Scientific papers say coevolution is a big problem for evolution theory

For about 3-4 years now, I have been arguing that coevolution is a big problem for evolution theory, but stupid ignoramuses like Kevin Vicklund have been pooh-poohing that coevolution is no problem at all for evolution theory. I have now found some scientific papers that back up my position. One paper's abstract says, "Interspecific mutualisms are widespread, but how they evolve is not clear," and the body of the same paper says, "Mutually beneficial interactions between members of different species play a fundamental role in all ecosystems . . . , but their evolution has challenged theoreticians for decades. " The abstract of another scientific paper says, "Cooperation in organisms, whether bacteria or primates, has been a difficulty for evolutionary theory since Darwin." Yet another paper says, "Mutualisms are of fundamental importance in all ecosystems but their very existence poses a series of challenging evolutionary questions." And I have pointed out some of coevolution's "challenging evolutionary questions" that these papers do not even address.

There have been other examples of where I am considered a crackpot for saying the same things that the "experts" say. For example, Edwin Black, author of the book "IBM and the Holocaust," also said that Jew identification was a big problem for the Nazis. And my contention that my lawsuit against California's unconstitutional smog impact fee belonged in federal court despite states' normal immunity to federal lawsuits against state taxes was vindicated when an expert testified in state court that the fee required the approval of the US Environmental Protection Agency! I argued that California lost its immunity because the state had "left the sphere that is exclusively its own" (Parden v. Terminal Railway of the Alabama State Docks Dept.) by basing the fee entirely on the state's special status under federal auto emissions laws and regulations.

READ MORE

Types of mutations in coevolution

There are the following basic types of mutations in coevolution:

(1) A mutation in just one species produces a benefit for that species and maybe also for other species -- there is no need for a corresponding mutation in another species (and in parasitism and predation a corresponding mutation in other species might actually counteract the first mutation's benefit). This type of mutation is common in parasite/host and predator/prey relationships. Because a benefit is produced, such a mutation is likely to spread rapidly, and such a rapid spread will increase the chances that this mutation will meet a corresponding mutation in another kind of organism. Sometimes this single mutation may never meet a corresponding mutation in another kind of organism -- that situation is sometimes not considered to be coevolution because the prefix "co" means "mutual," "together," or "reciprocal," implying that there are corresponding adaptations in other kinds of organisms. However, if the prefix "co" is interpreted as meaning "together" with other living things, then even a one-sided adaptation to other living things can be considered to be coevolution. Whether or not a mutation is coevolutionary should not depend on whether or not there is ever a corresponding mutation in another type of organism, hence IMO all mutations that are adaptations to other organisms should be considered to be coevolutionary. A one-sided adaptation could be difficult if the adaptation is very specific and complex, e.g., some kinds of parasitisms and orchids' mimicry of female wasps' sex pheromones. I propose calling these one-sided adaptations "unilateral" coevolutionary adaptations or mutations.
.
(2) Corresponding mutations are required in both kinds of organisms to produce a benefit. Isolated mutations of this type (i.e., mutations not accompanied by the corresponding mutation in the other organism at the same time and place) will not tend to spread rapidly because there is no benefit and hence will have a low tendency to meet a needed corresponding mutation, and this is obviously a big problem for coevolution. This type of mutation can be further subdivided into mutations that are neutral when isolated and mutations that are fatal or harmful when isolated -- the latter type of mutation is obviously even less likely to survive and spread. This need for corresponding mutations can exist even where coevolution can be gradual. An additional problem with this kind of mutation is that the two kinds of organisms might only be able to interact in large numbers, requiring large numbers of both kinds of organisms to suddenly appear at the same time and place. I propose calling these two-sided adaptations "bilateral" coevolutionary adaptations or mutations.
.

READ MORE

"Incoherent ramblings that are decades out of date"

Believe it or not, that was a Darwinist trolls' description of my ideas about coevolution: "incoherent ramblings that are decades out of date." :Incoherent ramblings" are never up-to-date, so how in the hell can they ever be out of date? That stupid comment shows the desperation of those who scoff at my ideas about coevolution. My difficulty in getting publicity and recognition for my ideas about coevolution shows the closed-mindedness of the Darwinist establishment. If the Darwinist establishment were open-minded, any idea that even had the potential to be a weakness of evolution theory would be bombarded with responses. Even if such an idea is eventually refuted, it has the potential to greatly enhance our understanding of evolution theory.

Darwinist troll and cyberbully Kevin Vicklund weighed in on the same comment thread [link] [link]. He made some really silly assertions.

READ MORE

Coevolution discussed in comment thread on "Intersection" blog

I spend a lot of time commenting on other blogs and other websites in order to help spread my ideas, which I can't do well on this blog because this blog gets so little traffic. Unfortunately, the time I spend elsewhere reduces the time I have available for making new posts here. I figure that I might as well take advantage of these discussions I have on other websites by linking to those discussions here -- I am of course inviting others to join these discussions if they are interested. I have been involved in a long discussion on a comment thread on Chris Mooney's and Sheril Kirshenbaum's "Intersection" blog on the Discovery magazine website. I entered the thread at comment #138 and most of the comments that follow are either mine or responses to me -- we are now up to comment #173. The main topic is coevolution, but there are also discussions about Ktizmiller v. Dover, Michael Behe, and intelligent design. I consider the dilemmas of coevolution to be among the biggest weaknesses of evolution theory.

READ MORE

How non-scientists can be published in "peer-reviewed" scientific journals

Unfortunately, Darwinists have made a big fetish out of "peer review," and many of them won't even consider -- or sometimes won't even post -- my ideas about coevolution because those ideas have not appeared in a "peer reviewed" publication (my ideas about coevolution are banned on the Florida Citizens for Science blog and were probably a factor in my banning from some other Darwinist websites). This has been a real dilemma for me, because I have no credentials in biology (I am a mechanical engineer) and therefore my chances of having my ideas about coevolution published in a regular peer-reviewed scientific journal are virtually nil. However, I have discovered some journals about philosophy in biology which accept articles from non-biologists, so I have a chance of having my ideas about coevolution published in one of those journals. The trolls are now going to start scoffing at those ideas as stupid, but so far no one has been able to refute them and so "peer reviewers" probably would not do a better job of refuting them than anyone else has done. My thoughts about coevolution are summarized here.

Philosophy & Theory in Biology

This journal is described as follows: [link]
.

Philosophy & Theory in Biology (P&TB) is a peer-reviewed open-access online journal that aims to bring together philosophers of science and theoretically inclined biologists in order to interact across disciplinary boundaries.

While theoretical biology is often understood to be primarily mathematical in nature, biology is an inherently historical science with a long tradition of conceptual theorizing, from Charles Darwin to the architects of the Modern Synthesis, and continuing through to today. Biological disciplines ranging from evolutionary biology to ecology, from cell to developmental biology, and from morphology to paleobiology are characterized by a lively interplay among empirical data, mathematical treatments, and conceptual discussions.

IMO saying that theoretical biology is primarily mathematical in nature is an exaggeration and overgeneralization. The fact that biological phenomena often cannot be defined rigorously in mathematical terms was a factor in Lord Rutherford's statement, "All science is either physics or stamp-collecting."

Intelligent design has often been condemned for its lack of experimentation and field studies, but a lot of biological studies consist of "conceptual discussions." My studies of coevolution, for example, consist entirely of "conceptual discussions" -- I have done no experimentation or field studies.

Like theoretical biology, philosophy of biology is characterized by its attention to conceptual issues. Indeed, over the past several decades, it has evolved to include an increasing number of philosophers with a solid background in science, and whose conceptual interests are often intertwined with those of biologists. Yet, the philosopher brings a distinctive approach and background to the examination of problems in biology; in philosophy, the focus tends to be on the logical structure of theoretical constructs, the uses and interpretation of evidence, the ways in which concepts are employed by scientists, and the relationships between empirical and theoretical elements of research programs.

One of the editors, Massimo Pigliucci (State University of New York at Stony Brook), organized the meeting of the group that has become known as the Altenberg 16 [link] [link]. Several other members of the Altenberg 16 are in the lists of editors and editorial board members. Pigliucci was also one of the initiators of the Darwin Day events and became vice-president of the Darwin Day organization. Unfortunately, it is doubtful that these groups of editors and editorial board members would be receptive to anything that is critical of evolution theory.

The "Instructions for Authors" says,

Manuscripts can be submitted in the following word processing formats: rtf, Pages, doc. Please do not send pdf files, because they cannot be edited. Figures, when necessary, can be embedded in the manuscript or submitted separately as jpeg or tiff files.

More details are given in the instructions.

Here are descriptions of rtf files, doc files, and pages files. The "doc" suffix is used for Microsoft Word files and WordPad files. WordPad is bundled with Microsoft Windows but Microsoft Word must be installed or activated as a separate program (Word often comes pre-installed as part of Microsoft Office but must be activated). Notepad -- which has no formatting -- should not be confused with WordPad. I am surprised that they say that the pdf files cannot be edited -- they should be able to edit pdf files if they have the right software. Also, I am wondering why html is not listed as an acceptable format. Html format has html tags, including embedded URL links. Html files are especially well-suited for online use and many existing online files are already in this format (this blog is in html format) and changing to another format may require a lot of editing. The website says that this is an online journal but they might want the capability of printing the articles and maybe that is why they don't list html as an acceptable format.

This journal's editors may be contacted at --
editors@philosohyandtheoryinbiology.org

======================================================

Biology & Philosophy

This journal, which is available online, is described as follows: [link]

Recent decades have witnessed fascinating and controversial advances in the biological sciences. This journal answers the need for meta-theoretical analysis, both about the very nature of biology, as well as about its social implications.

Biology and Philosophy is aimed at a broad readership, drawn from both the sciences and the humanities. The journal subscribes to no specific school of biology, nor of philosophy, and publishes work from authors of all persuasions and all disciplines.

An advantage is that this journal is indexed in a large number of scholarly databases, e.g. --

Abstracted/Indexed in:
Academic Search Complete, Academic Search Premier, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews, Current Abstracts, Current Contents/Arts and Humanities, Dietrich's Index Philosophicus, EMBiology, General Science Index, . . .etc.

The section on "text formatting" says that manuscripts should be submitted in Word -- however, I presume that WordPad doc files are compatible with Word. Again, I would prefer it if they accepted html files, but as I said before, maybe the capability of printing the articles is desired and that is why html files are not listed as acceptable.
.

READ MORE

Florida Citizens for Science censors get "Friend of Darwin" award

An article in the Florida Citizens for Science blog says,

It is my honor on behalf of the National Center for Science Education to formally announce that Joe Wolf, President of the Florida Citizens for Science and Brandon Haught, Communications Director of the Florida Citizens for Science have both been awarded the NCSE’s 2008 “Friend of Darwin” award for their services to evolution education.

I wonder if they are going to get extra credit for censoring my ideas about coevolution.

READ MORE

Are stasis and evolution compatible?

If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?

=================================

The question "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" is often presented as a sort of parody of Darwin doubters' questioning of evolution theory, but the question is really not as frivolous as it appears at first sight. To create humans while leaving monkeys unchanged for millions of years, genes must possess two mutually contradictory characteristics: the great stability that would result in stasis and the great volatility that would result in evolution. As one blogger said,
.

Wonderful thing, evolution -- if you want change, you get change, if you want stasis, you get stasis, and evolution wins every time either way! It’s called unfalsifiability, and it applies to all aspects of evolutionism.

The issue of stasis was emphasized in a speech by chairman Don McLeroy at a meeting of the Texas board of education. He said, "stasis is data."

A group of quotes about stasis includes the following:

[S]tasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. [T]he overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution).

Gould, S.J. (1993)
"Cordelia's Dilemma"
Natural History, February, p. 15

"The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods; species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."

Wesson, R.
Beyond Natural Selection
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991) P.45

Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ... That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ... prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I. (1982)
The Myths of Human Evolution
Columbia University Press, p. 45-46

Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, who are quoted above, came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium to try to reconcile evolution with stasis and sudden appearance, but PE seems grossly inadequate as an explanation.
.

READ MORE