jumping, flying, etc) than others. In turn, the carnivores which survive are the ones who can keep up - those who don’t starve and die out - their genes are not passed on.
There could not be only carnivores because this would create a loop closed of from the food chain which could not sustain itself. Imagine if the carnivores did kill off the herbivores like you suggest they would. What would they eat? Each other? Where would their energy come from? The entire ecological cycle is powered by the sun - photosynthesis -> plants -> herbivores -> carnivores(predators)/omnivores. You wouldve been a bit closer to being right if you’d said omnivores, but still not right. Google ‘fox rabbit equilibrium’. You’ll find a graph that shows fox and rabbit populations reach an equilibrium of fluctuating populations as evidence of this.

So both abundance and competition drive selection and evolution. abundance can drive evolution - but not without competition. Not as individuals killing each other, but those who can better access resources excel.

Instead of trying to prove the global elites wrong about evolution - confront the real issue; that they might be right about how evolution works. They realise that the earth has limited abundance, and hence a carrying capacity. The moral issue here is not that life is harsh and people have to compete and those who adapt survive - these are hard facts of nature. The moral issue is that governments can and are instituting veiled depopulation programs in response to the reality of evolution.

Truth News is alienating itself further by publishing this content.

My position is that I am open to hearing all points of view, and may the best argument win!

However, I find the suggestion that merely airing certain views will lead to alienation and loss of credibility rather chilling. This is the language of repression and intolerance and is anathema to our mission here at TNRA.

It’s one thing to say the argument is wrong, quite another to suggest it is “inappropriate”.

“selection and abundance as drivers of evolution are not mutually exclusive” ... indeed, nor did I suggest they were. Rather it is a question of relative importance, in other words, which factor has greater influence on the evolutionary development of a species.

Clearly, under some circumstance, competition between species will be the primary selective pressure. Such circumstances would be characterised by a scarcity of limiting resources.

An environment in which all the available niche habitats are occupied and sources of food are few, will tend to exhibit the stasis we observe in a climax ecosystem, which remains relatively constant over long periods of time. Evolutionary change proceeds gradually.

On the other hand, an environment that is initially devoid of lifeforms, whether new land created by volcanic activity, or a hillside stripped bare by landslide, or a newly formed lake, will have an abundance of ecological niches available for colonization.

Such an environment will support a rapid proliferation of lifeforms and the development of an endemic ecosystem in which new species may emerge. Under these circumstances, speciation and evolutionary change will be relatively rapid and driven by the abundance of available opportunities presented by nature, rather than fierce competition for limited resources.

My criticism of Darwinian theory is leveled at the relative importance given to competition over several other aspects of life that are, to my mind, equally if not more important.

For instance, the importance of selective factors such as sexual attraction, love, beauty, abundance, cooperation, mutualism and creativity, as drivers of evolution, are often overlooked by the stuffy minded technocrats who peddle the conventional wisdom and never dare think for themselves.

It’s important to be on the right side of science, lest you make yourselves look silly.

To most people that title looks as rediculous as ‘Newton debunked!’ or ‘Pythagoras debunked!’

You are correct R S. This site was apparently founded on a scientific basis so we can’t go off on tangents to appease the Christian extremists whose science is flakey and unfounded.

They really have shot themselves in the foot with this type of CEC Christian propaganda. The CEC and its la rouche foundation is a joke. *unsubscribe*

Science can only ever approximate truth. Knowledge is always construed within a conceptual framework which is ultimately rooted in the biological mechanisms of the mind. Sentient beings observe the environment about them, process information and comprehend their relationship to the world via the function of their brain. No one has a monopoly on the truth, knowledge is constantly acquired and understanding develops accordingly.

When Darwin developed his theory on the origin of species, he had no knowledge of the genetic basis of hereditary characteristics, nor of the cellular mechanisms responsible for the alteration of heritable characteristics.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Darwin’s theory has undergone much scrutiny and revision over the hundred and fifty years since his theory was first published. To imagine that Darwin’s theory of natural selection provides a complete, inscrutable explanation of evolution to this day, requires a faith-based interpretation of reality akin to religious belief.

A fundamental tenet of the scientific method requires that our theories accommodate the observable facts, not vice-versa. Ignoring or denying evidence that doesn’t fit an established theory is PR, spin and propaganda, not science.

Commercial free edit (I find removing the ads from the mp3 easier than fast forwarding with my mp3 player, might as well share the benefit to the one or two people who see this and share my pain).

http://kiwi6.com/file/77jrt005qr