Biologists address the issues that he points out in the article:
"There is also the problem that favourable mutations would soon be lost by interbreeding with non-mutated members of a species."
"One of France’s other most prominent 20th century anti-Darwinists, Pierre Paul Grasse, pointed out that mutations can only cause trivial changes."
Paul, Darwin himself had a problem with "favourable mutations would soon be lost by interbreeding with non-mutated members of a species"
In addition, you seem to be under the assumption your statement that "biologists address the issues he points out" - is some kind of valid rebuttal to the article which you state: is a caricature and rant against Dawkins' well known positions in biology. Are you claiming the biologists the article references are not biologists? That only Dawkins' and his "Bright" followers are the only biologists? Or are you claiming the above statements are false? If so, feel free to explain your reasoning.
And then here is a typical caricature of Neo-Darwinism:
"Other arguments against Neo-Darwinism will be more familiar to SMN members. For example, biologists such as Lynn Margulis and James Lovelock have argued that the driving force of evolution is not competition but co-operation. Living beings do not survive by fighting against one another, but by interaction and mutual dependence."
Have you not heard of Dawkins' work and publications regarding the "selfish gene", which Dawkins' is famous for? What is it about the "selfish gene" that you somehow scientifically believe is fundamentally co-operative, and not a perverted intepretation of selfishness? James Lovelock is not providing a caricature of Dawkins, he provides a rational scientific response to Dawkins' well established dogma that the "desire for genetic replication is the main motivation of everything we do" and Dawkins' well-known advocacy for the "Selfish gene".
Do you really believe that most biologists think that the only driving force is competition?
We're talking about Dawkins' Neo-Darwinist dogma here. Many biologists disagree with his dogma, as is clearly pointed out in the article several times.
I suppose what Taylor thinks he's doing here is refuting Dawkins' personal view of Neo-Darwinism. That's possible, although it seems like a caricature even of Dawkins. As soon as someone starts talking about a dogmatic form of Neo-Darwinism, it's always a caricature.
Dawkins is well known for his aggressive and dogmatic materialistic view of evolution. This is not something that is in contention Paul. One need only be familiar with his theory of the "Selfish Gene". He refuses to get in any scientific discussion with proponents of "Intelligent Design" and insinuates the proponents are not "real scientists" (as you appear to be insinuating here regarding the biologists cited in Taylor's article). Dawkins has also been known to engage in censoring scientific articles that oppose his views, for example, Richard Milton's March 1995 critique of Neo-Darwinism in
The Times Higher Educational Supplement, Richard Dawkins' contacted the editor and succeeded with unscientific bullying to have the piece suppressed (
Fortean Times, April 2002).
You write: "as soon as someone starts talking about a dogmatic form of Neo-Darwinism, it's always a caricature". Unfortunately, this is not true Paul. Perhaps many of us wish it were a caricature. IMO, Dawkins' has made a caricature of himself with his rabid Neo-Darwin dogmatism. He has a priori dismissed all paranormal research for example, without involving himself in any of the scientific work in the field, and arrogantly labeled these scientists as "pseudo-scientists".
So, your rebuttal here in summary has been:
1) Other biologists address the issues (without addressing the issue yourself)
2) Any discussion regarding Dawkins dogmatic form of Neo-Darwinism, is always a caricature. (Without providing any reason why this is so.)
Paul, I am unable to follow any of your logic here, and find your arguments shallow to say the least. Can you at least seriously address some of the issues the article brings up regarding Dawkins' materialistic beliefs?
My Best,
Bertha